Allons Enfants de la Jihad
From the desk of Paul Belien on Tue, 2005-11-08 14:01
Yesterday, Michel Pajon, the mayor of Noisy-le-Grand near Paris, asked for the French army to intervene and stop the violence which is taking over France. The mayor – a Socialist – went on French radio to say that what is happening in his country is absolutely appalling:
“Women have been made to stop on the streets of my town. They were dragged from their cars by their hair, they were practically stoned and their cars were set ablaze... The situation is absolutely dramatic and inacceptable. This is a real scandal. I sound the alarm bell in my town. If the state is incapable of defending us, we will have no choice but to defend ourselves. My town has a psychiatric hospital which has been attacked with molotov cocktails. This is beyond comprehension. I have never seen anything like this in my entire life. I do not ask for the resignation of the Interior Minister [Nicolas Sarkozy]. I want him to do his job. At the moment he is not doing his job.
Send in the army? I do not know, for a socialist to say that the army has to intervene is an inconceivable admission of defeat, but what I can say is that one cannot abandon the people like this. At some point we need to know whether this country still has a state.”
According to some reports the French media are downplaying the extent of the violence and lawlessness in France. This seems perfectly credible to me, since the same is happening in Brussels. This morning the Belgian state radio announced that the Brussels Fire Brigade had to intervene “some twenty times” last night to put out fires lit by vandals. A spokesman of the Fire Brigade acknowledged that ten cars and six garbage bins had been set alight. The authorities speak of “isolated incidents.” By midday the news broadcast mentioned only “five burned out cars.” According to the Fire Brigade, “they would rather not give more information so as not to give any publicity to these acts of violence.” Cars were also set alight in the towns of Dilbeek and Sint-Niklaas. In Liège “youths” threw a molotov cocktail at a bus stop and damaged a car. Today it was revealed, with a delay of three days, that two cars had been torched in Liège last Saturday.
The authorities prefer not to speak about what is going on because they fear copycat actions from disgruntled “youths.” However, when the authorities cut off information, rumours (not all of them unfounded) will fill the news vacuum. Most of the “isolated incidents” in Brussels appear to be taking place in Sint-Gillis, where stones were thrown at police cars yesterday evening. Sint-Gillis is only a few kilometres from the European Parliament. As Elaib Harvey, our friend and roving correspondent in the European Parliament, wrote on his weblog: “Gloriously of course nothing is officially being talked about here in the Palace of Vanity. Nothing official, however the coffee bars are ablaze with rumour.” Yes, this is Europe in the year 2005.
The worst may yet be to come. If the French authorities prove unable to restore law and order, then people, as mayor Pajon indicated, will “have to defend themselves.” France has a tradition of bloody revolutions and street fighting. It also has a tradition of violent “résistance” to foreign occupation. If the state abdicates and the “youths” continue to go on the rampage, one can expect that some of the French patriots will fight back: The enfants de la patrie against the enfants de la Jihad. If the patriots fight it will prove that France still exists, but if they do not then clearly everything is lost.
Some claim that this is not about religion and “has more to do with Arab and African nationality and race”, or with a “lack of attention and communication” or “alienation caused by high unemployment and endemic racism.” Though some of this may be true to a certain extent, I believe that religion, or rather culture (and at the heart of every culture is a cult), is what this conflict is really about.
I have pointed out before that multiculturalism cannot exist, except as several cultures living side by side in defined territories, where the laws of one culture do not apply in the territories of the others. It is easy to understand why the “youths” in the suburbs turned so violent when Sarkozy announced that he was going to establish law and order there. The “youths” have held sway there, unchallenged, for years. If they allow the French authorities to reassert their authority, they lose their power base. The police and the gangs are fighting over whose laws will apply in the neighbourhood: the laws of the French Republic or the laws of Eurabia. Unlike the Western intellectuals, the “youths” realise that everything boils down to the question of who wields power over a specific territory. In order to protect their turf the generals of Eurabia are now attacking the territory of the enemy, such as a psychiatric hospital in the town of mayor Pajon.
It is possible that Nicolas Sarkozy did not realise what was really at stake when, a week before the rioting started, he declared “war without mercy” in order to recapture the suburbs for the French Republic. However, for the Muslim radicals – invariably described in the media as “youths” – this is quite literally a war. It is not about social injustice, race or alienation, but about territory – a territory to establish a culture and a cult which are alien to the culture and the cult that gave France its European and, despite all its socialist flaws, Western character.
it's only ethnic cleansing if you kick them on the way out
Submitted by igout (not verified) on Thu, 2005-11-10 18:25.
If the "youths" hate the countries they live in so much, certainly they wouldn't mind free one-way plane tickets to places they like better. Complimentary Koranic peanuts and pretzels will be served once we have reached crusing altitude.
Just a suggestion!
Submitted by John Fleming (not verified) on Tue, 2005-11-08 23:54.
To Paul Beliën: Congratulations with the rising number of readers. If people want to know more they search for more and in the end they know where they get more. Your articles in English follow the french riots from day to day and so will your readers.
But when I see that in the dutch version nobody is talking about anything referring to what's happening in France(and Brussels)I think the Brussels Journal is missing a major opportunity to attract dutch speaking readers who might come
back to read your articles on the 'holocaust','Van Gogh' or others.
You must have seen how it works since your daily comments in English on the 'hot' news.
You and a lot of your fellow writers are flemish and so speaking dutch. It can't be that difficult or to translate or ask one of them to write something interesting about the subject.
A dutch version that does not even write about subjects that 'everybody' is talking about can not expect to attract extra readers soon.
But as I said on the top, it's just a suggestion.
re: just a suggestion
Submitted by Johnny (not verified) on Wed, 2005-11-09 06:29.
to John Fleming: most (if not all) Flemish who surf on the internet read, speak and write English as well as French and some German too. Some of them (like I do) respond in English, because then there are more buddies to talk to.
Most of the Flemish though, just stay quiet because it is their nature. They have done so for centuries. And that's fine ... Except that those who are the noisiest are the most politically correct. The French 'youths' know this very well.
The Belgian left knows this also: as soon as there is some noice coming from the right it is automatically branded extreme right, fascist and whatever. And the left is supported by the Flemish Radio and Television. With taxpayers' money it is portraying a very leftist view of reality. And voters have to decide their vote on this information!? Democracy, demos kratein, the people rule? This is not un-democratic, it is anti-democratic. It prohibits the basic rule of democracy: listen to free speech and base your vote on that.
to Paul Beliën: dank u wel, ... en we zullen doorgaan ...
Submitted by Pixy Misa (not verified) on Wed, 2005-11-09 10:16.
Multiculturalism can work - if and only if all of the cultures involved are pluralist. Christians and Buddhists and Jews can live and work together without problems. So can Americans and Canadians and Italians and Spaniards. It's not guaranteed to work, but it demonstrably can work.
However, any culture that is not pluralist, for example Communism or Islamism, cannot form part of a multicultural society. They must change their culture, or be rejected, or the society will fail.
Culture VS nationality
Submitted by David - USA (not verified) on Sun, 2005-11-13 23:44.
I think many people confuse culture with national differences. Many speak as if most of western European nations do not share basically the same culture, but surely they do. Certainly there are minor differences between nationalities, but such differences don't make for different cultures. France has national differences, not cultural differences than, say, England. There is little to no difference between Canada and the US, but large differences between the U.S and Mexico as these are entirely different cultures, indeed, civilizations -- if you could call Mexico that...
When I looked the word up in the dictionary, even that definition was inexact and confusing. I think that when we speak of different cultures, we should mean different civilizations such as Arab, West European, Chinese, Indian, and so on. Note that civilisations and cultures span nations, but nationalities do not. There is no french "culture" anywhere but France.
I can, however, understand why many would set France apart from the rest of Europe. The French, well . . . my thoughts about those people are best kept to my self.
Another point: Muslims do not integrate well in the US either, but certainly many more than Europe. Those that do, succeed very well. Those that don't, remain apart because they want to, because Islam is a politically religious culture that promotes exclusion. Nor do Americans kow-tow to them; when moslems complain about pork and symbols of pigs, we offer them a pork sandwich.
Note that their religion teaches them to attempt to change the customs of their host nation. If you allow them to do that, they will overwhelm you and take over . . . as you people are experiencing.
Submitted by Jim Kalb (not verified) on Tue, 2005-11-08 20:27.
Just a minor rant on "multiculturalism":
Naturally, it can't exist as a situation in which several cultures exist intermingled with equal status. After all, a "culture" consists among other things in attitudes, expectations and understandings that are taken for granted, so they can be relied on to order social existence, and no such things can exist unless there is a particular culture that is authoritative.
The point of "multiculturalism" though is not to give favors to minority cultures but to use the presence of minority cultures and the dogma of equality to disrupt and suppress the local inherited dominant culture, so it can't function and society becomes purely an aggregate of individuals whose social existence depends wholly on their status as units of production and consumption in an overall system understood by its promoters as supremely rational. Whether rational or not, that system is in any case supremely easy to administer and manipulate because the people has been destroyed as a people, and so lacks all loyalties, standards and understandings of its own and thus the ability to think or act independently.
The response of the French authorities and mainstream journalists to the riots reflects such an understanding of multiculturalism: the problem, they say, is that the "youths" haven't been integrated into the overall rational system of production and consumption, partly because the authorities haven't done enough, they haven't asserted their supremacy over all social relations with sufficient vigor, and partly because too many of the older things that once made up France have been permitted to survive. The solution, it is said, is therefore forcible therapy -- help the "youths" integrate, and destroy the old French particularities ("bigotries") that interfere with that integration.
The youths are thus in effect acting as shock troops in a continuing revolution carried out by European elites against their own people. That is the fundamental reason the riots have not been suppressed.
Submitted by Bob Doney on Tue, 2005-11-08 22:47.
The solution, it is said, is therefore forcible therapy -- help the "youths" integrate, and destroy the old French particularities ("bigotries") that interfere with that integration.
But what are these French particularities? What are the vital things that define Frenchness, the sine qua non of French culture? We've been having these discussions in the UK lately, particularly in the context of the barmy new test of Britishness that new citizens now have to take. It transpires that the key to Britishness is that when you accidentally spill someone's drink in a crowded pub, you should offer to buy another. Especially if he's bigger than you are.
Even the Norman Tebbit cricket test doesn't seem to work - that is, which team do you support when West Indies or Pakistan or India play England. Amongst the most vociferous supporters of the overseas sides seem to be Scots, unless England are playing Australia.
And for years we've had the no-go areas where Her Majesty's writ does not run. Mainly in Northern Ireland, where an alternative justice system using baseball bats and shot knee caps has been in use.
We'll all have to muddle along together somehow, and accept that what defined Britishness, Frenchness and Americanness ten or a hundred years ago doesn't apply any longer.
You can't step into the same river twice.
Submitted by Jim Kalb (not verified) on Wed, 2005-11-09 00:25.
I'm not sure what Mr. Doney's point is. It does seem unlikely that "Britishness" or "Frenchness" could be defined adequately in a manner suitable for application by a bureaucrat in charge of naturalization. I'd be inclined to say that you're "British" if you were born into British society (including British domestic society, so your home life growing up was British) and for better or worse were formed by it. That wouldn't help the bureaucrat though.
It's not really a conceptual thing. I think it was Nietzsche who noted that if something has a history it can't really be defined. Still, it does seem that if one spent time among a range of ethnically French people, and then among ethnic Moroccans, one would notice some general distinctions worth commenting on. Mr. Doney might disagree though.
Thoughts of Doom
Submitted by Bart (not verified) on Wed, 2005-11-09 01:55.
Thanks for your very insightful thoughts, but they are a bit too pessimistic according to my humble opinion. Indeed, you have given the solution to the problem of immigration and assimilation yourself: your reference to the adopted kids.
Look, I recently immigrated away from Belgium and will probably spend the rest of my life here abroad. I will NEVER be fully integrated, although I love my life here. But my kids will, and I will make damn sure that they will. Certainly, I will try to make sure that they can also carry things with them from "my" culture, not in the least the Dutch language, but also history and certain habits and certain views. But for my kids integration comes naturally: we don't live in a big "Flemish" enclave within which my kids can grow up without ever having to speak the local language or hang out with local kids and families... THAT is one major part of the problem, namely that there are just too many of these immigrants so that they stick together and remain hanging in their own culture ( I remember the story of a Brussels priest when the first North African immigrants arrived: they were so alone that their willingness to integrate was so huge that they even came to Catholic Holy Mass!!). But being stuck in their own culture would not be so bad if we would be talking about Chinese or Jews or Koreans or Mexicans. No, they get stuck in a culture that is too foreign to give these kids the same changes and opportunities as the "real" French. Compare it with blacks from the ghetto's: it's not so much that they are black, but that they are permeated with a culture that is just not fitted to function within the "normal" American mainframe. Same thing for the majority of North African immigrants.
Solution: focus on the "next" generation. This generation is lost anyway and we can only hope to keep them under control. But break open the mold within which these generations have been stuck now for decennia. I don't like too much government intervention in private lives, but I fear that in these circumstances there is no other solution.
To be continued.
Submitted by Brigands on Wed, 2005-11-09 15:08.
Was it too pessimistic ? I dont know.
You did formulate an important element:" a culture that is just not fitted to function within the "normal' American culture". I do not believe that the North African culture can be dismantled & reconstructed into such a fashion that it can fit our cultural framework.
Nor will focussing on the "next" generation be to much more avail; unless you meant the next generation as in a entirely new generation (not as in locally born generation).
Even there we have a problem.
To what extend can we still receive 'new immigration generations' ?
Pim Fortuyn's 'Netherlands is Full'-vision. Spending money on current generations and on top of that on new generations, whislt the current generations seem to be more dependant on goverment subsidies than on self-reliance (although that might be a prejudice).
How much does immigration and their subsequent generations cost & earn us ?
What are their implications in the future ?
We have to be very carefull not to disturb the natural linguistic balance. People underestimate their potential in political power. Already now, as a minority they have superior political power capability.
Rather I would say if Cultures are much alike or have a common basis, it could work. However still there needs to be respect & 'freedoms' towards one another. It needs to be balanced, otherwise the situation can degrade.
Take Belgium: we have a common history; we belong to the Western European Culture however its hard to live together (between Flemings & Walloons).
Ibid for the Canadians & Quebecq. If the balance is disrupted then problems arise.
Canadians, Spaniards, Italians all belong to the same civilisation. As long as there is -at least- a 'natural' power balance it could work out. But I'm sure that if one or two sides start to demand more rights or enhances its powerposition that the entire situation will degrade.
There are some basic rights; acceptable elements which can be given to minorities but there is an endlimit. They have more in common than Italians & Thais. Same with Christians & Jews. Buddhists however never posed a threat. So there is also an historical element.
As far as I recall we dont have a problem with our Jewish population; nor do they really seem to be demanding minority rights and special advantages. The Moorish/Arab population however is more demanding. Which is also an element.
In conclusion: societybuilding such as multiculturalism is a dangerous thing to do.
It depends on such a broad spectrum of factors that its too hard to really develop a working theory. It is social experimenting that can lead to the most terrifying type of war: Etnic war.
It is like experimenting with nuclear components without being aware of the risks of nuclear fushion. It is like looking down the barrle of a gun; whilst playing with the triggermechanism and not knowing what a gun is.
"Or perhaps these youths are the new government, levying a tax of their own. Isn't this how governments originated in the early dark Middle Ages?"
Have we then returned to the 'dark' Middle Ages ? If they are the new goverment; then we should consider to migrate. If their language is the new language, their justice becomes State justice..then I believe it would be better that we migrate.
Two valuable comments
Submitted by Paul Belien on Tue, 2005-11-08 20:50.
Thanks, Brigands and Jim, for the comments. I think they explain a lot. One reason why the violence in Brussels is not as widespread as in France probably is because the authorities here accept a kind of "self-rule" in the immigrant neighbourhoods. This approach is favoured by self-hating Western elites.
I heard the story today of a lady in France who pays 5 euro every evening to the immigrant gang that rules her neighbourhood to assure that her car does not get damaged. "What do you want me to do," she says, "a new car is far more expensive." This situation predates the recent riots and has been going on for years. Her story reminded me of a story I heard in Antwerp last year where "youths" also extort the people of the area: "Pay us or we will damage your car by scratching it with a knife." People pay because the police consider this to be petty crime which they do not like to be bothered with. What it boils down to is that the state no longer protects the tax-paying citizens. Or perhaps these youths are the new government, levying a tax of their own. Isn't this how governments originated in the early dark Middle Ages?
You're right on with the
Submitted by jeff (not verified) on Wed, 2005-11-09 12:55.
You're right on with the stories you've tied in. I've heard of similar experiences in Russia. You pay because you have to protect your property and your well-being, not necessarily because you want to (otherwise you'd have private insurance). If the state can no longer provide security, then perhaps it is a kind of gang based anarchy that rules these sorts of areas now. I found your article on Monday quite interesting as well.
Submitted by Bart (not verified) on Tue, 2005-11-08 22:10.
Thank you Jim. Your so called "rant" is one of the most interesting views on "multiculturalism" I have read recently.
That tax approach by Brigands and Mr. Beliën are very interesting as well.
Taxes and rant
Submitted by Brigands on Tue, 2005-11-08 23:18.
The examples given by Beliën are things that I've witnessed myself.
Years ago, it was at a 2nd hand CD Store.
Every day 'youth'(by nationality 'Belgian', by etnicity not 'Belgian') came and stole a cd or some game, so did the owner tell me. One day I was just looking around and I notice the owner stepping from behind the counter moving towards -what seemed to be- a 12 yr old 'youngster'(*cough). He asked the youngster what he exactly wanted. The kid replied. The owner took the requested CD's and just gave them saying -something like- "now on leave me alone".
I stood there. I approached the owner and asked him where my free cd's were. Just to taunt him.
He looked at me in that way which meant: Why would I give you any CD's.
Since then I never returned to that shop. I passed by it a couple of times and twice I spotted that same kid going in empty handed & returning with goods. The store no longer exists.
This is -what I call- a form of jizyah which could be levied at any given moment (If I'm not mistaken). In European terms I would call this a Maffia-thing.
@Jim Kalb. Was it a rant ? I dont think so.
I believe the multicultural society is doomed because it is based on nothing.
What you call culture is what I've defined to be etnicity. Several etnicities can live together if they remain respectfull to one another. In Belgium -personally- I feel this is not the case between 'Flemish' (consisting of Brabantian & Flemish) & 'Walloon' groups.
However I would place my meaning of Culture in the authorative portion, because no local group will allow itself to be dominated. For instance: The French state can survive because its main etnic groups belong to the same Culture (Western European) but solely if the French State has respect for these subnational groups; otherwise it would desintegrate. Belgium could exist, theoretically but the situation has developped into a point of no return (PNR).
Your practical definition of multiculturalism is spotless, it is right on target.
The portion: "The point of "multiculturalism" though is not to give favors to minority cultures but to use the presence of minority cultures and the dogma of equality to disrupt and suppress the local inherited dominant culture"
Theoretically - If I'm not mistaken- the idea was to take the 'good' elements of another culture and force it down locally. Now, I dont have problems with culinary elements (such as Chinese restaurants, Pitta places etc) but I do have a problem with enhancing serious cultural contamination. Certainly when it comes down to attitude; religion; social order.
Heck; I often wondered why we're still not entitled to have a harem under guise of the Multiculturalism (which replaced the initial Socialist ideology).
Question that remains floating around in my mind: Who's job is it to integrate?
The State; The Immigrant; or should there be assimilation.
Assimilation is out of the question; I dont believe that it is possible except when someone was adopted at an early age. I know 2 etnically Peruvian people who were adopted; they're Flemings as much as I am.
I'm not even confident that integration is possible if a person comes from a different 'Civilisation'. I believe a Spaniard can integrate him/herself into our society; but I doubt that an Asian (for instance) could.
Either way it should be an intermix between State & Immigrant who should attempt to integrate into our local society. The State selecting those allowed to move in and helping them with acquiring the required linguistic skills & some job training.
If the immigrant fails; there is a secon try but afterwards it is bye bye 'green card'; follow-on question then is: what will the effect be of this dominant position, this 'repression'.
As you wrote it: "The youths are thus in effect acting as shock troops in a continuing revolution carried out by European elites against their own people. That is the fundamental reason the riots have not been suppressed." it is again right on target. However, I'm more inclined to define European Elites as: political 'left' with a huge propaganda machine (media) which is indirectly supported by the treason & gutlessness of the political 'right'.
I believe Europe is doomed. Unless we spread out the word to sufficient people but therefor we must break the current PC-Media power and the political correct mentality.
For me the Leviathan is my absolute enemy. It no longer exists for me, it exists for a traitor element & its followers who have come to Dar el Harb.
The Leviathan does not protect me, nor assists in my survival by its inaction, its inability to destinguish ally from foe through traitors actions. Demography & multiculturalism are slowly killing us; no need for slaughter although that may come if we've been weakened enough.
The French leviathan does not act accordingly because it is attacking a cornerstone. If those riotors were French the leviathan would be actively supressing the riot. If they were Skinheads; the army probably would have been engaged after 3 days (sort of). Perhaps it is I who is alone in this thought. It seems my fellow students think otherwise, but then again they're all a bunch of lefties (VLD to PvdA).
@ Bob Doney.
French particularities: fleeing from the enemy. Wearing a black barret. The believe that French is the supreme lingua Franca. Thinking that the best Wine only comes from France. Believing that Fries really are French! (Just kidding).
The question is: Is there any Frenchness, Britishness left ? Northern Ireland; Corsica; Basques...seem to form elements suggesting that these States did not trully respect its different -my definition- Etnicities. Leviathans who have pushed an etnicity to a point where they had enough of it. To what extent do these Leviathans really do their job for the people?
I wouldnt blame religion
Submitted by Brigands on Tue, 2005-11-08 19:40.
I wouldnt blame religion solely; I would implicate culture as well since both are interconnected. Perhaps the term Etnicity is more appropriate in this context ?
Whereby Etnicity forms the lowest element in a chain (Etnicity; culture; civilisation).
For Instance: Brabantian/Flemish Etnicity - West European Culture - Western Civilisation.
As you mentioned Eurabia; I would mention the Jizyah tax.
Just a couple of minutes ago I saw & heard De Villepin talking about offering more sporting facilities; more attention, etc...to the rioting communities.
Where it comes down to; we'll set a curfew; we'll crack a bit down but we'll mainly invest/pay you to stop. Bringing back the Eurabia-Dhimmi situation.
I believe that this is & always has been a common practice in Brussels, perhaps that explains why there is little rioting : The Jizyah keeps coming. Perhaps there is some reluctance because of a single growing party -who should not be mentioned in the media or at university- might cause a problem for them in the long term.
However, I remain convinced that it will spark & flame up anyhow since police will become more nervous and if France coughs up Jizyah & responds too slow, they probably will see a window of opportunity. If it doesnt spark up; then something is wrong.
It would seem to be too quiet; as if they wouldnt want to draw attention...which in the end leads to: either their 'leadership' has a fear of politics or there is something starting with T ending with a common Microsoft habit (error) being planned (execution or logistics). (On first thought; it might also that we're just plainly mistaken by prejudice).