Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page

Post 20

Friday, November 4, 2005 - 9:23pmSanction this postReply

"Andrew, Ross, Joe, Matthew, Christy:

DO NOT SHOOT FROM THE HIP because you -want- to believe it is only or mainly the muslims. "

Actually, the main para of my post (#1) was meant to show that these riots are just another nail in the coffin and perhaps the Europeans are getting close to the straw that breaks the camel's back.

John D.:

"Ross implied a good point: Europe, like the US, needs only one more real 'problem' (epidemic/border-attack/new-riot/etc) to make the fur fly globally. Meanwhile, all of East Asia is watching...for the most part, quietly."

Exactamundo! And, yes, Asia lies in wait. Smacked hard it may be by a cataclysmic European debacle, the fact is that capital infrastructure in Asia is now self-sustaining and the Asian market--their domestic market--is huge & hungry.

Methinks America is still sound enough to take a hard hit without immolating itself. And, who knows, it could see the rebirth of some sound, basic policies.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 12:35amSanction this postReply
Dean Michael Gores says:

"I bet this wouldn't have happened if the leaches in these 'disgraceful squats' [quoting Dalil Boubakeur, of the French Council for the Muslim Religion] were not given handouts by tax (read slave) money in the first place. (Assuming that that is how the people there get their resources to live)."

-- My experience of the French in Paris is that few ever have and most never will consider the darker-styled people there to be fully French, and thus not really deserving of much that the 'real french' get, such as a stab at a good jobs, or open opportunity to live outside of the designated dark areas . . .

In my eyes, the French state never really had much of a program to integrate the postwar hordes from the former colonies and possessions.

Them that do head up the ladder of success shouldn't be considered leeches, though, to my mind, Dean. A thirty percent unemployment rate in the black/Beur suburbs means that the majority are playing the game; it's their cars that are being torched, it's their factory jobs that are going up in smoke, it's their streets that are off limits. It's their relations with the white majority that are wrecked. The neighbours of the riots, those who are just trying to get along in the world are suffering from the thugwork, too.

'Havoc,' in a commentary on "French Muslims riot for seventh night running" (at Jihadwatch.com, linked from Andrew's post) says "'French muslim' ... why does this conjure up an image of a pig wearing lipstick for me?"

-- I find this and similar comments to be quite sad. I don't think it is fair to chalk up all the vicious, pointless shooting and beatings and burnings as representative of a particular religion, or to deepen the line between the us and the them -- yes, denounce the demented zealots of the suburban mosques, yes, feel outrage at vicious and pointless criminal acts, yes, denounce the ugly, narrow and medieval scourge of radical Islamicists in France and elsewhere in the Muslim world, but I would hold off throwing the insults at the whole mass.

Ross Elliot suggests that "The camel-jockey riots" are entirely predictable, and he is right -- the French, having sat on the North Africans since the reign of the pokey French Empire, have never quite figured out a way to apply Fraternity to these recent elements of their society, them who live on the outskirts. The distaste is palpable, and the consequences are dire.

-- supporting Ross's point, there have been many predictions of big troubles in the immigrant Zones over the last few years. Of note is the "Mugged by la Réalité" from the Weekly Standard (link below). It reported on racist attacks against "little french" and makes for grim reading -- seems that the zonards leading the present attacks against property are entirely criminal and stupid and motivated more by thuggery and racism than any particular ideology, if one puts credence in the report.

Where I disagree with Ross is the implication that we should tar all the zonards with the same brush. The reality is, of course, that the 'real' French will do just that. Is there suddenly going to be a 'welcome into our society, darker, non-pig eating french-ish folk from the tower blocks way out yonder!'? Not likely. More like, 'Hmmm, just as I thought, dirty dark stupid non-French things.'

Pete writes, "Presumably these kids have the 'free' health care and 'free' college education of the wonderful welfare state, yet they still don't seem too happy - they appear to only want more and more handouts."

-- I dunno. Universal health care is a pan-european fact, but free French college education for the Beurs? Ya gotta be kidding. Sure the bright get their chance at the brass ring, but the payoff comes after graduation: "Yes, you have played the game, beur, but ze good job goes to whitey. Sorry, yer jest not frayanch, ya see, but here's some streets to clean" . . . Pete, check the enrollment figures, check your apparent premise that the Beurs and others of the dark ring are dealt the same hand as the 'real' French.

I can't get as pissed off as Joe Maurone. None of this makes me mad about the horrid muslims. I feel sad for the situation, and worse -- I can't help but feel a certain rueful Canadian smugness. It seems the French (like the Germans and the Italians and other old world countrymen) have let lots of people in, but haven't let them up. Am I saying that the French are more racist than Americans? You bet.

Contrast with Canada, which has a much higher concentration of foreign born in our cities (nearing 50% in Toronto). How come our country isn't riven by continuing ethnic tension? How come our 'downtrodden dark' haven't take to the streets? Surely we have the same basic problem as the French -- waves of immigration, wholesale socialism from top to bottom, PC rampant, weak policy, official 'multiculturalism,' on and on.

Earlier this year Canada elevated to the highest state position Her Excellency Michaelle Jean, a black lady born in Haiti, who found refuge here in the sixties.

I was among those who were thrilled by Jean becoming Governor General, and I found remarkable some of the public reaction: although the Haitian-derived in Quebec and elsewhere felt a surge of pride and emoted all over the place, I found it surprising, and heartening, how much support Jean found in aboriginal and non-black/non-Haitian communities of colour -- somehow her gain had been transmuted into a gain for *any* visible minority, and there was someone originally Sri Lankan, Turk, Pakistani, saying things like "this makes me proud to be Canadian."

How the hell did that happen? I had figured most people would just roll their eyes and accuse the government of crass PC pomo Tomism . . . but nobody did. We somehow have made it easier for folks of non-european origin to flourish, and we don't have mobs of unemployed outsiders ringing our lily-white cities waiting to lob the molotov.

If you wonder what will come of these French riots, once extinquished . . . consider the aftermath of the race riots in America circa 67 and 68. Is racial segregation more profound than then, or less?

Ultimately, I don't think it is a Muslim or a French thing -- seems to me that in the US events can trigger the same ugliness as the French cities are living through right now, pace the LA riots of 1992.


Mugged by la Réalité
From the April 11, 2005 issue: The unreported race riot in France.
by Olivier Guitta
04/11/2005, Volume 010, Issue 28

(Edited by William Scott Scherk
on 11/05, 12:48am)

(Edited by William Scott Scherk
on 11/05, 12:20pm)

Post 22

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Ah yes, Joe. Once more the yellow bellow of defeat sounds as another hollow zealot tucks tail between wet stained legs, for his bone of collectivist contention is broken beneath the heal of my objective reason. T'was ever thus.   :)

(Edit: "Joe." You ask, I deliver ;)

(Edited by Rick Giles on 11/05, 1:03pm)

Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 27, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 1:27pmSanction this postReply
Rick, I concede no defeat, I choose not to waste my time arguing with you. I can't understand half the things you say, you offer little actual argument, and when I simply try to walk away, you continue to goad me. You've worn out any diplomacy you may have gotten from me. So whatever, man, feel free to have the last word with whatever snarky pomo comment you'll predictable make.

Post 24

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 3:05pmSanction this postReply
But you told me to!

Rick, if you're trying to goad me, it's not going to work. But you turn me on when you get cocky, so go for it...;)

Duly signed, sealed and delivered...

when I simply try to walk away, you continue to goad me
Wouldn't have said another word, I only baited you because you said I wouldn't be able to. An invitation and an irresistible challenge.

Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 3:54pmSanction this postReply
Fair enough, Rick. When I said that, I was trying to make lighten the mood a little, it obviously didn't work, since I honestly didn't expect you to come out calling me a coward. (Yes, you did manage to goad me again. That I take the blame for, I should have just ignored it.) I felt my attempt at humour was being met with a vicious personal attack. So I apologize if I overreacted, but your escalating matters to calls of cowardice and tail tucking have exhausted my good will towards you.

This only demonstrates the danger of trying to make lighthearted a conversation of this kind, especially with the risk of belittling the subject matter. So let me just state for the record that I was trying to lighten the tension, not the topic. The topic I take too seriously to continue arguing, because anger will only lead to shooting from the hip, as Phil pointed out. Fair enough.

Now, having said that, I don't see the value in further discussing it with you. Rick, seriously, can we agree to disagree and move on?
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 11/05, 4:06pm)

Post 26

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 4:11pmSanction this postReply

Fair enough, Rick. When I said that, I was trying to make lighten the mood a little, it obviously didn't work
No it did, I understood that perfectly and meant to respond in kind. You saw the smilies :) ;) ...I'm not one to use them in vain. If I were angry I'd be blunt and brief, not all fluffy and long-winded like that. You're no coward. Just tweeking your nose buddy.

Now, Rick, seriously, can we agree to disagree and move on?

Absolutely. Until next time. :)

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 4:24pmSanction this postReply
Heh...um, no, I didn't see the smiles until now (we see what we want to see when we're angry.)

I''m sorry I missed the joke. Smack my ass and call me Shirly.

Damn, and I was all set to post your real idenity from Google all over SOLO and make this a real vendetta. (Rick's secretly a country-western singer, everyone...).

Til' next time...;)

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 4:37pmSanction this postReply
Let's see. 

Hypothesis 1: The Paris riots are another example of Muslim madness, brought to us by the same people that bring us our daily headlines of suicide bombings, indiscriminate mass murder of children, beheadings of schoolgirls, butchery of teachers, honor killings, stonings, lashings for breaking Ramadan, etc.  You know, the usual, daily killings.

Hypothesis 2:  The Paris riots are a case of peaceful Muslims joining with infidels to protest such secular concerns as housing conditions and unemployment, and it has nothing to do with Islam.

Can anyone cite any previous examples of Muslims cooperating with non-believers in similar violent activities?   My impression is that Muslims much prefer to commit violence against infidels, not in cooperation with them.

Also, from what I can tell, it is not secular concerns that get the looney Muslims out of bed.  Otherwise, the conditions of squalor in Indonesia, Pakistan and Egypt ought to set off riots much worse than the Paris suburbs.  But we don't see that.

But, let a rumor about a flushed Koran get out, and you'll have Muslims by the hundreds of thousands rioting all over the world.  Or let cartoonists draw some depictions of Allah, and suddenly you got death threats galore.  Or let a producer make a movie disrespectful of Islam, and you get a slashed throat. 

Time will tell, but I am not betting on hypothesis 2.

Post 29

Saturday, November 5, 2005 - 8:44pmSanction this postReply
Hey, I just want to give a shoutout to Mary Merrie Twinkleberry for her lovely message to me regarding my posts. Very heartwarming, thank you.

Post 30

Sunday, November 6, 2005 - 12:40amSanction this postReply
That was "Orion Reasoner" trying to sneak in under another nom-de-plume. He had what I imagine was a similar message in the Moderator Queue. I deleted it, then received it via SOLO-Mail. He hates us, yet finds us irresistible.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Sunday, November 6, 2005 - 5:11amSanction this postReply
Our local freethought list posted this story about the riots yesterday:


I found this passage especially telling:

President Jacques Chirac and Premier de Villepin are especially sore because they had believed that their opposition to the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003 would give France a heroic image in the Muslim community. 

That illusion has now been shattered - and the Chirac administration, already passing through a deepening political crisis, appears to be clueless about how to cope with what the Parisian daily France Soir has called a "ticking time bomb."

It is now clear that a good portion of France's Muslims not only refuse to assimilate into "the superior French culture," but firmly believe that Islam offers the highest forms of life to which all mankind should aspire.

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Sunday, November 6, 2005 - 8:17amSanction this postReply
No sarcasm, Phil. I really am exasperated with you.

The idea that the media might have been suppressing mention of Muslims (which suppression appears to thankfully have ended) is not based on any idea of a conspiracy. Rather, it's based on their pattern (and, on occasion, explicit policies) of putting on an air of neutrality by, among other things, lending credence to alleged Islamic grievances whenever violence flares up; omitting mention of terrorists' religious backgrounds, instead referring to the region or ethnicity from which they hail ("Palestinian, Chechnyan, or Iraqi militants," for instance); and refusing to use the word terrorist to describe even the murderers who gunned down the schoolchildren in the school in Beslan.

I don't "'want' to believe it is only or mainly the muslims [sic]." I'd love nothing more than to be able to write this situation off as simply France dealing with some socioeconomic growing (or, in France's case, "contracting") pains. But when I set that hope aside for a second, pull my head up out of the sand, and examine all the facts that are available to me, I'm forced to conclude that this is something much more serious than that. (And aren't you the one who whines incessantly about people attributing viewpoints to you that you don't actually hold?)

If these riots are chiefly the product of social and economic inequality, then it's a mystery to me why police would have been hoping that end-of-Ramadan festivities would have calmed everyone down.

Given the modern Islamic religion's penchant for violence, if I hear that there are riots in a community composed of over 30 percent Muslims, I think one can reasonably make an educated guess that a majority of the rioters are Muslim. (Insert standard caveat hear about how this is not a judgment of any individual Muslim.) And I won't "note how low a number this is" because it is actually a very high number. I wish I could depend on the Western newsmedia to provide me with some accurate figures as to exactly what the Muslim composition of the rioters is, but somehow I doubt that any such figures will be forthcoming.

Let's review some other facts.

-Many Muslim communities in France have established a sort of "separate polity," where practices (such as polygamy) that would normally be off-limits to other Frenchmen are permitted. This practice has been reinforced by the French government's multiculturalist attempts to encourage immigrants to preserve their ethnic and cultural identities.

-The incident that sparked the riots was the electrocution of two Muslim youths from Clichy-sous-Bois, where over 80 percent of the inhabitants are Muslim immigrants or their children. Another incident that made the riots worse was the launching of a tear-gas shell into a mosque in one of the immigrant communities.

-Anti-police violence was already commonplace in these communities before these attacks, with an estimated 9,000 police cars having been stoned by Muslims youths over the months and years before the riots began. Many of these suburbs have been considered "no-go" zones by the French police, and there have been calls to officially give these communities the autonomy to organize themselves according to Islamic religious doctrine, a measure that would significantly undermine France's secularist status.

-The violence has spread to other immigrant communities in France and other Continental nations. Police are finding that some of it has been coordinated with cell-phones, and when questioned by reporters, some rioters have outright stated that the suburbs are "their turf," onto which French police and other enforcers of the legal French regime are not to step.

-A significant portion of Chirac's & de Villepin's efforts to defuse the situation has been meetings with Muslim religious leaders, whom they ask to issue statements calling for calm and an end to the violence.

-Police found a fuel bomb factory in a southern Paris suburb, where gasoline bombs and hoods to hide rioters' faces were being manufactured.

When I add this all up, my "shoot from the hip" conclusion is that this violence has been too organized and lasted too long to simply be a spontaneous outburst of anger over socioeconomic inequities. Of course I'm willing to concede that factors like racism, and the high unemployment rate and economic stagnation produced by France's odious Euro-socialism, probably had something to do with this situation. But they can't tell the whole story, because there are plenty of other communities in the world suffering worse social and economic hardships right now, that somehow manage not to descend into Lord of the Flies territory. And I can't resist noting that the poverty afflicting these communities is also partly the result of their own adherence to the Islamic religion, if the state of Muslim-dominated nations around the world is any indication.

Here is some more commentary on the riots from the editor of a French quarterly magazine.

(Edited by Andrew Bissell on 11/06, 8:29am)

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Sunday, November 6, 2005 - 8:20amSanction this postReply
I got a nice little SOLOMail from Mary Dingleberry too:
"To: Andrew Bissell

Brilliant post, this:


Apparently it's okay for you and the rest of you SOLO cronies to denounce Islam in the harshest terms, but not for "Orion Reasoner".

Just admit it:  you and the rest of your snivelling clique expelled him because you were jealous of his competency. 

What a shameless scumbag hypocrite you are.  Go fuck yourself, brown-noser."
Evidently Mr. Reasoner is still having trouble distinguishing between "denouncing Islam in the harshest terms" and advocating the genocidal murder of every last Muslim on Earth.

Post 34

Sunday, November 6, 2005 - 3:04pmSanction this postReply
Andrew, if the varied facts you cite are accurate, that certainly suggests that there is a very strong muslim component (or triggering factor, or leadership, or majority, or conspiracy...or just what exactly).

> the modern Islamic religion's penchant for violence

Very true.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 11/06, 3:20pm)

Post 35

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 8:46pmSanction this postReply
Joe M. "So why do Muslims get to spout threats without repercussion? Where is the moral outrage towards the shah of Iran?"

It's been pointed out to me that Iran no longer has a Shah. My bad.
Still doesn't change the point of the post...

Post 36

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 8:55pmSanction this postReply
"Go fuck yourself, brown-noser."

Oh, how eloquent Ms Dingleberry is, and what a charming dinner conversationalist she must be. Wouldn't we all love to take her home to meet Mother...

Surely, that level of invective deserves to be terminated with an exclamation mark or two?

"Go fuck yourself, brown-noser." is merely churlish but, "Go fuck yourself, brown-noser!!", now that's devastatingly pissy.



Post 37

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 9:01pmSanction this postReply

"He hates us, yet finds us irresistible. "

Oh, and how many nights of excessive passion have begun thus?


(Edited by Ross Elliot
on 11/08, 9:03pm)

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Several threads informed by the French urban unrest have appeared on SOLOHQ, from Bob Palin's "Multiculturalism and the Self-Liquidation of Europe" to Andre Zantonavitch's "The War with Islam," and Andrew Bissell's "Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands."

Some posts posit a throbbing Islamic/Muslim dynamo to the violent crimes and disorder -- and castigate both Islam as engine and the immigrant Muslim as driveshaft, gear, fuel, mechanic, or noxious exhaust. In the larger online discussion world there is a great volume of commentary that also castigates the French authorities -- for poor management of the Muslim problem, for atrocious 'multicult' assumptions, and so on. And in the news, of course, boatloads of expert and not-so-expert opinion . . . trying to answer central questions:

1) What is happening?
2) Who is responsible?
3) How did it occur?
4) Where is it happening?
5) Why did it happen?
6) When did it happen?
etc . . .

One group of thought seems to answer:
1) Muslims ('a naturally and profoundly warlike people') are rioting.
2) Muslims (or, helpfully, "Camel-jockeys")
3) Muslim-appeasing French brought it on
4) In Muslim areas
5) Muslim leeches follow Muslim teaching
6) When the cheese-eating surrender-monkey police knocked politely on the gates of the Muslim self-exclusion zones. "Bonsoir, m'sieur. Is Boubar in? I need to check his identity papers to exclude him from the suspect list for the Bali bombing."

Even cleaned up a bit, the theme seems to be 'France faces an internal Muslim-led war.' With various caveats applied, the line is perhaps best drawn by Andre: "At times, the average Muslim civilian is simply the quasi-innocent victim of extraordinary Western perfidy as outlined above. Thus he deserves something of our sympathy, as well as our fear and hatred." For further pith on 'quasi-innocence, we also have 'the poverty afflicting these communities is also partly the result of their own adherence to the Islamic religion' (from Andrew Bissell in this thread).

So, to get with the program here, I will refer to the surge of unrest in France as 'the Muslim violence' and 'Muslim riots' and so on. I may temper fear and hatred with a smidge of sympathy for the 'quasi-innocent' here and there, however, but I want understood that I do appreciate that fear and hatred rule in some parts of objective reality. I also acknowledge the pseudo-official TOC/Hudgins line that all Muslim-born/derived carry the same 'Brand Name' and are responsible for all Muslims®.

Andrew Bissell notes, "I'm forced to conclude that this [Muslim® riots] is something much more serious than that ['France dealing with some socioeconomic growing' or 'chiefly the product of social and economic inequality']."

Why a forced-choice here? No third, fourth alternative explanations? A or B only? Really? This 'exclusion of the middle' can lead to logical fallacies and undermine otherwise strong reasoning.

Andrew bolsters his conclusion with some facts and factoids drawn from recent news and commentary, including Mark Steyn's historically-inept rant**.

Andrew adds a caveat" "I'm willing to concede that factors like racism, and the high unemployment rate and economic stagnation produced by France's odious Euro-socialism, probably had something to do with this situation," -- yet opines in another thread that "[t]his has absolutely nothing to do with race."

Maybe, maybe not.

After a week of close reading on 'the Muslim® violence' I figure that the French, historically, are one rollickin', riotin', strikin', tear-gassin', guillotine-happy, tumbril-rollin', blowin'-up-good bunch of folks, rigidly stratified from top to bottom, right to left, in a freaking straight-jacket of tradition, top-down politics, economic stagnation and ancient habits of rebellion.

Seriously, looking back longer than two weeks, through the past decades and beyond, seems nothing gets *changed* in France unless accompanied by strikes, protests, street actions, marches, molotovs and more (including sometime serious police action, be it Algeria or the 1961 massacre; including the Islamic® terrorist atrocities of the eighties, and the French intervention in Ivory Coast's civil war). In living memory, France has been wracked by crisis after crisis, most culminating in what we might call 'street action.'

I do believe that in analyzing present events, we ought remember that this is the nation of violent arson attacks against McDonald's (and other targets) on behalf of the cheese-producing class . . . of the truly scary CRS, the 'events of May 1968,' Indochine, of rotating worker rampages in too many General Strikes to list . . . not to mention the shit-carts rolling the royals and varied 'outgroups' to the heavy blade of Monsieur 'G.'

Muslim® thing? Yup, some. French® thing? Yup, most.


The following excerpts of opinion and reporting contains a kind of timecapsule of earlier 'Muslim® violence,' the so-called 'Secret Paris massacre of 1961.' I would urge objectivists, Objectivists, and students of Objectivism alike to contrast the earlier official French® response to the present, and contrast the death toll of 'the Muslim® riots' to the death toll of other French days of rage.


Attytood: "Watt"'s wrong with this picture? How the Right is twisting the French riots"
"For some reason, we found ourselves curious about
the 1965 Watts riots in south-central L.A., which was
the first major urban riot of the 1960s and also one
of the deadliest. We stumbled across this recap from
the Los Angeles Times:

The riots that summer were sparked by the arrest of a
Baptist motorist, Marquette Frye, for drunk driving.
When Frye's mother intervened, a crowd gathered and
the arrest became a Bapto-fascist flashpoint for
anger against police. The deeper causes, as
documented by the McCone Commission, which
investigated the riots, were religious intolerance
and the failure of Baptists and those of similar
African-American denominations to assimilate with the
broader Californian culture.....

After nearly a week of rioting, 34 people, 25 of them
Baptist, were dead and more than 1,000 were injured.
More than 600 buildings were damaged or destroyed.
Thriving business districts, their stores mostly
owned by non-Baptists, were burned to the ground.
Eventually, the National Guard put a cordon around a
vast region of South Los Angeles...

Sound ridiculous? Of course, because we changed all
references of the race of the rioters and replaced
them with a religious description. Surely most of the
black rioters in L.A., like most African-Americans,
were Protestants and many were Baptists, the nation's
largest black denomination -- but that had as much
relevance to what was going at Florence and Normandie
as the fact that a majority of the rioters were
probably Dodgers fans.

Yet that's what the coverage of the 1965 Watts riots
would have looked like -- if one used the same
"logic" that the galaxy of right-wing bloggers and
pundits is now misapplying to the two weeks of unrest
in the Paris suburbs and other French cities."


The Means and Ends of Islamists
"As I put it in "Allah Bless America!" (Navigator,
November/December 2002): "When we choose to belong to
a particular group, we take on the responsibility of
answering for the group's basic beliefs and
activities," and "prudent members will be careful
that their group's 'brand name' is not tarnished." So
if they conclude that some community members are
sullying its overall reputation and acting contrary
to its moral principles, they should purge their
communities of such members—or failing that, withdraw
themselves and do everything possible to distance
themselves from the group. But if they remain silent
and do nothing, then they tacitly sanction and
encourage the abhorrent views and behavior—and can be
regarded as compliant and complicit." [Ed Hudgins]


** Juan Cole takes on Steyn in "The Problem with Frenchness":

This paragraph is the biggest load of manure to hit
the print media since Michael Brown (later of FEMA)
and his Arabian Horse Society were profiled in
Arabian Horse Times.

The French youth who are burning automobiles are as
French as Jennifer Lopez and Christopher Walken are
American. Perhaps the Steyns came before the
Revolutionary War, but a very large number of us have
not. [Actually Steyn is Canadian and if he lives in
the US he is either an alien or . . . an immigrant!]
The US brings 10 million immigrants every decade and
one in 10 Americans is now foreign-born. Their
children, born and bred here, have never known
another home. All US citizens are Americans,
including the present governor of California. "The
immigrant" is always a political category. Proud
Californio families (think "Zorro") who can trace
themselves back to the 18th century Spanish empire in
California are often coded as "Mexican immigrants" by
"white" Californians whose parents were Okies.

A lot of the persons living in the urban outer cities
(a better translation of cite than "suburb") are from
subsaharan Africa. And there are lots of Eastern
European immigrants. The riots were sparked by the
deaths of African youths, not Muslims. Singling out
the persons of Muslim heritage is just a form of
bigotry. Moreover, French youth of European heritage
rioted quite extensively in 1968. As they had in
1789. Rioting in the streets is not a foreign custom.
It has a French genealogy and context.

The young people from North African societies such as
Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are mostly only nominal
Muslims. They frequently do not speak much Arabic,
and don't have "proper" French, either. They
frequently do not know much about Islam and most of
them certainly don't practice it-- much less being
more virulent about it than Middle Easterners.

Steyn wants to create a 1300-year struggle between
Catholic France and the Muslims going back to Tours.
This way of thinking is downright silly. France in
the 19th century was a notorious ally of the Muslim
Ottoman Empire, and fought alongside Muslims against
the Christian Russians in the Crimean War. Among
contemporary French, 40 percent do not even believe
in God, and less than 20 percent go to mass at all
regularly. Many of the French of non-European
heritage are also not religious.

The French repaid the compliment of Tours by
conquering much of the Middle East. Bonaparte
aggressively and viciously invaded Egypt in 1798, but
couldn't hold on there. But in 1830 the French
invaded Algeria and incorporated it into France.
Algeria was "French soil." They reduced the Algerian
population (which they brutalized and exploited) to
marginal people under the colonial thumb. The French
government of Algeria allowed hundreds of thousands
to perish of famine in the 1870s. After World War II,
given low French birth rates and a dynamic capitalist
economy, the French began importing Algerian menial
labor. The resulting Beurs are no more incapable of
"integrating" into France than the Poles or Jews

So it wasn't the Algerians who came and got France.
France had come and gotten the Algerians, beginning
with Charles X and then the July Monarchy. They
settled a million rather rowdy French, Italians and
Maltese in Algeria. These persons rioted a lot in the
early 1960s as it became apparent that Algeria would
get its independence (1962). In fact, European
settler colonists or "immigrants" have caused far
more trouble in the Middle East than vice versa.


Papon "ordered secret Paris massacre of 1961"
"In 1961, during the Algerian war of independence,
Papon, then chief of police, imposed a curfew in the
capital after the murder of 11 of his officers by
nationalists. The Algerian National Liberation Front
(FLN), which had orchestrated the attacks, responded
by organising a protest march. Up to 40,000 Algerians
answered the call to demonstrate on the night of
October 17. What happened next has never been
established precisely. The official version was that
three people died in clashes between police and
demonstrators. At a cabinet meeting afterwards,
President Charles de Gaulle described the deaths as a
matter of "secondary" concern, by comparison with a
resolution of the Algerian crisis. The reality,
according to Constantin Melnik, an adviser on police
matters to the then prime minister Michel Debre, was
that at least 200 - and probably closer to 300 -
people were slaughtered by Papon's police, who were
intent on avenging the deaths of their colleagues.
His claim is supported by demonstrators, observers
and police officers.

The recollections of Saad Ouazene, a 29-year-old
foundry worker and FLN organiser at the time, are
among the most vivid. "We told the workers to descend
on Paris, but we didn't know what was waiting for us.
People flooded into the city," he said. At the
crowded exit to the Concorde Metro station, police
began striking people over the head with clubs.
Ouazene's skull was fractured. "I saw people collapse
in pools of blood. Some were beaten to death," he
said. "The bodies were thrown onto lorries and tossed
into the Seine from the Pont de la Concorde. If I
hadn't been strong I'd never have got out alive.
"Daniel Mermet, a French radio presenter who watched
the protest at another bridge, said: "The
demonstrators were charged by the police and
everybody ran. I saw a guy climb over the parapet of
the bridge and try to hide. A cop spotted him and
started laying into him. A second policeman joined
in, and they beat him until he fell into the water
like a stone." Similar scenes occurred at other
points around the city.

According to a number of shocked policemen, an
estimated 50 people were killed in the courtyard of
the Paris police headquarters alone. Joseph
Gommenginger, who was on duty, said: "As Algerians
got out of the buses at the Porte de Versailles, they
were clubbed over the head." He appealed to a senior
officer to stop the brutality. The officer "just
turned his back on me", he said. "Those carrying out
the attacks even threatened me. They had all removed
their numbers from their uniforms. I was revolted. I
never thought police could do such things. We were
supposed to be guardians of the peace. "Police
records show that Papon told officers at one station
that they must be "subversive" in the war against
their opponents. "You will be covered, I give you my
word," he said. In the days following the massacre,
dozens of bodies were taken from the Seine as far
down river as Rouen.

Jean-Luc Einaudi, a historian specialising in the
period, is convinced that Papon was directly and
personally responsible for the events. "He was in
overall charge of the operation. He was on the scene,
and later in the command post," Einaudi said. Papon
requisitioned transport authority buses - a measure
that had last been adopted for the round-up of Jews
under the Vichy - Einaudi claimed. When the buses
were returned, he said, they were covered in blood.
Attempts to bring the massacre to public attention
were largely stifled at the time. Some publications
that tried to reveal the truth were censored. Temps
Modernes, the magazine of Jean-Paul Sartre, the
philosopher and author, called the episode a pogrom.
Papon had the edition seized.

As recently as October last year, on the 35th
anniversary of the massacre, copies of the Algerian
daily Liberte - which examined Papon's role in the
slaughter, were confiscated by customs officers at
Lyons airport. The interior minister who ordered the
seizure was Jean-Louis Debre, the son of the former
prime minister. At a city council meeting 10 days
after the massacre, direct questions put to Papon
went unanswered. "The Parisian police did what they
had to do," was his only comment. When the issue was
raised in the National Assembly and the Senate,
political pressure was brought to bear to ensure that
no official inquiry was held. "For this to happen in
a country like France, which suffered the brutality
of Nazism, is a national disgrace," said Hachemi
Cherhabil, an Algerian mechanic who was also at the
demonstration. "They reproduced the same behaviour. I
don't accuse the French people"."


CNN.com - Peace march set for Paris - Nov 11, 2005
"De Villepin said the rioting was the result of
France's failure to provide hope to thousands of
youths, most French citizens and the children of
Muslim immigrants from northern Africa.

Some of the rioting had been organized through
Internet blogs that have now been shut down, de
Villepin said.

In order for French society to provide the same
changes and opportunities to all its citizens, said
de Villepin, 30 billion euros ($35.28 billion) will
be spent in France's riot zones, with the focus
primarily on helping young people.

The French employment agency will focus on 239 hot
zones, he said, to help provide jobs for 1.5 million

Although France's national unemployment rate is about
10 percent, in areas hit by rioting the level is
nearer 40 percent.

France has no affirmative action; an official French
study found that youths with Arab-sounding names have
their job applications rejected up to five times as
often as those with traditional French names."

[Roster of the organiser of this response to 'Muslim® Violence':]

"l’Association Citoyenneté et Démocratie (Hassan Ben M’Barek),
le Club Allez France (Rachid Nekkaz),
le Forum Citoyen des Cultures Musulmanes (Hakim el Ghissassi),
Débarquement Jeunes (Stéphane Méterfi),
Ni Proxo ni Macho (Zouheir Ech-Chetouani),
Droit Devoir Citoyenneté (Djamel Atallah),
l’Afrique en Mouvement (Vincent Foalem),
UNIR (Ali Aissaoui),
Médiation Citoyenneté (Saïd Zémoun),
CIQ 21 (Commerçants Intervenant dans les Quartiers),
Droit de cité (Mohand Kaci Hamid),
association Caméléon (Mohamed Ghoulam),
Cercle de Réflexion citoyenneté (Fodhil Hamoudi),
Regard citoyens (Abdel Djermoune), Club
Africagora (Dogad Dogui)."

(Edited by William Scott Scherk
on 11/11, 7:38pm)

Post 39

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 9:05amSanction this postReply
William, that Shakespearean outfit may be cutting off some of the blood flow to your brain. When I made the comment to Marotta that "this has nothing to do with race," it was in response to his contention that the recent criticisms and denunciations of Islam on SOLO were just a new variant of anti-Semitic racism. I was responding to that charge, not to a claim that race was a factor in the riots in France.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page

User ID Password or create a free account.