November 6, 2005
The Fire in France
By David Warren
alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.democrats

Readers of my previous columns, especially those written since
9/11/01, have sometimes assumed that I don't like France. This would
be an over-simplification. Like many Frenchmen, I should think, I am
aware of more than one France, and tend to prefer one to another. To
my Western, Christian, Catholic mind, a Europe without France is like
a bicycle without a chain -- France has contributed so much to the
velocity of our civilization. (Now, a Europe without Italy, on this
analogy, would be like a chain without the bicycle.)

There have been, for lo these last dozen or so generations, however,
at least two Frances. One is the France of the Enlightenment and the
Revolution, which seems to have triumphed to every outward effect, in
its rebellion against God and his clerics. The other is the France of
Charles Martel, and the greatest Gothic cathedrals, still pulsing in
some leonine rural hearts, or even in the remembered wheeze of the odd
sick, symbolist poet. I despise Revolutionary France, which reinvents
itself in every generation, most recently as the final paradise of
sophisticated consumerism. I despised the cheap romanticism that
subverted the poet's symbols. But the old Catholic France is the apple
of my eye.

As readers of the North American papers are beginning to learn, at
least 20 urban districts in France (mostly around Paris) have gone up
in flames. In Ottawa, we noticed that the French prime minister,
Dominique de Villepin, cancelled his visit to deal with the crisis.
And it is so large a crisis, that our media have, after just one week
of it, begun to break the bonds of political correctness that
prevented them from reporting what was going on.

As well as we can now reconstruct, it began in Clichy-sous-Bois, a
suburban, North African ghetto, which has been a police no-go area for
several years (like many other Muslim ghettoes in Europe), and where
young, declaredly Islamist, thugs rule the streets by day and night.
(Their war cry, while hurling missiles and setting fires, is "Allahou
Akbar!" -- "God is great!" There is no possible doubt about their
orientation.)

The police were nevertheless called to deal with some youths who were
stripping parked cars with more than the usual ostentation. Two kids
who were probably not participating in this crime, and were anyway not
being chased by the police, decided to hide behind the fence around an
electrical pylon.

That was the Bastille event. They were electrocuted. They died. As
this news spread, the entire district erupted in violence. Over the
last nine nights, the violence has spread from one Muslim ghetto to
another. (There are similar fires now smouldering in Belgium, Denmark,
and Sweden, but these began independently.)

The French authorities are beginning to realize that this French
Intifada is not entirely spontaneous, that e.g. weapons had been laid
in for just such an uprising. Radical Islamists have been preaching
strict separation between Muslim and French society; the French have
themselves defeated their own project of assimilation by allowing
large-scale immigration to congregate in nasty, Stalinesque public
housing estates.

The rule of these districts is now effectively in the hands of radical
Islamists, whose central demand is that French authorities stay out of
the little emirates they have declared. The very secular French
government, under Jacques Chirac, offers two contradictory responses.
One is that of the prime minister, de Villepin, who keeps muttering
about "tolerance" and "understanding". The other is that of the
interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, whose approach is to call the
youth "scum" and "rabble" and send the gendarmes in waves. Neither of
these gentleman has a clew.

Both give at least lip-service to the ludicrous idea that increased
spending on social programmes for these "underprivileged" districts
will finally win the day. Even while the kids on the streets are
purposefully destroying every physical manifestation of French state
generosity (such as it is). Both speak as if they were dealing with
some Marxist revolt of the proletariat against their capitalist
oppressors. Instead, what they have is an Islamist revolt against
French society.

The solution of the old Catholic France was, over the centuries, that
of Charles Martel: victor at Tours in 732 A.D., where the advance of
Islam on Western Europe was stopped. It consisted in a frank
realization that two civilizations were clashing, where only one could
prevail. The choice was relatively simple: victory over the invaders,
or death and servitude.

The modern, enlightened alternative is "negotiation". Good luck with
it.

November 6, 2005
The Fire in France
By David Warren
alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.democrats

Readers of my previous columns, especially those written since
9/11/01, have sometimes assumed that I don't like France. This would
be an over-simplification. Like many Frenchmen, I should think, I am
aware of more than one France, and tend to prefer one to another. To
my Western, Christian, Catholic mind, a Europe without France is like
a bicycle without a chain -- France has contributed so much to the
velocity of our civilization. (Now, a Europe without Italy, on this
analogy, would be like a chain without the bicycle.)

There have been, for lo these last dozen or so generations, however,
at least two Frances. One is the France of the Enlightenment and the
Revolution, which seems to have triumphed to every outward effect, in
its rebellion against God and his clerics. The other is the France of
Charles Martel, and the greatest Gothic cathedrals, still pulsing in
some leonine rural hearts, or even in the remembered wheeze of the odd
sick, symbolist poet. I despise Revolutionary France, which reinvents
itself in every generation, most recently as the final paradise of
sophisticated consumerism. I despised the cheap romanticism that
subverted the poet's symbols. But the old Catholic France is the apple
of my eye.

As readers of the North American papers are beginning to learn, at
least 20 urban districts in France (mostly around Paris) have gone up
in flames. In Ottawa, we noticed that the French prime minister,
Dominique de Villepin, cancelled his visit to deal with the crisis.
And it is so large a crisis, that our media have, after just one week
of it, begun to break the bonds of political correctness that
prevented them from reporting what was going on.

As well as we can now reconstruct, it began in Clichy-sous-Bois, a
suburban, North African ghetto, which has been a police no-go area for
several years (like many other Muslim ghettoes in Europe), and where
young, declaredly Islamist, thugs rule the streets by day and night.
(Their war cry, while hurling missiles and setting fires, is "Allahou
Akbar!" -- "God is great!" There is no possible doubt about their
orientation.)

The police were nevertheless called to deal with some youths who were
stripping parked cars with more than the usual ostentation. Two kids
who were probably not participating in this crime, and were anyway not
being chased by the police, decided to hide behind the fence around an
electrical pylon.

That was the Bastille event. They were electrocuted. They died. As
this news spread, the entire district erupted in violence. Over the
last nine nights, the violence has spread from one Muslim ghetto to
another. (There are similar fires now smouldering in Belgium, Denmark,
and Sweden, but these began independently.)

The French authorities are beginning to realize that this French
Intifada is not entirely spontaneous, that e.g. weapons had been laid
in for just such an uprising. Radical Islamists have been preaching
strict separation between Muslim and French society; the French have
themselves defeated their own project of assimilation by allowing
large-scale immigration to congregate in nasty, Stalinesque public
housing estates.

The rule of these districts is now effectively in the hands of radical
Islamists, whose central demand is that French authorities stay out of
the little emirates they have declared. The very secular French
government, under Jacques Chirac, offers two contradictory responses.
One is that of the prime minister, de Villepin, who keeps muttering
about "tolerance" and "understanding". The other is that of the
interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, whose approach is to call the
youth "scum" and "rabble" and send the gendarmes in waves. Neither of
these gentleman has a clew.

Both give at least lip-service to the ludicrous idea that increased
spending on social programmes for these "underprivileged" districts
will finally win the day. Even while the kids on the streets are
purposefully destroying every physical manifestation of French state
generosity (such as it is). Both speak as if they were dealing with
some Marxist revolt of the proletariat against their capitalist
oppressors. Instead, what they have is an Islamist revolt against
French society.

The solution of the old Catholic France was, over the centuries, that
of Charles Martel: victor at Tours in 732 A.D., where the advance of
Islam on Western Europe was stopped. It consisted in a frank
realization that two civilizations were clashing, where only one could
prevail. The choice was relatively simple: victory over the invaders,
or death and servitude.

The modern, enlightened alternative is "negotiation". Good luck with
it.


--
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce

"America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." -- John Updike

"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net