Saturday, November 12, 2005

Is Just War Legitimate?

Karcher-Kozy.* Nicolas Sarkozy, French Interior Minister and presidential hopeful, threatened to hose off the scum from the body politic of France, the scum being immigrant and Muslim rioters running amok in 300 cities and towns in France over the past two weeks. What good is coming of his threats?

The problem of Islamic revolt is not going away just because Sarkozy makes bold statements to the media. Many French themselves are buying the party line that it's Sarkozy's intemperate speech that caused the riots, rather than the feral culture of lumpen-jihad in France. The scum people of Islam and the Left dhimmi fascists who live in the darkness of self-willed ignorance are inflamed by Sarkozy's rhetoric, the rioters are barely resting in the wings, and the farthest Right are as inflamed as the rioters, pausing only to protect their property before they too take to the streets in conflict with the rabble. Our concern is that Sarkozy is caught in the middle of what will be a civil war, and that he will be swept aside in the fury of both extremes.

We must assess the situation at a great distance from the mind of France-as-Will, from the collective mind and attitude of the French collective. As we look upon a dhimmi people in the throes of suicide it is our task to assess our possible option as non-state actors: we must look realistically at what we can do, and what we must do, in the plain sight of the demise of a nation akin to our own nations. We must ask ourselves if France belongs specifically to a "French people." Do the French have an innate right to a geographical space we term politicallly as France?

If France, so-called, collapses in its self-will into Islam and dhimmitude, do we honor our contracts with France as it has been historically but as it is not now? If our
political and social and moral contracts with a sister nation are negated by new and hostile populations, by Muslim and dhimmis, if they are, do we sit by idly and seek new social contract with the new rulers? What is a legitimate response on the part of non-state actors?

Plainly put: if Musilm gangs take over parts of France and impose on these new-formed millets sharia, do we as non-French and non-Muslim individuals have any obligation to obey alien laws in the formerly non-Islamic state? Do we have an obligation, legal if not moral, to sit back and let the French, democratically and by general consensus, slip into dhimmitude and Islamic sharia statehood? If the French allow their nation to be Balkanized by Muslims do we as non-French and as private citizens have an obligation to let them run their own internal affairs regardless? France is France, and they can do as they please with their nation. Isn't that so? Armed intervvention into the lands and affairs of a sovereign nation is an act of war if a nation does it; and if private citizens do so without sanction of their governments, it is simply crime. The question is whether it matters what crime is in a state taken over by those whose laws we agressively reject. If sharia millets arise in France, and if the French state allows it by consensus, is it an internal affair of a democratic and legitimate nation state's government and population?

Below we have three short pieces on the state of Islam and Eurabia.

European far right seizes on French riots
11.11.05 1.00pm
By Mark John
BRUSSELS - Far-right groups across Europe are seizing on riots by the children of French immigrants as a potential vote-winner and intensifying their demands that governments halt immigration and toughen up nationality laws.

Some portray the violence as the seed of bloody ethnic civil war, or play on fears of Islamic radicalism to warn that today's petrol bomb-hurling teenager could be tomorrow's suicide bomber.

"The riots are fertile ground for the far right," Thierry Balzacq, security and immigration analyst at Brussels think-tank Centre for European Policy Studies, said of riots that have sparked copycat violence in some of France's neighbours.

"It gives them extra leverage on the waverers, those people on the verge of voting far-right. And we know that European democracies are full of that kind of voter," he added.

Governments in turn are seen tempted to enact measures seen as appealing to potential far-right voters. Critics suspect that may be behind French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy's call on Wednesday for the expulsion of foreigners caught rioting.

French anti-immigrant leader Jean-Marie Le Pen declared President Jacques Chirac's response "pitiful", telling Le Figaro newspaper he had long warned of the results of "mass immigration, the moral corruption of the country's leaders, disintegration of the country and social injustice".

The situation was evolving into something "which could be the first signs of a civil war", he said.

The solution was clear, Le Pen said: an end to immigration, tougher nationality laws and a zero-tolerance security crackdown -- possibly including the army.

Fears the violence would spread through Europe have so far proven unfounded, with only isolated cases of youths burning cars in Germany and Belgium. But far-right activists all over the continent say the lesson from France is clear enough.

Germany's anti-immigrant NPD, which last year made headlines by winning seats in an eastern state assembly, said the riots showed attempts to found a multicultural Europe had failed.

"The NPD wishes foreigners a good trip home," it said on its website, reiterating its calls for forced repatriations.

In the Netherlands, still traumatised by last year's killing of film-maker Theo van Gogh, a critic of Islam, by an Islamist militant, anti-immigration campaigner Geert Wilders called on Monday for an end to immigration by "non-Western foreigners".

Pia Kjaersgaard, leader of Denmark's anti-immigration Danish People's Party, went further, arguing this week that the French violence was tantamount to terrorism.

Far-right groups in Belgium and Austria have also stepped up calls for immigration clampdowns, and the radical wing of Russia's nationalists seized on the riots to push a "Russia for the Russians" message.

Beate Winkler of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), said it was too early to say whether the French rioting would lead to reprisal attacks on immigrants.

"Liberal democracies seem to be pushing for more security (since 9/11), making all social relations very confrontational," argued Balzacq of the Centre for European Policy Studies. "It is very dangerous."


Europe's 'disaffected youths' conspiracy

Posted: November 11, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005

For two weeks roaming bands of "youths" have rampaged across France, burning buildings and cars and daring police to intervene. At least one person was beaten to death by a mob as he tried to stop them from burning his car.

The mobs have already burned more than 6,000 cars across the country, they've burned hundreds of buildings, and more than 2,000 rioters have been arrested since the rioting broke out.

Nobody remembers the details surrounding the incident that sparked the unrest – ostensibly it was a protest over the deaths of two teenagers who were electrocuted while fleeing police. It seems a pretty thin excuse for weeks of rioting. The police didn't kill the pair – they killed themselves while trying to evade arrest. What would the alternative choice be for the government? If somebody runs, let them go?

But while it is a little unclear why the rioters are blaming the police for the accidental electrocution of the two evading arrest, it is even more unclear why the French and the mainstream media are conspiring to rehabilitate the rioters even as the smoke continues to rise over French cities.

According to the mainstream media, the rioters are "disaffected youths" who feel "alienated" from French society. The mainstream fiction is that they are rioting because of high unemployment and unfavorable social conditions.

Although that fiction is a direct slap in the face to France's self-image as a socialist paradise that offers its citizens cradle-to-grave security, Paris seems comfortable with the story.

Of course, it doesn't really explain why "disaffected youths" are also rioting in Belgium and Denmark. (In Denmark, the rioters chanted, "This land belongs to us.")

Denmark "belongs" to disaffected immigrant youths suffering from high unemployment and unsatisfactory social conditions? OK. Then why the Belgian riots? Sympathy pains?

What do all these "disaffected immigrant youths" have in common? Apart from being Muslims, that is?

Wait! The rioters are Muslims? Perhaps we've discovered a clue! Could this have somehow escaped the attention of government spokespersons and the mainstream media of the Western world?

They are Muslims? One would think that is a relevant connection, especially given that the rioters in Denmark were chanting "this land belongs to us." The "us" the chanters were referring to wasn't the "disaffected immigrant youths" who were claiming Denmark for the unemployed. They were claiming it for Islam.

Why downplay the only common denominator between the riots taking place in three different countries? The Danish rioters don't have a beef with the French. Neither do the Belgian rioters. The only thing they have in common with their French compatriots is that they are all followers of Islam.

While the West nervously looks past the rioters' Islamic identity to find an explanation that blames the victims, the Islamic government of Iran says the riots are because of European "suppression" of Islam.

"Restrictions imposed on the Islamic dress code in France are an official policy there and the government has suppressed minorities' beliefs and humiliated them openly," the hard-line Jomhuri Eslami daily said in a commentary.

Call me crazy. I agree with Iran. Not because France banned the wearing of religious symbols – the ban includes Christian and Jewish symbols as well. But I do agree with Iran that the reason for the riots is all about Islam and has little or nothing to do with "disaffected youths suffering high unemployment" and everything to do with Islam.

So, why are the Europeans (and the mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic) blaming themselves and giving Islam a pass? It's simple. If it is the government's fault, there is some hope of fixing the problem. At the minimum, it creates the illusion of empowering the people, at least temporarily.

If it is the government's fault, the people can always change governments. But if it is part of a coming Islamic war for what's been dubbed "Eurabia" – well, that is just too terrible a thought to consider.

And if Islam is moved center stage as the main culprit, it might stoke the fires of Islamic rage and bring down the wrath of Islamic terror on them now, rather than in some nebulous "later."


Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the "millet" system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs.

In parts of France, a de facto millet system is already in place. In these areas, all women are obliged to wear the standardized Islamist "hijab" while most men grow their beards to the length prescribed by the sheiks.

The radicals have managed to chase away French shopkeepers selling alcohol and pork products, forced "places of sin," such as dancing halls, cinemas and theaters, to close down, and seized control of much of the local administration.

A reporter who spent last weekend in Clichy and its neighboring towns of Bondy, Aulnay-sous-Bois and Bobigny heard a single overarching message: The French authorities should keep out. ...

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.

*Karcher is the proprietary name for a high-pressure hose, for cleaning encrusted mud off the bottom of a car or accumulated grime off an apartment building.

Our question is who will prevail, given that even the French cannot ignore what will only become a worse situation with each passing month. Europe is edging toward civil war,, and we must ask what our places in it will be. Who will we support, given that our support will likely determine the outcome of the future of Europe, continuing on its past course of Modernity or turning to Islamic nightmares. We have a part to play in this struggle, and we must look clearly at where we stand.

The illustration above is a detail from an anarchist airforce poster from the Spanish Civil War.


John Sobieski said...

Dag, I know which side I am on. I know which side the MSM is on. Maybe in the future, Bush will realize there isn't a moderate Islam.

The world economy will not handle civil war in Europe well at all. All those who sneer at France should wake up and smell the coffee. They have nuclear weapons and as an Islamic state, the new leaders will be a grave danger.

dag said...

The question I keep asking myself is "what is practical?" What can we actually do to stop the spread of Islam?

Who remembers what our past holiday was about? Soldiers. but why did they fight and ide? I know a bit about the history of Europe and its social conditions in 1914-1918, and what I know is that it doesn't matter what they fought for: what matters is that it didn't become our problem because England and France won against Germany, Austria, and Turkia. It doesn't matter because the issue was solved for us so we can live our lives as we do; and to some extent we too must now take up oru lives and fight so our future populations won't have to fight this war that we might not. We have our time, and this glorious struggle for the Good is our blessing if only we would take it. Our grandchildren shouldn't even remember what we're doing because it shouldn't be of any interest to them, it not being a threat or even a great influence on their happier lives. War won't go away because of any victory we might win against the evils of Islma and Left dhimmi fascism, but this war will end, and end in our favour, if we fight it with determination and courage and hope for a better future. We should be forgotten in this struggle once it's over. And we certainly will be if Islma is triumphant. We will be, and so will all that came of our revolutions of progress. Our grandchildren face being Muslims. It's pur choice.

What is to be done?

t-ham said...


OT but I don't know another way to contact you. Having read the essays you recommended, I have sought to find more on Hegel and Co. Yesterday I prowled a used bookstore and came up with a few finds. Friedrich's "The Philosophy of Hegel"/Modern Library edition-1954, and a novel by one Andre Malraux, written as a series of letters between a Frenchman in the Orient and a Chinese in Europe, "The Temptation of the West". Ever heard of it, any thoughts? I did a search and Malraux comes up empty on your site.

Pastorius said...

As I recall, when I traveled in Europe, the EU had become law to the extent that borders between France and England were open. I don't remember having to use a passport at the chunnel. If this is so, then France's business is the business of the whole of Europe. All of Europe ought to be up in arms about what France is allowing to happen within their borders.