Thursday, November 03, 2005

Paris Burns While the Media Spins

As Paris endured a seventh day of rioting, with escalating violence spilling into more of the city’s Muslim-dominated suburbs, the international (read: leftist Western) media has been working tirelessly to obscure the unpleasant truth of what is happening in the fast-fading "City of Lights." Consider CNN’s account of the violence, which attributes the rioting to Parisian "youths" throughout the entire first three quarters of its account. Someone unacquainted with the situation reading this "news" report might conclude the rampaging "youths" were, well, French. Of course, that’s exactly not what’s happening, and CNN knows it. Only at the very end of the report are the "youths" properly identified as Muslim immigrants and not native French.

But as if to excuse itself for the politically incorrect offense of revealing that the perpetrators of the violence in Paris weren’t white Europeans (the sole source of all evil in the world, according to multiculturalist doctrine), CNN quickly affixes blame for the rioting on … wait for it … white French society.

The rioting began last Thursday in Clichy-sous-Bois after two teenagers were accidentally electrocuted and a third was injured while apparently trying to escape from police by hiding in a power substation. Officials have said police were not chasing the boys.

But the original cause has been all but forgotten as residents of other communities -- weary of poverty, unemployment and discrimination against the large immigrant and Muslim populations -- have vented their frustration.

Let’s see, the French allowed these Muslims to settle inside their nation, permitted them to worship and prosyletize Islam freely, showered free housing and other benefits on them, and yet when these ingrates rise up and burn the city, whose fault is it? Why, it’s France’s fault! Is there any Muslim country that allows non-Muslims to immigrate en masse and set up their own, permanent communties inside its borders? In fact, is there any non-Western country that permits such a thing? If not (and there isn't), then why not? Answer: non-Westerners have a strong sense of their ethnic and cultural identities, and are adamant on protecting those identities. Westerners, on the other hand, have been told incessantly for the past thirty years that Western culture is racist, imperialist, classist, warmongering and morally inferior to even the most primitive societies, and that protecting Western culture is racist and immoral on its face. Ideas have consequences. The Paris riots are the natural outcome of multiculturalism and the open borders policies promoted by multiculturalism. And the riots are only just the beginning.

In some areas, unemployment runs as high as 20 percent -- more than twice the national average, de Villepin told lawmakers.

Incidentally, this inadvertant admission means that unemployment is running at a national average of ten percent in France. Another great benefit of socialism – perennially high unemployment. It’s surprising that CNN left that in.

Jean-Louis Borloo, minister for social cohesion, said officials need to react "firmly" to the unrest but that France also must acknowledge its failure to deal with decades of simmering anger in the impoverished suburbs of Paris.

"We cannot hide the truth: that for 30 years we have not done enough," he told France-2 television, AP reported.

Borloo also urged people not to have a one-sided view of the suburbs.

"One must not think for one second that this is the life of these neighborhoods," Reuters quoted him as saying. "They are an integral part of our country. It is in these neighborhoods that most companies are being founded."

Well, that says it all, doesn’t it? The Muslim mob has won. The French government, terrified by the violence in its street and the demographic change it heralds, has no intention of restoring order. The Muslims sense this and they will press the advantage. The French are no longer willing to defend what it means to be French. Multiculturalism has come close to achieving its real aim in France: the obliteration of French culture and ethnic identity. France will simply ceded more and more of its territory to non-French immigrants (much as the Germanic tribes slowly consumed the Roman Empire) until France is no longer French. The same will happen throughout Europe unless someone there grows a backbone and stands up to defend European culture. But that won’t happen in France. They are too far gone. Future historians will look back and draw a line at this date and say, "this marks the beginning of the end of France as a Western European nation."

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

France Surrenders ... to a Mob

When France collapsed before the Hitler’s army in 1940, it was a great blow to Gallic pride, but Hitler at least had a fearsome army, one that had cast aside the other great armies of Europe like so many toy soldiers. Even the British fled across the Channel, cowering behind their navy and trying to figure out ways to entice the US into the conflict. Collapsing before the Blitzkrieg is no great thing, but the French did fight, and since on one else was effectively resisting Germany at the time, it’s less than utter humiliation some make it out to be. Today the French are surrendering again, but this time not to a serious enemy, but to a mere mob of irate thugs in Paris.

French President Jacques Chirac warned of a "dangerous situation" and called for calm after six nights of riots in suburbs in the north-east of Paris.

At least 15 cars were torched overnight in Aulnay-sous-Bois, as youths hurled stones and firebombs. Police fired rubber bullets and arrested 34 people.

Unrest flared when two north African boys died. Locals say they were being pursued by police. Police deny that.

"The law must be applied in a spirit of dialogue and respect," Mr Chirac said.

"A lack of dialogue and an escalation of disrespectful behaviour will lead to a dangerous situation," he told a cabinet meeting, according to a spokesman.

The two "north African boys" were the children of Muslim immigrants living in one of the many crowded ghettos around Paris which are the breeding ground for the Islamist extremism that the French security services are only barely keeping at bay. The rioting is just another sign of the rising ethnic pressures in an increasingly unstable France, whose government cannot bring itself to face the true depths of its immigration crisis. That failure to acknowledge reality and to deal with it will be the biggest single factor in the almost inevitable explosion of terrorism and ethnic violence certain to shake France in the near future.

Notice Mr. Chirac’s language. Paris suburbs have been burning for six nights. Yet instead of firmly demanding a restoration of order, and calling out the troops to put down the lawlessness, Chirac feels the need to couch his plea for peace with diplomatic language. These same suburbs have been hotbeds of Islamist extremism and violence for more than a decade, though most of the violence has been kept between Muslims and hasn’t yet significantly spilled beyond the ghetto boundaries. The rioting is a worrisome sign that this is about to change. The rioters hearing Chirac’s comments will know that they have won. There will be no imminent crackdown; they have shown their power and intimidated the geriatric French government. Time and demographic trends are on their side.

Of course, Chirac’s passive rhetoric is no surprise. He’s been a craven poseur for years, genuflecting before the murderous mandarins of Bejjing, among other thugs. But the Paris riots expose a deeper problem for France. The Muslims who are burning cars and hurling rocks at police are no small element in French society. Muslims may comprise as many as five million of France’s residents – we don’t know the exact number because France doesn’t dare ask. Questions about race or ethnicity are taboo in government figures. Though French officials explain this curious oversight with appeals to multiculturalism and political correctness, the real explanation is fear. The French are afraid to ask certain questions, because the answers would only show how bad the situation really is.

Police said as many as 69 cars were set on fire on Tuesday night in nine towns in the Seine-Saint-Denis region, home to many impoverished communities.

The original flashpoint of Clichy-sous-Bois, where police were out in force, was calmer, but trouble flared in nearby areas.

Correspondents say anger grew after a tear gas canister was hurled into a mosque in Clichy-sous-Bois on Sunday night. Emotions have also been fuelled by mass arrests.

Isn’t it interesting how Muslims don’t seem to be offended when other Muslims blow up Christians (or Jews, or Hindus, Buddhists, Sihks, etc.) of destroy churches, synagogues or temples, or hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings packed with innocent civilians? No protests. No marches. No fists in the air denouncing terrorism and violence. But let someone look cross-eyed at a mosque and they’ll set the city on fire. Westerners have permitted this double-standard for too long, which has let the Muslims conclude that it’s a good strategy.

Chirac’s submissive language appears to undercut the harsher comments of Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who has shown no inclination to appease the rioters.

Mr Sarkozy, criticised for his description of the rioters as a "rabble", has repeated his condemnation.

"I speak with real words," Mr Sarkozy, who has cancelled a visit to Afghanistan and Pakistan next week, told Le Parisien newspaper.

"When you fire real bullets at police, you're not a 'youth,' you're a thug."

Mr de Villepin has delayed a trip to Canada to try to ease tensions.

He and Mr Sarkozy have been accused of playing politics with the situation in an effort to win favour ahead of a presidential campaign in 2007.

Mr. Sarkozy has it exactly right, of course. In some ways, he may be France’s last hope. But the PC-blinded cowards in the Elysee Palace won’t stand behind him, or defend France. The riots consuming the ghettos of Paris are just a taste of the conflagration looming in France’s near-future, the direct result of the multiculturalist ideology and open-border immigration policies practiced by France and most of Europe over the last three decades.

But before Americans derive even a small measure of satisfaction from the French debacle, it should be noted that American leaders have acquiesed before mobs in exactly the same manner. In 1992, George H. Bush stood by while neighborhoods in Los Angeles burned. Why? Because the rioters were poor and black and thus beyond condemnation, or discipline. Of course the LA rioters had the poor sense to burn their own community to the ground, which made it easier for Washington to stand by and watch the columns of smoke rising on CNN. If they burn the ghetto down, who cares? Ghetto residents don’t contribute money to politicians and they rarely vote. The hapless white Los Angelinos and the Korean storeowners who found themselves caught in the rioting were on their own. Neither Washington nor Sacramento wanted images of soldiers shooting black people running primetime on CNN. So they sat by and let the riot burn itself out. Of course, that didn’t help neighborhoods, which never recovered, or America itself.

It’s fitting then that the second George Bush to sit in the White House stands idly by while millions (literally) of Mexicans and other aliens swarm across America’s southern border, unwilling to lift a finger to stop them. The administration slyly imputes crass racism to anyone to wants to protect the border, and argues that America needs more workers. What they mean is that American companies want to increase the size of the work force to drive down wages, but they don’t dare say that since that would give away the whole game. But the shortsightedness of this lunacy is apparent when one considers that Europe opened its borders to the Middle East decades ago with exactly the same thinking in mind – we need more (cheaper) workers! It seemed like a good idea at the time. Today, Europeans rue the day they ever made that deal with the devil. In thirty years, the US will likely feel the same way about leaving its borders open today.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Mugabe's War on the Productive

Over the last few years, Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe has been expropriating the farms of white Zimbabweans in the name of racial reparations and handing the land over to his political cronies. The result has been as devastating as it was predictable. The new landowners have neither any experience in farming, nor any interest in agriculture. Consequently, most of Zimbabwe’s formerly productive farmland has gone fallow as farms failed due to incompetence or was simply abandoned by new owners who were more interested in owning the land than working it. The result has been that Zimbabwe has gone from a food-exporting nation, to one increasingly dependent on food donated by international aide agencies. Mugabe’s government has steadfastly denied that there is any problem with Zimbabwe’s food production, at first insisting that any rumor to the contrary represented Western, racist propaganda, and later blaming the shortages on a lack of rainfall.

However, the situation has not grown so bad inside the country, that even officials in Mugabe’s own government find themselves forced to publicly admit the obvious truth: confiscating white owned farms has plunged the country into economic ruin and starvation.

Deputy Agriculture Minister Sylvester Nguni was quoted in the state-owned Herald newspaper as saying that while a few of those given land were committed to agricultural production, many others were doing "nothing" on the farms.

Although he mentioned the poor rains, he also told a meeting of the Zimbabwe Farmers' Union: "The biggest letdown has been that people without the slightest idea of farming got land and the result has been declining agricultural output."

Mr. Nguni’s comments, which will very likely cost him his job (or worse), come as Zimbabwe faces a rising chorus of international concern over the condition of average Zimbabweans and criticism of Mugabe’s human rights record.

The farm confiscation policy has been moving along rather briskly, adding to Zimabwe’s economic woes as it drives the last members of the productive class to flee the country.

Much of Zimbabwe's best agricultural land was previously owned by whites, but over the last five years 4,000 white farmers - out of 4,500 - have had their land seized and redistributed to blacks.

Critics say that many of the beneficiaries have been government cronies.

Those critics not only include Zimbabwean dissidents, but increasingly surprising sources like the UN.

On Monday, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan criticised the Zimbabwean government for rejecting humanitarian aid to those in need.

Earlier this year, the UN said about 700,000 people had been left without homes or work by an eviction campaign that began in May.

A statement by Mr Annan rejected claims by the Zimbabwean government that it required no international assistance as it had already provided shelter for those in need.

"A large number of vulnerable groups, including the recent evictees as well as other vulnerable populations, remain in need of immediate humanitarian assistance, including shelter," Mr Annan said.

"Furthermore there is no clear evidence that subsequent Government efforts have significantly benefited these groups," he added.

Annual inflation is running at 360% and about 75% of the population live below the poverty line.

While Mr. Mugabe has become an international pariah – even in the eyes of the UN, which is habitually unwilling to criticize third world thugs – he has found acceptance from one nation: China. No fan of human rights itself, China has been very busily building economic and political alliances with Zimbabwe to guarantee access to Zimbabwe’s oil reserves. China’s leaders have their vision fixed unwavering on increasing Chinese power and eschew such distractions as starving people and thuggish leaders. Realpolitik sets Bejjing’s agenda while Washington spends American blood and treasure pursuing Wilsonian fantasies.

Monday, October 31, 2005

No Surprise in Weekend Slaughter

It increasingly appears – to absolutely no one’s surprise – that the weekend terror attacks in India were the work of Islamists. The multiple attacks, including a bus bombing (Islamists really seem to love blowing up buses), killed 62 Indians at last count, and injured scores more. The BBC reports that Islami Inqilabi Mahaz, a little know Kashmiri Islamist separatist group, has claimed responsibility. In a phone conversation between the Indian Prime Minister and General Perez Musharraf, the Pakistani leader, the Indians took Pakistan to task for failing to deal with Islamist militants within their country.

According to an Indian Foreign Ministry statement, [Indian Prime Minister Manmohan] Singh told Gen Musharraf said he "continued to be disturbed and dismayed at indications of external linkages of terrorist groups with the 29 October bombing".

Naturally, Pakistan denies that any Pakistanis are involved, calling Islami Inqilabi Mahaz’s statement "a mere claim." No matter that Pakistani Islamists have been linked to numerous terror attacks in India and that the world’s number one terrorist-at-large, Osama bin Laden, is believed to be hiding somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistani border. Like most Islamic nations, Pakistan will deny that its citizen ever did anything wrong as long as possible, and when confronted with evidence, will insist on a conspiracy of global proportion against it.

Whether Islami Inqilabi Mahaz (which means Islamic Revolutionary Group) actually carried out the attacks is that an open question.

… Kashmir analysts say they have never heard of the group.

Delhi Police chief, KK Paul, told the BBC that they had some knowledge of the group.

"We had come to know about the group some five or six years ago.

"It is not altogether an unknown group."

But it is still unclear whether the group still exists and indeed, whether it had anything to do with the attacks.

Nevertheless, security analysts are certain that Pakistan-based Islamist groups were behind the latest atrocities.

"There are only two groups capable of carrying out these types of attacks," says security analyst Brahma Chellaney, "the Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad."

Both groups are based in Pakistan, although they have been outlawed, and have been listed as terrorist groups by the US State Department.

Saturday's attack also signaled a major departure from previous attacks.

It targeted innocent civilians - middle-class Indians out shopping ahead of the festival season - instead of symbols of power, such as politicians and government buildings as has been the case in the past.

Defence analyst and former Indian army major, Maroof Raza, says the attack may be a sign of things to come.

"It is clear that the militant groups are trying to make a comeback.

"It is also clear that they have shifted their focus, since it's becoming increasingly difficult to successfully launch an attack on high-profile targets," he told the BBC News website.

Major militant groups operating in India are usually quick to own up to attacks, especially those aimed at the security forces or government.

But they rarely acknowledge attacks on civilians.

It is possible that the attacks may never be credited to those who carried them out.

Despite Saturday’s carnage, India has carefully avoided ratcheting up its rhetoric. The two countries have been moving slowly toward better relations in recent months. It is in neither Dehli’s or Islamabad’s interest to see that progress reversed. The recent earthquake centered in Kashmir has brought the two foes into cooperation over relief efforts. Islamist groups oppose any warming of relations, and the cooperative agreements that have resulted from the earthquake recovery operations likely prompted this attack – a desperate effort to inflame Indian sentiment and scuttle the slender bridge of good will Mr. Singh and General Musharraf have built between their governments. Peaceful relations between Pakistan and India may be in the best interests of the people of both countries, but would be a terrible development for Pakistani Islamist, eager to wage jihad against the Hindu infidels across the border. Islamism thrives on conflict and where conflict appears to be ebbing, Islamist will do everything possible to create more.