Don't Use the M Word!

Friday, November 04, 2005
In its eighth day, what appears to be the French Intifada is finally reported in the New York Times (annoying registration required).

Not on the front page, though. In the International section.

Although we learn elsewhere (from Amir Taheri) that the rioters are shouting "God is great!" as they set fire to everything in sight in twenty French cities, nowhere in the New York Times piece do we encounter the word "Muslim."

But we do learn that

...[t]he continuing unrest appears to be fueled less by perceived police brutality than by the frustration of young men who have no work and see little hope for the future.

One would like more first-hand reporting, of course, to be certain of one's first impression that, it appears, mysteriously absent from the rioting are those non-Muslim elements of the population that despair for their futures.

Note: Just to be perfectly clear: I am not saying that all Muslims are rioting in these communities, still less that most Muslims in any community are inclined to riot. But it is important for anyone seriously interested in understanding what is happening now in Europe to openly acknowledge that these riots, in part, derive from attitudes and beliefs of a portion of the Muslim population. How large is this group? I don't know. None of us can know until we begin openly to discuss the issue. If it turns out that the "bad" ones are a tiny part of the population, who can be easily isolated and neutralized by (one hopes) rational arguments and a positive counter-example -- then that is very good news indeed.


David Thomson said...

“...nowhere in the New York Times piece do we encounter the word "Muslim."

This is why I unambiguously remind everyone that the MSM are our enemy in a practical sense. The heck with trying to judge their motives and the state of their souls. We need only be concerned with the practical results of their bizarre behavior. To be blunt: the MSM are a danger to your family’s safety. They embrace a politically correct vision of the world which makes it impossible for them to deal with reality.

Knucklehead said...

Amir Taheri has much to say in today's New York Post.

There's far more than this:

When the police arrive on the scene, the rioters attack them with stones, knives and baseball bats.

But I have to admit that caught my eye. Are there Sports Authority stores springing up in and around Paris to go with the McDonalds and Starbucks? Baseball bats in France?!? The Cultural Ministry must be apoplectic over this development.

Sam said...

It's really amazing the level of stifling political correctness that is in the journalism culture. Their whole job is to report facts, but they stubbornly refuse to report certain facts that don't fit their worldview.

Knucklehead said...

In the several threads here on this topic I have speculated that there may be a "seperatism" somewhere within this entire mess. Seperatism is probably a too strong term - at least for now. A demand for a very high degree of "autonomy" may be more accurate. In the Tahiri article I linked to (it is being linked all over the place today), he has this to say:

gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.

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.

"All we demand is to be left alone," said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local "emirs" engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.

I haven't yet seen the use of the word "sharia" to describe what exists or is being demanded in these "difficult neighborhoods", but if a "committee of sheiks, mostly from the Moslem Brotherhood" does the negotiating on behalf of some or all of the "difficult neighborhoods"...

flenser said...

The next step is the formation of Muslim "homelands" within individual European countries. At some future date, when Europe is further weakened, expect that a resurgent Caliphate will come to the rescue of their beleaguered compatriots.

Expelling them now would save much trouble down the road, but the liberal virus has paralyzed its hosts to such an extent that self-preservation is no longer acceptable.

Knucklehead said...


If nothing else we must give them credit for turning to the more nuanced approach of incrementalism rather than going straight to the mass murder bombing tactic. Progress of a sort, I suppose.

ambisinistral said...

Jez's desperate fight against calling them Moslem Ghettoes is another example of this.

Moslem aggressiveness in the bull in the multicultural china shop. The world view they've crafted is that international law will render nations, and their borders, obsolete. This will lead to differing cultural groups moving where they will, and harmoniously mingling mingling with each other in the process.

Moslem behavior is a huge threat to that notion. One doesn't end up with the anticipated tastey tossed salad when one of the ingredients is acid.

They're trying to save their world view by defanging Islam. In spite of gloabal Islamic violence it is always painted as the religion of Peace. Failing that, we'll pretend yelling somebody yelling "Allah akbar" as the torch a Renault is just a youth frustrated by poverty.

ambisinistral said...

Bah, preview is your friend. rewrite the last paragraph to be...

They're trying to save their world view by defanging Islam. In spite of gloabal Islamic violence, it is always painted as the provoked Religion of Peace. Failing that, they'll pretend somebody yelling "Allah akbar" as they torch a Renault is just a youth frustrated by poverty.

Knucklehead said...


Even if there is a grain,or bit of insight or anything approaching "truth" in the Comskeyite position of those like Jez regarding the reasons for the initial flareup of this situation, there lies the danger of salafist opportunism in this.

At some point it no longer matters what the root causes are. If the salfists such as the Muslim Brotherhood can sink their claws and fangs into this and turn it to their will, things will get ugly and Europe, or at least France, is in for some dark days ahead.

Now is the time to be alert for a proposal of hudna from the "difficult neighborhoods" to allow time for the salafists to consolidate their position. They will push this action in France to the brink but no further - not for the moment anyway.

Knucklehead said...

I meant to add that we may now be approaching the temporary limit of how far the salafists will push this. If they push this more than a day or three longer they risk missing the window of opportunity where the French government has no choice other than to accept the offer of hudna. They need the "kinder and gentler" portions of the French authorities to keep a crackdown from happening - they cannot yet win the overall battle within France under current conditions. They will soon move according to their need for some breathing room and time.

The next day or two will be very interesting.

ambisinistral said...


I agree, the longer they try to keep their multicultural utopian dream alive, the more it is going to cost in blood. A dimension I haven't much seen mentioned in all of this is the EU rules on open borders.

If a salafist were to miscalculate and suicide bomb a French tourist spot, you can bet French paratroopers in armored cars would flood into these neighborhoods. Following the path of least resistence I imagine a lot of these immigrants would slosh across borders into England, Germany, Spain and Italy.

I think the open border stuff is going to bite them all in the butt.

gumshoe1 said...

there is a writer at
asia times (
whose nom-de-plume is "Spengler".

he has some thoughts on Islam
as being essentially
a "militant religion"
and describes the distinct differences between it, and Judaism and Christianity.

perhaps this isn't news to
many readers here at YARGB.

i have found
his OpEd pieces insightful
and would suggest them as
a source for readings about the current "culture wars".

Pastorius said...

Your "Note" is really more of a disclaimer. One of the problems that all this PC nonesense presents us with is, when we do want to discuss issues such as these, we first have to present our disclaimer.

It's really a problem, and, as it is such a pain in the ass (many times as much thought or more goes into the way to phrase the disclaimer, as does the initial point), it is an inhibiting factor in discussion.

Disclaimer: I'm married to a brown-skinned woman, and more than half of my family are non-white.


Pastorius said...

Your separatism idea is probably not too far fetched. According to Wretchard at The Belmont Club, The Phillipines basically ceded the Southern part of the island of Mindanao to the Muslims a few weeks back, when they granted them the right to write their own constitution.

I have not seen anything in the MSM about this, but I trust Wretchard's word on it, as he is Filipino.

Knucklehead said...


I once too-quickly read a bit of an article by Spengler and misinterpretted it as an apologia for Islamism.

It is very difficult to make a case that Islam is an expansionist religion (or culture, take your pick) and often quite militantly and violently so. Huntington points out Islam's "bloody borders". The Hindus of India know this perhaps better than any.

What is not difficult is to counsel tolerance of, or patience with, the expansionist nature of Islam based upon comparisons with the expansionist nature of Christianity once upon a time; the Crusades, the Holy Roman Empire, the missionaries of the colonial era and all that.

And to those of us with an inclination to try to be patient and tolerant this counsel is attractive, alluring even. Unfortunately we do not have the luxury of centuries of time and ancient technologies of warfare and transport. There is also the matter of Islam being 2/3 as "old" as Christianity and yet to show any signs or symptoms of evolving away from its violent expansionist tendencies.

A sad state of affairs, isn't it.

Knucklehead said...


Interesting observation re: the need for disclaimers that PC places upon us. We are forever forced to clarify, when we say something like "Islam has bloody borders" that we do not mean the billion or so moslems who live in relative peace and harmony among themselves but, rather, the few tens of millions who cannot seem to live in peace with the "others" at the borders of Islam or the fewer who actively seek the resurrection of some 15th century caliphate.

It is part of the overall condition the Gramscian Marxists have wrought upon us in their ongoing attempt to pull down our world in order to create the one they want in its place. The salafists, of course, reap the benefits of this condition and are quite clever enough to use it to their advantage when they can.

chuck said...


Spengler is a poet of pessimism who loves the sound of his own voice pronouncing doom. I don't know that he has gotten anything right yet. I tossed him into the silly bin when, IIRC, he predicted that Russian soldiers would be sent to Iraq.

Knucklehead said...

Ooops! PIMF!

re: my post above...

It is not very difficult to make a case that Islam is an expansionist religion

Knucklehead said...


Today Gaza, tomorrow the West Bank, then Jerusalem, someday all of Israel. Last month half of Mindanao, in ten years the other half. Soon some neighborhoods of Paris, someday the whole of it.

It is the western world's personalized notion of perserverance writ large.

gumshoe1 said...


i recently read(can't recall source)
that the moral-relativity
attack on Christianity's
"spread by violence" can only be relevant to the period some 400 to 600 years *after* its founding,when it became an official "state religion"...the intitial
conditions and nature of its spread were *not* militarily or politically based.

the author also noted that the *rate* of expansion became curtailed with co-opting by the State,in addition to the expansion being limited,in the main,to Europe.

i think you intended:

"It is *not* very difficult to make a case that Islam is an expansionist religion (or culture, take your pick) and often quite militantly and violently so."

the experience of the Hindus
you mentioned would likely be the prime example.

re: the "sad state of affairs"..
go have a read on some of Spengler's articles. the Islamists are struggling with their "population bomb"...Spengler suggests some of their manuevering is out of desperation...Iran's in particular.

gumshoe1 said...

re: Spengler


i'll keep that in mind.

Jamie Irons said...


You are of course correct that my "Note" is a disclaimer; perhaps I should have labeled it as such.

Whenever I am writing or saying something like I did in this piece, I always think first what does it sound like if I substitute the word "Jew" (I am a Jew) for the word "Muslim"?

It makes me a bit more cautious. Without, I hope, going quite as far as political correctness might dictate.

And I really do believe that this overall problem is, first and foremost, a problem of the Muslims themselves, a kind a civil war in the Muslim world which spills over (to put it mildly!) into ours.

Pastorius said...

Jamie Irons,
I hope it didn't come off as me correcting you. My comment was more just to say that there was an irony in the fact that your post talked about how we are afraid to discuss these things in our PC culture, and yet, still even guys like you who aren't afraid have to add your own little PC element.

And, of course, as I said, it's a pain in the ass, and for someone like me who is lazy, sometimes the pain is enough to make me keep my mouth shut.

Pastorius said...

Knucklehead said:

Even if there is a grain,or bit of insight or anything approaching "truth" in the Comskeyite position of those like Jez regarding the reasons for the initial flareup of this situation, there lies the danger of salafist opportunism in this.

My comment: I don't think these riots started spontaneously. Why? Because, when reporters showed up to interview the rioters in Denmark last week, he met teenagers who told him they were expecting him, and that they were the "spokesmen." They told him their message was "This is our neighborhood. Get out." And they told him they were "Palestinian." Then, they told him that it was planned three weeks ago:
This suggests some central planning authority, as teenagers wouldn't think to call themselves "spokesmen" even if they were saavy enough to realize reporters would show up because of their rioting.

Now, check it out, as best as I can tell, those quotes from the Danish rioters were from October 31. If the riots were planned three weeks before, then, think about what has happened in the last three weeks.

First, there were riots at a Coptic church in Egypt, where Muslims rioted because one year ago a play had depicted Muslims rioting. When the priest at the church was asked about the riots, he commented that he couldn't understand why they were rioting over something that took place the previous year.

Then, there were riots in Birmingham, England. There, Muslims rioted after a meeting where they had gotten together with leaders of the British West Indian commitee to discuss a reported rape of a West Indian girl by a group of Pakistanis. After leaving the meeting, the West Indian people thought things were ok. When the Muslims started rioting instead, it came as such a surprise that one West Indian person was described as saying, At first, we thought they were joking."

Then, the French riots started, and then the Danish riots.

The root cause is the Jihadi mentality. The only role poverty plays in this is that it is easier to recruit poor people, then it is to recruit rich people. Although, as we know, the Jihadis don't have a lot of trouble recruiting the wealthy and middle class either.

Anonymous said...

How often is the descriptor neccessary to understand the story missing?

It has become de rigeur in crime reporting, even when it occasionally results in the absurd result of the press asking for help in locating a perp without giving the racial identification necessary to do so?

It is almost always the case in stories involving political corruption where Republican identification is always there, but not Democrat affiliation.

Pretty soon we will all have to read the press accounts as though we were in some third world country where the real story is what is not reported.
BTW, Steyn who's been reporting on Eurabia forever, has some interesting comments on today's radioblogger about the situation in France, Denmark, and Holland where the "intifada" is also being waged. And about the extreme embarrassment by the French government because these events are clear to anyone arriving in Paris from the two major airports.
(Also about the Sarkozy-Villepin split.)
Roger L. Simon reports of the spread of the riots to Provence and elsewhere in France.

terrye said...

I agree with Jamie. I think that there is a struggle in Islam between the fanatics and the other elements of Muslim society who want to be a part of the larger world. I honestly do not know what will happen because Islam is so resistant to change and reform. It may be that the religion will destroy itself. I hear that many of the young people in Iran do not go to Friday prayer anymore.

I think many of these people are dangerous but the truth is they lack the ability to even support themselves without the west.

They may hate us, but they can not live without us.

The greatest danger they pose is the capacity to create chaos through indiscriminate violence.

As we see in Paris.

I do not think the French are as tolerant as they would like the world to believe. The time will come when they will have had enough of this.

Peter UK said...

Might I point out that the Middle East was Christian before Mohammed was born,Christianity covered the extent of the them Roman Empire.
The Christian Church split between West and East,there was a Pope in Rome and a Patriarch in Constantinople,the latter was,as Byzantium, a centre of Orthodox Christianity until it fell to the Ottoman Turks and was renamed Istambul in 1453.
We have been apologising for Christian aggression ever since the Arabists began peddling it in the 19th century,no doubt the were influenced the thesis of the "Noble savage" propounded by Rousseau.
The plain fact is there were rich civilisations in the Middle East centuries before the Arab light cavalry came galloping out of the Arabian Peninsular to ravage the remains of the dying Roman Empire.

Syl said...


"They may hate us, but they can not live without us."

But they don't know it. When I was pretty new at this I followed a link to an islamist board (it was in English) and they were discussing how to harness the infidels and keep them doing their current work after they've taken over.


re France

I just posted over at Roger's. I think the sheiks and muslim brotherhood leaders will try very hard to get this under control...if it's not too late. Then they can return to da'wa.

And, yes, a fight within Islam. The core belief in expansion and to rule over all the infidels, but do it in a mostly peaceful manner until the time is right to take over.

The time isn't right yet.

The other part just wants to destroy waiting.

Then there are most? who aren't actively involved in either endeavor but see nothing wrong with it.

Then there are the few who are against it but remain quiet out of fear.

Then there are the handful who dare to speak out. Then they get murdered.

Anyway, I hope it settles down in a couple of days. Otherwise it won't be pretty.

I hope this makes sense because, Amib, PIFW (Preview is for wimps). :)

terrye said...


The fanatics do not know they can survive on their own, but even they would figure it out.

Be about like watching the hippies get back to the land. That rarely lasted through one hard winter.

The Sufis are mystics and as such are despised by the jihadis.

I look at Islam today and I think is like the Army of God and the Quakers..nothing in between.

Let's hope Iraq will help change that. Once they have to keep the lights on and the garbage picked up maybe they will seem more like men and less like the messengers of Allah.

Knucklehead said...


Might I point out that the Middle East was Christian before Mohammed was born,Christianity covered the extent of the them Roman Empire.

Of course you might, as you did. I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you feel the need. Is my memory in need of some refreshment?

Knucklehead said...

Ah, Peter, I think I have it.

the expansionist nature of Christianity once upon a time; the Crusades...

A bit careless on my part as I know better. I trust you'll forgive me.

If you'll allow me a defense, however, the carelessness was not one of not recognizing the history but, rather, in recognizing the case made by those who counsel patience and tolerance toward Islam using the history of Christianity as a comparison. The Cursades are, in the Conventional Wisdom of these case-makers, an example of the perfidous violence of Christianity once upon a time.

I do not accept the case or subscribe to that bit of CW, but I do recognize that it exists.

Peter UK said...

It is just that the expansion of Christianity came when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire,the expansion was within the boundaries of existing conquest.The Holy Roman Empire was an attempt to restore that Empire after it had fallen to the Barbarians.
Mostly missionaries followed trade,so I always dislike the giving of a hostage to fortune by calling Western expansionism ,Christian,when it was economic.
There isn't a parallel with Islam,since Islam can only survive by expanding and until the discovery of oil had not had a mercantile component for centuries,except for the slave trade.
I mention this to get it into the record,rather than jog your memory.

terrye said...

Heaven forbid I should be unPC, but if cmparisons must be made to the Crusades, it could always be argued that the Crusades were defensive.

If the French had not stood their ground then, would there be a Europe today?

dislaimer: I know that not all the Crusaders were noble knights.

Bostonian said...

The story about the woman in the wheelchair is here:,,30200-13457760,00.html

Still could be a rumor.

Peter UK said...

The date on this is very reavealing

Jamie Irons said...

Here is an article which brings out the pain of some of these young people, in a sympathetic way, from the International Herald Tribune:

"We're French, But Not 'Real' French"

Jamie Irons

ambisinistral said...

I'm not being critical either Jamie, but I'm pretty much past the point of feeling I need to stick that type of disclaimer in my comments. It should be obvious we're not the kind of nutters who think the Middle East needs to be walled off and nuked into oblivion.

Besides, I'm sure a lot of nice, friendly people got buried in the rubble of Dresden and Hiroshima. They ended up dead because they did not control the militants in their own countries.

I'll grant there is a civil war of sorts in the Moslem world, and I'll grant that religious nuts wandering around your neighborhood with AK-47s -- and no compunction about using them -- make facing down the extremists an act of considerable courage.

That said, particularily in the West, it is well past time we stop excusing the moderates and start demanding they display that courage. We expect them to turn in extremists. We expect them to tolerate others. We expect them first line of policing their own religion and ferreting out radicals.

Insisting on this is the way to minimize future bloodshed. Wars always turn uglier and uglier. Forgiving them for their silence today will end up painting targets on them in the future.

Peter UK said...

This has many of the hallmarks of the conflict in Northern Ireland,initially stone throwing youths create a general climate of disorder which can only be quelled by local godfathers.

The tactic is simple,straight out of revolutionary textbooks,official sources of law and order have to be discredited amongst the local population and society at large.

Next armed groups will enforce discipline amongst the unruly,provocation of the representatives of the state will continue.

In all probability the French Government will throw money at the problem,only to see it disappear in a multitude of questionable projects,business start up,education schemes,youth centres and the like.Most of the funding will end up in the hands of the godfathers.

There will be marches,it is at one of these there will be an outrage by,perhaps, the riot police,returning fire,people will be killed and a massacre declared.

At this point the French Government will have to send in the Army to restore order.At this point the first objective will have been achieved,military occupation.There is now a real enemy to fight,then the Jihadis will roam the streets,soldiers will be fired upon continuously by snipers,there will be casualties,on both sides.

The worlds MSM now have a cause,brutal military,oppressed mimority,the car bombing will be seen as justified.

No doubt the Arab League,the UN and the usual carrion birds will flutter over an embattled Paris,lending support to one or other of the political gangsters who have enough firepower to claim to represent the Banlieus. The criminal enterprises of the gangs will be consolidated,they will use this opportunity to eliminate the competition.
There will be violent wars between the European,Russian and Middle Eastern Mafias over drugs,people trafficking and all the other illicit trades.

At some time in the future the French Government will have to cede de facto control to whoever runs the Banlieus.Having tried the political,military and fiscal options.

There is evidence that at least some part of this was planned. Please see link above.

Rick Ballard said...


Unless the moderate can be protected from the extortionist Islamothugs we cannot demand that he speak out. Religion has (IMO) very little to do with this any more than religion had anything to do with the PLO gaining and maintaining power through terror in the West Bank. Arafat was no more a devout muslim than Billy Graham is. He was a very devout believer in the use of terror as a means to extortion.

The people in the banlieus may not have much but they have enough so that an effective extortionist can collect a little "protection" money every week.

A hard look at the protection rackets operated by the Mafia in Sicily, New Orleans, New York and Chicago is good background for understanding this vermin. Keeping the flics out of the banlieus would condemn the people within to immiseration comparable to that suffered by the Palis in the West Bank.

ambisinistral said...


Of course we can demand they speak out. People are suffering all around the globe from the behavior of people that are their coreligionists. Why do they get a pass?

Moslem moderates either exist or they don't. I happen to think that they do, and in large numbers at that. However, their existence is of absolutely no use if they do nothing. Making excuses for them is just going to lead to ensure they do nothing.

vnjagvet said...

I wonder what Kerry thinks now about the wisdom of the French approach to militant Islam?

Also, because of the peculiar status of Christianity in Western Europe, particularly France, (CINO, pronounced "CHINO", or "SHEENO",or "SEENO", and meaning "Christian In Name Only") efforts to make this into some sort of religious struggle seems to be a bit of a stretch unless by that it is meant that the Islamiscists intend to convert the CINO's into a more orthodox and observant group of believers.

What hath worldly sophistication wrought?

And what has political correctness and appeasement gained the Etat?

chuck said...

I wonder what Kerry thinks now about the wisdom of the French approach to militant Islam?

Who cares? The man is too empty and self-absorbed to bother with.

I don't think the French are nearly as multi-culti and politically correct as folks say. If push comes to slaughter I doubt they will pay much attention to the world at large: the beurs aren't the only ones in France who can riot. Nor are the Islamists the only ones who can play politics with the situation.

Nor do I think Peter's scenario will play out, if only because the neighboring countries are not going to support the insurgents and allow themselves to be major conduit for arms. The Spanish will follow the French and the Germans will show no love. That is the flip side of the European prejudice against Africans and Muslims. I don't even know that the result would make me happy.

terrye said...

These are Europeans we are talking about. Deep down inside they are not the turning the other cheek kind of people.

It took a half century of American bases all over their continent before they began to get all pacifist. It is not their natural state.

My guess is the French will only take so much..but all of this has gotten so out of control that the short term response will seem like childs play to making the big changes.

vnjagvet said...

Irony, Chuck, and sarcasm.

I don't really care about that opportunist. But those who ate him up should at least wonder, shouldn't they?

When do the guillotines come out? It might be only a matter of time. And who got us into Vietnam in the first place? Dien Bien Phu was only 51 years ago.

Rick Ballard said...


We can demand that the blind see as well. The individual's duty to speak out against injustice is an artifact of Judeo-Christian moral and ethical teaching. There is no such individual duty that I have been able to identify within Muslim theology. Islam is a bandit's theology, it's all submission and God's will. Properly understanding the term 'Inshallah' is very difficult from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint or from the viewpoint of the pseudo-Christian derivatives that are descendants of Hegelian historicism.

That is the reason that hope for a Muslim reformation is futile.

Peter UK said...

The IRA,as much of a gangster organisation as Arafat's,obtained guns from the Eastern Block,Libya and the USA.
I am not saying that that is definitely what will happen,but there are plenty of precedents.It would, for example, give Iran a nice little chip in the game,al Qaeda Hezbollah and all the multifarious terrorist organisations would be only to keen to stir the pot,but in any event terrorism is big business,where there is strife there is money.
Mainly, the Salafist groups in Algeria are keen to give the French a bloody nose,there are long memories of the brutal way the French acted in Algeria.
Hard left groups cannot be discounted,in the riots in Toxteth,there were leftists directing the rioting by radio.
There is evidence that rioters have been using the internet to expand the rioting beyond Paris.

gumshoe1 said...

"No doubt the Arab League,the UN and the usual carrion birds will flutter over an embattled Paris,lending support to one or other of the political gangsters who have enough firepower to claim to represent the Banlieus."

Paris= Lebanon?

Das said...

I think it is about time that we read somewhere that Bush is responsible for the Paris riots.

Let's see ... he snubbed France and referred to them as "old Europe" which in turn knocked them off balance drove them into the hands of the Jihadis against their better judgement...

or...maybe the parts for the electrical step-down station where the kids were killed were made by Halliburton...?

Knucklehead said...


I wonder what Kerry thinks now about the wisdom of the French approach to militant Islam?

I would guess that he thinks that if he'd only had the chance to provide nuanced leadership in the US to put another, and very strong, back into turning the appeasement wheel there'd be no riots in France.

Knucklehead said...


Deep down inside they are not the turning the other cheek kind of people.

It took a half century of American bases all over their continent before they began to get all pacifist. It is not their natural state.

My guess is the French will only take so much.

An important question related to this is how deep the welfare state mentality is ingrained. These are people who have shown themselve willing to essentially shut down the country at the suggestion of adding a couple hours to their 35 hour work week or cutting a couple days of their generaous and ample holiday or vacation time.

That is, of course, not the same thing as sitting back and watching beloved Paris go up in smoke or the country go down the tubes entirely but time matters.

Do French people in general see these riots as "Paris burning" or as a form of their cherished "strike" - yet more people demanding yet more from the state and doing so "on the outskirts of Paris"? I think we see, from Our Friend Jez, that some see this as more or less exactly that. If this sort of view exists with anything close to half or more of the people then it will not be politically likely to have a fierce crackdown. And, as we've seen with our own riots, it isn't even enough to have a will to crackdown if you don't have the police forces trained to do the crackdown.

Having the wherewithal is a portion of what goes into having the will. Kagan gets into this in Paradise and Power. It is the age old issue of when one has only a hammer one is prone to see the solution to all problems as nails. When one has only a wallet one sees the solution to all problems as money.

It remains to be seen if the French are willing or able, at least in any useful timeframe, to deal with this by any method other than promoting a new round of welfare state giveaways.

Peter UK said...

I posted this at Roger Simon in response to this.
"It's really all about access to jobs and being treated like equals rather than pariahs, aka n*ggers."

"What jobs would these people accept that could reward them as much as drugs and crime? To quote a teacher who works with,"special needs" immigrant youths."Several of mine(students)have been shot,but what can I offer them when their older brothers drive around in BMWs have girls on the street, earn(sic) as much in a month as I do in a year?".."Work hard and you can be like me?"

First,they have to weened off their habits,criminal proclivities curbed,a basic lifestyle discipline instilled,then you can begin to educate them.Many will never rise above menial jobs,so they have to be kept interested,after all there is another option.It is worth bearing in mind that they are not used to taking orders,unless there is a real or implied sanction.

It has to been borme in mind that these young men have an adolescent macho respect culture to the nth degree,this is enhanced by their culture,the patriarchical societal structure of North Africa and the Middle East in general.
That culture precludes the civilising effect of women,yes the young men avail themselves of the host societies more open sexual mores,but their culture causes them to despise the girls they use.
When the youths do eventually marry,it is within the closed community to which they belong."

The problem is not simply economic,and cannot be solved in purely economic terms,the problem is that the youths live in a culture totally antipathetic to French Civil life.The racism charge is too facile,blacks have been marrying into all levels of French society for centuries,so what IS keeping this wave of immigrants apart?

Knucklehead said...


First,they have to weened off their habits,criminal proclivities curbed,a basic lifestyle discipline instilled,then you can begin to educate them.

This is a role typically filled by family and one that the welfare state, as well as immigrant status (particularly poor immigrant status), tends to break down. (It is, in addition to the the other authority structures, one of the targets of the Left with it's "It takes a [coven of] Village [commisars]" schtick). Replacing this essential function through some mechanism of state is doomed to fail (and is, ultimately, intended to fail).

This is a very difficult problem and one I have no doubt the salfists among us recognize and are determined to exploit. Demagogues need only a void in which to function. It seems they have it.

chuck said...

This is a role typically filled by family and one that the welfare state, as well as immigrant status (particularly poor immigrant status), tends to break down.

Speaking of family breakdown, I think most of the adults in the banleaue would also welcome a bit of law and order. One of the biggest failures of the French state has been its failure to provide a safe and orderly environment. Without that, nothing good can happen. Teens are teens, the Lord of Flies is always a possibility when there is no law. Providing order, I think, was one of the great successes of Giuliani in NYC. Sarkozy seems to realize this, but the French cabinet is so consumed with politics and ambition that it is hard to see any firm response forthcoming.

Peter UK said...

Another problem in the ghetto,is that the successful get out,to better housing,areas where their property won't get "taxed" by the local hoods.Thus lack of assimilation is bound to loom largely in areas where those who can assimilate have done so,leaving those with problems behind.

A problem which has not been examined is the process whereby cities assimilate waves of immigration,in a doughnut effect,a a wave prospers it moves out of the city centres and is replaced by another wave,the French have reversed this process.Nobody however knows at what rate cities can cope with influxes,the speed at which an immigrant group can occupy an area has be vastly accelerated by modern transport.
Manufacturing has collapsed,there is no need for unskilled machine minders,service industries are unlikely to employ those with attitude problems.Society at large is unlikely to clasp to its bosom those who despise it.Without a huge change in attitude by the unassimilated North Africans they are going to remain in their festering Banlieus for the forseeable future.

chuck said...


What tends to happen here is that immigrants settle in the old, cheap, and run down areas of cities. Then they provide their own services, grow their own businesses, and move into the local school boards and government. Key to this is the ability to save by using cheap, family labor, to work insane hours at lowpaying jobs, to later get loans from banks, and to take part in local government. I doubt that any of these factors exist in France: the housing and its location is provided by the government, taxes work against family savings, labor laws limit the chance to work hard and advance, investment monies are lacking, and the government is an exclusive club for the graduates of the civil service universities. France embodies all the problems of the EU writ small.

Peter UK said...

Here too,although,misguided,overzealous town planning bulldozed much old housing and business property.The latter was particulary disasterous,since many properties could provide both a home and a business,this was fatal for start up businesses.The municipal housing that replaced the old have no facility for work.Councils also shunted many of the old industries out to the suburbs,slaughterhouses,soot factories and the like.Now city centres,belong to different communities at different times.Day workers and shoppers who live in the suburbs,those who seek entertainment at night,there are also the predators from the adjoining slums.Apart from students in student accomodation and those with money to afford city centre prices,nobody lives in many of our city centres,the ring of the doughnut has been pushed out too far.