Friday, November 04, 2005

Paris is burning because of Muslim immigrants

Amir Taheri:

The troubles first began in Clichy-sous-Bois, an underprivileged suburb east of Paris, a week ago. France's bombastic interior minister, Nicholas Sarkozy, responded by sending over 400 heavily armed policemen to "impose the laws of the republic," and promised to crush "the louts and hooligans" within the day. Within a few days, however, it had dawned on anyone who wanted to know that this was no "outburst by criminal elements" that could be handled with a mixture of braggadocio and batons.

By Monday, everyone in Paris was speaking of "an unprecedented crisis." Both Sarkozy and his boss, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, had to cancel foreign trips to deal with the riots.

How did it all start? The accepted account is that sometime last week, a group of young boys in Clichy engaged in one of their favorite sports: stealing parts of parked cars.

Normally, nothing dramatic would have happened, as the police have not been present in that suburb for years.

The problem came when one of the inhabitants, a female busybody, telephoned the police and reported the thieving spree taking place just opposite her building. The police were thus obliged to do something — which meant entering a city that, as noted, had been a no-go area for them.

Once the police arrived on the scene, the youths — who had been reigning over Clichy pretty unmolested for years — got really angry. A brief chase took place in the street, and two of the youths, who were not actually chased by the police, sought refuge in a cordoned-off area housing a power pylon. Both were electrocuted.

Once news of their deaths was out, Clichy was all up in arms.

With cries of "God is great," bands of youths armed with whatever they could get hold of went on a rampage and forced the police to flee.

The French authorities could not allow a band of youths to expel the police from French territory. So they hit back — sending in Special Forces, known as the CRS, with armored cars and tough rules of engagement.

Within hours, the original cause of the incidents was forgotten and the issue jelled around a demand by the representatives of the rioters that the French police leave the "occupied territories." By midweek, the riots had spread to three of the provinces neighboring Paris, with a population of 5.5 million.

But who lives in the affected areas? In Clichy itself, more than 80 percent of the inhabitants are Muslim immigrants or their children, mostly from Arab and black Africa. In other affected towns, the Muslim immigrant community accounts for 30 percent to 60 percent of the population. But these are not the only figures that matter. Average unemployment in the affected areas is estimated at around 30 percent and, when it comes to young would-be workers, reaches 60 percent.

In these suburban towns, built in the 1950s in imitation of the Soviet social housing of the Stalinist era, people live in crammed conditions, sometimes several generations in a tiny apartment, and see "real French life" only on television.

The French used to flatter themselves for the success of their policy of assimilation, which was supposed to turn immigrants from any background into "proper Frenchmen" within a generation at most.

That policy worked as long as immigrants came to France in drips and drops and thus could merge into a much larger mainstream. Assimilation, however, cannot work when in most schools in the affected areas, fewer than 20 percent of the pupils are native French speakers.

France has also lost another powerful mechanism for assimilation: the obligatory military service abolished in the 1990s.

As the number of immigrants and their descendants increases in a particular locality, more and more of its native French inhabitants leave for "calmer places," thus making assimilation still more difficult.

In some areas, it is possible for an immigrant or his descendants to spend a whole life without ever encountering the need to speak French, let alone familiarize himself with any aspect of the famous French culture.

The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, 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.

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.

So what is the solution? One solution, offered by Gilles Kepel, an adviser to Chirac on Islamic affairs, is the creation of "a new Andalusia" in which Christians and Muslims would live side by side and cooperate to create a new cultural synthesis.

The problem with Kepel's vision, however, is that it does not address the important issue of political power. Who will rule this new Andalusia: Muslims or the largely secularist Frenchmen?

Once again the French prove that they are the masters of the art of surrendering.

"PARIS UNREST" = MUSLIM IMMIGRANT GANG VIOLENCE

Ramadan Rioting in Europe's No-Go Areas

Paris Burning

Pondering Paris: Why Not (Muslim) Emigration?

Muslim youths battle Paris police

Shots fired at police as French leaders bicker over ghetto riots

Paris: Muslims Set Disabled Woman on Fire

3 Comments:

At 9:16 AM, Blogger didymus2000 said...

The new millet system. What a fascinating idea. It already exists in other places: competely different communities, self governing, each having its own relation to the "king". I would use the term "kehilla", though, and not "millet".

To see a working example of the millet/kehilla system in the USA, go to Postville, Iowa, which has two completely separate communities living in the same town: a Christian millet/kehilla and a Jewish kehilla.

Or even better, go to Golders Green, Stamford Hill, Monsey, New Paltz, Williamsburg, or a variety of other shtetls/kehillas throughout the world.

This change is not caused by the Muslims, though. They are just the latest beneficiary of it. It was started long ago with a variety of liberal trends.

For example, look at the effects of:

open borders: serves to permit the free migration of people between local and foreign millets/kehillas and the reinforcement of the millet identity. For example, Mexicans over our southern borders, Pakistanis getting wives and husbands from the motherland.
diversity/multiculturalism: stands for the principle that more millets/kehillas are a good thing
the rejection of assimilation: Jews call assimilation "the second Holocaust" and do not speak of America as a melting pot. A philosophic rejection of assimilation serves to justify and preserve existing millets/kehillas
America as a "proposition nation": US government merely maintains individual freedom and lets each millet/kehilla maintain and advance its own identity and culture. It gets the Federal Government to get out of any culture building activity and limits it to dividing up the goods between millet/kehillas
affirmative action: Stands for the principle that individual merit is bad and that each millets/kehilla should share proportionally in everything according to their numbers. Of ccourse, once the benefits have been divviedd up, each millet/kehilla can distribute them according to its own rules, which may include merit, or may not

All of these trends and movements have prepared the seed bed for the millet/kehilla system over the last fifty years. The more organized millets/kehillas will do well. In America's case, this means the Jews with their incredible web of interlocking Jewish support organizations, ith Indians and Asians not far behind. Indeed, because of their effectiveness, the Jews are the ultimate example that all other ethnic groups follow in the USA. Of course the Indian andd Asian millets have pretty much taken over all science and engineering education, so they are not far behind.

Due to these deep and irreversible trends/movements, an American millet/kehilla system in which ethnic groups (not individuals) share power, authority, and social assets is inevitable in the West and America in particular.

It puts my millet -- white Christians -- way behind the rest, since we suppressed our identity for some fifty years as being "racist".

Now that America and Europe are being divvied up, however, we white Christians are going to have to start organizing our millet more actively and consciously, just as the Black, Jewish, Hispanic, Muslim, Indian and Asian millets are doing.

Now that the blinders are off my eyes, I welcome the challenge. Why, for example, am I as a white Christian paying state taxes to educate Asians and Indians as PhD scientists and engineers since the wealth they create is going to their millet and not mine?

 
At 9:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

we white Christians are going to have to start organizing our millet more actively and consciously, just as the Black, Jewish, Hispanic, Muslim, Indian and Asian millets are doing

Unfortunately, because of Jewish control of the media, any attempt to organize White Christians will result in instant demonization. In addition, the fact that Jewish liberals control the Democratic party while Jewish neocons control the GOP means that the political power structure will continue to undermine White Christian interests.

 
At 12:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"underprivileged"

I do not like at all the way this word is usually used, and the way it is usually used is the way it is used here.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


View My Stats