|
|||
The fire in FranceTrackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: Comments
A very good article by David Warren. The most important theme he presents is that "France" is not a unified geographic area run by the Sun King. It is divided. Ages before the Muslims were given social benefits, to include housing (the places are better than North Africa and the former French Congo areas), there were warnings about the downstream situation. Today is the downstream situation. Charles Martel knew how to solve the problem. To be fair, however, Napolean did also. Kol tuv, Posted by: BobW on November 6, 2005 12:34 PM
"The old Catholic France" Right. The same that murdered the Huguenots wholesale and attempted to put all men under the servitude of the established government religion thus literally creating Revolutionary France. There is nothing right about France. She is rotten to the core. Posted by: scott on November 6, 2005 01:57 PM
Judging by his writings, David Warren is normally a sane person. But when I read that Warren despises "France of the Enlightenment and the Revolution", I begin to doubt his sanity. Even worse, "the old Catholic France is the apple of my eye", asserts Warren, forgetting that he is talking about the Catholic-militaristic France who wrongly convicted Captain Alfred Dreyfus out of raw anti-Semitism. What kind insanity is that? And then, of course, there are the Huguenots, as Scott reminds us in Comment #2 above. Posted by: Joseph Alexander Norland on November 6, 2005 08:26 PM
I would point out that the France that convicted Captain Dreyfus was exactly that France of the Enlightenment and the Revolution which David Warren despises. Old, Catholic France died with the exile of the last legitimate King, Charles X, in 1830. As to the Huegenots, shall we bring up the anti-Catholic laws in most, if not all, of northern Europe at the time? Posted by: Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm on November 7, 2005 01:47 AM
Catholic, Protestant ... it matters not but that when the state weds the church no good can come of it. Strong religious morality is what underpins a society and is what kept the American Revolution from going the way of the French Revolution. The American Revolution led to the greatest renaissance of all time. The French Revolution lead to slaughter, chaos and Napoleon. Why the difference. Separation of church and state. Good for the state. Good for the church. When religion becomes a state religion it breeds rebellion, apostasy and false doctrine. Luther and his ilk murdered the Anabaptists just as the Pope murderd his 'apostate' victims. I maintain that France still suffers from it's atheistic revolution whereas the Left is still struggling here in America to bring about like debauchery. I think they are winning however. Posted by: scott on November 7, 2005 01:58 PM Post a comment |
The fire in France
David Warren
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 clue.
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.
Posted by Ted Belman at November 6, 2005 09:38 AM