It has now been over week since the November 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. One of my initial reactions, was to criticise the typically shortsighted Western media coverage of the attacks, which were typically incorrectly jumping to conclusions about the source and objectives of the attack.
They all started their “analysis” by presuming that France was “elected” as a target for this attack by the current Western euphemism for a boogeyman, ISIS or ISIL, in retaliation to some policy or combination of policies that France has applied externally and/or internally. As I wrote subsequent to the attack:
Nothing could be further from the truth. No one “picked” France. The reason there are from 100 to 150 murdered people in Paris in a series of violent terrorist attacks in the last couple of days is because France and Paris are full of Muslims.
To be more precise, France is full of Muslims and still has many non Muslims.
This is the simple truth. And the more that the substantial non Muslim population placates and appeases the Muslim population, the more attacks there will be. France is at the very forefront of Muslim and Arab appeasement, and has been so for decades. This not only emboldens the terrorists, but invites the traditional Muslim population to hold the country in disdain and hatred.
Amazingly, the coverage everywhere was actually desperately trying to find instances and evidence of France being hard on Islamists in order to explain the attack.
Just the quickest cursory search from the mainstream leading newsmen gives us some amazing statements.
The Washington post declared after the attack:
But an aggressive response may also empower the Islamic State.
and…
And France is also deeply involved in counterterrorism, having led airstrikes against the Islamic State since late September. Terror attacks by the Islamic State are only likely to provoke further airstrikes and counterterrorism efforts — as last week’s attack already has [apparently thereby somehow playing into the hands of ISIL and providing it with more recruits]
The UK’s Telegraph not be out-down lets us know in “The Paris terror attacks: Why France has been targeted again?” that:
The short answer is that France fights jihadists worldwide;
and…
Indeed, France takes pride in its proactive stance against Islamists worldwide, especially in the face of what is frequently seen as British and American retreat. Over 10,000 French troops are currently deployed abroad – over 3,000 in Western Africa, 2,000 in Central, and 3,200 in Iraq.
Of course, besides attacking Islamists abroad, France’s own victimized Muslim population is under attack as the Telegraph explains:
The feelings of isolation and exclusion can be overwhelming, with few high profile Muslim role models in business or politics. France’s stridently secular state, the banning of the burka and the power of the Front National have not helped to ease tensions between communities.
and…
Inside France’s prisons, 70 per cent of the inmates are estimated to be Muslims – by law, France cannot ask a person to state their religion, so official data is unavailable. In England and Wales, by comparison, Muslims account for 14 per cent of the prison population, according to Home Office statistics, and five per cent of the population nationwide.
You see, London was not a victim of terror (at least this same week) because it only has a 14% muslim prison population, while France has 70% muslim population. Perhaps more relevant is that the UK has about a total nationwide muslim population of about 5% while France has one of about 10% (and that is why both suffer from terrorism, with France suffering more). Of course that is nationwide, and Paris and London both have much higher muslim populations than that.
Even the Clarion Project, which supposedly is a right leaning institution, tops a list of 5 reasons that France was attacked with these two (not that the other 3 were any better):
France has been fighting the Islamic State and other Islamists.
France has specifically named the Islamist ideology as the problem.
The same old tired lines were played predictably. The muslim communities are not integrated, they are marginalized and pressured into a low socioeconomic status. France has involved itself into too many foreign affairs, and undertaken military operations against muslim groups. And of course, France is to blame for decades of colonialism in muslim lands, and has left deep-rooted problems in this land which account for much of the instability and resentment in these areas. In short, France has been and continues to be too hard line against Islamic peoples, and this is why it was targeted.
This pathetic outlook is true only in an absolute sense that its authors do not intend; France is indeed too hard line in its opposition to Islam… it continues to defy it in that it continues to be a country with a non muslim majority; a population that refuses to accept Mohammed as the prophet; in fact a country with a Catholic majority, and a state that is ruled neither by Islam nor by muslims. So if by softening the opposition, these people mean utter and complete capitulation, together with mass conversion to Islam and sharia law over the land… then perhaps this would in fact appease the Islamists (at least the sunnis or the shia, depending on which way you elect to go, and then the other branch might still attack you) and bring in an end to this specific conflict. Maybe.
But since they instead mean a weakening of their borders, of their Christian faith, of their army and security forces, and ever greater entitlements and “super-rights” to their internal muslim populations… then no, that would not appease, but it would entice.
Now, as tends to be the case, not long after I wrote the lines about muslim terror in France due to the millions of muslims in France, while my ever more popular colleagues opined that ISIS was obviously “upset” at France for some reason, the evidence came out strongly in my favor. Apparently (as I have seen reported, though with some slight variations depending on source…but all significantly in agreement), every single terrorist involved in the Paris attacks was a EU citizen, and either all of them or nearly all of them, born in the EU as well. A nice healthy majority seem to have been born in France.
The exception if there is any exception may be one terrorist who either was also born in Europe or not, but recently entered or re-entered Europe with the infamous Syrian refugee wave, which our Western statesmen also tell us we must accept with open arms.
Still think ISIS elected France in a board meeting in Mosul, and then “infiltrated” its commandos into Europe for the mission? Sure they infiltrated them for the mission, some 20 and 30 years ago when they were born! I of course, as any other who understands the mentality of a western leftist and the mentality of our muslim enemy without being either one, did not need those citizenship reports to know what has been obvious for decades.
On the other hand, I wrote not only that France did not invite these attacks by its hard-line stance against Islam, but rather the opposite, as the very next paragraph to the Paris attack article quoted above continued:
Though the western leftist and liberal love the Muslim and all the traits they would otherwise hate in their countrymen (like gender roles, traditionalism and the like), it is not mutual… and the religious islamist sees the appeasement, the tolerance, the moral relativism and the openness of the society not only as a sign of weakness but also of moral decay. This causes our enemy to believe not only that we should be destroyed, but that we are already on the brink of this destruction.
And then we learn, that in the ISIS or ISIL statement claiming responsibility for the attack (whether true or not) Paris is called the “the capital of abominations and perversion…” A clear reference to the progressive, feminist, socially liberal atmosphere prevalent in France and much of the West today. Far from too hard-line, our own endless capitulation, extreme tolerance and limitless appeasement invites disdain, as opposed to a healthy fear and respect that “hard-line” realpolitik invokes.
This point is not to be taken lightly… this liberalism is the only explanation of how these French citizens can spend their entire life in France, and rather than assimilate into or at least respect French culture, they can despise it and disdain it. All jokes aside about the French, this is possible today in any western culture where progressives rule the airwaves and the national debate. A muslim in 1950s America could not have done that… the strength and belief in relative superiority of Americana would have not have allowed it.
Now, the Western media is not content to only misinterpret the attacks and their raison d’être, but much more worryingly, advise us on precisely wrong courses of action.
The same Washington Post article referenced above goes on to warn us that:
A stronger National Front likely increases anti-immigration legislation, thereby further isolating Muslims in France and helping the Islamic State radicalize and recruit new members.
Lest we forget or go awry we are warned… this is all about a war with those “radical” misinterpreting followers of Islam at ISIS… and we need to focus our efforts there… let’s not even dare think that we may have to consider if having millions of muslims within our borders is a good idea, because just thinking about that will cause more attacks. All time we are told that doing anything that actually would solve our problem or defeat our enemy is “playing right into their hands”…
We are told that if the West stops immigration, or protects its borders, or admits what Islam is, then “they” have won, because that is what the terrorists want.. to divide us, to pit us against each other, and if we fall into that trap, then the all the more reasons for the young muslims to be radicalized and also fall into the trap of “misinterpreting” Islam.
Recognizing a division is not dividing. Seeing your enemy does not make him. Taking off your sunglasses does not the sun create. Make no mistake, the West, as always, is at war for its survival. The only difference is that for the very first time, it refuses to believe so.
Let me tell you what is “playing right into their hands”… because they understand the western ways, especially the leftist western ways, much better than we understand them. Symbolism over substance is playing into their hands. A few, expensive, ineffective missiles lobbed at ISIS in Iraq or Syria or elsewhere is playing right into their hands. It’s not about whether we should bomb ISIS or not. It hardly matters (though perhaps to stop backing them as Obama has done for years now would be a good start). There is literally no military threat posed by the Arab states on the west, nor of the phalangot (in “Israeli” slang) aka the tattered and undisciplined militias running amok within them.
As I explained from the outset of the Islamic state phenomena, which the media first portrayed as a wave of mighty barbarian warriors overrunning everything in their path, these jihadists are just sunni muslims, taking control of towns where they are already a large majority. They can just raise their black flags over their home towns. And sure, do unspeakable things to life and property of smaller minorities who live among them.
As I wrote in an article about Israel and the conflict in Gaza:
Though the media makes ISIS look like Mongolian hordes capturing territory seemingly out of nowhere, it is more accurate to realize they are simply Sunni jihadists overthrowing non-sunni governments where they already represent a majority. This is why ISIS has not been able to take southern Shiite Iraq, or even Kurdish regions, or even the Alawite Syrian regime, but wherever there are sunni majorities already, it has done quite well (in no small measure thanks to the Obama administration’s support as well as that of Qatar). In the case of Gaza, these “hordes” even if they existed, have no way to enter in any significant number, so any ISIS rule of Gaza would be nothing but a name change, by the people already there (who in fact are virtually all Sunni Muslims).
In any event, we are still waiting for them to “arrive” at the Golan heights for their invasion of Israel. They cannot invade (at least not successfully) Israel, nor Europe nor anything else else that doesn’t already have a large Sunni majority. Bombing them or not bombing them has more to do with geopolitical considerations, in order to keep certain factions in power in certain areas of the muslim world… and sure, intelligently not allow one faction to rule it all as the Caliphate once did, which could then ultimately prove to be an actual military threat to the West.
But that is currently a non-threat and only quite remotely a mild threat, the demographic destruction of the western world is an extremely real and existential threat already!
You can bomb northern Iraq and Syria or not bomb it, and jihadists can rule there or Assad and the Alawites can reestablish their rule, Iraq can settle down to a somewhat peaceful federation of kurd, sunni and shiite regions, or it can break up into 3 or more states or even be absorbed in whole or in part by its neighbors and/or you can have a combination of any of these and though it is interesting… it does not matter… not in comparison to the invasion of the west that is taking place with the Western encouragement.
The progressives and leftists who run the education system in the Western world have fed us their drivel about multiculturalism for many decades, and the Paris attack, and the many that will unfortunately follow it are its fruits. It’s early fruits. It will get much worse. As a child, victim of this very drivel I could never understand it as anything but self loathing. It is beautiful to see, study and respect other cultures… thank gd then for airplanes. Take a vacation and study and enjoy any culture you want! But if you treasure your own culture half as much as you treasure all the other ones spread around the world… then why should it be overrun with your permission?
Why should it fall without a shot?
This has nothing to do with the good or bad intentions of the would-be immigrants. If you want to hand over your country to other peoples, they will take it.. and that does not necessarily make them bad people. It makes you a bad person in my book, because you handed over your forefathers’ heritage, and your childrens’ stake to others; others who knew not only how to defend theirs but expand it, just as well as you knew how to betray and lose yours.
In fact, if the Western borders are going to continue to remain wide open for illegal and legal immigration from every third world and unstable country on earth, then all the better ISIS not get bombed. All the better not to meddle at all. The very conflict and destabilization of the region that the west backed as part of the touted (not touted here though) “Arab Spring” encouraged the massive immigration (as I predicted then). Not a good idea to cause wars, good or bad, in regions near and far if you first can’t protect your own border.
Indeed while the media have done some incredible feats of acrobatic research in-order to portray France as a leading force stopping Islamist expansion, rather than being the greatest gateway of that expansion into Europe, not after this latest attack but the previous horrendous terrorist attack in Paris, the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, I wrote in that article:
…perhaps France and the rest of the appeasement-loving west should take note that something is odd here… France who opposes Israel at every opportunity, who opposes US global policies, who invites countless thousands of legal and illegal muslim immigration to its shores, a France that taxes the “evil” wealthy and wealth creation to the utmost extreme in order to provide socialist “justice” for all its citizens, foremost the large waves of legal and illegal muslim immigrants, a France that just days ago voted for the recognition of a palestinian state in the UN; why is this same France subject to ravaging terrorist attacks?
Why do these Islamists not instead embrace and love the country that embraces them and every anti-western policy it can? Is there something the leftists are not getting here?? Yes indeed there is
France is subject to islamist terror because it has invited millions of islamists to live within its shores. They will either be defeated, or France will.
And so, though the pundits continue to Monday morning quarterback about this or that, it is evident, though still largely unmentionable, to the clear-eyed populations of the Western world, that demographic invasion is its downfall. This is why candidates such as Donald Trump have touched a raw nerve in the electorate that the pundits can also not understand. The West will either shake off its political correct shackles, name it’s enemies and friends, and most importantly once again protect the borders that no country can be sustained without, perhaps even send people back to their homes to make their lives better there rather than others’ worse here, or it will go into that good night… and in that case I don’t believe the last throes before it does will be gentle all.
Facebook Comments
WordPress Comments
Disqus Comments