www.adamyoshida.com |
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Why I’m for Coercive Interrogation
The debate over “torture” is absurd. To begin with, the word itself conjures up an image very different from what is being discussed. “Torture” brings to mind the image of senseless and sadistic abuse and, while I have no particular objection to such abuses being inflicted upon the monsters we are fighting, I can see why some would object. What we are talking about – and what some want to ban – is the directed use of pain and coercion to extract necessary and, in some cases, literally life-saving information. “Torture” is probably a bad thing. “Coercive Interrogation” on the other hand is an unqualified good. Only a supreme moral idiot or a pacifist (but I repeat myself) would seriously argue that we should refrain from the use of effective force and coercion in interrogation in the service of some vague and valueless moral principle. It is absurd to believe that it is acceptable for us to maim and kill our enemies but somehow wrong to subject them to waterboarding in order to gain information which will save lives. Let’s post a few hypothetical situations by way of moral clarification. 1) A captured terrorist has vital information about the location of a nuclear device controlled by al-Qaeda which is set to go off within twenty-four hours. He is entirely uncooperative. If he is not tortured, hundreds of thousands will probably die. How do we make him talk? 2) US forces raid a bomb factory in Baghdad, only to find that the people they were hoping to find there have already left for their targets – a group of Iraqi civilians. If given enough information, US forces can probably save a hundred Iraqi lives - and possibly American ones as well. What should be done? 3) US interrogators capture a vital al-Qaeda member who is filled with information about the group’s global operations. No attack is known to be imminent – but, then again, we don’t know what he knows. He refuses to answer any questions. Should coercion be used to make him talk? 4) A serial killer is captured after having kidnapped a child. The child is trapped in a location where investigators have been unable to find her. The killer offers her location in exchange for avoiding the death penalty. She may be dead. She may not. There’s no way of knowing other than to take his offer – unless… I put it to you that anyone who would oppose the use of coercive interrogation under such circumstances is, to put it simply, a damnable fool. Only a moral absolutist of the most absurd construction would disallow the use of strong and necessary interrogative techniques under such conditions. To put it simply, anyone who believes that we should rob ourselves of necessary tools – that we should tie one hand behind our back – is either a moron of the highest rank or a moral coward of extraordinary cynicism – one willing to risk lives for the sake of an abstract and silly moral principle. We face an enemy of the most dangerous sort imaginable: both merciless and undeterable. They can strike anywhere – even where you or I live. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want people I know to die in a terrorist attack because our leaders were more concerned about the imaginary rights of alleged people than they were about the people they are sworn to protect. The greatest problem here is the fact that, regrettably, a majority of the public have been conditioned by years of softness to view “torture” as being a great moral wrong. Those of common sense may well understand the uses of the practice but, alas, common sense is hardly common among the common folk these days. Listening to the half-informed rantings of people on this subject, I often recall Churchill’s remark that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with an average voter. Since, in great swathes of the West, the average voters are the forty year-old Soccer Mom who won’t let her kids play with toy guns and her whipped husband, it should common as little surprise that pandering politicians are eager to slavishly attempt to cater to the desire of Mrs. Organic-Food-Buyer that the war, if it have to be fought, be waged in a thoroughly PG-13 fashion. A great majority of the people’s attitude towards this war is, to paraphrase a great man, that they don’t mind if we flush terrorists out – but they don’t like our methods. Someone ought to ask those people how they propose to stop terrorism by their methods. This is a war to be waged through unwavering unsentimentally about all things. We know that this sort of stuff works – all the blather about how “torture doesn’t work” is simply a convenient excuse for people of a certain type to dodge the essential moral question – how far do we go in our defense? It certainly is true that the badly-conceived or pointless use of coercive techniques might not work. Is it true that other techniques, if well-executed, won’t work? I don’t believe it to be so. In fact, all historic evidence suggests otherwise. The other traditional argument against the “mistreatment” of enemy prisoners is that it will encourage the enemy to do the same to those of us they capture. Well, I would respectfully point out that the enemy has yet to decline to murder a prisoner, making this a non-issue. The problem with this whole debate is that it betrays a fundamental lack of seriousness about this war. When we hesitate before using all means – when we don’t drive the knife in the whole of the way – we show a lack of commitment which is evident to the enemy. The enemy won’t hesitate to behead those of us they take captive if they believe it will bring them an advantage, yet we argue about whether or not it is permissible even to “humiliate” an enemy, let alone to threaten them or injure them out of necessity. What does that say to the enemy? The enemy does not see our mercy or kindness as a sign of our inner goodness – as the proponents of a policy of softness seem to hope. Instead, the enemy sees our weakness for what it is. In our weakness it sees an irresolution that can be exploited. In our weakness it finds the hope to continue. For, if we are weak – if we aren’t willing to do whatever it takes to win – then it must follow in the mind of the enemy, especially in light of our previous retreats, that it is simply a matter of finding the right level of violence and that then they will have victory. Saturday, November 19, 2005
A Small Sign of a Big Weakness: The Story of Abdul Karim Khadr
The other day, on hearing of the Liberal “tax cut”, I got out my records to see how much I would save. I’m not going to say how much or continue one about that, as it’s not why I’m writing. Looking at those taxes, and a story in the newspaper, reminded me of something that I’ve been meaning to write about for a long time – the story of a teenager named Abdul Karim Khadr. He lives in Ontario now. He’s paralyzed. Your – and more importantly my – tax dollars are paying for his medical care. Oh, yes. And he’s a terrorist. The youngest terrorist of the Khadr clan who was wounded while fighting alongside his fellow al-Qaeda members against our allies, the Pakistanis. And we’re paying for his care. Nothing, I think, can better illustrate just what is wrong with our society. Here’s this man who is wounded overseas fighting alongside people who have killed our citizens and those of our allies. His family has never renounced their support for terrorism. Indeed, to return to this country, he and his family had to be issued new passports – they having presumably handed their old ones off to be used by other terrorists. And you (and I) are paying for his care. It’s not about the money. If you consider everything the government spends money on, you and I are probably paying a fraction of a fraction of a cent towards it. It’s the principle of the thing. I’d gladly pay hundreds of dollars to have him denied medical care. That we are, without any real fuss being made, subsidizing the health of this self-confessed “al-Qaeda family” says a great deal about what is wrong with Western Civilization and why this war against a band of sub-human thugs has proven to be so difficult. Here’s a guy – a citizen – who was wounded overseas while fighting for our enemy and against us. He gave his passport away, probably to terrorists. But, when he needs medical care, he runs back to Canada – and we take him, with open arms. Hell, we probably even paid to bring him back to the country. No one even really kicked up a fuss about it. We are a society crippled by emotionalism and sentimentality. The Khadr’s fully-understood that we are far too weak to ever be so cruel as to deny anyone medical care, even someone who requires it because they have been fighting overseas as part of the enemy’s forces. Can you imagine such a scenario unfolding fifty years ago? I can’t. A Korean who went to Korea and fought alongside North Korean forces would have been no more welcome back in Canada – let alone to be cared for by us – than a Roman who fought alongside the Carthaginians would have been welcomed back into Rome. This is a weakness and a potentially fatal one at that. As its core, the pathological stupidity of modern liberalism arises out of a willingness to substitute certain emotions for common sense while, at the same time, seeking to suppress other ones. The left is for emotion over reason and for compassion over vengeance. That is all well and good in the playground and on Oprah but, in the real world, it is all so terribly foolish. Our enemies will not reciprocate our mercy, but instead laugh at us for our weakness. One of the reasons why our enemies are so willing and eager to attack us is that they see us as a cowardly and effete society, full of corrupted and decadent values, and they believe that we will not have the courage to resist them. When we do things like this, we only give them greater reason to hold those beliefs. Now, some will say, “what are we supposed to do then, let him die?” To which I would answer, “Yes, of course.” They are the enemy. We want them dead. The greatest foolishness of this war has been the desire to avoid bloodshed among the ranks of the enemy. Tactically, the objective of any force in war should be to inflict maximum death and destruction upon the enemy while minimizing losses on out side. Until we are willing to accept that – to know that war means killing – we will remain unable to secure the final triumph. Some may say that it is “inhuman” to let a teenager suffer and possibly die under such circumstances. If he were one of ours, I might agree. But, to paraphrase a great man, I would like to remind you that terrorists are not humans and they don’t deserve to be treated like humans. Terrorists are sub-human scum. Their lives are worth less than those of insects. Indeed – there are good reasons not to actively seek out and exterminate every insect on the Earth. The same cannot be said for terrorists. For us to win – for us to triumph against the declared Islamic ambition to conquer the world – we must wage a war of total annihilation with no quarter sought or expected. It is not enough to merely defeat the enemy – we must grind his face into the Earth, snap his neck, and burn all that he loves to cinders. We will not emerge victorious through tactical victories. It is entirely possible that we could, as in Vietnam, win every battle and still lose the war. To win in a total war we must achieve a victory as total and as complete as that achieved over Germany and Japan six decades ago. We will not see that glorious day until the bodies of the Islamists, and all who support them, are scattered across the land like the worthless trash that they are. We will not win until ten thousand of the enemy have been burned off the Earth, like the contagion they are, for every one of ours that they have taken. Then, and only then, will this be over and freedom secured. But how will we eradicate the cancer when we cannot excise even this one small tumor? That is what the Abdul Khadr represents: our insane unwillingness to use the force necessary to save our civilization from these monsters. For, if we cannot refuse care to a traitor wounded while fighting alongside the enemy against our cause, how will we ever conjure up the strength to do everything else that we must? In this war there have been good days and there have been bad days. I fear that there will be many more of the latter to come if we do not grow to accept – and then do – what must be done. Monday, November 07, 2005
“The River Tiber Foaming With Much Blood”
It is no exaggeration to describe the events in France – now spreading through Europe – as the first stages in what, ultimately, is nothing less than a battle for the survival of Western Civilization as we know it. I have written before that the great flaw of our modern life is the “illusion of permanence”, by which I refer to the presumption underlying leftist economic and social ideals that we operate in a vacuum and are unaffected by outside events and influences. Leftism, both in its social and economic variants, inherently weaken any society, making them less able to effectively resist threats from both within and without. Barring some astounding turn-about I would wager money that, at this point, France is effectively doomed. Its Islamic population is, quite clearly, utterly hostile to the French nation and people – and its growing at a rapid rate while white France is dying. However the present events are settled, it is quite clear that, in another generation at the most, the only way to save the French will be through the sort of brutal campaign which reclaimed Spain from Moorish savages. As the Islamic population of the French Republic marches towards 25% and then to 50%, the native Frenchmen of means will pack up and resettle abroad much as the Pied-noir’s left Algeria. In all frankness, I fully expect that – by the year 2040 or so, French émigrés will be as common as South African ones are in certain places today, and they will be equally full of stories of the glory of their former homeland. Leftism has killed France. Economic leftism stalled the economy and allowed the creation of a massive class of unproductive and dangerous scum and flotsam gathered, like a cancer, in clusters across the body of the nation. Social leftism allowed that cancer to metastasize without detection – and then it prevented any treatment while it would have done some good. Now we are left with little more than a choice between the bad and the worse – attempting radical surgery or sending the patient off for palliative care. Those not watching closely fail to understand the seriousness of what is going on here. These riots are not confined to any one area – they have spread out across the nation as a whole and, indeed, have now seemingly spread even beyond the borders of France. They cannot be contained by any mild means such as a curfew. At this point the only real options are to attempt to appease the rioters, to wait them out and hope that some combination of exhaustion and running out of things to burn will stop them, or to shoot them dead in the streets. Virtually everyone reading this knows that I favor the latter – but I fully expect the French government to adopt some combination of the first two. Doing so – allowing these riots to procede without an effective response – will ultimately prove fatal to France as we have known it. As in Israel and elsewhere, the scum will only gain courage through our timidity. They will (correctly in my view) interpret French hesitation as a sign of weakness, not as a mercy. And, even if they do stop – they will be back. They will be back because they have learned what so many have dangerously learned in the last century – that weak-willed Western governments are virtually powerless against any sort of ethnic or religious movement whose pretentions to oppression find favor in the Western media and intelligentsia. Israel versus the Palestinians? The British versus the Irish? The South African whites versus the ANC? The United States versus the Vietnamese? Who came out ahead in the end of all of those? And who, based upon the relative strengths of each group, should have come out ahead? In virtually every case where a Western power, even supposedly ruthless and imperialistic Western powers, have come up against some allegedly aggrieved minority, the Western power has eventually given in – largely thanks to the efforts of cowards, fools, traitors and fifth-columnists within the ranks of the West. Some, mostly those who make apologies and excuses for every Moslem atrocity and act of aggression against the West (but some not) are attempting to downplay the Islamic character of this assault against the fabric of Western Civilization. Their arguments are patent nonsense – of course this is about Islam. The rioters may not, individually, be the world’s most ardent Moslems – but neither were the soldiers of the Wehrmacht necessarily the most devoted of Nazis. Whatever the proximate causes of the riots – poverty, etc – the real cause is clear to anyone with an open mind: the unlimited aggressive aims of Islam and the aim of Moslem leadership to, ultimately, conquer the whole of the West. Whatever the individual rioter might be fighting for – loot, fun – the people organizing these riots and building bomb factories clearly have Islamist aims. One has to be blind not to see and accept this. Why are these riots spreading? Who is organizing them? What do they want? All of this is fairly clear to me. The riots are spreading because of the ineffective response of the French authorities and because modern technology (the internet and cell phones, most notably) are being used to propagandize and organize them. It is significant that the French government has felt it necessary to arrest a number of bloggers in the last day. Who is organizing these riots? I doubt if there’s a single central organizer here, anymore than there is a single central organizer for al-Qaeda. Instead, the riots are being urged on and given direction by Islamists and their allies, who are experts at this sort of thing. They are no more an organic phenomenon than the “spontaneous demonstrations” of dictatorships are. The rioters might be out there for fun and frolic – but they’re not alone. And they have a plan. And what is that plan? That is fairly obvious. The plan is to thoroughly intimidate the French state – and by extension the rest of Europe – and to force them into slavish obedience to the demands of the various Mohammedan clerics and Mullahs. It is to, ultimately, force the French authorities to surrender democratic principle and instead to accept the idea that Moslems may only be policed and governed by other Moslems – a principle which the Islamists will then aim to extend throughout Europe and into North America. And, once the French accede in the creation of a Palestine of the Seine, then the demands for its expansion will be not so much immediate as continuous. There is only one way to recover the situation in the short term – and I hold out very little hope for it. France – and much of Europe – will only be saved if the French have the guts to use the sort of force which the situation now demands. The phrase “read the riot act” originates from a real piece of British legislation. The Riot Act provided that various authorities could order any riotous assembly to disperse within one hour on pain of death – and they meant it. France may now only be saved through the emulation of that fine Anglo-Saxon tradition. The French must deploy their army and their police – with live ammunition – and order the Moslems to disperse without delay. If they fail to do so (and they surely will, given the feckless performance of the French up to this date) then the French should, however bad it might look on camera, see to it that the streets are smeared red with Mohammedan blood. I say this without glee – I make this statement with considerable regret. It should not have come to this. But is has. No other option remains to save the French nation and, with it, the rest of Europe from the horrific fate which is overtaking it. Only the crash of the Musket and the cold steel of the bayonet can now save France. Nearly four decades ago now, Enoch Powell was excoriated by the respectable for the set for his warning that, unless something was done about uncontrolled immigration, he could foresee, “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.” However, do not mistake my pessimism as to the present situation as a belief that we are doomed. Even should France and other great states of Europe fall to the Islamic hordes, it will not be the end. As we did in the World Wars, the people of the New World shall step forth and block-by-block and street-by-street we will retake the great cities and landmarks of our civilization just as the barbarians were evicted from Rome and just as the Moors were ejected from Spain. Sunday, November 06, 2005
As Predicted...
Though I haven't seen it yet, I've been pulling for "Walk the Line" for Best Picture next year - but I'm fairly sure that it won't win. But, for a long time, I've been predicting that the winner will be Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain" which Drudge is now suggesting. It's easy to predict - it's why I knew that "Million Dollar Baby" would win last year, even though it was a mediocre film (and faced the far-superior "Aviator"). You can typically guess who's going to win if there's a movie with some sort of socially liberal message. Saturday, November 05, 2005
Blood on the Streets of Paris
The time has come for the use of violent force to quell the riots in France. Indeed, the time came days ago but now, I fear, we have reached a moment where the future of Western Civilization can be secured only by the shedding of blood. I say this with regret, but full of the conviction that conflict today will prevent a great tragedy tomorrow. By now the situation is well-known to all. After the deaths, nine days ago, of two Islamic youth in what can only be described as an active example of evolution-in-action (hint for future: electrocution = bad) the various Moslem malcontents of France began what, at this point, can best be characterized as a French Intifada. The French Government is, not unnaturally, trying to play these events down. However “Intifada” is exactly the correct label to place upon these disturbances. We have, in recent days, seen the burning of hundreds of cars, stone throwing attacks against the police, sniping against the police, and the lighting of people – including one female bystander – alight without cause. Moreover, the demands of the rioters are increasingly beginning to become clear. The ultimate goal of those looking beyond the window they’re about to smash is for the French authorities to cede civil authority over various areas of France inhabited by Moslems (presumably while continuing to pay the costs of welfare). This is a dangerous time for the future of the West. It is very possible that, all tough talk aside, the French might make some concessions to the rioters. Indeed, given the history of the French, it is more likely that they will do so than they will not. However, in the French do give in to Islamic demands, it will truly and fully inaugurate the process of the Israelification (or Ulsterization, if you will) of Europe – leading to an age where Islamic outrages are followed by mild European push-back, tough talk and finally concessions. Those who have laughed at conservative fears of a future Moslem Europe need look no further than France today to see how it could happen. Imagine, for a moment, if the French authorities were to concede civil authority over various areas of France to the 10% of the population which is Islamic. What happens in two decades when 20% of the population is Moslem (a virtual certainly)? The only option, in that case, would be to cede more of France to them. And what after that? Given present fertility rates and immigration patterns, many of us alive today (including myself) could live to see the day when Moslems become a majority in France. And, as goes France, so will go other parts of Europe. If the French concede to their Moslems some form of civic autonomy, soon the Moslems of Italy, Denmark, Holland, Britain and elsewhere will be rioting for the same – if it isn’t simply handed to them by fearful and cowardly politicians in advance. If France gives in, then it becomes likely that Europe – like Israel – will gradually be chipped away at by the insidious forces of Islam. Inch by inch, the Moslems of today will achieve – with the help of craven and guilt-ridden European politicians – what their forbearers could not achieve through war via demographic conquest. We cannot rescue France now, as we rescued them in the World Wars. There is no practical way. The French will have to do it on their own – and their reliability remains doubtful, at best. But it is in their hands now. Order must be restored to the streets – we cannot allow the Moslems to create Palestine on the Seine. It would be the beginning of the end. There is now only one way to restore order – with shot and shell. As harsh as it sounds, there is now no alternative to blood running in the streets of Paris. Indeed – it is now the preferable option. Even to allow the riots to simply recede – followed by concessions – would be to postpone the date of the cataclysm to come. The French need to send in the army with live ammunition – ready to do their duty. It is essential to the future of France and to the future of Europe that a message be sent and that immediate steps be taken to repeal the Moslem foe. This begins with the restoration of order – but it does not end there. Given the dire situation of the French (with one in ten people being a Moslem and that number rising) there is no other option, really, but to both cut off further Islamic immigration and then to conduct mass deportations. It may not be practical to deport every Moslem – but a large number of troublemakers will have to be removed, perhaps even some who are formally citizens of France. Steps of these sort are the only way to save France from the fate which she is marching towards. No other way can be found of restoring the nation and saving it from destruction. The time has come to discard sentimentality and to accept that, for the future to be saved, lives will have to be lost. Friday, November 04, 2005
The French Intifada?
Nearly four years ago, at the time of the 2002 French elections, I said at various places that, were I a Frenchman, I’d hold my nose and vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen, however repugnant I found most of his ideas (specifically his anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism) simply because he was the one man in France in a position of national power with the courage to say what had to be said – and who knew what had to be done – about the one overriding issue of the day. I wonder how many people agree with me now. I wonder how many of the French agree with me now. I fully admit to being upset with France over Iraq. But I was never really angry, the way that some people were. It was a “more in sorrow than in anger” thing. France was a great nation once – a nation of high military and cultural achievements. But, somewhere along the line, the bottom fell out of the thing. I doubt if there are many who would argue against me if I were to assert that France is a dying nation, has been dying for some time, and the odds are that it will soon be gone. The rioting in France is, as we all know, escalating. It’s a story which is being both underreported and misreported. This is a pity, because it is of critical importance to the future of the Western world. Virtually all reports in the Western media, for reasons which can only be characterized as political, have continued to ignore the key fact of the riots: the religious background of the rioters. Nothing that is going on in France right now can be understood without first knowing a few simple facts. Fact #1: The overwhelming majority of the rioters are Moslems. Fact #2: More than one in ten people in France (and that number is growing) is a Moslem. Fact #3: For many years the French police, being fearful of confrontation, have allowed large areas of Paris – and other Moslem communities – to become no go zones, with police only entering when absolutely necessary and even then only entering with the massive use of force. Those are the facts that the media is leaving out of this. Nor do they, or many other people for that matter, seem to be noticing another obvious fact: the “rioting” in Paris at this point is coming to strongly resemble the Palestinian Intifada against Israel. From the scenes in the streets to the sniping one can see the echoes of earlier events in Israel – especially the first Intifada of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. The implications of this are alarming and full of danger for the future of the West. I am not, of course, suggesting that France is on the verge of becoming Islamic or anything like that. What I am suggesting is that, without forceful and swift action by the French Government, we will rapidly move forward to the moment (if we have not arrived there already) from which future generations will mark the beginning of the Battle for Europe. Consider for a moment the fact that, if present conditions continue, in no more than a few decades one in five people in France will be a Moslem. If conditions persist for another two decades after that – taking into account the potential of the flight of the native French and their already-low fertility rate, it remains within the realm of possibility that France could become an Islamic nation. I’m not saying that will be so, but this much I do say: the demographic momentum is with the Moslems. If the French Government capitulates to the rioters – if they grovel before fascists and criminals as quickly and thoroughly as their Vichy ancestors did – this will be only the beginning. As France’s Moslems have achieved concessions, so will those in Britain, Norway, Italy, Holland and elsewhere demand the same. And, the first concessions having opened the door, Europe will soon enter and endless cycle of violence by Moslems followed by equivocation by governments followed by cave-ins to violence, as we’ve seen everywhere in the world where the government, preferring orderly surrender to a violent defense of freedom, has conceded the legitimacy of terror. For some reason my mind rushes back to Pat Buchanan’s speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. The image of National Guardsmen, taking Los Angeles back from the rioters block by block – that’s what comes to mind. The draft riots in New York, in 1863, when the streets ran red with blood of traitorous scum shot down by Union men. That is what France needs now. A bloodletting today – an offering to God so to speak – may save us untold horrors tomorrow. The sort of criminals running wild on French streets understand only force and so force should be used against them. There’s no reason to use expensive rubber bullets when live ones will do. If the French still retain the resolve of a great people, they should show the world what happens to the sort of sub-human garbage now littering French streets. Wednesday, November 02, 2005
The Crisis in France
With the seventh day of rioting in France set to begin in a few hours, it’s clear that we are witnessing a story of global importance that the media – including ostensibly ‘conservative’ media outlets like Fox News – is determined to ignore. What we are witnessing may, if inadequate corrective action is not taken, be the beginning of what many of us have feared: the fall of Europe to a Moslem rabble determined to reverse the efforts generations of valiant Europeans who defended the continent against Islamic invasion. The riots began nearly a week ago, when two Moslem teenagers, fleeing the police (though it is unclear if the police were exactly pursuing them) jumped a wall and ended up being electrocuted by a transformer station. Some might call this natural selection in action – but not everyone is a fan of the Darwin Awards. Naturally, the residents of the Paris’ Moslem ghettos didn’t take the news of their deaths so philosophically. It would seem that the violence is escalating. In the first days, it was confined to Clichy-sous-Bois, a Moslem suburb. Since then it has spread – allowed to move unchecked it will surely consume all of the Moslems in Paris, and perhaps elsewhere in France and, possibly, even across the rest of Europe. The particulars of the Moslem problem in France are well known. Through immigration France has a population which, at this very moment, is about 10% Islamic – and that population is growing fast. They are not distributed generally across the nation, but rather concentrated in poverty-stricken suburbs near major metropolitan areas. They are not integrated into France’s population, but rather have been kept culturally apart from them. France’s problem is more serious than can be imagined. At the present rates, in little more than a decade or two, one in five Frenchmen will be a Moslem. Nor is it likely that, having reached this critical mass, efforts at integration at this late date will be successful. Some conservatives, still bitter towards the French for their behavior with regard to Iraq, wish France ill. I’m not among those people. France is a great nation with, though with a number of regrettable exceptions in the last seventy years or so, a history worthy of pride. It is, along with Germany, at the core of Continental Europe. We need France to survive. Now, there is still a path back for France. There is still time for the nation to be saved. To begin, the Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, must be willing to use all force – including the most extreme. If we’ve learned anything from Baghdad in the Spring of 2003 and New Orleans in 2005 it’s that the best way to prevent civil disturbances from spreading and spinning out of control, it’s the overwhelming exercise of power. Fill the streets with troops and, if necessary, order them to shoot to kill. There is, quite simply, no other way. Obviously, this is not a practical long-term solution. Instead, we must accept that, in dealing with dangerous immigrants, there’s only one truly practical solution: mass deportation. France must screen the immigrants already within the nation and separate those with the willingness and potential to be useful French citizens from the potentially dangerous. It will be necessary to be unsentimental about these things – it might even be necessary to strip away French citizenship from some prior to deportation. The above might sound harsh and cruel – it probably is – but it is also undoubtedly a necessary thing. Given the scale of the problem – and Islam’s notorious inability to work with others – there is simply no other way. No Western nation, in the age of Islamic extremism, is prepared to absorb millions upon millions of Moslems into its ranks. Period. Full stop. Samuel Huntington has well-documented Islam’s bloody borders. The news is, daily, full of stories of Muslim v. (Your Group Here) conflicts. Moslems v. Christians in Iraq. Moslems v. Jews in Israel. Moslems v. Hindus in India. So far as I can tell, the only reason that Moslems aren’t waging an aggressive war against Scientologists is their lack of a nation of their own. Unless the French take strong action – unless this can be contained – what we are now seeing is simply a sign of things to come. Without real action, this will simply be the first riot. |