Monday, November 07, 2005

The Face Of Anarchy

Atrios had a good post yesterday, I thought, concerning the rioting in France, stating that its roots lay more with the riots in this country from the 60s more so than anything tied to terrorism (that is, the rioting stems from the denial of economic opportunity and social acceptance, though those actually are “seeds” from which terrorism can flourish of course). The Inquirer’s report yesterday stated that some of the rioters have organized well and are using blogs and cell phones to communicate with each other (tools currently used by terrorists to attack this country and elsewhere in the world), which certainly lets me know that someone has organized them.

Of course, this begs another question for me; if they have the means to acquire this technology, why are they using it to blow up buildings and set cars on fire instead of trying to find work and build their lives? However, I have never lived in that area of the world and I admit that there’s a lot about it that I don’t understand.

Also, my online reading about this once again proved how bizarre the radical right-wing element is in this country. Instapundit, which is supposed to be mainstream, said something along the lines of “the second front opened by the American Left is collapsing,” or some such paranoid delusional nonsense, and I won’t dignify the other right-wing sites with further comment. I then realized that I could populate my own site with all kinds of interesting content if I were not bound by the moral constraint of trying to tell the truth as best as I can as well as the scientific realities of the laws of time and space.

In search of legitimate information on the subject of immigrants living in this country (immigrants being defined for my purposes as individuals who have come to this country since about 2000 or so...ultimately, just about ALL OF US are immigrants from one point or another), I came across this link that provides government information, likely from the Bureau of the Census.

You can probably see where I’m going with this; I’m trying to determine if something like what is going on in France could happen in this country. It definitely could. Actually, it did in the 60s to a point with the race riots, but it wasn’t as organized as what we’re seeing now – it was more sheer rage and vandalism for its own sake and not some coordinated effort to attack the government. That was the stated purpose of groups such as The Weathermen, but fortunately, that was a small fringe element by comparison.

We should try to understand the true domestic threat in order to prevent it, of course, so I went to the FBI’s web site to read the latest stories and profile updates of suspects. There are a few stories about preventing nuclear terrorism as well as “cyber crime,” missing person stories, and scams related to Hurricane Katrina. All of the work to fight this is commendable. However, I couldn’t really find out anything on the fight against domestic terrorism, which may be by design, I’m not sure. I did, instead, find this link from the Southern Poverty Law Center which provides information regarding hate group activity in this country.

I think if anything such as the riots in France were to take place in this country, it would be from groups such as those that spawned Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. These people are coordinated across the country in strategic areas and can mobilize quickly with other groups (you can get an idea from the map accessible from the SPLC site). Our most recent immigrant arrivals have not dealt with the simmering, longstanding hostilities that those in Europe have dealt with, leading to the recent events in France. However, I think it would take a particular event or charismatic and cunning individual to bring the “homegrown” terrorists together, rally supporters, or recruit followers (I’m thinking the Branch Davidian or Ruby Ridge incidents, though on a larger scale).

All of this is possible, though, and that is why we must be vigilant and use our imaginations to try to prevent it, or elect or appoint people who echo these sentiments in their words and actions. Bashing immigrant populations to satisfy an intolerant reflex will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem and wrongly antagonize others who would otherwise support us.

(By the way, on a somewhat related note, I should point out that the shareholders of Knight Ridder, the parent company of the Philadelphia Inquirer, want the media company to put itself up for sale because they don’t think it can compete effectively with other electronic media for advertising dollars. I think this would be a tragedy for a genuinely effective news organization that provides content that is as unfiltered by corporate censorship as it can be for this day and age.)


Anonymous said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I will pay $10 - $50 hour to work at home using your computer. No boss, set your own hours, easy work, start making money today!

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

Robert said...

Pretty interesting reading from the Chicago Sun-Times.

Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands

November 6, 2005


Ever since 9/11, I've been gloomily predicting the European powder keg's about to go up. ''By 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on the news every night,'' I wrote in Canada's Western Standard back in February.

Silly me. The Eurabian civil war appears to have started some years ahead of my optimistic schedule. As Thursday's edition of the Guardian reported in London: ''French youths fired at police and burned over 300 cars last night as towns around Paris experienced their worst night of violence in a week of urban unrest.''

''French youths,'' huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse? Granted that most of the "youths" are technically citizens of the French Republic, it doesn't take much time in les banlieus of Paris to discover that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ''French'': They're young men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the broader community with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than anything you're likely to find in the Middle East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally that there really is an explosive ''Arab street,'' but it's in Clichy-sous-Bois.

The notion that Texas neocon arrogance was responsible for frosting up trans-Atlantic relations was always preposterous, even for someone as complacent and blinkered as John Kerry. If you had millions of seething unassimilated Muslim youths in lawless suburbs ringing every major city, would you be so eager to send your troops into an Arab country fighting alongside the Americans? For half a decade, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They seem to have lost that battle. Unlike America's Europhiles, France's Arab street correctly identified Chirac's opposition to the Iraq war for what it was: a sign of weakness.

The French have been here before, of course. Seven-thirty-two. Not 7:32 Paris time, which is when the nightly Citroen-torching begins, but 732 A.D. -- as in one and a third millennia ago. By then, the Muslims had advanced a thousand miles north of Gibraltar to control Spain and southern France up to the banks of the Loire. In October 732, the Moorish general Abd al-Rahman and his Muslim army were not exactly at the gates of Paris, but they were within 200 miles, just south of the great Frankish shrine of St. Martin of Tours. Somewhere on the road between Poitiers and Tours, they met a Frankish force and, unlike other Christian armies in Europe, this one held its ground ''like a wall . . . a firm glacial mass,'' as the Chronicle of Isidore puts it. A week later, Abd al-Rahman was dead, the Muslims were heading south, and the French general, Charles, had earned himself the surname ''Martel'' -- or ''the Hammer.''

Poitiers was the high-water point of the Muslim tide in western Europe. It was an opportunistic raid by the Moors, but if they'd won, they'd have found it hard to resist pushing on to Paris, to the Rhine and beyond. ''Perhaps,'' wrote Edward Gibbon in The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, ''the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.'' There would be no Christian Europe. The Anglo-Celts who settled North America would have been Muslim. Poitiers, said Gibbon, was ''an encounter which would change the history of the whole world.''

Battles are very straightforward: Side A wins, Side B loses. But the French government is way beyond anything so clarifying. Today, a fearless Muslim advance has penetrated far deeper into Europe than Abd al-Rahman. They're in Brussels, where Belgian police officers are advised not to be seen drinking coffee in public during Ramadan, and in Malmo, where Swedish ambulance drivers will not go without police escort. It's way too late to rerun the Battle of Poitiers. In the no-go suburbs, even before these current riots, 9,000 police cars had been stoned by ''French youths'' since the beginning of the year; some three dozen cars are set alight even on a quiet night. ''There's a civil war under way in Clichy-sous-Bois at the moment,'' said Michel Thooris of the gendarmes' trade union Action Police CFTC. ''We can no longer withstand this situation on our own. My colleagues neither have the equipment nor the practical or theoretical training for street fighting.''

What to do? In Paris, while ''youths'' fired on the gendarmerie, burned down a gym and disrupted commuter trains, the French Cabinet split in two, as the ''minister for social cohesion'' (a Cabinet position I hope America never requires) and other colleagues distance themselves from the interior minister, the tough-talking Nicolas Sarkozy who dismissed the rioters as ''scum.'' President Chirac seems to have come down on the side of those who feel the scum's grievances need to be addressed. He called for ''a spirit of dialogue and respect.'' As is the way with the political class, they seem to see the riots as an excellent opportunity to scuttle Sarkozy's presidential ambitions rather than as a call to save the Republic.

A few years back I was criticized for a throwaway observation to the effect that ''I find it easier to be optimistic about the futures of Iraq and Pakistan than, say, Holland or Denmark." But this is why. In defiance of traditional immigration patterns, these young men are less assimilated than their grandparents. French cynics like the prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, have spent the last two years scoffing at the Bush Doctrine: Why, everyone knows Islam and democracy are incompatible. If so, that's less a problem for Iraq or Afghanistan than for France and Belgium.

If Chirac isn't exactly Charles Martel, the rioters aren't doing a bad impression of the Muslim armies of 13 centuries ago: They're seizing their opportunities, testing their foe, probing his weak spots. If burning the 'burbs gets you more ''respect'' from Chirac, they'll burn 'em again, and again. In the current issue of City Journal, Theodore Dalrymple concludes a piece on British suicide bombers with this grim summation of the new Europe: ''The sweet dream of universal cultural compatibility has been replaced by the nightmare of permanent conflict.'' Which sounds an awful lot like a new Dark Ages.

doomsy said...

I'm still catching up on this a bit, but Juan Cole replied to Mark Steyn's column here: