Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers a provocative analysis of the latest riots in France:
This week’s riots in France may seem to have nothing to do with the general unpleasantness, unease, and disruption of life that the large-scale presence, and demands, of Muslims has caused.
What, after all, is the proposed law that the protestors are denouncing all about? It is about giving work to the unemployed. Which unemployed? Oh, all the unemployed, of course. But with special attention to the young Muslims whose failure to enter the work-force, it is claimed and even believed by some, is what prompts their murderous hostility to the circumambient society, to the Infidel nation-state, and to non-Muslims. Few dare to look at the texts, the attitudes, and the atmospherics of Islam for an alternative explanation. But it is understood that employers will not wish to be saddled with young employees who reveal, as they most likely would, either unfitness for work, as some young non-Muslims would, or perhaps fitness but a dangerous attitude of hostility toward non-Muslim workers, or give signs of other cause for alarm (perhaps unwillingness to do what an Infidel shop-steward, or employer, demands).
This does not mean that the rioters are Muslim. This does not mean that the law in question is prompted only by considerations of giving Muslims a chance to be hired. Yet there is an unstated but clear connection of the disruption to general understandings of what France is and what its social and economic covenant is. There is even a connection to questions about the possibility of retaining the current system of entitlements given the existence of a large, growing, and unintegrable population — a population that has been completely unscrupulous in its exploitation of the welfare state set up, paid for, administered, and maintained by Infidels who never thought that the system would be bled of resources by a discrete and hostile population.
Here is what the Sunday edition of The New Duranty Times, reports: “In Lyon, French youths protesting the law clashed with Turks demonstrating against the construction of a memorial to Armenian victims of a 1915 massacre, Reuters reported. The youths shouted, ‘Fascists!’ and “Go home!'”
Now that is mere reporting. What should we make of it? Nothing? Something? When French students suddenly shout at Turks “Go home!” is there anything else going on? Is this merely indignation over a Turkish protest at an Armenian memorial? Or is it something else, an as yet confused, not quite comprehended, expression of a “Go home” intended not so much for Turks as for Muslims in general? Was it to Muslims that those students were shouting, or thinking, or not even consciously thinking but feeling — “Go home! — leave us in peace”?
For that Muslim presence is what is responsible for the collapse, in France and elsewhere, of the social compact and the entitlements that are now leading to economic ruin. It is a presence that consists of a fast-breeding population, supported with free education, free medical care, and subsidized housing (I have seen that housing, and it is far beyond what is available as public housing in America). That population is itself inclined to inshallah-fatalism and to a hostility directed at Infidels that makes many, though not all, Muslims, difficult for employers and co-workers alike, and brings tension to the workplace.
That same large-scale presence forces the French state to defend its laicity, to worry about the indiscipline and riotous behavior by Muslims that in so many places has caused such havoc in French public schools — once the pride of France. And then one must add to the physical danger to teachers and to fellow, but non-Muslim students, the refusal to allow the government-mandated curriculum to be followed either because it is deemed by Muslims to be anti-Muslim (reading Voltaire for example), or treats of subjects to which they are indifferent or hostile (the Kings of France, the Holocaust and World War II from any perspective that appears to deplore the former, and celebrate the Allied victory in the latter).
And to all that one must also add the mistreatment of women, both Muslim women and those “brigittes” who are regarded as fair game for every sort of degradation. Many places are now simply unwalkable by women at night or during the day. When one realizes that Muslims have been encouraged by their belief-system to regard Infidels as a source for loot, whose property rightly belongs, and can be taken by, the “best of people,” the People of Allah, the members of the umma al-Islamiyya, not because “property is theft” as Proudhon said, but because Infidel property is not really their property at all — it belongs to Allah and to his people, and taking it whenever possible is licit because it is, essentially, helping oneself to the Jizyah that must be paid. For one example of a Norwegian imam preaching this openly, read Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept.
There are events. They are reported. And then there is the significance of those events — their true meaning, or the meaning that is often hidden within. That is the duty of the columnist, the analyst, the person who makes sense of things. The New Duranty Times, and almost all of the major press, fails to report much of the news about Jihad and dhimmitude. And it also fails to connect events that may seem to have nothing to do with Islam, but when looked at more closely, may in fact have a connection.