Wednesday, November 9, 2005

Plus du meme chose

The events in France transfix me — it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion, a giant clumsy political machine engineered by fuzzy ideological sentiment and greased by an insensate bureaucracy laboriously trundling down the tracks toward… reality or postponement of reality by yet more appeasement. The news junkie's adrenaline flows (for wicked commentary go to ¡No Pasarán!). Great amusement is found watching French politicians speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time trying to appear sensible of both immediate demands to be tough and, completely incompatibly, the inadequacy of past propitiation. More fun is to be had reading pundits who are adamant that the situation is emphatically or is emphatically not islamofascism at work. Well, of course the perpetrators of violence are largely muslim. But if being muslim were the defining mark of original sin, it would be easy enough to dissassemble the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty and property wholesale to muslims everywhere and confine them to arbitrary political boundaries — just as the actual perpetrators ought to be confined to little boundaries called cell walls. In fact, though, there are islamofascists just like there are French democratic fascists, and if the islamofascists are more opportunistic at claiming the wills and inhibitions of feckless youth and promoting the destructive propensities of idiots, to the amazement of their unsuspecting French intellectual co-conspirators, the spiritual and physical battles are still only between disagreeable factions. Taking sides with the French state brings no reconciliation with reason — I really grieve only for those French who have wittingly not contributed materially or consensually to either bloc (to those French socialists taken aback by the violence, I say — come to Canada! you'll feel right at home in Quebec for the next 10 or 20 years). Like Billy Beck says,

It's not about cultural assimilation (or lack of it).

It's just about the socialism.
Reducing the numbers of muslims allowed to enter a country might seem at first glance to be a reasonable solution to prevent this kind of disorder, given that muslims have a readymade and apparently appealing annihilative creed at hand already, but it's hard to adopt that position if one wishes to be consistent as a proponent of freedom or natural rights or does not want to relegate muslims as non-human. Unless, of course, you think muslims are genetically disposed to violence and nihilism — you sick bastard. Oddly enough, though, large numbers of muslims already do live in Canada and the US without going on these kinds of rampages, and if it is true that a great number of them, including our own Mohamed Elmasry, have noxious views and French fantasies, it's only because we officially subsidize administration of their dirigiste apocalyptism — corporate multicultural welfare. More Billy Beck:
One need only compare this wretched state of affairs with that of American immigration through most of the 19th century, in which people came to this country from around the world in order to work for their living, and not to soak off the productivity of people forced into the relationship of hosts to parasites. Absent this condition, these animals now raging in France would have had to resort to outright military action in order to approach the results now evident every day.
This Theodore Dalrymple article from 2002, cited both by Beck and by the Last Amazon in her excellent post on the subject, is also worth reading:
A profoundly alienated population is thus armed with serious firepower; and in conditions of violent social upheaval, such as France is in the habit of experiencing every few decades, it could prove difficult to control. The French state is caught in a dilemma between honoring its commitments to the more privileged section of the population, many of whom earn their livelihoods from administering the dirigiste economy, and freeing the labor market sufficiently to give the hope of a normal life to the inhabitants of the cités. Most likely, the state will solve the dilemma by attempts to buy off the disaffected with more benefits and rights, at the cost of higher taxes that will further stifle the job creation that would most help the cité dwellers. If that fails, as in the long run it will, harsh repression will follow.

But among the third of the population of the cités that is of North African Muslim descent, there is an option that the French, and not only the French, fear. For imagine yourself a youth in Les Tarterets or Les Musiciens, intellectually alert but not well educated, believing yourself to be despised because of your origins by the larger society that you were born into, permanently condemned to unemployment by the system that contemptuously feeds and clothes you, and surrounded by a contemptible nihilistic culture of despair, violence, and crime. Is it not possible that you would seek a doctrine that would simultaneously explain your predicament, justify your wrath, point the way toward your revenge, and guarantee your salvation, especially if you were imprisoned? Would you not seek a 'worthwhile' direction for the energy, hatred, and violence seething within you, a direction that would enable you to do evil in the name of ultimate good? It would require only a relatively few of like mind to cause havoc. Islamist proselytism flourishes in the prisons of France (where 60 percent of the inmates are of immigrant origin), as it does in British prisons; and it takes only a handful of Zacharias Moussaouis to start a conflagration.
Parochial, little, and less extravagantly socialist London — without a large muslim population and with zoning restrictions on extralegal anarchist bantulands — isn't burning, but there's plenty of understimulated, directionless and incoherent youth here, most readily spotted downtown in the evenings. What is London doing these days to deal with its "disaffected youth," you may ask? Well, some city councillors are considering banning the sale of spray paint and permanent markers to minors to combat graffit, according to the London Free Press.
Frustrated by problems with spray-painted graffiti, Ward 3 Coun. Bernie MacDonald got city council's support last night for a staff report on banning the sale of spray paint and permanent markers to minors.

And another councillor, Judy Bryant, even suggested London set up a designated graffiti-art area, so teenagers can express themselves without hurting anyone.
A graffiti-art zone — it might make a barely perceptible difference, but what a lousy waste of everyone else's resources to attempt to circumscribe the idea that it's okay for teenagers to disregard property that they don't own. As far as banning the sale of spray paint and markers to minors, this seems to preclude the possibility that they may have perfectly legitimate uses for these products — which, I might add, I did as a minor. Besides, unless the definition of minor is extended to, oh say, 25 or 30, the effect on graffiti will be minimal. If the government is going to assume the role of guarantor of people's property — an ultimately unattainable goal that is clandestinely being abandoned anyway; it is no accident that the French had long ago relinquished that protection — with an assemblage of foliage they call laws, they might as well start enforcing those laws if they want them to have any meaning. Here's an idea — instead of banning spray paint and markers, simply enforce laws against destruction of property. In the case of public property — the two words as they are commonly understood cannot be propertly stood together, but in any case — those laws ought to be enforced equally. Yes, minors are treated specially, we know — so when they are caught, let some of their possessions, up to the value of the property they vandalized as far as possible, be destroyed. Make laws simple and meaningful — the failure of so many laws to make intuitive sense and the understanding that laws are only arbitrarily and selectively enforced, even when it is possible to enforce them, leads to lawlessness as easily as water flowing downstream.

For the rest of middle class publicly-educated London youths, the aspiration to attain admittance to the "privileged section of the population, many of whom earn their livelihoods from administering the dirigiste economy" of London and reproving their poorer cousins, is encouraged. David Suzuki, the patron saint of patronizing pseudo-intellectual rationalization, sponsors the state aptitude assignment job fair. From the London Free Press:
With passion, environmentalist David Suzuki urged London students yesterday to pay attention to warnings about the Earth's destruction.

Speaking at Central secondary school, his alma mater, the former Londoner told students all their actions have consequences, from driving to school or borrowing their parents' SUVs to ordering a pizza.

"We've been ignoring scientists for 40 years," Suzuki told the packed auditorium. Other teachers and students watched him on a screen in the gym. The presentation was electronically fed to 20 other schools in the Thames Valley District school board.

"We think we're no longer connected to the earth," the noted environmentalist said. "It's easy to forget, when we live in a city, that we're animals. But it's nature that provides the services … and makes the economy possible. We no longer think of the repercussions of our actions."

After a drama presentation on the consequences of one person's actions on the environment by Central's Senior Players, Suzuki told students he "never liked being at Central," because when he arrived in Grade 10, he had no friends and was too "nerdy" to have girlfriends.

He gave students examples of how to change what they do, from thinking of the clothes they buy to eating less meat.

"The challenge of our time is to see with clarity the power we've amassed and the destruction that power (has caused)."

Students asked Suzuki questions about climate change, pesticides and alternative forms of energy.

"If you drive to school, what the hell are you doing?" Suzuki said. "No wonder we have a problem with obesity — we're putting our fat asses in cars and driving to school. We ought to have free public transportation for students."

The school gave Suzuki an old picture of him running for student council president and planted a tree in his honour.

After a book signing, a hush fell over the remaining crowd as Suzuki called U.S. President George W. Bush "the ultimate eco-terrorist on this planet."

"We just have to wait out his term," Suzuki said.

The presentation left students impressed. "I think within Canada there's a lot more environmental consciousness and personally I think there's a lot we can do," said student Sarah Teefy. "Hearing it from David Suzuki himself, when he's so passionate about it, is incredible."
That's too bad. And we won't even get a decent spectacle of it here — there's enough residue of English cultural reserve left that London will forswear the flames and just grumpily fade away.

5 comments:

Pietr said...

If they are all so poor, where do they find cars to burn?

Little Tobacco said...

It is all ablout socialism. Capitalism, a system buit on individual freedom, is the only system that requires co-operation. We have to agree to contract. There is a fundamental framework, but it is barebones and lays out the starting point. A rule of law if you will.

Socialism is about the use of force.

Pietr said...

Nobody answered, so I will answer myself;
they burn the cars of those people in their neighbourhoods who are prepared to strive and thrive and give the lie to all the social support fictions that serve as the excuses for the obscene subsidy of garbage.
These bastards drag their own neighbours down for not being 'african' or 'arab' enough.
Ethnic victimhood is the convenient refuge of the useless, feckless, lazy scum that socialism is designed to serve.

MapMaster said...

Sorehead: you didn't give enough time for those of us living in the civilized time zones to respond!

If they are all so poor, where do they find cars to burn?

The power of the rhetorical question…

basil said...

"If you drive to school, what the hell are you doing?" Suzuki said. "No wonder we have a problem with obesity — we're putting our fat asses in cars and driving to school. We ought to have free public transportation for students."

Uhhh, how is putting your fat ass on a bus any more effective against obesity than putting it in a car? Does he expect that the social stigma attached to your ass taking up more than your fair share of the seat on the bus will encourage you to walk? Given the number of fatties on the bus, I don't see this happening. In future (once cars have been criminalized for all except politicians, sport stars, important environmentalists and other VIPs) I see the plebians demading more frequent bus stops in their neighbourhoods so they don't have to walk as far to the bus stop . . . and city councillors buying votes with them.