In my rather pessimistic post Sunday on The French Intifada and the Failure of Language, I concluded:
...once paradigms shatter, a period of chaotic reorganization is inevitable. When the ground is prepared in advance and new structures are already in place, the chaos and destruction can be minimized; when there is no new model in place, the outcome becomes much less certain and the chaos and destruction can be exponentially worse.
The contrast between the evolutionary shifts that we are accustomed to and can easily accommodate, and the revolutionary shattering that no one can prepare for, is worth delineating.
Paradigms, which are essentially models of aspects of reality, are ubiquitous and determine many of our reactions. Our minds are organized around multiple paradigms that represent different aspects pf our experience and determine our behavior. The models range from the most superficial, as in how we expect a predictable reaction from a salesclerk and have a small repertoire of behaviors to use depending on the variant of sales clerk we encounter, to much more sophisticated, as in our models which mix conscious and unconscious elements to determine how we relate to our closest, most intimate relationships, what Psychoanalysts refer to as "transference".
Paradigms simplify reality, sometimes to a very great extent, and are often not very accurate descriptions of reality. For example, the LSM has worked very hard to present a paradigm of the war in Iraq as a disaster which is only important for its body counts; there is a clear agenda at work, but for most people, the repetition of the model and the framing of every story by the model, eventually causes many people to accept it as a reasonably accurate description. Various forms of propaganda depend on creating simple paradigms that portray a story desired by its proponents.
Paradigms cannot indefinitely remain static in the face of contravening reality and this is the case viz a viz the "riots" in France. There are several paradigms at work here and they are incompatible with each other, which means that something has to give.
In the most general terms, flexibility imparts strength to a paradigm, just as it lends strength to all sorts of objects, real and imagined. Young trees will bend in a gale force wind while older trees, intrinsically stronger but less flexible, are unable to tolerate the lateral forces, reach a threshold and shatter. In Europe, and especially in France, the paradigms cannot tolerate the forces acting upon them and the results are likely to be catastrophic.
Neo-neocon wondered if this is the clash of civilizations, that the Islamists want and the West has feared:
Reasonable people may differ on this, of course. But I tend to think the evidence is quite strong that if we aren't in a clash of civilizations at the moment, we are at least teetering on the brink. Whether or not these particular riots fall into the category "clash of civilizations" remains to be seen. But pundits and bloggers and people in the street are going to rush in to fill the vacuum of knowledge with theories, and the idea that there are Islamic fundamentalist supremicists behind this, pulling at least some of the strings (directly or indirectly, intially or presently), is not an entirely unreasonable one.
Islam Online confirms that the immovable object is in contact with the irresistible force. (HT-Eurabian Times) The immovable object is the French socialism-lite model which makes it impossible for the economy to grow fast enough to incorporate these second and third generation French-Muslims, who now have no interest in assimilation and have found a raison d'etre that does not include French secularism; the certainty of Islamism, which assures the "virtuous" they are superior to the weak, appeasing French, is much preferable to the second class citizenship that is the only thing the current European model has to offer. Worse yet, their multi-culturism blinds them to the danger they face. Just like the appeasers here, who are predominantly on the left and fantasize that the real danger is George Bush, not the Islamic fascists who want to make us all dhimmis, the French left acts as if those who wish to re-assert the authority of the state are the problem , not the violent Islamic inspired rioters:
Leader of the opposition Socialists, Francois Hollande, countered the conspiracy theory.
He held the French government and particularly Sarkozy responsible for the worsening crisis.
"It's the whole of the government's policies and the president of the republic that are responsible" for the conflagration, Hollande told Le Journal du Dimanche newspaper.
He said that Sarkozy, who hopes to become president in 2007 elections, "carries a large part of the responsibility" for his hardline law-and-order rhetoric.
The French Communist Party, the Greens and the Socialist Party have joined forces, demanding the sacking of Sarkozy over his handling of the crisis.
He has been accused of stoking passions by calling troublemakers "racaille" or rabble, and saying that crime-ridden areas need to be "cleaned with a power-hose."
[Emphasis added by me-SW]
The irresistible force is a melange of nihilism, criminality, and ultimately, Islam, to which all roads lead. Islam and Islamic fascism may not have been the cause of the unrest, but it is piggy backing on the rioting and will provide the organizing paradigm for the unrest as time goes on, unless the process can be quickly derailed, which is highly unlikely. This is from The Independent on line, interviewing some of the French "youths":
Though he modestly declined the appellation, Abdelkarim is the local "caid" - the Arabic word means leader - and he happily boasted of the €2,000 which he makes from each car stolen. "You want prostitutes, DVD players, jewellery? I can get anything you want," he said.
One of his friends, Karim, aged 15, pulled back his sleeves to reveal gold bracelets and then opened his shirt to show a gold chain. Both nicked, he winked. Another boy held a mobile phone. "Come and look," he gestured, laughing. It was a short film of a Chechen guerrilla cutting off the head of a Russian soldier.
These are the people who since 27 October have had the French government running scared. Their grievances - racism, poverty, lack of jobs - have changed little since the first disturbances in the banlieues broke out more than 15 years ago, later portrayed in the 1996 film La Haine (Hatred).
But where before protesters demanded financial aid and change within the system, many of today's rioters seem motivated more by a nihilistic rejection of all that surrounds them. "I hate France, and the French hate us," said Abdelkarim. "The wicked get punished. See what happened after the Americans made war on Iraq? Allah sent the hurricane. We are getting our revenge."
Matt, at Eurabian Times, who lead me to the Independent story, offers this:
This confluence of criminality and jihadism will only become more pronounced. The rioting in France is the tip of the iceberg.
If you need more proof that the Islamic influence will make a resolution impossible, there is this, from the Islam Online:
The Union of French Islamic Organizations (UOIF) will issue a fatwa (religious edict) banning Muslims from joining the raging riots, IslamOnline.net has learnt Sunday, November 6.
The fatwa is expected to underlined that such acts run counter to the basic teachings of Islam.
The influential UOIF is one of the main groups comprising the umbrella French Council for the Muslim Religion (CFCM).
Emerging from a meeting with Prime Minister Dominique De Villepin on Saturday, CFCM president Dalil Boubakeur called for "restoring peace" and ending violence.
In interviews with IOL Saturday, a number of imams in the Paris suburban region of Seine-Saint-Denis refuted claims that Islam was being used to fan the flames of the violence.
They highlighted continued efforts since day one of the crisis to pacify the angry young immigrants.
The deaths 10 days ago of two youths fleeing police ignited pent up frustrations among young men, many of them of North and black African origin, at racism, unemployment, their marginal place in French society and their treatment by the police.
Foul Play
UOIF's chairman Lhaj Thami Breze cast doubt over the parties behind the accelerating violence.
He accused several parties, including far-rightists and Zionist lobby, of fishing in the troubled water to "smear the image of Muslims and Arabs".
The Muslim leader said many of the incidents involving the burning of public properties remain ambiguous.
"The rioting, which started as a spontaneous reaction, is not like that anymore. Some parties are feeding these incidents," Breze charged.
"The perpetrators of such actions can never be Muslims," he averred.
The left and the Islamists once again show themselves to be allies in promulgating the idea that the responsibility for violence can never be assigned to the violent perpetrators, but always pinned on those who are trying to resist dhimmitude.
It is clear that there are two world views in conflict and they are mutually exclusive. The paradigm of the increasingly Islamicized rioters is incompatible with that of the French state. There is no room for compromise; one side must win and one side must lose. For the Islamists, assimilation (the only way out for the state, if it could even be achieved) is losing; for the French, dhimmitude is losing. It is hard to see how this circle can be squared.
Recent Comments