France viewed its last invasion in 1940 by the German National Socialists through the tears of its citizens, and later the occupation through the gun sights of its resistance. Here’s a story of a shop owner who refuses to back down, or to be cowered into running from her store situated in the northern section of Paris that is overrun with Muslims.
Vive la résistance, Vive la France! KGS
“A piece of French soil in occupied French territory”
I’ll try again.
This woman has SISU in abundance and ought to serve as an inspiration for all French men and women who love their country.
Areas of Marseilles that are under the control of Muslims who flout the so-called law enforcement brigade (police standing by and doing nothing when whole streets are blocked off by Muslims who have no concern at all about inconveniencing non-Muslims, and where the burka is commonly seen on the streets).
Hundreds of no go areas in France where the police, fire fighters, and even doctors do not venture.
As one commentator said, inevitably there will be many local areas of civil war breaking out in different parts of France that will inevitably draw in the army since the police are seemingly powerless to do anything.
At November 15, 2005 1:58 AM, (DP111)PD111 said…
fjordman posted: How do we identify Islam’s weak points, exploit them and try to regain our own strength? What is the future for Western civilization and Europe in particular in the 21st century?
Mark Steyn seems to have a pretty gloomy view of that – demography is the key in his opinion. I tend to agree.
Let us examine where we can attack islam.
1. Theology and Philosophy in islam – Islam really sucks when it comes to theology and philosophy. There is nothing in it. As it is empty philosophically, there is nothing to attack. So that approach is pointless.
2. Convert muslims away from islam – Works to an extent but is balanced out by converts to islam. Besides, we are giving no incentive for muslims to convert.
3. Limit demographic growth – Short of doctoring the water supply, I see no solution.
Islam’s greatest jihadis in this war are in my view, muslim women. They are the vanguard of the demographic war. They are also its Achilles heel. Muslim men and muslim leaders know this, and go to great lengths to protect muslim women from outside influences. Hence the “honour killings”. “Honour killings” are not about honour but about maintaining discipline in the ranks of the vanguard.
How do we get to this vanguard and subvert it. Difficult. Only Western women have general access to them. I’m though loth to suggest this, as it puts both parties in danger. Besides, the demographic growth rate is too large for subversion to work, given the time.
None of these really tackles the impending crisis when muslim populations reaches the so-called critical mass. Thus not many peaceful options left that can have an effect in the time that is left.
V.S. Naipual thinks that our civilisation’s diffidence itself will be the reason why we will win. As an Indian by culture, he probably looks to Gandhi’s example. Gandhi’s diffident and non-confrontational approach worked with a civilised opponent such as Britain. I do not hold such views for this war and with this enemy. Naipaul’s thesis also rests on the fact that Western civilisation has conquered all before it and that islam will go the same way. This assumes that islam is in confrontation with us to conquer and destroy us. Not really, what they wish to do is to take us over and thus claim that Western civilisation was just a precursor to islamic civilisation. A similar fate happened to other civilisations, Persia comes to mind, that did not understand the nature of the conflict. One can see this takeover happening right before our eyes. No outright conflict, just a steady encroachment.
Laurence Auster, Hugh Fitzgerald and others are slowly coming around to hard options. The question remains what sort of hard options? And the other question – if European leaders have the courage and determination to adopt such options.
I’m strongly in favour of soft “hard options” such as separation. They are hard but mild in comparison to full scale war.
Muslim nations, left to their own devices, unable to export their excess population, an ever deteriorating infrastructure, increasing poverty and diminishing military power, will have no alternative but to reform islam. And even if they do not, they will not be a menace to the safety and security of the rest of the world, for the simple reason that they will not have access to harvest infidel lives.
Harsh as this is, it is the most humane way to progress. What frightens me is that we are moving towards a new world war that is quite unlike previous world wars. This world war will be a civil war i.e., a global civil war – the very worst type imaginable. It will leave no one untouched.
Separation is always better then a messy divorce, specially for the children (or our grandchildren). Yet what we are heading towards is a messy divorce, i.e., a civil war, and the winner will take all.
My immediate thoughts. Look forward to responses.
This was written in 2005. The problem still remains.
The French citizenry have to act, their own government has failed, abandoned them and screwed them over. The first duty of a government is the safety and security of the citizens and the state. When there are 700+ ‘no go zones , defacto colonies, with little or no government control, there is no France but creeping anarchy which will in the end destroy the nation. All government services and utilities including the dole and postal services, should be terminated until these ghettos are willing to accept civil government. This may sound harsh, but are they willing to permit another 700+ so-called no go zoned develop?