The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 TeasersSam Francis Blogview
/
European Right

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

In Europe, if not in the United States, some people are beginning to grasp that just maybe they made a mistake when they decided to welcome millions of immigrants over the last several decades.

The most recent European to get it is former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who has been making noises about the damage he and his colleagues have inflicted on their own societies.

Interviewed in a Hamburg newspaper last month, Mr. Schmidt confessed, “The concept of multiculturalism is difficult to make fit with a democratic society” and that importing thousands of Turkish gastarbeiter, or foreign guest workers, into Germany over the last several decades was a bit of a boo-boo.

As the London Daily Telegraph reported the story, Mr. Schmidt, Social Democratic chancellor of West Germany from 1974 to 1982,

“…said that the problems resulting from the influx of mostly Turkish Gastarbeiter, or guest workers, had been neglected in Germany and the rest of Europe. They could be overcome only by authoritarian governments, he added, naming Singapore as an example.” [Turkish workers a mistake, claims Schmidt, by Hannah Cleaver, November 25, 2004]

He’s hardly the first to see this, although admittedly, at the age of 85, he’s just a wee bit behind the curve.

As long ago as 1990, I wrote, in an article in Chronicles magazine,

“The late Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the dominions of the Habsburgs and the Romanoffs, among others, all presided over a kind of rainbow coalition of nations and peoples, who for the most part managed to live happily because their secret compulsions to spill each other’s blood was restrained by the overwhelming power of the despots and dynasties who ruled them.

“Political freedom relies on a shared political culture as much as on the oppositions and balances that social differentiation creates, and when the common culture disintegrates under the impact of mass migrations, only institutionalized force can hold the regime together.” [July, 1990, PDF]

That’s a bit of a mouthful, but I gather it’s what Mr. Schmidt was driving at. To have freedom on a stable political basis, you have to have a homogeneous culture and society, composed of people who share the same values and beliefs.

If they don’t share them, you can hold them together only by force.

That lesson is becoming clear in Europe, where the brutal murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh last month by an Islamic fanatic shows what happens when you destroy homogeneity by importing fragments of alien and hostile cultures.

Much the same lesson ought to be clear in this country, not only from the 9/11 atrocities themselves but from the recent slaughter of six white deer hunters in Wisconsin by a disgruntled Asian immigrant.

“Society cannot exist,” wrote the great eighteenth century conservative Edmund Burke, “unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more of it there must be without.”

Restraints come from within when a population shares cultural and moral values; when they don’t, external force has to provide the restraints.

Only a week or so after the murder of Mr. Van Gogh in Holland, the neighboring country of Belgium outlawed its main opposition party, the Vlaamsblok, for being a “racist organization.”

The Vlaamsblok, which two opinion polls found was the most popular political party in Flanders the month before, was notable mainly for its strong opposition to immigration. That’s what made it “racist” and that’s why it had to go.

This month Great Britain simply arrested two of its leading opponents of immigration, Nick Griffin of the British National Party and the party’s founder John Tyndall, on charges of “inciting racial hatred.” Each, it seems, had made (in private meetings secretly taped by undercover informants) derogatory (or perhaps merely critical) remarks about Islam.

The arrests are transparent efforts by the British overclass to muzzle rising political challengers, but they’re also part of the drift toward authoritarianism that mass immigration provokes.

We see the drift in this country, with the Patriot Act and its spawn at airports and in random searches of law-abiding citizens—all because our own overclass will not enforce standing laws against illegal immigration and does nothing to halt the transformation of American society by millions of aliens.

Unwilling to control immigration and the cultural disintegration it causes, the authorities instead control the law-abiding.

This is precisely the bizarre system of misrule I have elsewhere described as “anarcho-tyranny”—we refuse to control real criminals(that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).

What is now becoming obvious in Europe, even to decrepit socialists like Helmut Schmidt, ought to be no less obvious to our own decrepit rulers here.

It’s already obvious to those they rule.

All they need is a leader with the guts and brains to say it out loud.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: European Right, Multiculturalism 
🔊 Listen RSS

“How can Americans love their nation if they hate its government?” asked neoconservative Bill Kristol some years ago.

Very easily, is the proper answer, not only from American conservatives (real ones, not the pseudo-cons Mr. Kristol commands) but even their French allies.

In a recent article in Le Figaro, a leading French magazine, novelist Jean Raspail explains how.

Mr. Raspail is not well known in the United States today, but some 30 years ago, he published one of the great dark prophecies of the last century— Camp of the Saints., a somber but oracular account of the impact of mass Third World immigration on Europe and the West and the flaccid Western non-reaction to it.

Along with George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, Camp of the Saints told the West truths about itself it didn’t want to hear.

That’s what Mr. Raspail is still telling us in his article, “The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic.” ["La patrie trahie par la République" by Jean Raspail, Le Figaro, June 17, 2004]

The article is about France and how its political class—such heavy-lifters as Francois Mitterand (the respectable left) and Jacques Chirac (the respectable right)—have helped destroy the nation by doing nothing to resist the anti-white, anti-Christian invasion.

But it could have been written about America.

“The deed is done,” Mr. Raspail grimly asserts. The ruin of his nation by those that welcomed or refused to resist the invasion is now virtually irreversible –

“Because I am convinced that the fate of France is sealed, because ‘My house is their house’ (Mitterand), inside ‘Europe whose roots are as much Muslim as Christian’ (Chirac), because the situation is moving irreversibly towards the final swing in 2050 which will see French stock amounting to only half the population of the country, the remainder comprising Africans, Moors and Asians of all sorts from the inexhaustible reserve of the Third World, predominantly Islamic, understood to be fundamentalist Jihadists, this dance is only the beginning.”

You can hate your government (“The Republic of Mr. Raspail’s title) but love your nation (“The Fatherland,” “La Patrie) because in France—and to no small extent in this country too—the state has become the enemy of the nation.

To the totalitarian mind, the distinction, let alone the antagonism, between nation and state is not possible, which is why it’s so incomprehensible to pseudo-cons like Mr. Kristol.

But to almost everyone else, including Mr. Raspail, the distinction is fundamental.

In the case of France, “The Republic” means not only the state but also the ideology that has helped destroy La Patrie. The French section of the Open Borders lobby, he writes, “confuse France with the Republic.”

“France is from the outset a country of common blood.” But “the Republic, which is only one shape of government, is synonymous for them with ideology, ideology with a capital ‘I’, the major ideology. It seems to me, to some extent, that they betray the first for the second.”

Mr. Raspail is being moderate.

The Ideology is what the Open Borders crowd in this country calls the Creed or the “Proposition,” the notion that in order to be an American, all you have to do is agree with an abstraction—“all men are created equal”—and therefore anyone who can crawl or creep across the border becomes part of the nation.

In France, the Ideology took shape in the French Revolution.

In this country, it rose to power in the Civil War and more recently in the liberalism (and the pseudo-conservatism) of the late 20th century.

Like the real France, the real America is also a “country of a common blood” (Jefferson used that very phrase in the original Declaration, as well as appeals to a “common kindred” and “consanguinity”).

In fact, every real nation is a country of a common blood.

The only nations that claim to be defined by creeds are—come to think of it—totalitarian states.

The Soviet Union, a 20th century descendant of the French Revolution, really was a credal nation, and it survived only because it rested on the same Terror that reigned in France.

When the common blood dries up and the civilization founded on it withers, all that’s left is the state—the government to which Mr. Kristol and the neocons are so attached.

Mr. Raspail understands perfectly well it’s not just France that faces the extinction the Creed and its partisans have inflicted.

“All of Europe marches to its death,” he writes, because of the demographic, racial and cultural tidal wave swallowing it.

He tried to warn his countrymen as well as Europe and America of what was happening 30 years ago, but nobody listened.

Today his prophecies seem tame, and for his own Patrie, if not for ours, it may well be too late.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: European Right, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

If Islamic terrorism has contributed anything at all to Western civilization, it may actually have helped preserve it. Nothing has made Europeans wake up to what they have allowed mass immigration to do to them than the jihad many Muslims are licking their whiskers to wage against the new countries to which they have invited themselves. Last week the New York Times in a front page story offered the details.[ British Militants Openly Support Bin Laden and the Rule of Islam, New York Times, By Patrick E. Tyler And Don Van Natta Jr., April 25, 2004]

What the Times calls “a small group of young Britons whose parents emigrated from Pakistan after World War II” have come to prefer Osama bin Laden to Tony Blair. In fact, the Times reports,“they say they would like to see Prime Minister Tony Blair dead or deposed and an Islamic flag hanging outside No. 10 Downing Street” and they “swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden and his goal of toppling Western democracies to establish an Islamic superstate under Shariah law, like Afghanistan under the Taliban. They call the Sept. 11 hijackers the ‘Magnificent 19′ and regard the Madrid train bombings as a clever way to drive a wedge into Europe.”

This is the Europe of the future, not the one Charles Martel fought to save from Moslem armies in the eighth century but the Europe that the European chapter of the Open Borders Lobby has helped create, with its suicidal libertarianism and bottomless appetite for cheap labor. Today, it turns out, the cheap labor carries a price that even libertarians might find a bit stiff.

The “small group of young Britons may not be so small, though what the Times also calls “mainstream Muslims” are upset at them and similar movements. Nevertheless, similar movements are also on the march.

The spiritual leader of the movement, a gentleman known as Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammad, has a simple message to impart to his followers, and he imparts it regularly: “If Europe fails to heed Mr. bin Laden’s offer of a truce—provided that all foreign troops are withdrawn from Iraq in three months—Muslims will no longer be restrained from attacking the Western countries that play host to them, the sheik said.” “All Muslims of the West will be obliged” to “become his sword.” So much for assimilation.

Nor is the sheik alone. One Muslim authority in Hamburg told the Times, ““My impression is that Muslims have become more and more angry against the United States.” No doubt, but it’s Great Britain and Europe that seem to be on the receiving end just now.

“Some Muslim recruits are going to Iraq, counterterrorism officials in Europe say, but more are remaining home, possibly joining cells that could help with terror logistics,” and in March, British police busted nine “Pakistani-Britons” for trying to build a terrorist bomb.

Well, no doubt the West can handle it. Not only will the Muslims eventually assimilate and start their own computer companies, but the British and American mega-state will simply crush anybody who steps out of line. That, of course, is possible, but why is it necessary to create a leviathan able to crush people who don’t belong here anyway? Why not just kick them out and forbid others to come at all?

In any case, thanks again to the suicidal habits of the Western mind these days, crushing terrorists may not be so simple anymore . “The authorities say that laws to protect religious expression and civil liberties have the result of limiting what they can do to stop hateful speech.” Actually, the authorities have had little trouble stopping what they claim is “hateful speech” when it’s foes of immigration and multiculturalism that are speaking it. When it’s real hate, the open advocacy of murder and terrorism that gushes out of the mosques, there’s little the authorities can do.

The “authorities,” the Times reports, are left mainly with efforts to seek deportation , “a lengthy and uncertain process subject to legal appeals, when the suspect can keep inciting attacks.”Mostly what the “authorities” do is “resort to less effective means, such as mouse-trapping Islamic radicals with immigration violations in hopes of making a deportation case stick. ‘In many countries, the laws are liberal and it’s not easy,’ an official said.”

There’s no reason the Times account should surprise those who have followed the idiocies of mass immigration and multiculturalism for the last several years, nor should the paralysis the West has inflicted on itself. What the story confirms—and maybe what it will teach those who have never learned it—is what such critics have long known: that the basic and perhaps mortal disease of the white West is that it has ceased to be able to protect itself from its cultural, religious and racial enemies, because it has washed its own brains with the lie that such enemies don’t even exist.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: European Right, Immigration, Muslims 
🔊 Listen RSS

Great Britain and the United States may not be quite prepared to crack down on dangerous thinkers, but where those guardians of Anglo-Saxon liberties fear to tread, the European Union is ready to gallop.

This week the London Daily Telegraph reported that the Union is even now sprucing up new laws against “xenophobia and racism” to make sure no one has any unusual thoughts at all—and that British subjects will be extradited to the continent if they violate them.

The recent Scotland Yard investigation of journalist Taki Theodoracopulos for violating British laws against inciting “racial hatred” seems to have gone nowhere, but Taki, as the wealthy jetsetter journalist is known, may still not be safe. Thought crimes that the British won’t prosecute could still be punished if the EU bureaucracy can get its claws on the culprits through the extradition process.

Moreover, if it works for British Thought Criminals, it may also work for those in this country.

In an article in the Telegraph last week, Home Affairs editor Philip Johnston reported that the British government

“has undertaken that if such ‘offences’ take place in Britain the perpetrators would not be extradited—but it will be for the courts to decide the location of the crime. This opens up the prospect of a judge agreeing to extradite someone whose observations, though made in Britain, were broadcast exclusively in a country where they constitute a crime. Legislation now before Parliament will make ‘xenophobia and racism’ one of 32 crimes for which the European arrest warrant can be issued without the existing safeguard of dual criminality. This requires that an extraditable offence must also be a crime in the UK. Alongside the arrest warrant, EU ministers are negotiating a new directive to establish a common set of offences to criminalize xenophobia and racism.”

[Britons face extradition for 'thought crime' on net, By Philip Johnston, February 18, 2003]

Under current law, “Holocaust denial,” for example, is a criminal offense in some European countries like Germany and Austria. A British citizen who committed that “crime” in Germany and then returned to Great Britain could not be extradited back to Germany to stand trial. But under the proposed new laws and directives, he could be—if British judges so ruled.

What that means, presumably, is not just that Britons who committed such offenses while physically on the continent could be prosecuted. Also subject to the new laws would be those who merely broadcast or published their criminal thoughts, including through the Internet.

“Holocaust denial” is one offense, but new legislation against “xenophobia and racism” could broaden state control over thought and expression far more, even when those expressing verboten ideas never left their own living rooms.

The Telegraph article quotes Lord Filkin, a minister with the Home Office, as saying that no British citizen would be extradited to the continent “in respect of conduct which has occurred here and which is legal here.” But, asked whether “comments originating in Britain but carried abroad on television or through an internet chatroom would be extraditable,” he said, “It will be for the courts to decide.”

In other words, neither British law as written nor constitutional tradition will protect the British citizen from being hauled out of his own country to face trial in a foreign state under laws to which he never consented and possibly jailed merely for expressing unconventional thoughts that are legal in his own country.

Given the broad scope of existing European laws that punish “Holocaust denial,” there’s no telling how far the new laws could reach, but clearly they reach well beyond merely inciting racial violence.

Scientists who study racial differences and come up with the wrong answers, clergymen who criticize Islam and other non-Western religions, political leaders who object to mass immigration, and journalists who merely criticize political correctness and double standards may all have good reason to shut up and get jobs selling cars.

Could the laws reach into the United States? This country recognizes the European Union and generally extradites European criminals wanted in its member states, as they do Americans wanted for trial in this country.

Just this month immigration authorities expelled alleged “Holocaust denier” Ernst Zündel to Canada, giving only the thinnest technical rationale for kicking him out. Mr. Zündel, who broke no laws while living in this country, may eventually wind up back in his native Germany, where he could go to jail for what he has written about Nazi policies toward the Jews.

Mr. Zündel, of course, is not an American citizen, but the parallel with what may well be in the works is clear enough.

Any thought, any idea, any statement that challenges the official egalitarian ideology faces repression by the emerging global state, and neither constitutions nor national borders will protect those who question that ideology or the global power it serves.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: European Right, Thought Crimes 
🔊 Listen RSS

Pim Fortuyn, the late leader of the opposition to mass immigration in the Netherlands, is dead from an assassin’s bullets, but his soul has suddenly started marching through Europe’s corridors of power.

All over the continent, after anti-immigration and anti-establishment political parties performed well in elections last month, actual governments, never noted for wanting to limit immigration at all, are slamming doors and sending unwanted aliens home.

The most notable reversal comes in Great Britain, where Tony Blair, who loudly brayed denunciations of French anti-immigration leader Jean Marie Le Pen this spring, is quietly considering the use of massive military force to reduce immigration into his own country.

As a document prepared by the Home Office for the prime minister and promptly leaked to the Guardian newspaper says, in order to reduce the number of immigrants coming to Britain, monitor those already there and rid the country of those denied refugee status. And, “the full resources of the Royal Navy and the RAF [Royal Air Force] may be deployed alongside immigration officers and the police,” the Washington Times reports.

Mr. Blair, who has always been militantly pro-immigration, couldn’t possibly be influenced by politics, could he? The fact is that not only did Mr. Le Pen smash apart the socialist-conservative coalition that governed France last April, but Mr. Fortuyn’s party, even after his murder, won some 26 seats in the Dutch legislature. More to the point for Mr. Blair, the British National Party, a small party of the far right that is strongly anti-immigration, for the first time won three local council seats. That, to coin a phrase, has rather set the cat amongst the Labor (and indeed Tory) pigeons in Westminster.

Mr. Blair’s government claims the leaked document is merely “an options paper” and not settled policy, but the fact that the left-wing Laborites are actually considering such “options” as drastically reducing immigration and using the armed forces to do it is almost revolutionary. Nor are they the only government to do so.

In Denmark, which, as the London Daily Telegraph reports, “prided itself as an immigrants’ haven … [the government] dumped its liberal asylum policies in favour of a law designed to prevent all but a few foreigners from settling there.” What is called the “new policy for foreigners” was worked out between the ruling establishment conservative party and the rebel anti-immigration Danish People’s Party.

And in the higher circles of power in the European Union, the grand munchkins and poobahs themselves are starting to sweat. “All over Europe,” one EU official whined to the Washington Times, “there is a danger that populist movements in European countries will exploit the enlargement [of the Union] as an attractive target to attack European integration in coming elections.”

As citizens of prospective EU member-states see European jobs going to cheaper non-European immigrant labor, they may decide that “integration” is not such a utopia after all.

Sept. 11 may have frightened many Europeans into pulling back the welcome mat for immigrants they’ve laid out in recent years, but it’s the grassroots political forces that are really pushing the change. Anti-immigration populism continues to swell all over the continent—in Great Britain, France, the Netherlands and Denmark, as well as Switzerland, Austria, Italy and the Scandinavian countries.

What is happening in Europe is, quite simply, a radical redrawing of the political map, a realignment of political forces.

On one side stand the old, exhausted parties of “left” and “right,” representing virtually no one save special interests in bureaucracies and corporations and pushing “European integration” and massive immigration that destroys Europe itself.

On the other side are the new parties that often combine elements of the left and right and stand brazenly for the rights, independence and security of their own nations and peoples.

“Socially I am to the left,” Mr. Le Pen said during the recent campaign. “Economically I am to the right. Nationally, more than ever, I am for France.”

Mr. Fortuyn, an open homosexual and a former Marxist intellectual, made similar remarks in an interview with Newsweek shortly before his death—”In my program there are elements of left or right,” and to the question, “Where does your political support come from,” he replied, “Everywhere. Upper class, middle class, lower class. People want change and they are not getting it from the political establishment. They love their country and they don’t want to lose it.”

What’s happening in European politics shows what grassroots activism can accomplish, and American critics of mass immigration need to study it closely.

The “options” for immigration control the Eurocrats are considering may only undercut their populist rivals, but if some of them are really adopted, they might still preserve the real Europe from the Third World flood that threatens it.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: European Right, Immigration 
🔊 Listen RSS

“It is spine-chilling,” spouted The Economist magazine last week in its cover story entitled “France’s Shame,”[pay archive] “for Europeans across the continent who fear that the success of the odious Jean-Marie Le Pen may inspire voters elsewhere to follow suit.”

Well, not exactly. What’s spine-chilling is that within a week after this and similar avalanches of name-calling hit the news stands, the Dutch political counter-part to Mr. Le Pen lay dead in a pool of his own blood, spilled by a left-wing assassin apparently driven to violence by the very sort of demonization that the Atlantic ruling class unleashed on Mr. Le Pen and similar foes of mass immigration.

French voters, crowed the Washington Post after Mr. Le Pen won only 18 percent of the vote in the presidential elections on May 5, “from across the political spectrum responded in huge numbers to calls from politicians, the media, business leaders, unions and the Roman Catholic Church for a massive protest vote against what they called Le Pen’s racist and xenophobic positions.”[French Extremist Loses BigWashington Post, May 5, 2002, Page A01]

If it’s “hate crimes” you’re looking for, put all of the above in the prisoner’s dock, because it was the very hatred they spewed at Mr. Le Pen and similar leaders all over Europe that inspired the murderer of Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands one day later. What Mr. Fortuyn’s death tells us is how far the ruling class is prepared to go to stop the opponents of mass immigration from gaining power: It will go as far as necessary, including incitements to murder.

Yet despite the victory of crooked “conservative” Jacques Chirac, Mr. Le Pen did not do so badly. He won more votes than ever before, raised his percentage of the national vote from 15 to 18 percent and substantially improved the chances of his Front National in future elections. No leader of the populist right in either Europe or the United States has done as well since the 1968 candidacy of George Wallace, who won a bit less than 14 percent of the popular vote. If nothing else, Mr. Le Pen’s efforts may have put immigration control on the European political map.

Then again, so what? The demonization inflicted on him and his allies across Europe not only contributed to the murder of Mr. Fortuyn but also effectively frightened millions of other voters from voting for him at all. Since otherwise more-or-less reliable media kept calling Mr. Le Pen a “fascist,” a “racist,” and an “anti-Semite,” suggesting he would build concentration camps for immigrants and had “denied the Holocaust,” it’s perhaps understandable that so few supported him. Indeed, if any of these smears were true, it would be entirely understandable why many Frenchmen might want to shoot him dead. That is probably what the ruling class was privately hoping for.

Yet even if the calculated demonization campaigns won’t always work in the sense of frightening voters or inspiring free-floating crackpots to commit murder, the ruling class has other means to stop the swelling anti-immigration tide. Both pro- and anti-Le Pen spokesmen have suggested that Third World immigration into European nations has indeed gone a bit too far and that some reforms are in order. After all, when global terrorism is being plotted by Muslim fanatics in places like Hamburg and Rotterdam, you really don’t have to be a fascist to support some reduction.

But any such measures will be either rhetorical or purely cosmetic, just as they have been in this country since Sept. 11, where the open borders lobby has altered its agenda not one jot or tittle. In 1978, Margaret Thatcher, faced with a revolt on her right from Britain’s anti-immigration National Front, made a few noises about cutting back on immigration. That was all her mainstream conservative supporters asked for. Once in power, she did and said nothing more about the issue. She didn’t have to.

The fact is that the Atlantic ruling class now depends on mass immigration. It needs immigrants for cheap votes. and cheap labor, to replenish failed institutions like churches, unions and schools where unborn European children never sit. It needs immigration to create a new underclass to justify all the ruling class’s social engineering and reconstruction policies.

Most of all, it needs mass immigration to break down the racial, cultural and national barriers that stand in the way of the global political and economic integration that is at the top of the elite’s agenda.

Mr. Le Pen may well have begun forcing European politics to turn a corner the ruling class doesn’t want to turn.

But the blood spilled in the Netherlands this week may be merely the first, as the foes of mass immigration begin to grasp just how far their enemies will go to stop that corner from being turned at all.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: European Right, Muslims 
🔊 Listen RSS

Even as the political oligarchies of France and half a dozen other European states joined to denounce the “extremism” of Jean Marie Le Pen, German police were extracting (that’s the polite word, I think) a confession from a real-live extremist who had plotted to blow up a synagogue in France.

The extremist has no connection whatsoever with Mr. Le Pen or his Front National and undoubtedly doesn’t much care for them. His name is Aeurobui Beandali, a native of Algeria who invited himself to Germany in 1992 as an immigrant.

Mr. Beandali was nabbed on a tip from British and French police, who say the leader of the plot to bomb the synagogue in Strasbourg was another Muslim immigrant now in jail in Great Britain. U.S. authorities would also like to talk to Mr. Beandali about possible connections he has with terrorist plots in Los Angeles.

The point is that nowhere in all this argosy of global terrorism does an “extremist” of the Le Pen kidney pop up. If it’s terrorism, the violent anti-Semitism that blows up synagogues, and political extremism you’re looking for, Europe’s immigrants from the Middle East are where you’ll find them.

The New York Times reported much the same earlier this month, in the wake of a series of bombings directed against French Jews in almost a dozen different cities, what the Times calls “the worst spate of anti-Jewish violence in France since World War II.” [NYT , April 8, 2002.:The Mideast in Marseille: Violence Shakes a City (Pay archive) free version] For all the blather over the last several years about the “rebirth of fascism,” neo-Nazi skinheads and the political success of such populist right-wing leaders as Mr. Le Pen, Austria’s Joerg Haider and others in several different countries, that’s not where any of the new terrorism is coming from.

It’s coming from the very immigrants these emerging leaders have been warning about for decades.

“This is not anti-Semitic violence, it’s the Middle East conflict that’s playing out here,” the president of the Jewish Council in the Marseilles region told the Times. What has been obvious to critics of mass immigration for years is now flapping home to roost: Immigrants don’t leave their beliefs, values and habits at the border; they carry them across, and old feuds, fights and ethnic and religious conflicts are perpetuated in their new countries.

Terrorism, however, is one thing, but immigrants also become citizens, and citizens vote, and when they vote, the same cultural and political baggage they imported across the border drives their ballots. France today has 600,000 Jews. It also has five million Moslems, about a third of whom now have the vote. Guess which group will exercise more political clout.

“All the political parties have taken into account the reality of the Muslim voting potential in France,” a French sociologist recently told United Press International. If democracy knows one law, it is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and in France, as in the United States, non-Western immigrants are a wheel around which national politics is beginning to turn.

“There is an electoral cushion of about 1.5 million people of North African origin,” says the leader of a French anti-discrimination group. “They can make or unmake majorities. They can make or unmake a president. They can make or unmake a deputy. The politicians have understood.”

The brute fact of Muslim political power may go far to explain the kind of hysteria about Mr. Le Pen’s anti-immigration policies that gushed from French politicos of the left and right last week. Certainly it’s a fact that helps explain the anti-Israeli slant of President Chirac.

“Today,” UPI reported just before the first voting in the presidential election, “Mr. Chirac is winning new respect from Muslim youth, who consider him more pro-Palestinian than Mr. Jospin,” the socialist whose career was extinguished by Mr. Le Pen’s votes. Mr. Jospin, however, was no sluggard when it came to pandering to Muslims. His campaign program committed him to supporting giving non-European residents the vote.

The anti-Semitic terrorism of recent weeks in France is, in the long run, probably much less worrisome than the shape of French politics in the future. As Arabic and Muslim immigrants gain more and more power through the ballot box, they’ll have less and less need for dynamite. That may make for a more peaceful country, but the contents of Arabic-Muslim politics may not be willing to stop merely at forcing a more pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli foreign policy.

If immigrants can blow up synagogues now, what will they do to synagogues—and the Jews who worship in them—when they can actually pass and repeal laws?

Maybe some people who have long supported mass immigration in both Europe and America ought to start thinking about it again.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: European Right, Jews, Muslims 
🔊 Listen RSS

Probably not since the German army descended upon Paris in 1940 have the French—and European and American—political and media establishments greeted a political event with the level of hysteria with which they met the second-place finish of French nationalist Jean-Marie Le Pen in his country’s first round of presidential voting last week.

Mr. Le Pen won a little more than 16 percent of the votes, but that was more than enough to render most of the Atlantic ruling class virtually comatose with terror.

“Saying democracy itself is in peril,” the Washington Post reported a few days afterwards, “leaders across the French political spectrum today launched an emergency effort to prevent” a Le Pen victory in the presidential run-off of May 5, when he will face incumbent President Jacques Chirac. [Washington Post, April 23 2002, Parties Vow To Unite to Bar Rightist In France.]

Nor were the French “leaders” alone in crawling for the political panic room. Ministers and politicians of both “right” and “left” in the governments of Spain, Great Britain, Germany, Italy and the European Union itself denounced Mr. Le Pen and openly told French voters not to cast their ballots for him.

Just to display their deathless commitment to “democracy,” Mr. Le Pen’s colleagues in the European Parliament jeered him from the podium this week and prevented him from speaking, despite his own membership in the elected body.

Real democracy really is in peril, but it’s not Mr. Le Pen who threatens it.

What exactly does Mr. Le Pen threaten to do to elicit this kind of psychosis? Mainly he promises to end abortion and same-sex marriages, stop legal immigration, kick out all illegal immigrants, maybe withdraw from the EU and generally get tough on law and order. Most of his program is in fact not very different from what most American conservatives support, though that doesn’t stop their spokesmen from denouncing him in the same shrill tones as the Europeans.

Yet, for all the delirium into which he has managed to cast his country and his continent, Mr. Le Pen almost certainly will not win. He has never polled more than about 15 percent of the popular vote, and may not even reach more than 20 percent in the runoff. Quite pompously, President Chirac has refused to debate him, intoning that “faced with intolerance and hatred, no debate is possible.”

Mr. Chirac’s principled distaste for “intolerance and hatred” apparently does not induce him to renounce the endorsement he has just received from the leader of the French Communist Party, who could tell us all a thing or two about intolerance and hatred. Indeed, Mr. Chirac has good reason to avoid a debate, given the allegations of corruption that have plagued his administration, and one major reason for Mr. Le Pen’s second-place finish ahead of the Socialist Lionel Jospin was, as the Wall Street Journal noted, “that Messrs. Jospin and Chirac have shared power for the past five years and … their middle-of-the-road platforms are barely distinguishable.”

Nevertheless, even though Mr. Le Pen will not win, his showing has already accomplished something of major importance, not only for French and European politics, but for the politics of the whole First World.

First, the political gang rape of Mr. Le Pen tells us something important about what is called “democracy” today. “Democracy” as the term is now used has nothing to do with the “rule of the people,” the consent of the governed, or even with broad political participation. “Democracy” means merely the monopoly of power by the political parties, ideologies and special interests that prevail.

Anyone who accepts that monopoly and its agenda—even communists—is for “democracy.” Anyone who challenges it—even fairly conventional conservatives like Mr. Le Pen—is an “extremist,” an apostle of “intolerance and hatred.”

Second, the real reason for the demonization of Mr. Le Pen is his opposition to immigration—not any “anti-Semitism,” “racism,” or “sympathies for fascism” that this veteran paratrooper supposedly harbors.

What that means is that mass immigration is now enshrined as an inherent part of European “democracy,” far more than such relics as national sovereignty or real democracy itself, and anyone who opposes it or questions it is outside the system.

Thirdly and most importantly, what Mr. Le Pen has proved is that a new fault line runs through French—and European and probably American—politics. It is not a line between right and left but between those who stand for their nation, race and civilization, on the one hand, and those who stand against them—and for “Democracy” and the “New World Order” and their “multiculturalism“—on the other.

Mr. Le Pen may not live to see his side win, but he has succeeded in unleashing and mobilizing the political forces that can ultimately push its enemies out of the monopoly of power they now grasp.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: European Right 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”