Is France burning?
Much of France is a mess right now, and there is that déjà vu feeling from memories of the US during the George Floyd summer of 2020 [comments in brackets are mine]:
Paris and other French cities resemble war zones, with burnt homes and streets littered with charred cars, as the nation reels under the sixth night of violence triggered by last week’s police shooting that killed a 17-year-old boy of Algerian descent.
“In just six nights, over 5000 vehicles were set on fire, whereas around 3300 persons were arrested, according to a report from the Ministry of Interior on Monday,” French newspaper Le Parisien reported. Rioters damaged more than 1,000 buildings, the daily added…
The establishment media in the U.S. and Europe tried to pin the entire blame on French police for causing the riots, first by shooting an innocent teenager and then using “heavy-handed tactics” against protesters.
“The shooting of the teenager, identified only as Nahel, bears some similarity to traffic stop deaths involving people of color in the United States,” USA Today concluded.
If you are only following the mainstream media, you won’t know that the 17-year-old victim of a tragic police shooting reportedly had prior convictions…
The big media seems to have great sympathy for these marauding gangs of migrant [that is, people from predominantly Muslim countries] men ‘trapped’ in a lifestyle financed by a generous welfare system. “Many of the very young rioters may have a sense of besieged Muslim identity,” Politico commented. “Young men of African and North African origin are much more likely to be stopped by French police than young white men,” the U.S. news outlet complained.
Perhaps there’s a reason for the difference in rates of traffic stops, and perhaps that reason is not racism.
From what I’ve read about the killing of Nahel, it seems that he was almost certainly driving a stolen car and trying to evade the stop. But it also seems that he was not in the act of threatening or attacking the officers, nor was he brandishing a weapon, when he was shot and killed. Therefore I’m with Theodore Dalrymple on this:
The pretext for the mayhem was the shooting dead by a policeman of a young man named Nahel. It seems likely that the officer was unjustified in his action, though the president of the republic has in effect abrogated the presumption of innocence by all but pronouncing him guilty…
Because Nahel was perhaps unjustifiably killed by an agent of the state, he is already in the process of secular canonization, à la George Floyd. The French press has been remarkably reticent in emphasizing or enquiring into certain of the circumstances before the killing. Nahel was driving a stolen car without a license and therefore without insurance; he had been admonished several times before for doing the same thing; the car had Polish number plates, and it is well known that cars stolen in Germany, taken to Poland, and given such plates, are used by drug dealers in France…
Of course, Nael was only 17 and did not deserve to be shot dead just because he was driving a stolen car and was an admirer of and participant in one of ugliest subcultures known in the world. He might well have grown out of this subculture that glorifies criminality and violence, especially toward women.
Dalrymple adds that the seriousness of the rioting in city centers “implies a weakening of the state’s capacity to control and repress.” The rioters seem to have become more emboldened, and why not?
That which is rewarded gets repeated.
Goes both ways.
Further, Nahel was driving this possibly stolen car at high speed in a bus lane when two motorcycle cops began following him, sirens and lights on. Nahel stopped at a red light, and one of the cops pounded on his side window to get his attention. He left while the light was still red, and when finally stopped, apparently started forward again. I don’t see a good justification for shooting him, however.
This criminal Muslim subculture is in the process of killing France. Accepting large numbers of aliens without making strong efforts to integrate them into the life of the country is a recipe for disaster.
Kate we are dealing with a very similar problem and it will end badly for us, too.
Countries without definitive defended borders are eventually overrun by invaders.
The sheer numbers of non-French immigrants means assimilation was not ever possible IF it was ever intended.
Most of Europe is nigh unsalvageable for that very reason.
“Didn’t deserve it?” No, certainly not. But all those children, women, and men killed by lions, tigers, and bears throughout history did not “deserve” to die, either. They made a stupid mistake — at the wrong time — and died for that mistake.
The world is not always fair. Should the cop be tried? No doubt. But he should be tried in a fair court without the press convicting him beforehand, however.
As to Nahel, well, he was inviting it by doing what he was doing. So, no, while he did not “deserve it”, he was certainly contributing to the likelihood of it. So my own ruth is strongly reserved for those who have done less to invite bad results, the same as they were with George Floyd.
“…And the moral of the story, Frank, is: ‘If you’re walking on eggs, don’t hop.'”
– ‘Blue Thunder’ –
=========
I will also note that the jurisprudence system in France is very very different from ours, being based on the Code Napoleon, not English Common Law.
}}} Accepting large numbers of aliens without making strong efforts to integrate them into the life of the country is a recipe for disaster.
The current liberal multiculti crap that says that all cultures are equally worthwhile makes it impossible to integrate Muslims into any liberal-dominated culture. The will stand aloof until their numbers give them voting rights to compel Sharia Law and to create closed enclaves where the predominant culture does not dare enter in the meantime. Any effort to break these closed enclaves is met with cries of “Oppression!”.
“Yeah, you’re here, and you’ll behave yourselves as guests, if not responsible members of OUR culture, mother f******. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else.”
THAT is the only rational response that is not cultural suicide.
France’s problems are largely self-inflicted. The history of this young man with the court system indicates that for their judges and prosecutors, it’s all pantomime. They’ve cheaped out on immigration enforcement, accepted too many immigrants, failed to implement sensible screens for their aspirant immigrants, failed to deport criminals in the immigrant population, enacted a wretchedly complex labor code which hamstrings employers and generates hiring inhibitions, failed to tie access to common provision for immigrants to the number of quarters one has paid into social security funds as a f/t employee on one’s own behalf and on behalf of one’s dependents, failed to incorporate principles actuarial soundness into their system of retirement benefits, allocated to public authorities the function of landlord for 17% of the country’s population, &c. There are avenues of repair, but they’ve assiduously refused to consider them. The political class are a problem, but so is the public.
Genuinely asking: Is the entirety of France a mess, or is the violence limited to urban areas with large Muslim populations?
its largely in the latter, but the french enarques who run the country, have allowed them to go after neighborhoods like where the gaullist mayor was nearly assasinated, the problem has gotten larger since the last round of riots, an intifada in all but name,
On a sub reddit for AirBnB, a poster was upset that she couldn’t cancel and get a refund for a Paris rental. She was being criticized because it’s summer and riots always happen in summer. Like NBD. Just go, you’ll be fine.
I submit that I might be wrong about that,
https://www.frontpagemag.com/france-on-fire/
If you want to get some perspective on Islam and how it plays into what is happening in France (and in Europe), and how France got to where it is, you might want to take a look at some of the scholarly analyses done by Bat Ye’or, who has combed through a lot of material to find what she says is the truth.
Her analyses are dense, but worth it.
unsurprising
https://twitter.com/ZemmourEric/status/1675956368589615107
A society that refuses to eliminate its barbarians is a society in the process of committing suicide. Barbarians will feed upon its carcass and when no more remains, look about for more prey. All the while proclaiming themselves to be the victim.
“A video clip shows a French woman’s appeal to the police to end violence against protesters…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2zzSZmric0
I submit that I might be wrong about that.
No, I think not. It would seem that where there are no Muslims, there’s no rioting. I’m betting the villages and small towns of rural France — i.e., the French countryside — are peaceful. Unless Muslim motorized columns, àla the Wehrmacht in the summer of 1940, are blitzkrieging through the countryside.
I’m sure Muslims would do that if they could. But they can’t.
Yet.
If Western Civilization were still a serious civilization, this would be declared an insurrection and dealt with by the military.
As I commented before, the leaders in France and in much of Europe have brought this Muslim calamity upon themselves, because of their refusal to see what was almost guaranteed to happen, as a result of their allowing massive numbers of largely unassimilable Muslims to enter their countries.
Some of these leaders may have been clueless about Islam, some not, and a lot of short range and wishful thinking was going on.
Bat Ye’or makes the case that, quite a few years ago–the French held little noticed talks with Muslim leaders, and made a deal with them–cheap oil in exchange for allowing large numbers of Muslims to enter France.
And what is to become of the Tour de France? Isn’t that “spectacle” in its early stages about now?
Not just George Floyd.
This is also a reprise of the terrible riots outside Paris in 2005, which started after the police pursued three Muslim youths, who had hid in an electrical substation. Two of them died of electrical shocks. The rioting went on for three weeks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_riots
Note: In 2005 and today I read that these riots occur in the banlieues, which is often translated as suburbs.
The banlieues are on the outskirts of the city, but they are not tree-lined neighborhoods with white-picket fences. They are slums.
Seen lots of riot and looting in France, no doubt to me Antifa types are joining in. France will hit the tipping point and succumb to Islam.
And to think that in the not-too-distant past significant numbers of Frenchmen waged a vicious terrorist war against their own nation to keep Algeria as part of France.
L’Algérie, c’est la France!
That was their battle-cry. You don’t that anymore.
I’m thinking it’s more likely you will hear, in the Muslim banlieux , La France, c’est l’Algérie!
And what is to become of the Tour de France?
More’s to the point, what is to become of the upcoming Bastille Day celebrations?
probably in berber and arab hiphop, less in French,
Bat Ye’or makes the case that, quite a few years ago–the French held little noticed talks with Muslim leaders, and made a deal with them–cheap oil in exchange for allowing large numbers of Muslims to enter France.
==
Which ‘Muslim leaders’? Algeria’s the only major source country for Muslim immigration into France which also has large oil deposits.
this was the time of pompidou and the beginning of chiraq’s career, probably Iraq although the Saudis had long standing ties, see the paras involvement in breaking the grand mosque siege in 79
Has the Vichy government regrouped and joined them yet?
IO49…I was being a bit tongue in cheek about the bicycle-a-thon…but to not put too fine a point on it…
Bastille Day is inside baseball. I’m uninterested since I’m not French…and I don’t suspect I’m alone in that.
But the Tour…big francs get thrown around all over the world for that one.
Going on the record: I’m a Francophile. Love France, and the French.
So, 78 years after Hitler gave the order, Paris’s own citizens are doing his dirty work. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/dietrich-von-choltitz-saved-paris.html
I’m a Francophile. Love France, and the French.
IrishOtter49:
Me too.
Strictly speaking, I’m just about all Scots-Irish-Mexican (not to mention Neanderthal), but I do love the French, their language and culture. I find myself weirdly distressed at their current difficulties.
My conservative French-American friend is bereft at her loss.
John Guilfoyle @ 5:08, “Countries without definitive defended borders”. This includes, more importantly, definitive defended borders on behavior. When unacceptable behavior is accepted regardless of whether the behaver is native or immigrant, the nation is dead.
I doubt very much that Naval would have grown out of the culture he followed. It’s just appealing to the immature male mind. He would have no desire to outgrow it.
The fact people say he didn’t deserve to die, is in fact why he was emboldened to refuse to comply.
You mightn’t deserve to die, but continued non compliance and attempt to flee is not going to result in a good outcome in a police interaction, nor should it.
Once you justify non-compliance, you will get more non compliance.
Jerry…I’m going to politely disagree.
1st & foremost…borders. Defend your country from invaders. Keep the unwanted out & define clearly what that means. Once that’s assured, you have the basics.
The rule of law then takes care of the “behavior” part of the equation. I kinda don’t care if a nation “over there” has a different set of laws/mores/taboos than where I live. I do care that folks don’t get into where I live illegally or in hordes too big to properly assimilate. Once that last wall is breached, behavior is impossible to manage.
As the Boss notes here: “Dalrymple adds that the seriousness of the rioting in city centers ‘implies a weakening of the state’s capacity to control and repress.’ The rioters seem to have become more emboldened, and why not?” Why not indeed? Because they have reached a critical horde mass & have never properly assimilated so they are beyond the state’s “capacity to control & repress.”
YMMV
Devastation worse than 2005 riots
The French newspaper Le Monde summed up the devastation left behind after days of rioting largely led by immigrant youth.
The current round of rioting caused more destruction than the 2005 riots, which lasted for weeks. “According to several sources, five nights and as many days of violence have exceeded the severity of the riots in the fall of 2005, which lasted three weeks. Back then,” the French daily reported Monday. “These incidents occurred at night and in broad daylight, despite a considerable police presence, with more than 40,000 officers mobilized, including the use of armored gendarmerie vehicles,” Le Monde added.
The Times of London also compared the current violence with the riots of “2005, when Arab and black youths rampaged for three weeks in the banlieues (suburbs).”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/07/paris-resembles-war-zone-as-france-endures-sixth-night-of-migrant-driven-rioting/
_______________________________
Already worse than 2005 and in a quarter of the time…
According to Pew, France has the highest Muslim population in Europe — 8.8%. Overall Europe is 4.9% Muslim.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/11/29/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/
I recall a rule of thumb that when Muslims reach 10% of a population, their behavior shifts from fitting-in to demanding.
You can comb through items on fleeing arrest in a vehicle and get to…got to shoot the guy before he kills somebody.
What French law says may be different, but the point–felony endangering others–is the same as a practical matter.
Does anyone think that the French authorities have the guts to strip the rioters that they catch (and really try to arrest), and their leaders, of any French citizenship/rights they might have or have acquired, and then deport them all?
I don’t think so.
Thus, France has imported into itself a permanent Muslim threat, a permanent challenge to it’s control over it’s own territory and it’s sovereignty, which it has so foolishly and suicidally welcomed into France.
They’ve been invaded, and have undone the great victory over invading Muslim armies that was had by Charles Martel “The Hammer” at the Battle of Tours, just outside Paris, in 732 A.D.
huxley, a chance to practice your French, as the defiant press release from the French police unions is here:
https://amgreatness.com/2023/07/03/in-remarkable-statement-french-police-unions-condemn-savage-hordes-say-france-is-in-a-civil-war/
Police are now in resistance to the uprising and to the government. Translated: “Our colleagues, like the majority of citizens, can no longer bear the tyranny of these violent minorities.”
There is also a report there that the police officer aimed his fire at the suspect’s leg, and was bumped by the car when it moved forward, hitting the chest instead.
the regime is dhimmi (ht bat ye’or) it doesn’t represent the french people anymore than shamblings gang, does ours,
P.S.–As always, it is not the French leaders–it is not Macron and his family–who are going to suffer, the totally forseeable and avoidable suffering is going to be visited upon ordinary French people, the destruction is going to disrupt and, in some cases, destroy their livlihoods, their lives.
Notre Dame was just a harbinger.
I wonder, what percentage of the monuments to French History, Religion, and Culture are going to be destroyed in the process?
yes enarques are often unaccountable,
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/afd-wins-first-mayoral-election-germany-rival-politicians-warn-more-victories-ahead
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/07/04/french-media-reports-vigilante-gang-zip-tying-rioters-and-handing-them-to-police/
General Deitrick von Choltitz has joined chat.
All these pseudo intellectual comments!!! Facts are facts. Muslims are Muslims. Peach trees don’t give pears
John Guilfoyle, my comment was in no way meant to dispute yours, but was intended to broaden upon it.
Yes, physical and enforced borders are a fundamental requirement of any nation wishing to remain a nation.
But so too, and in my opinion equally important are the borders placed on behavior.
Consider, the first act of an illegal immigrant, that is: illegally entering a country, must be seen as unacceptable behavior. And yet in the US and much of Europe it is accepted by those nations’ leaders and apparently encouraged by some. And I believe that is the crux of your comment.
I merely suggest that accepting child sex trafficking (immigrant groups behaved thusly) as was done in UK for a decade or accepting the distribution of fentanyl ( both native and immigrant) as is done in the US other than the occasionally fiery speech made by a politician seeking re-election are just another acceptance of unacceptable behavior that are just as dire to the nations.
This current trouble in France (immigrant actors) and our own in 2020 (native actors), and the reactions of our leaders, as opposed to the reaction of the people, are bad omens for the two nations.
So, I agree with you. Please agree with me. Lol! I’m OK, you’re OK.
Speaking of Theodore Dalrymple……his book “Life at the Bottom” is a very interesting read. It deals with the British white underclass , examines their culture and how policies implemented to help them contribute to their social pathologies.
The similarities to the black underclass here in the USA are clearly evident.
Speaking of open borders/ multi-culturalism……………. it’s basically a non-starter.
When the USSR broke up just about all the quasi-independent member states decided to get out of Dodge instead of joining the new Russian federation.
Also look at what happened to the former Yugoslavia and to Czechoslovakia.
When the colonial powers left Africa, look what happened in many of the sub-Saharan nations.
Eventually push will come to shove in France and I do not think that the French people will peacefully accept their nation dominated or ruled by N.African muslims.
Even peaceful folks can only be pushed so far before they retaliate in the most vicious and bloody matter. The muslims in France are playing with dynamite and every time they engage in violence , it just raises the ire of the French people.
I do not think it will end well for the French muslims.
Zemmour’s stock is rising.
Snow on Pine: “cheap oil in exchange for allowing large numbers of Muslims to enter France”
I guess even the Muslims don’t want a lot of Muslims in their countries …
I’ve been out of the loop for 4 days so I don’t know any details about what happened in France or whether the shooting was legit or not, but I want to make one general point:
The impression I’m getting is that many people are just dismissing the cop’s use of deadly force out of hand because the kid didn’t have a “traditional” weapons.
A vehicle is absolutely, positively a lethal weapon. If the kid was attempting to move the vehicle with cops standing anywhere where they could reasonably perceive that they may be run over by it, that is justification for the use of deadly force.
Just because people take cars for granted doesn’t make them any less deadly to pedestrians or even other drivers. If he was operating that vehicle in a way that indicated he might run over one of the cops, it’s no different than if he’d have pointed a gun at them.
Sailor
Or anybody down the road while fleeing. I believe some or many US jurisdictions allow for lethal force.
Sailorcurt:
From what I have read, the car was not moving at the time – I think perhaps stopped at a light or for traffic. The driver had been refusing to stop for the police, but the occupants had shown no indication of trying to use the car as a weapon at any point.
There was some overhead footage. At best, the cop shot and the car moved (slightly) simultaneously.
A driver need not do anything with his body above the waist to go from stopped to flooring it in half a second.
What the cop saw would be invisible from any other angle.
“From what I have read, the car was not moving at the time – I think perhaps stopped at a light or for traffic. The driver had been refusing to stop for the police, but the occupants had shown no indication of trying to use the car as a weapon at any point.”
Nope – I finally saw the video: The cop was on the driver’s side just in front of the mirror aiming his weapon at the driver through the windshield. You could clearly hear the engine rev and the car moved forward a foot or so…enough that the cop was being pushed backward by it…before the cop fired.
I have a feeling that an armchair quarterback watching it later might decide that the cop wasn’t in any “real” danger, but in my personal opinion, in the heat of the moment, I think it was reasonable for the cop to fear for his life and safety (along with that of the general public) based on his position relative to the vehicle and I think the shoot was justified.
When the car took off, it went straight forward and missed the cops, but the driver could have easily turned the wheel to the left and caught the one who fired under the wheels of the vehicle. Even moving forward, the mirror could have knocked the cop down and put him at risk of the rear wheels running him over.
It’s no different than if the perpetrator had started aiming a gun at the cop. The cop would have had no way of knowing if the gun was loaded or even a real gun, he would have been justified to shoot.
Same thing here: the cop had no way of knowing that the driver would drive straight forward or that he wouldn’t be knocked under the wheels; as soon as the engine revved and the car started moving, he was in deadly danger and, again in my opinion, the decision to shoot was reasonable.
Of course, for political reasons if nothing else, there’s a very high probability that the cop will be convicted of something and sent to prison.
Which is just another data point illustrating why cops these days are either retiring, finding other lines of work or simply not engaging the bad guys when they should be. When they know they can be prosecuted and put in jail for defending themselves or just doing their jobs, I can’t blame them for being a bit less than enthusiastic about putting themselves in a position where things might get froggy.
Which makes a quote I stole from a fellow gun blogger years ago even more appropriate in today’s environment:
“Your safety and protection is your job. The constables are just there to mark where the bodies ended up.”
–Phil of Random Nuclear Strikes
Sailorcurt:
The car had been moving forward to evade the cops, it stopped for a red light, and then moved forward again to evade a cop who was already pointing a gun at them. The car made no attempt to go towards the cop who had a weapon drawn. I am very aware of the “car as possible weapon” idea, but this situation just doesn’t appear to rise to the level of firing that weapon.
This is not at all an endorsement of previous South African policies, but the French police may need to take up a particular piece of SA kit: a large armored vehicle with the bottom half a water tank, and a couple of powerful water cannons on top. An acquaintance who was in the SA army described its use in riot situations and it sounds ideal.
Incidentally, he was part of the first wave of white flight and immigrated to the US. Had no problems getting an immigrant visa with an engineering degree. Married here, has a family, and described his English/Dutch/American kids, somewhat sarcastically, as “African-American”.
“The car had been moving forward to evade the cops, it stopped for a red light, and then moved forward again to evade a cop who was already pointing a gun at them.”
I’m not sure I understand your logic here. Was the driver somehow justified in trying to evade the cops? I’m pretty sure that’s illegal and the cops had a responsibility to attempt to place the driver under arrest.
People who flee the police tend to do so for a reason. They are often criminals, engaged in other illegal activity and are often armed. Police routinely point guns at the occupants of vehicles that have been stopped after fleeing them and for good reason. From what I know, that’s standard procedure.
So your emphasis of “already pointing a gun at them” as if that somehow justifies the driver attempting to flee again doesn’t quite compute for me. If you flee from the cops, you should expect them to point a gun at you when they get you stopped. And this reportedly wasn’t the driver’s first rodeo either. He’d been charged with exactly the same thing on more than one occasion in the past so he should have known exactly what to expect.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you here, but the impression I’m getting is that you don’t feel the police had any business in trying to arrest the driver or in pointing a gun at him in the first place.
I disagree. That’s kind of their job.
Furthermore, attempting to continue fleeing the police while one of them has a gun pointed at you is not a rational act, it’s a desperate one. Desperate people are dangerous. My opinion remains unchanged. The Police were in a situation where the wielder of a two ton lethal weapon posed a potentially deadly threat and, in that split second, made a rational decision to employ equally deadly force to end the threat.
Good shoot (IMHO).
Side note: from what I’ve read, they didn’t “stop at a red light”, they stopped because the traffic in front of them blocked their ability to continue fleeing. That traffic may have been stopped at a red light, but the implication that they stopped voluntarily to obey an automated traffic signal appears to be inaccurate.
Nahel (?) was driving erratically and thus putting innocent people on the road at risk. He had to be stopped. Having an officer on the hood with a pistol at the windshield. Clearly something had happened. In US jurisdictions, if you are sane and sober, put the vehicle in “park”, maybe turn off the engine, maybe turn on the emergency flashers, keep your hands on the wheel, talk to the Officers. Last time, I put my passenger-side tires in the grass so the Officer wasn’t sticking his butt into traffic while he talked with me.
Nahel drove forward, dumping the one Officer, and, having run one red light, putting innocent drivers at risk, thus mandated that he be stopped. Allowing a “crazy” and/or “intoxicated” driver to escape would have been intolerable. The shot was justified to protect the innocent.
I am aware of several local “accidents” involving fleeing suspects or drunks, that resulted in the death and/or maiming of innocent individuals. Shoot and protect the innocent. Nahel, apparently, thought that he was exempt from the law, or too smart to have to obey. He wasn’t.