Oh, please!

>>The price for having the Muslim Brothers join is to allow them to introduce Shari’a. A small price given most French are apathetic.<<

Apathetic? Nom d'un chien! France must be one of the least politically-apathetic of all European countries. Have a dip into Frank L. Wilson's "French Politics and Society" - the chapter "Political Demonstrations in France: Protest Politics Or Politics of Ritual?" is entertaining, as well as informative.

But it is simpler than that: France has a well-deserved reputation, built over centuries, of public political activism.

"The country has a long tradition of sometimes-radical political protests, one that goes back to at least the 19th century."

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8887667/france-protest

Sorry, Jonathan J. Ariel, any credibility you may have thought you had just flew out of the window.

On the other hand, Pericles, Jeremy Corbyn is calling for negotiations with ISIS. A willingness to negotiate is usually accompanied by the willingness to give the other party something. What is Corbyn willing to give to ISIS, on behalf of the Syrian and Iraqi people ? Will he visit Syria and Iraq to try to gain support amongst the millions in refugee camps for his stance ? I'd like to see that.

Corbyn represents a class, somewhere above the working class, and below any business, capitalist or landed classes. Whom he represents tend to be, these days, relatively 'well-educated': professional people and university students. This would be the class which Houllebecq is suggesting may be somewhat ambivalent about Islamist terrorism - they rank it as less of a priority than global warming or, say, homosexual marriage. They see the extreme Right, such as those supporting Farage or le Pen as a bigger danger.

Houllebecq is suggesting that the intellectual classes and the Islamists will come to work together to oppose le Pen. I don't want to agree with him fully: as you say, the French have a long history of political sophistication.

But Corbyn seems to have started on that course. The question is: will the intellectuals follow ? And then go further ? And if so, will they eventually capitulate to the Islamists ? Un Nouvelle Trahison des Clercs ? After all, that way at least, their heads could be the last to roll, unless they have sisters to sell ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Sorry, UNE Trahison des Clercs. I always had trouble with the gender of French nouns.

I can't do any better than Pascal Bruckner's defence of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, nine years ago now, just after her friend Theo van Gogh had been murdered:

http://www.signandsight.com/features/1146.html

The intellectual class is a very volatile one: it includes some of the very best and bravest human beings in any society. But it neither controls society, nor produces much that it needs, and in this relatively powerless position, it tends to get impatient - in two senses:

* it is impatient with the pace of the revolutionary changes which are vital for its Bright New Future;

* and it is impatient with what it sees as the obtuseness and blatant self-interest of all other classes, from bogans out in the burbs to big-bellied capitalists up-town. And the mark of a fully-fledged member of this class is his or her superior ability, even at twenty or twenty five, to know what is good for all of society, even if it likes it or not. Hence the supreme arrogance of those Q&A tweets.

At 73, been there, done that. It's taken more than fifty years to realise how little I know now compared to then, and how fundamentally decent most people are, more so than I thought fifty years ago. So I have some confidence that most Australians will not ever buckle to any amount of terrorism, no matter what advice their betters offer them.

Joe

An intriguing juxtaposition of thoughts, Loudmouth.

>>On the other hand, Pericles, Jeremy Corbyn is calling for negotiations with ISIS.<<

>>But Corbyn seems to have started on that course. The question is: will the intellectuals follow<<

Corbyn represents the intellectualism - if it can be called that - of the UK's 1960s left-wing. Blinded by a sanctimonious ideology, their capacity for thinking in terms of logical consequences to practical actions is heavily circumscribed by infantilist idealism.

The logic - that a political solution is preferable to a violent one - would be impeccable, of course, if there were a clearly identifiable entity that is ISIS. And that this clearly identifiable body has a head, with which negotiations can take place. And that once negotiations have taken place, a solution could be implemented that both "sides" would adhere to.

These aren't Trades Unions. They are an amorphous mass of happenstance terrorist groups, who are "united" in one aspect only: their desire to inflict as much harm on our way of life as possible. They don't even have an identifiable ideology that they follow; their professed religion does not condone mass slaughter and rape, yet they pretend that it does.

We (that is, the relatively civilized part of society) has yet to work out how to address a conflict that is so asymmetric, not only in the sense of combating largely guerrilla tactics, but also in the asymmetry of the political situation.

Simply put, there is no body with which to negotiate. For Jeremy Corbyn to suggest that negotiation is even an option here, fails the simplest reality check. He's a danger to himself and others.

I am an Australian resident but staying in Germany since two years now, and I have read Houllebecq.

What he is writing is true for Germany as well, and here we had Sharia police patrolling the streets of Wuppertal suggesting to women on the street it might be advisable to wear a head scarf. We had large signs on bridges over freeways saying: Your children will pray to Allah or they will die, and we have the occassional speaker in some inner cities on Saturday morning telling the crowd: Islam is coming and your daughter will wear a burqa and she will marry a bearded man, no way around it, since you (Germans) have one child and a puppy dog while I have four wifes and 24 children.
I could go on like that.

Still most people don't wake up to that, or they are worried but think, it will go away, or it will hopefully not affect me. Now better back to the shopping list for the party tonight ...

Those in charge are clueless but interestingly enough Australia is mentioned here more often now. There are even some first politicians talking about the Australian model for a refugee policy. Of course they are being labelled Nazis then, but things are changing. Even some left-wingers have mentioned Australia lately.

I'd like to mention that in order to make Australians aware of that and suggest to watch the situation in Western Europe closely. It might well be that Abbott might get a late justification for his refugee policy. (Not that I am a fan of Abbott).

If some of you might be tempted to ask for a change in Australia's refugee policy since it is to cruel (what it is without question) you might also closely follow the events in Western Europe for the next few months. We are only at the beginning.

Not we, but they I should say. My permanent residency for Australia has never been as valuable as today.

renysol,

Very interesting comments.
(1) The MSM here in Australia doesn't supply much information about the political and social impact of high Muslim refugee intakes on European countries.
(2) Some leftist commentators don't seem to realise for example, that Sweden, the exemplar of compassionate, open door policies, has effectively closed its borders, even the Swedes have finally faced reality.
(3) Too many people in the West are naive in regard to Muslim demands for superior status and their rejection of liberal democracy.