September 24, 2022

Pro-America Europe?

The winds of change may have shifted again in Europe. France yesterday elected Nicolas Sarcozy, the conservative candidate, as its president. As Marc Schulman notes, this is now the second European country who failed to take the U.S.’s side in regard to Iraq that has moved back to the right, Germany being the first.

Hopefully this is a recognition by the majority of the German and French populations that our Islamic opposition is more dangerous to the Western way of life than we are. That may or may not be true; Bush and co. ignored these countries’ wishes regarding Iraq and stung their pride. That’s a difficult thing to overcome. Time will tell.

Even more important is the hope that the European mainstream is recognizing the danger inherent in their liberal social and immigration policies. Socialist economics is a proven failure, as eloquently depicted by another post on Marc’s blog and collapsed communist cabals the world over. But egalitarian views of immigration and multiculturalism persist and seem to be more prevalent than ever. It’s therefore refreshing to see a left-leaning ship like France right herself and, I hope, begin to steer into the wind of what Melanie Phillips calls the war against the west.

In the article Melanie references, Janet Levy says:

The emergence of a strong Muslim identity in Britain is, in part, a result of multicultural policies implemented since the 1980s, which have emphasised difference at the expense of shared national identity and divided people along ethnic, religious and cultural lines. Islamist groups have gained influence at local and national level by playing the politics of identity and demanding for Muslims the ‘right to be different’. The authorities and some Muslim groups have exaggerated the problem of Islamophobia, which has fuelled a sense of victimhood amongst some Muslims

In other words, immigrants to Western countries must assimilate into the culture of their new homeland. Anything less is a recipe for disaster as disintegration of the host culture is the inevitable result when pockets of discontented counter-culture form around what are home-sick, culture-shocked immigrants in the best case and insurrectionist revolutionaries in the worst. Indeed, formal immigration process should actively seek to vet out individuals whose cultural biases and past history indicate against assimilation.

For some on the left such a policy must surely smack of discrimination, a claim that is equally true, justified, and necessary. The definition of the word sans politically correct connotations is this: “to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.” A little discrimination, say when deciding granting visas to future citizens and brothers-in-arms instead of future terrorists, would go a long way in the West.

Note that none of this is to say that immigration should be abolished or that immigrants are “bad guys”. Just as a good soup needs the right spices, the West needs immigrants from other countries to stir the pot of ideas and add their minds and energy to the mix. However, immigration to America, France, Germany, et al, is not and cannot be considered to be a right of foreigners that they can exercise at their whim. Immigration must be controlled by the host nation itself and all rights are reserved to the people who are citizens of this state to choose who they wish to admit.

In the run-up to Sarkozy’s election, French voters were intimidated by immigrant groups who threatened to riot if he was victorious. Some of these came to pass after his convincing victory; happily, reports have been fairly few (or censored). While the punk jihad resulted in a number of torched cars, etc., the French people’s decision to move to the right can only result in good things for the country and the West as a whole, even if there is some short-term discontent.

It is better to meet the foe head-on and in the light of day than to turn a blind eye while the enemy burrows into one’s defenses and weakens the institutions on which free and democratic society is based.

Viva la France!

Update

May have spoken too soon in saying there weren’t too many riots in France.

Update 2

Michael van deer Galien says that Sarkozy has to be tough on immigration and worker-oriented reforms; i.e., de-socialize France. Good call!

Update 3

Way too soon; French punks running wild. The socialist losers do nothing, of course.

marc

Marc is a software developer, writer, and part-time political know-it-all who currently resides in Texas in the good ol' U.S.A.

View all posts by marc →

2 thoughts on “Pro-America Europe?

  1. I’d not get too greatly excited about this election in France. As they say in France, the more things change, the more they remain the same. I know the French, I know them well having spent many summers there. Their disdain runs so deep it’s practically part of the cultural soup. They’ll continue to slowly, quietly, tread the fine, fine line between their national interests and a show of an interest in a working “friendship” with the U.S. all the while cutting business deals against our interests. And as for the Islamo facists in their midst? That divide will end in rivers of bloodshed.

  2. Glide, that’s a pretty stark outlook. Having only visited once, I must defer to your greater knowledge of the French national psyche.

    Still, a journey must begin somewhere. Perhaps Sarkozy represents a greater rejection of the socialist multi-culturalism and the morass it made than meets the eye.

    As for the Islamic condition, is there any other way it can end, anywhere? I don’t believe so any longer.

Comments are closed.