- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Toulouse: The Dark Side of Diversity

As an act of pure evil it was difficult to match.

After dragging the 8-year-old by her hair across a schoolyard, the killer put a 9 mm pistol to the girl’s head and pulled the trigger.

The gun jammed. So he took out a Colt .45 and finished her.

She was one of four victims. The others — a 30-year-old rabbi and his two boys.

As the gunman had targeted a Jewish school and the bullets were identical to those used in the murders of two North African soldiers and one black soldier, suspicion fell on some neo-Nazi racist.

And in France’s tight presidential campaign, left and center moved swiftly to exploit the atrocities by charging the French right with creating an atmosphere in which such racist horrors can occur.

Killings Could Stall Election’s Nationalist Turn [1],” ran the New York Times headline. The debate over whether the murders were “inspired by anti-immigrant political talk is likely to continue,” wrote the Times’ Steve Erlanger, “both as a weapon in the presidential campaign and as a more general soul-searching about the nature of France.”

French President Nicolas Sarkozy was thrown on the defensive.

These murders, said centrist candidate Francois Bayrou, “because of their origin, of the religion of their family,” are linked “to a growing climate of intolerance.”

Politicians “have the duty to make sure that tensions, passions, hatred should not be kept alive at every moment. To point the finger at one or another according to their origins is to inflame passions, and we do it because in that flame there are votes to get.”

The massacre at the Jewish school and the murders of Muslim and black soldiers, said the head of France’s Council of Muslim Democrats, “are a strong signal sent to politicians and, more particularly, to those who, for several months, have played with fire.”

And who had “played with fire”?

Sarkozy and Marine Le Pen, candidate of the rightist National Front.

Sarkozy has been toughening his stance on immigration and national identity. In a March 7 debate, he said that there are “too many foreigners” in France and that assimilation is “working worse and worse.”

He pledged to cut immigration in half.

Last summer, Sarkozy sought to deport Gypsies who had overstayed their visas. In echo of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he has called multiculturalism a failure.

He has spoken of revising the Schengen agreement, which lets residents of the European Union travel freely across borders. He has denounced burqas and facial veils worn by Muslim women. Boys and girls, he says, should swim together, a practice intolerable to devout Muslims.

With his rightward move to siphon votes from Le Pen, Sarkozy had surged into a tie with Socialist Francois Hollande.

So it was that the left leapt with alacrity upon the massacre to charge that Sarkozy’s new populism had created the climate in which such horrors against Jews and Muslims can occur.

So it was that the Times concluded that the nationalist turn in French politics might be halted, as it had in Norway after berserker Anders Breivik slaughtered scores of children last year.

What was happening should be readily recognizable to Americans.

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a Marxist in Dallas, the Goldwater right was charged with creating an atmosphere of hate that had made it likelier to happen there. When Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot by a crazed gunman who wounded a dozen others and slaughtered six, moral responsibility was laid at the feet of Sarah Palin.

Unfortunately for the French left, however, by Wednesday, the mass murderer had been identified as a homegrown Salafist jihadi and self-styled member of al-Qaida who had spent time in Afghanistan and Pakistan and been under surveillance for years by French intelligence.

Mohamed Merah was seeking revenge against Jews for the deaths of Palestinian children and against French soldiers for fighting in Afghanistan.

Le Pen seized on the news to blast the left, which had sought to blame the atrocities on her, and charged the French government with underestimating the Islamist threat and being lax on national security.

“It is time to wage war on these fundamentalist political religious groups who are killing our children,” she said.

“The threat of Islamic fundamentalism has been underestimated. … (I) have been talking about this for months and months, and the political class has rejected (me). Some are going to have difficulty explaining themselves, but I have a clear conscience.”

With the killer precisely the type of individual the French right has said bears watching, Bayrou was hastily backtracking:

Politicians must “tackle the risk of importing into French society conflicts that are foreign to us or should be foreign to us.”

As Europe’s native citizens age and die and immigration goes on and on — with 5 million Muslims already in France — issues of national identity will bedevil Europe, even as they will bedevil us, forever.

In Toulouse we see clearly now not only the dark side of diversity but perhaps the future of the West.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

Copyright 2012 Creators.com

Comments Disabled (Open | Close)

Comments Disabled To "Toulouse: The Dark Side of Diversity"

#1 Comment By PeteHun On March 23, 2012 @ 8:20 am

Mir. Buchanan,

Ir has been there (Wetern EU) for a while – think about the bus bombings in London, the riots in Paris suburbs, the murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands,and also the “retribution”, the “Döner murders’, in Germany. It has already started.

#2 Comment By Raashid On March 23, 2012 @ 1:42 pm

Pat, if I were you I’d be more worried about the millions of Americans brought up to worship killing and violence with easy access to weapons in a country with a disintegrating economy, then a minority with an inept culture, no access to weaponry and a religion that is turning against wanton violence. If Sgt Bales is the standard for Americans capacity for violence, you’re people ought to be a lot more concerned then the French are about Arabs.

#3 Comment By Fran Macadam On March 23, 2012 @ 2:19 pm

“As an act of pure evil it was difficult to match.”

Tragically, it doesn’t seem difficult at all to match. Some of “us” have even entered this vile competition. “Us” actually being people of any nation or religious group, at various places in time and space.

Are those of us who occupy foreign countries, especially in pre-emptive undeclared illegal wars, also illegal immigrants there?

What if a Mexican national was credibly alleged to have murdered 17, or 5, or whatever number of innocents here, then was whisked by the Mexican embassy out of the country against our wishes?

Solzhenitsyn wrote that the divide between good and evil wasn’t between peoples, but divided every human heart.

Nominal “Christians” have killed civilians in vast numbers – and found their own religious justifications.

Atheistic communists have deified a supposed process of history to make mass murder simply acceptance of a scientific inevitability on the road to “progress.”

The victimized Jewish peoples of Europe and their progeny and relations have justified atrocities by referring to the genocidal evil done them in “Christian” Europe,

The past isn’t dead; it isn’t even past – and it’s apparently our present and future, too – unless we radically change the way of thinking that allows us to justify our wars – past, present and future.

As an immigrant citizen, I don’t see immigration as the problem – but a society whose own precepts are dangerously unhinged with its own preferences for conflict resolution weighted towards violence is one which assimilates immigrants similarly. The problem on an individual scale is a heart of darkness, no less in the interior of Africa than in the Homeland Security Heartland.

#4 Comment By Frank On March 23, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

While the incident at this Jewish school in France was horrible, I have a hard time accepting the – it’s because of diversity mantra. If such religiously motivated hate crimes are about “diversity”, then how do you explain the middle aged white christian who did pretty much the same thing at a Jewish school in Los Angeles a few years back? In fact that murderer even killed uniformed government personnel as well. He killed a mailman while fleeing the seen of his spree shooting at the school.

It seems more about a disturbed individual with access to weapons and time on his hands to engage in some form of “retribution” for his personal grievances.

#5 Comment By 24AheadDotCom On March 23, 2012 @ 4:46 pm

Thanks for standing against mass immig. & multiculturalism.

However, no thanks for tying it to economic ideas that most Americans oppose.

Take a lesson from Marine L.P.’s economic ideas, and also take a lesson from the TPers: they concentrate on things like the national debt that aren’t anywhere near as important as things like immig.

#6 Comment By Kirt Higdon On March 24, 2012 @ 6:19 am

If it’s “the dark side of diversity” any time someone murders or otherwise harms a person of different nationality, race, or religion, is it the dark side of uniformity any time the perp and victim have those factors in common? How about crimes within the same family? Statistically like on like crimes far exceed unlike on unlike in everyday life. Organized genocides are a different matter.

#7 Comment By Michael On March 24, 2012 @ 12:59 pm

Criminally motivated people exist in all industrialized nations and semi industrialized nations. They also to a lesser extent exist in other nations. Islam is a religion which emphasizes that your greater obligation is to G-d.The problem is not in this essential belief; it is in how the message is internalized. Our first essential of faith is to witness that there is no G-d except G-d and that Mohammed is The Messenger of G-d. Witnessing the unity of G-d fosters the sense of self accountability to G-d. For there is no intercessor except whom G-d approves. That there is no son of G-d hence you are completely liable to G-d. The second part of this first essential is to witness Mohammed is G-d’s Messenger. This realization is to be demonstrated in behaviors consistent with the model example presented by Prophet Mohammed. It is not radicalization of these people by Islamic teachings to the contrary it is societal demoralization or we could also say the numbing due to apparent continued assaults on innocence. There is a verse in the Quran that states in part “let not and injustice done to you move you to do injustice to another”. The Islamic position is for the preservation and promotion of life. When my dear wife and I heard of this we agreed with the need to apprehend the guilty and punish swiftly. When it became known it was a Muslim our insistence continued unchanged. Western World is its own worst enemy not Zionism, not Muslims, not communism it is its own worst enemy. People being able to adapt to Western patterns in western lands should have never been a concern for the Western World, in order to compete the onus is on those who want to compete. If some or all don’t desire to compete so be it Liberty is a beautiful thing.

#8 Comment By John On March 25, 2012 @ 5:39 am

When the Mossad goes around the world assassinating scientists and Israel brutally occupies and incorporates Arab lands into its dream of a Greater Israel we hear very llittle, but an Islamist goes on a rampage and all of a sudden there is outrage. Yes, mult-culturalism does not work, but Eurpoe became wealthy through its colonial policies and the immigrants now want to participate in sharing the wealth that was stolen from their ancestors in the form of land, resources, and forced labor under the guise of spreading civilization.

#9 Comment By Mitchell Young On March 25, 2012 @ 7:53 am

Algerians wanted their independence, they got it 50 years ago. There is no reason for Algerians to be in France.

#10 Comment By Thomas O. Meehan On March 25, 2012 @ 11:53 am

I see that the concept of a France that remains French is alien to the posters here.

The historic French public has a right and a duty to decide for itself who is allowed to settle in France. They don’t owe anyone a reason for their preferences.

The French experiment with Muslim immigration has proved a failure. Their challenge now is to flush the foreign ingrates and criminals out of the country.

Fran Macadam, if you find our culture so violent and unchristian, why stick around? Maybe France might still accept you?

#11 Comment By Mitchell Young On March 25, 2012 @ 3:01 pm

Kurt,

1) Ask yourself why we treat inter-ethnic ‘hate’ crimes with extra severity and more media attention. It seems to be human nature to view these sorts of crimes as somehow more

2) Why add inter-ethnic ‘hate’ crimes to the existing background of ‘like on like’ crimes?

3) If France is like virtually everywhere else — the immigration of non-Europeans has increased the number and rate even of ‘like on like’ crimes, with the ‘like’ being the newly introduced population. (The French refuse to keep stats on such things as it would go against the principle of all being equal citizens of the Republic.)

#12 Comment By Amir On March 25, 2012 @ 11:16 pm

Mr. Thomas O. Meehan, I am going to play your own game: If you are so concerned about preserving the uniformity of the cradle of Christian Culture, why don’t you go to Verdun yourself and hide Zimmerman in your attic there?

#13 Comment By Thomas O. Meehan On March 26, 2012 @ 11:54 am

Amir, Because I live here and my ancestors both conformed to and fought to preserve the traditional culture here. Zimmerman doesn’t need my help if the law is upheld. Apart from the left/black lynch mob pursuing him, Zimmerman would have no need to hide.

You are a commenter writing under the pseudonym Amir. There are a lot of “Amirs” living in the West. One wonders why, given the offensiveness of traditional Christian based culture. Could it be that life is better here?

BTW, “The cradle of Christian Culture” is Jerusalem. Surely you’re not inviting me to go there, are you? Amirs around the world would find that very troubling.

#14 Comment By Gilbert Jacobi On March 26, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

Raashid writes,

….”no access to weaponry and a religion that is turning against wanton violence.”

Merah had two high power semi-auto pistols, a 9mm and a .45. I wish my “access” was that easy.

Merah is on tape saying to the police who were trying to talk him into surrender, in answer to their question Why are you doing this?: “Everything is in the Koran.”

I don’t know about an inept culture, whatever that means, it’s the knack for things that go bang that worries me.

#15 Comment By Gilbert Jacobi On March 26, 2012 @ 1:09 pm

Fran Macadam,

Bringing up the evil deeds of others is no excuse for Merah and his fellow jihadists.

Calling troops in a war “illegal immigrants” is a factual error and an obvious attempt to delegitimize the issue of the population replacement – foisted on Americans by the lying Teddy Kennedy – going on in America.

Illegals from Mexico are already murdering, raping, etc., and fleeing back to Mexico every day quite nicely on their own. They don’t need any more help than our criminally irresponsible government already gives them. But whenever the U. S. gov’t. actually finds its backbone for a few seconds and complains about some Mexican illegal’s nefarious doings, haven’t you heard the howls of indignation from Mexico?

Whatever the problems of our own society, inundating a population with outsiders, as happened after the 1965 Immigration Act, is patently a bad idea. Our vices, if kept among ourselves, are much easier to correct and, failing that, to defend against, than they are when embodied by strangers.

#16 Comment By Simon On March 26, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

Diversity isn’t a problem. The problem is people like Pat and Thomas Meehan who feel uncomfortable around people who look different and then treat them in an exclusive matter. If you look into the comment boards of most of the “Old Right” the main concern are things we should have gotten over one hundred years ago, like purity of blood and race suicide. You can’t expect integration when this is the attitude of the receiving majority.

#17 Comment By Thomas O. Meehan On March 26, 2012 @ 2:54 pm

Simon wrote, “You can’t expect integration when this is the attitude of the receiving majority.”

We are not the “receiving majority,” we are the traditional majority who have had a population of of opportunists and primitives thrust upon us. Soon my country will grow to resemble the pest holes of the “Sending Countries.”

I can’t speak for Pat, but I feel very comfortable interacting with Japanese and other people with whom I can socialize on an equal footing. I like Latinos and Persians, but I doubt they would welcome millions of White Christian Americans taking up residence in their countries while demanding all the rights and privileges of natives.

The multi-culturalism advocated by trolls like you is only advanced as an idea in the civilized west. Everyone else is granted the right to maintain their own culture. This mentality is a kind of treason and many of us have grown tired of it.

#18 Comment By Kirt Higdon On March 29, 2012 @ 3:00 pm

Mitchell, I don’t know what past and current French crime stats are and apparently you don’t either. And I for one would consider a crime happening within my family where both perp and victim were related to me to be far more serious and tragic than if one of my family simply fell victim to a stranger crime. Yes inter-ethnic violence gets more media attention and you have the ridiculous classification of hate crimes, but these are certainly not situations that I favor.