Grenoble residents therefore had to suffer as dozens of cars were torched and the sound of unrest filled the night air as an armed mob roamed the city, shooting at the police and threatening members of the public. It is reported that a tram was held up in the city’s Villeneuve district and its passengers forced to disembark by a mob of 30 carrying baseball bats and iron bars. Two men have been arrested.
Video Footage of Grenoble Riots
In general, mainstream reporting of the event has not focused upon the obvious Islamic aspect of this unrest, but has instead deployed the standard narrative of this being a product of socio-economic deprivation and referring to its perpetrators simply as ‘youths’. Although one expects this sort of approach from the BBC which strenuously seeks to avoid mention of Islam if at all possible when reporting such matters, even the Daily Telegraph employs this approach in this instance:
These high-rise neighbourhoods, built in the 1950s and 1960s to house a growing population of industrial workers and immigrants, have become near-ghettos where unemployment is high, public services are poor, and resentment boils.
During the 2005 riots, some 300 buildings and 10,000 cars were burned, while 130 police and rioters were hurt. Since then, unrest has flared often after residents have run ins with the police.
Police and government officials have a lingering fear that the poor suburbs could explode again because the underlying causes – high unemployment, few opportunities, drug trafficking and a sense of exclusion from society – have changed little.
Police unions have raised concerns about a rise in violent crime spurred by the recession and a resurgence of drug trafficking in some areas.The Telegraph avoids mentioning the faith background of the perpetrators and their ethnicity, but the people conducting this violence, as everyone knows, are not French ‘youths’: they are Muslim immigrants or those descended from the Muslim immigrant population. It is probable that this outburst of violence in Grenoble was also a sign of discontent connected to the National Assembly’s decision this week to ban various types of Islamic veil such as the burqa and niqab, but we won’t see mainstream media outlets joining the dots to reveal an all-too apparent and obvious picture of seething Islamist resentment in France.
Prior to Nicolas Sarkozy’s election as President, many amongst the French electorate had been given the impression that he would deal with such rioters in a suitably condign fashion, having referred to those who participated in the 2005 riots as “canailles” and “racailles”, but he has not. Moreover, he has shown considerable accommodation towards Islam, which is not something that ordinary French voters would desire, particularly those who have the misfortune to live cheek by jowl with Muslim populations.
As in the UK, the French mass media is predisposed towards citing “socio-economic” causative factors for such violence, mistakenly attributing it to relative economic deprivation and ‘racism’. However, only a certain type of youthful malcontent is prone towards such wanton acts of hatred and destruction: the doctrinaire Muslim male. The roots of this violence are ideological, and the only effective way in which it can be prevented is through removing an ideology which commands its adherents to look upon all non-adherents as innately inferior.
When resident in a non-Muslim majority society, the doctrinaire Muslim male looks around himself and thinks not only that he is superior, but also that it is his divinely ordained duty to lord it over the kuffar. It is felt to be his ‘duty’ to use any means necessary to either change that society so that it conforms to his ideology, or to physically attack it and its symbols should its people refuse to submit. This latter course of action is only undertaken once a critical demographic mass has been reached so that there is a secure and supportive Islamic refuge out of which such people can operate. That threshold has now been reached in France.
There is no positive connection between the host society and the doctrinaire Muslim population, for the latter exists within the former as a parasite, drawing economic sustenance from the wider society and weakening its vitality and ability to resist. Although I will not be popular with mainstream opinion for choosing to characterise the problem of Islamisation in a metaphorical manner that in a bygone age would have been non-contentious, it is appropriate to treat it as an infection of the body politic of the host society. The bearers and replicators of the lethal virus (those who embody and propagate its meme-complex – doctrinaire Muslims) need to be either rendered harmless through apostasy/conversion or removed to return the societal body to a state of normalcy and health. At best, our mainstream politicians seek to administer palliative care to the patient, and thus seek to provide society with anodynes such as banning veils and minarets, which although dealing with some of the external symptoms of Islamisation, allow the virus to rage unchecked and grow stronger.
Geert Wilders is the only ‘doctor’ to have diagnosed the cure for the ailing patients of Europe: a purging of the body politic from doctrinaire Islam and establishing a cordon sanitaire to prevent further infection. I hope that France is not beset by further violence, and that her politicians finally face up to the task of confronting Islamisation head-on, for anything less is a betrayal of the French people. Vive la France!