(Below is a cross-post from my Stellar Reaches blog.)
Terrorism is a way to radicalize the population, a recruitment device to force an either-or choice, and to push the government into a reaction that will further inspire hatred, and more violence. The concept has been around since at least Marxism, with the Islamic State’s recent actions in Paris showing further development in the concept (they call it “The Extinction of the Grayzone”.
In the real world, I suspect that the Islamic State/ISIS will indeed manage to inspire widespread hatred against French (and later, all European Muslims). It may take a while, but a sufficient number of vicious atrocities will get the job done.
Spengler adds some useful information, including the widespread, even dominant support for the Islamic State among the Muslim population of France – especially the young men. He also outlines two forms of counterinsurgency operations:
- the truly ugly and monstrous (but effective) French manner, as per the Algerian Way. Expect lots of torture, lots of disappearances, lots of mysteriously empty villages…
- or the very detailed, very watchful (but also effective) Israeli way. Many Israeli Jews speak Arabic as their first language; every last email and webpage is logged; and there are (I suspect) a simply preposterous number of double-agents in Arab ranks.
(Also, walls. Lots and lots and LOTS of walls. Patrolled by men with guns.)
Spengler believes that the French don’t have the stomach for option 1, but have – with their regular opposition to Israel (to please their Muslim population) – also cut themselves with option 2. To really have the Muslim population fear the French State, there must be lots of harsh consequences that fall specifically on the Muslim population: something that the French government won’t do. So this leaves them to do… nothing.
I think that this will go on and on for quite a while. Until something happens that breaks the camel’s back.
That will be a good time not to be in France. Or anywhere in Europe, for that matter.
Max Linderman, “The Wimpy Catholic“, wrote:
If the French people decide that the best way to make their country safe is to push back against Islamic influence or multiculturalism, they’ll do it in the name of something much harsher than Christianity.
Or, as H.P. Lovecraft advised, “Do not call up that which you can not put down.”
Here in Across the Stars, I’ll briefly expand on Philip Jenkin’s Permanent Jihad, Continued.
2. This is absolutely NOT intended as a comment on US gun debates, but here is an irony. Regular firearms are very difficult to obtain or hold legally in most of Europe. Military ordnance, though, including automatic rifles, easily crosses Europe’s eastern borders, mainly from the Balkans. There is no reason why missiles and anti-tank weapons should not follow. These weapons used to come in via protected diplomatic bags of various embassies, but now, there is no need for such subterfuge: just throw them in the back of the truck. Once the weapons cross the borders, the Schengen policy of free movement within the European Union means they can reach the soil of any signatory country (stressing the latter). You want a handgun? Completely illegal! But how about a nice fully auto assault rifle instead?
One key question: is there any way whatever of removing those weapons from the streets of western Europe? Just look at one hotspot, the Brussels suburb of Molenbeek, and ask how many weapons are floating around there? And then extend the question to comparable areas of Paris, Rome, Vienna, Madrid, London, Bradford, Malmö, Eindhoven …
How long before Paris – and to a lesser or greater extent, all of Europe – turns into the Beirut of the early 1980s?
I’m thinking about a decade. Definitely, when the welfare state dies out.