A Stupendous Summing-Up By Historian Jean-Pierre Le Goff

2 Responses

1. Thanks, Hugh, for the link.
   I struggled through the piece with my weak French, but appreciated the lucid analysis of the blindness of French society- not only the Left- to the ideology that leads to terrorist outrages.

   And the skepticism about the lasting significance of today’s march is well founded. Sentiment and emotion, however sincere, will do nothing to stop the murder and destruction.

   He does end on a note of hope- France has resources, a history to recover.
   What do you think of Europe’s ability to mount a counter- jihad? How disabling of this ability will the EU be?

   Reply

2. Those who rise high in, and set the tone and often policy for the EU are taken from the same subset of people in Europe who are picked for the BBC World Service, and The Guardian, and France2 and so on. They believe in “Europe” and not in nations. Their minds are made up about everything, or almost. They know that there are tens of millions of Muslims in their midst, and they just haven’t any idea, can’t even begin to consider, what that must mean, and what the peoples of Europe have to do, not only to protect themselves against terrorism, but to preserve their schools, their hospitals, their laws and customs and understandings, their sense of well-being in their offices and homes, and on the street. It just overwhelms them. Their minds shut down. And the very first thing that has to be done — ending all Muslim immigration — is something that so terrifies them, that they cannot allow themselves to think. So they make up a story to themselves about Islam. I saw Martin Schulz on the French television. He’s the President of the EU Parliament. An amiable mediocrity. He was asked the obvious stupid question – are Islam and democracy compatible — and he said “why yes, just look at Indoneisa, where they have elections.” The interviewer did not say that:1) Indonesia is a most unrepresentative Musilm land, with physical reminders, and cultural traditions, that pre-date the arrival of Islam, and was not conquered militarily, but through the Hadrami traders who first established entrepots in Java and Sumatra, and then converted the rulers of those Hindu kingdoms, and in so doing, the peoples they ruled over became Muslim.
   2) Even Indonesia is a shaky democracy, with a short history, and punctuated by coups and mass killings.
   3) What about five dozen other Muslim states that are not democratic? 4) What does the word “democracy” mean? Is it mere head-counting? 5) If it is to mean something, then by that question, the interviewer should have said, I mean: do you, Mr. Schulz, have any examples of a Muslim land where the rights of non-Muslims as legal equals of Muslims are guaranteed? Is such possible under Islam? What about the legal equality of men and women — again, is that anywhere guaranteed in any Muslim land, and enforced? 6) Mr. Schulz, the basis of legitimacy of governments in the West is that they are supposed to reflect or represent, however imperfectly, the will expressed by the people in elections. The basis of legitimacy in Islam is the will expressed by Allah in the Qur’an. That is the Sharia. The Sharia is not a fiction, it exists, and Muslims are taught that it is the supreme law, the only law that counts. What, Mr. Schulz, do you have to say about that?

   And there’s much more that might have been asked of this man, now the President of the European Parliament. But he was an idiot, and so was the interviewer, and nothing of significance was said or learned, or could be. It will require a new set of people, people who’ve had it up to here with Islam and are more intelligent, and know what is in the Qur’an and Sunnah, and cannot be fooled. Such people exist. They should be supported, to the hilt.

   Reply