The French Intifada

The French Intifada. By the editorial team at The Australian.

[What began as student] protests, as British writer Brendan O’Neill reported in the New York Post on Wednesday, may be attracting hundreds of thousands on to the streets across France, but they are increasingly being “morphed into an orgy of Islamo-leftist violence”.

O’Neill says we are witnessing something extraordinary: an intifada in the heart of Europe.

“Surely no one can now deny the lethal error of throwing open a nation’s borders to the world, while sacrificing the ideals of integration at the altar of multiculturalism,” he said. …

Donald Trump was widely criticised on Tuesday when he warned that the French student riots were the inevitable result of “out of control mass migration … this isn’t about schools, this is about Islam wanting to take over a once great country”, he wrote on his Truth Social website.

Mr Trump has a point. There is far more to the student riots than the condition of French classrooms.

Brave AI on the meaning of Intifada:

Intifada is an Arabic term meaning “uprising” or “shaking off,” derived from a verb meaning to shake off dust or lethargy.

In the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, it refers to popular uprisings by Palestinians against Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

While the word can describe various uprisings globally (such as the 1916 Easter Rising or the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising), in English it primarily denotes these Palestinian resistance movements.

It’s been going on for a while:

But it’s made a big step up in the last week.

The Downfall of Tucker Carlson

The Downfall of Tucker Carlson. By Stephen Green at PJ Media.

How many times does someone get to make excuses for Hitler before they get labeled “evil,” too?

Whatever that number is, I’m reasonably sure that Tucker Carlson just hit it.

Strike 3:

On a podcast late last week, Carlson interviewed former British Conservative Member of Parliament Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg to talk about the current sad state of Britain, and among other topics, how the British might be better off today if they’d just had the good sense to let the Nazis win World War II.

Strike 1:

This disturbing side of Carlson first came to my attention two years ago when he could be seen nodding along enthusiastically with the Palestinian Authority’s favorite Christian, Reverend Munther Isaac.

The Gaza War had been raging for just six months when Carlson chose to interview Isaac to find out how the Jewish State of Israel treats Christians. Isaac is a Palestinian Christian from Palestinian-controlled Bethlehem, where Christian ministers serve at the mercy of the Palestinian Authority. The PA has ethnically cleansed Bethlehem from 80% Christian 30 years ago to 80% Muslim today.

During his interview, Carlson failed to ask Isaac why he applauded the Oct. 7 atrocities — and that little omission was probably the best part of the podcast.

Strike 2:

Carlson’s new schtick came to my attention again later in 2024 when he happily hosted the musings of pseudo-historian Daryl “Oops!… He Holocausted Again” Cooper. According to Cooper, Nazi war atrocities and that little Holocaust business were just the Germans being merciful.

“We can’t feed these people, we don’t have the food to feed these people,” Cooper imagined the Germans thinking after fighting on the Eastern Front accidentally created more prisoners and refugees than Germany could cope with. “And one of them actually says, ‘Rather than wait for them all to slowly starve this winter, wouldn’t it be more humane to just finish them off quickly now?’”

That’s an actual quote.

“Oopsies!” is not a valid excuse for the methodical execution (and sometimes torture) of six million Jews and another six million assorted “undesirables” like gays, Gypsies, cripples, and the mentally retarded. The Germans killed roughly 3.3 million Soviet POWs during the war, too, largely through forced labor and malign neglect — not by accident or out of mercy.

Yet Carlson endorsed him as “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.”

Carson was so good at analyzing US politics. But when he ventured to comment outside the US, his abysmal ignorance about the non-US world led to major faux pas and poor judgement — as above.

The elite of Victorian England were one unified family who played together but knew little

The elite of Victorian England were one unified family who played together but knew little. By Samuel Hughes at Works in Progress.

[Modern] books about successful people often make success sound rather unappealing. Education should be intense and rigorous, focused on driving up IQ and on the ‘STEM’ quaternity of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Once adulthood is reached, life follows an austere pattern, with a 5am start, cold baths, daily visits to the gym, little or no alcohol, a Huel-rich diet, and Stakhanovite working hours.

Victorian Britain ruled the world like no one before or since, and their elites did it very differently:

The elites of Victorian Britain operated differently. Their schools and universities were not terribly academic and had very little STEM. As adults, they got up late, drank a lot, and spent a remarkable share of their waking hours partying. They loved feasting, sports, holidays, dancing, and dressing up. Contrary to their stodgy reputation, they were probably a lot of fun.

Despite this, the elites of nineteenth-century Britain were, by their own lights, extremely successful. For much of the century, Britain was the richest country on Earth. Its companies dominated global commerce, industry and finance. Its huge navy reigned over the world’s oceans, and its tiny army won a long sequence of wars while keeping watch over an enormous empire. Britain progressed gradually toward democracy with none of the revolutions and civil wars that wracked continental Europe. There is a longstanding view that the prosperity of Britain’s elites came at the cost of the hundreds of millions whom they subordinated and oppressed, and no doubt that is at least partly true. But on their own terms, the British ruling class enjoyed a victorious century.

Maybe the Victorian elite succeeded in spite of being feckless and incompetent: the Industrial Revolution created great wealth, which they enjoyed passively and parasitically. We cannot run controlled experiments on Victorian Britain, so this thesis is hard to test. But I want to explore the possibility that a relentless focus on soft skills, team building, and intra-elite networking actually worked rather well. Huel, STEM, and cold baths have their merits. But the example of the Victorians should make us hesitate before concluding that there is only one way to rule the world.

 

The British elite were one big unified family, strong on team building and soft skills, and rather poor at acquiring knowledge about anything other than themselves.

Schools:

Most students at both preparatory and public schools were boarders, meaning that elite Victorians were generally sent away from home by the age of eight and spent their childhoods more with peers than with family. …

Academic life was dominated by Latin and, to a lesser extent, Greek. … Victorian adults had little occasion to use their classical languages, so they tended to forget them. ‘I have gladly forgotten all my Latin, and don’t ever want to remember it again’, wrote the war poet Charles Sorley, one year after leaving school; at least he did better than Winston Churchill, who remarked that ‘In all the twelve years I was at school no one ever succeeded in making me write a Latin verse or learn any Greek except the alphabet’. …

School authorities introduced programs of organized sports, chiefly cricket in summer and various forms of ‘football’ (including what became rugby) in winter. Many schools ultimately had four, five, or even six afternoons of sports per week: a student would certainly spend ten hours a week on the sports field, and might well spend twenty.

The Victorians thought extremely highly of sports, believing that they instilled team spirit and endurance, fostered mutual loyalty, channeled energy and competitiveness, and taught men how to win and lose graciously. …

Most elite Victorian men went on to Oxford or Cambridge (‘Oxbridge’). Oxbridge was not necessarily a big step up academically. Virtually everyone who applied was accepted. Once you were in, you could pursue one of two tracks: either an ‘honors’ degree, which involved at least some serious study, or a ‘pass’ or ‘ordinary’ degree, which involved sitting only some very easy exams in classics and religion. In the early Victorian period, most Oxbridge students were ‘pass men’; this changed gradually as the century drew on, but there were still plenty of pass men around as late as 1914. The pass degree was particularly popular among aristocratic students, who tended to prioritize rowing, feasting, and social polish over disciplined study. …

Nearly all students lived together in colleges.

Adulthood:

One virtue that upper-class Victorian education signally failed to inculcate was early rising. … The day of an upper-class Victorian adult started late. The great prime minister of the early nineteenth century, Pitt the Younger, breakfasted at 9am. The great prime minister of the Victorian period, William Gladstone, hosted a social breakfast starting at 10.30am (claret was served), continuing till about noon. His rival Benjamin Disraeli attended breakfasts hosted by Lord Houghton, which started at 10am, but which Disraeli would join at about 11.30am. Elite Victorians generally had flexible working hours and were free to work from home unless they had meetings elsewhere. Many spent the whole morning at home, reading the newspaper, answering letters, and preparing for later meetings. The Edwardian prime minister Arthur Balfour generally did all this literally in bed, rarely emerging from his bedroom before lunchtime. As we shall see, mornings must often have been even later from February to July, when many leading Victorians would have spent much of the night partying.

At some point in the late morning, the Victorian would finally make his way to the office. … Britain’s elites were slow to suburbanize, and in 1914 most still lived in centrally located row houses and walked to work.  …

Dinners were rich and elaborate. … A typical dinner began with soup and sherry, then proceeded to fish with hock (Rhineland whites), passing on through a sequence of meat courses with champagne or red wines, and finishing with various desserts and savories served with port and madeira. The Victorians loved drinking and drank a lot by modern standards. Men drank more than women, but women drank a good deal too: one conduct guide noted that ‘young ladies seldom drink more than three glasses of wine at dinner but married ladies, professional ladies, and those accustomed to society, and habits of affluence, will habitually take five or even six, whether in their own homes or at the tables of their friends’. …

Balls were the flagship evening entertainment. They started late, at nine or ten, and guests would filter in gradually, with the dance floor really full from about 11pm. Around midnight a meal called ‘supper’ appeared, comprising soups, salads, cold meats, shellfish, fruit, and ice cream. After supper, dancing recommenced; a good ball peaked after 1am. Guests gradually returned home in the small hours, and the most determined might continue until dawn. …

 

It would be quite wrong, however, to think that balls were simply mass dating events. Courtiers, bankers, judges, and cabinet ministers would have shared the dance floor with debutantes. In fact, with some exceptions like club lunches, the social events of the Victorian elite were notable for their lack of segregation by age or sex. A Society ball discharged the functions of both a teenage house party and a business networking convention: in fact, it was both a teenage house party and a business networking convention. …

Working hardly at all, or all the time?

By one definition, then, elite Victorians did remarkably little work: they could easily spend just four or five hours a day actually in the office. But by another definition, they were working all the time. Lunches, balls, and dinners were certainly fun, but they were not just fun. In the words of the historian Leonore Davidoff, these social occasions provided ‘access to a vast information network: information about jobs, investment possibilities, secret political decisions’. Many Victorians were intensely ambitious and drove themselves hard: sleep deprivation, exhaustion and burnout were familiar companions.

The distinctive feature of elite Victorian lifestyles was not laziness, but an extreme weighting toward what we might call team building and professional networking, and the near-total fusion of personal and professional life….

Why it succeeded:

It is not altogether fanciful to think of the Victorian elite as functioning like a big premodern village, though its members were geographically dispersed across the kingdom and its vast empire.

All the practices I have described in this article helped to maintain this emotional village. The ruling class were educated together from an early age, in schools and universities designed to inculcate shared values, a common identity, and ties of mutual loyalty. As adults they congregated every year in an area of central London that actually was village-sized, where they spent every night in one another’s company. Young members of the Victorian elite tended to meet their future spouses during these glittering evenings, so that the elite came to form, to some extent, a literal family. …

The advantage was unity — no rivalry among elites:

In some ways, rich Victorians were quite diverse. They came from every part of the British Isles. They included landed aristocrats and urban bourgeois, with the latter steadily superseding the former over the course of the century. Most landowners were Anglicans, but many of the new rich were Nonconformists (non-Anglican Protestants), and some were Jews or Catholics. With the conspicuous exception of the Irish Catholics, all these people were successfully folded into a single British elite, rather than forming hostile counter-elites working to overthrow the social order.

This obviously had advantages for Britain. The elites of the American South had a very different identity to those of the North, and ultimately led the country into civil war. Spain, Italy and France suffered from incessant conflicts between urban bourgeois and rural nobility. Germany was riven with strife along geographical, religious, and class lines. Some of these tensions existed in Britain, but except in Ireland, the elite finessed them peacefully. …

What if we were more like that today?

Would modern societies work better if their local and national government were conducted by a tight-knit community of extremely rich and successful people? Maybe not: the downsides are obvious.

But the problems would be interestingly different from those that they have in reality. Imagine a San Francisco whose Board of Supervisors featured Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Sam Altman and Mark Zuckerberg, each feeling this responsibility to be the greatest glory of his career, each hoping that he might one day attain the greater glory that is the House of Representatives. It might not be paradise. Maybe it would be a disaster. But it would certainly be interesting.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

The limits of socialism and the crazy government supermarket poposals

The limits of socialism and the crazy government supermarket poposals. By Handre.

Boris Yeltsin walked into a Houston Randall’s grocery store in 1989 and went quiet. Not quiet in a polite, diplomatic way. Quiet in the way a man goes quiet when reality collapses on him.

He saw 30,000 products on shelves. He saw ordinary Americans buying chicken, cheese, and fresh bread without a ration card, without a two-hour queue, without bribing anyone. A Soviet man of real power, surrounded by abundance that Soviet central planners had promised for seventy years and never delivered. He reportedly told his aide that if ordinary Soviet citizens saw this store, they would riot.

 

 

Central planners destroyed the price system. Without prices, nobody could calculate where to send resources. Hayek proved this theoretically in 1945. The Soviets proved it empirically with empty shelves every single decade they existed.

You grew up in that system, and you got potatoes when the state decided potatoes existed for you. You stood in line for meat that had already rotted. You traded favors to get medicine your doctor prescribed. Bureaucrats in Moscow set production quotas with no feedback mechanism, no profit signal, no way to know what you actually needed.

Yeltsin left that Houston store and reportedly wept in the car. He later said it destroyed his belief in the Soviet system more than any dissident literature ever had.

Socialism grinds people down daily, in a thousand small humiliations, until standing in line for bread feels normal.

Some things the free market does  much, much better than socialism. On the other hand, socialism (i.e. government) is naturally better for armies and courts. And it’s usually appropriate for natural monopolies, like water and roads. For money and interest rates? Hmmmm, maybe not, in the long run. But supermarkets? Definitely not.

In New York, Mayor Mamdani, a democratic socialist, has allocated $70m in the city budget to open five grocery stores. He said they will offer produce, meat and seafood for 30% less than typical retail prices.

In Australia, the Green Institute, the research arm of the Australian Greens, is urging federal government to spend $25.1 billion creating a publicly owned supermarket network and forcibly acquiring more than 200 Coles and Woolworths stores. It claims the government-owned stores could cut the cost of essential groceries by 30 per cent and save a family of four more than $3,000 a year.

Why 30% in both cases? Probably because they see these figures for public companies, and think they can run a chain of stores as well and give away all the “profit”:

Supermarket Gross margin Equivalent mark-up
Woolworths (Australia, FY2025) 28.6% 40.1%
Coles (FY2026) 27.8% 38.5%
Kroger (FY2025) 22.9% 29.7%
Walmart (FY2025) 24.1% 31.8%
Albertsons (recent quarterly result) 27.2% 37.4%

Source: Annual reports, via ChatGPT.

Technical details (which socialists and politicians tend to skip): Suppose a supermarket buys a product for $7 and sells it for $10.

  • Its mark-up is 42.9% (the extra $3 divided by $7).
  • Its gross margin is 30% (the extra $3 divided by $10).
  • Its net profit is much smaller after wages, rent, electricity, refrigeration, distribution and other expenses. The net profit margins of major Australian and American supermarkets are generally around 1–3% of sales (due to stiff competition), far smaller than their gross margins of approximately 23–29%.
Supermarket Net profit margin Financial year
Australia
Coles ~2.4% FY2026
Woolworths 1.4% reported / 2.0% underlying FY2025
United States
Kroger 0.7% reported / 2.2% adjusted FY2025
Walmart ~3% FY2026
Albertsons ~0.3% reported FY2025

So 30% is way too optimistic without major, major subsidies. Mamdani and the Australian Greens will end up quietly weeping in their cars if they go ahead. Yes, they really are that dumb about economics and business.

What if your ‘lived experience’ is attending a mosque five times a day?

What if your ‘lived experience’ is attending a mosque five times a day? By The Spectator Australia.

The left loves to fetishise so-called ‘lived experiences’. The idea is that there is something unique that ‘normal’ people can never comprehend if you have the ‘lived experience’ of being, for instance, gay, or transgender, black or whatever.

But the opposite is never considered: what if your ‘lived experience’ is attending a mosque five times a day in Mogadishu and having it drummed into you since birth that certain other people are vermin who deserve to die? How healthy is it for a society to import large numbers of people who may have been immersed in such a ‘lived experience’? And why do we imagine that just because our ‘lived experience’ is one of tolerating other lifestyles, the same holds true for everyone else? At what point is social cohesion severely damaged if those we allow to come to our shores have no desire to be ‘socially cohesive’ themselves?

These issues have been worsened by the refusal of the Albanese government to admit, let alone to confront, them. On what planet, in a post-October 7 world, would you think it a great idea to suddenly grant over 3,000 visas to Gazans? …

To what extent do we allow these alien beliefs and discriminatory practices to enter our free and open society? And what to do when it dawns on us that we might have already let in too many? …

No matter how much the left-wing media here and abroad attempt to disguise the reality of the nightmare in France, and indeed in much of Europe, the public have already made up their minds. Islamic values are too often incompatible with Western democratic norms.

Gaza: the most lied about war in history, and the left’s blood libel

Gaza: the most lied about war in history, and the left’s blood libel. By Brendan O’Neil in spiked.

What would you call a country that is experiencing one of the highest levels of population growth on Earth? How would you describe a country where the child malnutrition levels are similar to those of that industrial powerhouse of Europe, Germany? What would you say about a nation that was in receipt of so much food aid that at one stage around 3,163 calories were available per person, per day? I’ll tell you what you couldn’t say: that that country is suffering one of the most demonic genocides in history. That its people are being forcibly starved. That its pain finds no parallel in the annals of human wickedness.

I am talking about Gaza. …

Three years since Hamas’s genocidal invasion of the Jewish State, the truth of the war that followed is starting to peep through the choking slurry of lies. If I were one of those people who spent the past three years blood-libelling the Jewish nation as a Nazi-like, child-starving murder machine, I’d start thinking up some excuses right about now. For history is coming for you. …

Gaza is the most lied about war in history. Nothing else comes close. The branding of a war as a ‘genocide’, and normal war suffering as ‘famine’, is a flagrant crime against truth. The branding of the Jews’ fightback against anti-Semitic barbarism as ‘genocidal mania’ is unforgivable….

To call the Jewish State a Nazi entity is the great, terrible lie of our times. It is a libel without compare. It is utterly without foundation. …

It’s actually quite simple. If you wanted to ‘genocide’ a people, would you send them tens of millions of meals and assist in the vaccination of a million of their children from polio? Israel did that in Gaza. It spearheaded the importing of millions of tonnes of food. It worked with the World Health Organisation to vaccinate more than a million Gazan kids. Not only is this ‘unlike’ what the Nazis did to the Jews — it’s the polar, stirring, complete opposite.

In Nazi Poland, over 97% of the Jews died. In Gaza, less than 3% of the population died. One’s a real genocide, the other a bunch of lies.

What Vlad the Impaler Teaches Us About the Islamic Military Cult

What Vlad the Impaler Teaches Us About the Islamic Military Cult. By Scott Lively.

The Ottomans perfected the devshirme system — the systematic, forcible levy of Christian boys from the Balkans. They were seized from their families, marched away in chains, forcibly converted to Islam, circumcised, and then broken and remade into Janissaries: elite slave-soldiers who became the cutting edge of Ottoman expansion for centuries. This was not a side practice. It was the institutional heart of an Islamic military machine that treated conquered Christian populations as a renewable resource of manpower, sexual slaves, and human material for endless jihad.

That machine was stopped from swallowing the rest of Europe only when certain Christian rulers finally adopted the only language the Ottoman war cult truly understood: overwhelming, public, and unrelenting terror.

 

Vlad Țepeș, “the Impaler”. Also called Dracula after his father Vlad Dracul.

 

Vlad III of Wallachia — known to history as Vlad Țepeș, “the Impaler” — is usually reduced to a cartoon vampire. That is a modern distraction. The real man was a hard, calculating Christian prince who spent his life fighting the Ottoman Empire after having been held as a hostage in the Sultan’s court as a boy. He knew exactly what the devshirme and the Janissary corps were. He had seen the system up close.

When Sultan Mehmed II (the same conqueror of Constantinople) demanded that Vlad pay tribute and surrender boys for the Janissary levy, Vlad refused. War followed. In 1462, after a night attack on the Ottoman camp failed to kill the Sultan, Vlad withdrew and left behind a deliberate message. Along the road toward the Ottoman advance he had thousands of prisoners — Ottoman soldiers, collaborators, and captives — impaled on stakes.

Contemporary accounts describe a “forest” of the impaled stretching for miles, the bodies left to rot in place. Mehmed, a man who had ordered mass beheadings and the systematic enslavement of Christian populations, is recorded as being so sickened and demoralized by the sight that he turned his army back.

Vlad’s methods were not unique in kind; they were unique in scale and theatrical clarity.

He understood that the Ottoman military system ran on the production of fear and the certainty of eventual victory through superior organization and ruthlessness. The only way to break that psychological momentum was to demonstrate a willingness to match and exceed it.

Vlad was not alone. Stephen the Great (Ștefan cel Mare) of Moldavia fought the Ottomans in more than thirty battles and repeatedly used scorched-earth tactics, mass executions of prisoners, and the public display of the dead to deter further invasion. John Hunyadi and later Hungarian and Serbian commanders employed similar measures when conventional warfare proved insufficient against an enemy that treated the enslavement of Christian children as state policy and the conversion of entire populations as a religious duty.

These men were not modern human-rights activists. They were medieval Christian rulers confronting an expansionist Islamic military cult that had already consumed the Christian kingdoms of the Middle East, North Africa, and Anatolia, and was methodically working its way through the Balkans toward Vienna. …

The lesson for today’s rulers:

The modern West prefers to remember Vlad as a monster and to forget the system he was fighting. That selective memory is convenient. It allows contemporary discussions of jihad, martyrdom doctrine, human shields, and the use of civilian populations as expendable assets to proceed as if these practices appeared out of thin air in the twentieth century. They did not. …

Vlad the Impaler’s forest of stakes was hideous. It was also effective. The men who finally halted the Ottoman push into the heart of Europe did so by convincing the Islamic military machine that the cost of advancing further would be higher than the benefit. That is the unromantic, historically documented reality. Softness did not stop the Janissaries.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Strange how Australia was the envy of the world before mass third world migration

Strange how Australia was the envy of the world before mass third world migration.

 

Alexandra Marshall:

Things we didn’t have in the 80s in Australia:

Bollards everywhere.
Bins taken away for ‘safety’.
Terror warnings on trains.
Stripping at airport security.
Speech laws.
Rules about touching unattended luggage.
Heavily armed police at public landmarks.
Historical statues attacked and destroyed.
Streets taken over with aggressive anti-West protests.
Terror watchlists.
Commissioners for various religions.
Cultural warnings about Christian holidays.
Terror attacks.

Before 1984, Australian police didn’t even carry firearms.

Commenters:

I remember that Australia. It was the one I visited for five months in 1985 and decided to come back to permanently. The sunshine, the warmth, the sea, the relaxed lifestyle, lack of a real Establishment hierarchy, the concept of the Fair Go, the lack of obesity. All gone. …

Australia fell hook, line and sinker for Global Warming. The Davos, World Economic Forum, foot in the door that has lead, over decades, to “Globalization” “Climate Crisis” At every turn it’s been about spreading distrust and confusion while money is made and liberty is lost. …

The politicians lecture Australian’s about how our country was somehow ‘always multicultural’, just because from the 50s many Greeks, Italians & Maronite Lebanese immigrated. These people were all Christian and a part of the Western ethos, they didn’t hate Australian values.

Pauline Hanson in 1987, by Lisa.

In 1987 Pauline Hanson was divorced and alone with three children, when she borrowed money to buy Marsden’s Seafood in Ipswich, a rundown takeaway shop

She turned the business around. For eight years she worked 80 to 90 hours a week, six days a week largely by herself, to support her children and avoid going on benefits

Pauline had no parents or other family support, making it “extremely hard”.

 

Warning: mass immigration will split your country in two, and the two sides will eventually go to war

Warning: mass immigration will split your country in two, and the two sides will eventually go to war. By John Daniel Davidson at The Federalist.

The riots in France last week stand as a warning to the United States and all western countries: mass immigration will split your country in two, and the two sides will eventually go to war. …

Ancient France:

A few days earlier … Pope Leo XIV drew massive crowds at every stop on his four-day papal visit. Some 800,000 people lined the Avenue des Champs-Élysées for an open-air Mass in Paris, catching the media and civil authorities by surprise. France is supposed to be a secular country, after all. …

There is ancient France, the true France, which despite the French Revolution and state-enforced secularism is still deeply Catholic, “the eldest daughter of the Church.” That is the France that showed up for Pope Leo.

Immigrant France:

The other France is the one we saw rioting in the streets last week. News reports said the unrest began in Créteil, a suburb of Paris, over the poor condition of the public schools. Disaffected high schoolers, fed up with overcrowded classes and dilapidated buildings, took to the streets spontaneously, so we’re told. From there, the rioting supposedly spread organically across the entire country in a matter of days.

There are a few problems with this narrative, beginning with the images and footage of the riots posted all over social media. What we see are not protests of classroom conditions, but the wanton destruction of schools, violent attacks on firefighters and police and even teachers, and all the indications of central organization and planning.

Among the “protesters,” we don’t see a broad cross-section of French society but overwhelmingly nonwhite males, immigrants and the children of immigrants.

The barricades are being raised largely by Muslim youth of North African and Middle Eastern descent.

Outside many schools, students weren’t chanting about funding cuts or classroom conditions, they were chanting “we are antifascists” and other such slogans.

In Marseille, rioters flew the flag of Algeria and Hamas, not the tricolor. It was the same at a number of high schools that saw rioting.

It’s pretty obvious what’s going on, and who is behind the unrest. This is the Red-Green alliance of the socialist/Antifa left and Muslim immigrants, operationalized to bring the country to its knees through widespread rioting ahead of national elections next year. …

Not one country any more, but two. Who will prevail?

The pope’s popularity on the one hand, and the riots that erupted across France a few days after his departure, on the other, illustrate the extent to which France today is not a single country or nation. It is not one people. …

Summary:

In short, what is happening in France is that communists and Muslim migrants are joining forces, testing their strength on the eve of national elections.

It might be illegal to say so in France, but these are ethnic riots, a show of force by unassimilated Muslim migrants and their hard-left revolutionary allies, who believe that together they are strong enough to overpower the native majority.

 

hat-tip Stephen Neil

 

The same old tough talk without a solution

The same old tough talk without a solution. By Basil the Great.

Tough talk from [Nigel Farage’s] Reform UK – “Mass immigration and Islam is destroying western countries”

Ok, so are you going to deport these people?

“Well not if they’re born here, they’re just as English as you and me.”

Really???

Speaking of same old nonsense, the BBC published a photo of only white students for unrest in France:

The BBC lies by omission again. They will say anything to increase immigration for more lefty, big government voters. In this case they are pretending the unrest in France is by white students protesting against school conditions. Nuh.

The reality:

It’s not just about schools, not any more. Mass immigration has split France in two, and the two sides will eventually go to war.

Palestinians Finally Granted Own Country

Palestinians Finally Granted Own Country. By The Babylon Bee.

PARIS — At long last, the Palestinian people finally have a land to truly call their own.

After decades of war, strife, and refusing other offers for sovereign territory, a new nation for Palestinians was at last established within the country formerly known as “France.”

“What a remarkable moment for the Palestinian people, seeing their flag raised over the Arc de Triomphe, knowing this land belongs to them,” said Middle East policy expert Gerard Rousseau. “They may have traded the Jordan River for the Seine, but the Palestinians finally have a homeland. It has been so gracious how quickly the old occupants of this land have made way for the new.” …

At publishing time, the Palestinians had clarified that having their own land would not change their goal of wiping Israel off the face of the Earth.

Seriously: