After a devastating head-to-head debate, in which Segolene Royal began shouting, only to have Nicolas Sarkozy question whether she had the "emotional stability" to govern France, Sarkozy's lead in the French polls has ballooned to over 10 points.
Yesterday (Friday, May 4, 2007) Ms. Royal took the tack popularized by many Western radicals, by warning of massive violence should Sarkozy be elected Sunday.
But is that really an effective argument for appeasement ("They're already here in big numbers, so we'd better just learn to live with and accept them") or is it really a defense of Sarkozy's warning about "the Muslim menace within?"
To date, no radical anywhere, not communist George Soros, not radical Michael Moore, nor his protege Cindy Sheehan, not anyone, has made an effective argument in favor of "conciliation with Sharia-based Islam."
Perhaps the argument just cannot be made!
After all, if the Muslims in France are really the threat that Segolene Royal claims they are, then that would seem to be an argument in favor of even harsher measures than those proposed by Sarkozy and not the appeasement that Royal and the radicals are calling for.
Certainly one couldn't seriously take that warning as an argument in favor of "surrender" - "They're already here, it's too late to fight, so we just better learn to adapt to and accommodate these new-comers."
The latter is a rationalization for suicide!
Thankfully, it looks as though it's failing.
One socialist acquittance of mine has long argued that "socialism just hasn't been done right."
Of course, history says otherwise. Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and Castro among others have ALL proven that property rights (private property) gets in the way of socialism and makes "equality" impossible, thus land (property) reform must always be the first step of any socialist regime and that first step can only be achieved through mass murder...and worse, the mass murder of a nation's most productive class - it's property owners.
No, socialism has been tried many times and in many ways and it has been rightfully declared dead.
Let's hope that France realizes that there is no hope in trying to revive a dead ideology, even one advanced by a pretty face.
Yesterday (Friday, May 4, 2007) Ms. Royal took the tack popularized by many Western radicals, by warning of massive violence should Sarkozy be elected Sunday.
But is that really an effective argument for appeasement ("They're already here in big numbers, so we'd better just learn to live with and accept them") or is it really a defense of Sarkozy's warning about "the Muslim menace within?"
To date, no radical anywhere, not communist George Soros, not radical Michael Moore, nor his protege Cindy Sheehan, not anyone, has made an effective argument in favor of "conciliation with Sharia-based Islam."
Perhaps the argument just cannot be made!
After all, if the Muslims in France are really the threat that Segolene Royal claims they are, then that would seem to be an argument in favor of even harsher measures than those proposed by Sarkozy and not the appeasement that Royal and the radicals are calling for.
Certainly one couldn't seriously take that warning as an argument in favor of "surrender" - "They're already here, it's too late to fight, so we just better learn to adapt to and accommodate these new-comers."
The latter is a rationalization for suicide!
Thankfully, it looks as though it's failing.
One socialist acquittance of mine has long argued that "socialism just hasn't been done right."
Of course, history says otherwise. Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and Castro among others have ALL proven that property rights (private property) gets in the way of socialism and makes "equality" impossible, thus land (property) reform must always be the first step of any socialist regime and that first step can only be achieved through mass murder...and worse, the mass murder of a nation's most productive class - it's property owners.
No, socialism has been tried many times and in many ways and it has been rightfully declared dead.
Let's hope that France realizes that there is no hope in trying to revive a dead ideology, even one advanced by a pretty face.
7 comments:
Unfortunately Sarkozy won. Royal would have been a better president for France. But I dont think much will change. Sarkozy will simply continue the policies of Chirac, who was a good president for France.
I think this election saved France.
Sarkozy recognizes the "Muslim menace within," while Royal, like most Western socialists/radicals didn't.
Hopefully France's and Europe's long and misguided romance with multiculturalism is now over.
One thing every commentator agrees upon is that whoever won - this election meant change...real change.
Segolene Royal was a misguided radical, Sarkozy is no Chirac.
I look forward to his confronting that "Muslim menace." France's very survival may well depend on that.
Chirac was good for France? That's news to me.
Jon, BW believes anyone who stands against "the evil GW Bush" is GOOD and anyone who supports anything the GOP supports is BAD.
A simple, if not very logical belief system.
In my view, Sarkozy's election gives hope to France.
"Multiculturalism" has failed thoroughly in Europe, as the Muslims there have proven completely unassimilable, not to mention decidedly anti-European.
Sarkozy sees confrontation as the way to deal with that internal threat, while Royal sought, as most Leftists do, to blame France or "provencial European culture."
Merkel in Germany, now Sarkozy in France, Harper in Canada and Howard retained in Australia - all of that is good news for the West, at least in my view.
Oh, and thanks for stopping by and commenting Jonathan.
I like that blog http://www.crushliberalism.blogspot.com/
Great work!
I think the French have become somewhat alarmed at what is happening to their country.
The summer riots by the muslim youth may have been the proverbial straw in their tolerance.
Whatever we think of France's politics, this is a great nation and it is, like England, being overrun by muslims who have no interest in being Frenchmen or Englishmen but merely in utilizing the generous welfare nets the two countries provide them towards a better lifestyle than their native countries could provide them.
As a sidebar, isn't it amazing that the left promulgates the myth that the big, bad right is the greatest threat to democratic elections and yet we see that in France, as in Mexico, the left hates to lose and sets rioters and protesters loose on the capital cities?
Perception versus reality.
"Whatever we think of France's politics, this is a great nation and it is, like England, being overrun by muslims who have no interest in being Frenchmen or Englishmen but merely in utilizing the generous welfare nets the two countries provide them towards a better lifestyle than their native countries could provide them." (Mal)
<
<
I agree 100%.
Awhile back I came upon an idea called "the tragedy of affluence," whereby people from more comfortable backgrounds get softer and softer as time goes by...as they get further away from all the effort it took to build what they have.
I saw it first in the increasing weakness of each succeeding generation from the beginning of this century - my grandfather's generation (born around the turn of the last century) were very independent and very hard/tough people, my Dad's generation (the WW II generation) were slightly less rough around the edges and hard, but still plenty tough, being raised in the Depression and fighting through WW II....that generation really accelerated the process - they spoiled their kids, looking to give them all the things they never had and an era of peace & plenty conspired with them to make the succeeding generations weaker of character, significantly less tough and more likely to see discipline as "punishment" and competition as corrupting and quick to blame "society" for the innate evil of others - the affluent West is now comprised of a far softer, more naive population - one that seeks compromise where the strong seek conquest.
For that reason, this current conflict (just beginning) may, even if the West wins, do serious harm to that group.
<
<
<
<
"isn't it amazing that the left promulgates the myth that the big, bad right is the greatest threat to democratic elections and yet we see that in France, as in Mexico, the left hates to lose and sets rioters and protesters loose on the capital cities?" (Mal)
<
<
In this case I find it even more ironic that the Left which would be the primary targets of the Islamists, can't help themselves from siding with them....at least over their own Conservative countrymen.
If the current conflict will be won, it will have to be won by Conservatives and the biggest beneficiaries will be the Liberals.
Post a Comment