Meantime, another French related story: the mainstream media finds out that Islam is nasty! John Vinocur's "French Estrangements".
Vinocur suggests that what is needed to overcome the anti-white racism of the Muslims in France is "massive investment -- call it high dosage affirmative action -- on the newcomers' future education and employment".
A few points on this:
1. When I arrived in Australia in the mid fifties, I spoke only Italian and so was sent to what was then called a "migrant's class" to learn English. I, like the millions of southern Europeans then migrating to Australia, learnt English quickly and integrated into Oz society. The same is true for later floods of Vietnamese, Cambodian, Greek and Chinese migrants to Australia. Neither they, nor I, needed "high dosage affirmative action". Why should Muslims? And if they really do, surely that begs the question of why let more into the country, when they are so high maintenance.
2. Wouldn't "high dosage affirmative action" lead to resentment by the other groups in society that have made an effort to integrate, to assimilate into society, and made a positive contribution to it? In other words, isn't this a classic case of the oil going to the squeakiest wheel, in this case "squeak" being the violence and supremacism of Muslims in France (and elsewhere in the west, for that matter). That is, giving this "high dosage affirmative action" would be rewarding the very anti-social behaviour that we're seeking to prevent.
3. There is no connection between poverty, unemployment and terrorist violence. All the terrorist attacks since 9/11, in the UK, in Spain, in Indonesia, and elsewhere, have been carried out by educated and well-employed Muslims. Muslims, in other words, who are well-versed in the Trinity of Islam.
