Shoot Rioters On Sight
By Selwyn Duke (11/08/05)
As riots spread throughout France like wildfires left unattended by those afraid to use water, a sane person has to be struck by the impotence of modern Western governments. Whether it’s Moslem enclaves in France, New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, or South Central Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict, it seems that the new paradigm involves letting wicked flames burn themselves out, only doused at times by the innocent blood of victims who, in a most shameful abdication of governmental duty, are left to twist in the wind by the Neros who masquerade as statesmen.
As to the unrest in France, I have read headlines stating that the authorities “can’t” stop the violence. “Can’t” is an interesting choice of a word. A better one would be “won’t.” Because, I assure you, I could have stopped the riots on the first day.
The solution: shoot rioters on sight.
Uncompassionate, say you? Okay, let’s talk about compassion.
Some contemptible rioters in France doused a woman, who was in her fifties and on crutches, with some kind of liquid and set her alight. She’s now hospitalized with severe burns.
Sixty-one-year-old Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec died after being beaten into a coma by an attacker.
There have now been scores of casualties amidst the violence, and non-Moslem people cannot enter the areas of unrest (I wonder, will this targeting of non-Moslems be labeled hate-crime?).
More than five-thousand cars and dozens of buildings – including schools and churches – have been burned. By the way, could you imagine the hue and cry if a Christian mob had torched mosques?
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, some people were raped and/or murdered, and roving bands of thugs fired on emergency services vehicles and aircraft, hampering rescue efforts and decreasing the chances that those in dire straits would receive life-saving aid. In France, too, there were reports of an attack on a hospital and an ambulance whose transit was impeded.
During the Rodney King riots, Reginald Denny halted his tractor-trailer truck upon encountering a group of rioters so as to avoid running them over. The thanks he got was to be beaten to within an inch of his life, receiving blows that broke more than ninety bones in his face. Incidentally, the criminal, Rodney King, was awarded 3.8 million dollars of the taxpayers’ money for his lumps and bumps. Denny came away with a broken body.
Do you see a pattern here? What do you think accounts for this ubiquitous governmental failure to act swiftly and proportionately in the face of mayhem? What is to blame for this tolerance of evil? I can encapsulate it in one word: liberalism.
Yes, liberalism. There was a time when riots would have been quelled with a firm hand, nipping the problem in the bud. But that was in bygone days, before decades of liberalism elevated the villainous to victim status and cast true victims as unavoidable collateral damage.
Now there’s an excuse for every riot, often attended by a term adopted to describe the justification. In Los Angeles it was “black rage,” and now in France it’s “disaffected youth.” Yes, people may not be held accountable because they’re victims of their “socialization” or of discrimination or the system or ethnocentrism, or, whatever other rationalization du jour is conjured up by those who live in a liberal fantasy-world built on self-delusion. And never do they ask, perhaps during a rare, lucid moment, the obvious question. If everyone is a victim, who is the victimizer?
It should surprise no one that I segued right from compassion into liberalism, since the latter is the direct cause of our current paralysis by misanalysis. It is why we embrace the bad chess player, never-seeing-more-than-one-move-ahead strategy that precludes us from extinguishing a fire before it grows into a raging inferno. The fact of the matter is that when those bent on doing evil find no opposition, they become emboldened and others of their ilk join the fray. This is why riots that started in suburbs of Paris have now, like a metastasizing cancer, spread to other parts of the country.
Of course, they could have been ended at the get-go with a few well-placed salvos and a credible threat that continued violence would be met with of more of the same. Not that I’m proposing a bloodbath, mind you. Yes, a few miscreants would have been shot, but the rest of the vermin would have gone scurrying back into their holes and lived to complain another day.
Instead, because of gross governmental negligence during all the tragedies I mentioned, those few criminals emerged unscathed and innocent people were hurt and killed. And don’t forget the women violated, the property destroyed, and the intensifying of the atmosphere that tolerates this barbarity, which increases the chances we’ll see more of it. Oh, but I forgot, we have to be compassionate.
Or, to be precise, liberal, counterfeit compassion is what’s expected of us. Liberals observe social breakdown from a distance, safely ensconced in their ivory towers, and would have us believe that they feel sorry for the poor, tormented souls who rage against “oppressors.” But as these pseudo-sophisticates pontificate about the plight of criminals, blind to the fact that their mistakes of comission created the powder keg as much as their mistakes of omission lit the fuse, where is their compassion for the ravagers’ innocent victims? Compassion, my foot. Liberals are simply detached, cold-hearted menaces to society.
Of course, liberals will tell us that we just have to understand the hand that life has dealt to these downtrodden wretches, who, in the case of the Moslems in France, are sometimes coordinating their attacks via cellphone or email. It really gives new meaning to Thoreau’s line, “Give me the poverty that enjoys true wealth.”
Understand them? No, liberals, you have to understand them and they have to understand us. You have to understand that in every society there are people who are bent on doing evil. Such ne’er do wells will seize upon any opportunity to enrich or benefit themselves or wreak havoc, and you can no more mollify them than Chamberlain could appease Hitler. Perhaps you should study Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development or just read Lord of the Flies, and then, maybe, just possibly, a little light bulb will go off in your cranium.
As for the rioting swine, they have to understand that if they dare raise a menacing fist to their fellow man, they’ll promptly be struck by a Draconian hand. That’s the language they understand.
Of course, this is all just part of a systemic problem. It’s just the same as when liberal school administrators tell a bullied child that they can’t bring his tormentors to heel, so he should stay home and be relegated to homebound tutelage. Yes, place the onus on the innocent and let the wicked hold sway.
And so it was during Hurricane Katrina. What was the response of our feckless government to the pillaging miscreants who preyed on the vulnerable? New Orleans seized the guns of law-abiding citizens!
So, let’s get this straight: first the government abdicated its responsibility to protect its people, being too cowed by political-correctness to take necessary action. Then, outrageously, unconscionably, it declawed the good people, leaving them defenseless and at the mercy of predators who roamed about with relative impunity. Ah, the fruits of liberalism: authoritarianism for the good and anarchy for the bad. It’s a deadly combination.
It’s much the same in France, with her NATO (No action – talk only) government. But talk is cheap, as proven by President Jacques Chirac who warned,
“An escalation of disrespectful behavior would lead to a dangerous situation . . . there can be no area existing outside the law [in France].”
Here’s a clue, Chirac, it is a dangerous situation, and these areas are existing outside the law at this time. But Chirac is the quintessential, effete, irresponsible liberal leader, as lacking in intestinal fortitude as he is in integrity. His tough talk rings hollow. He’s done little of substance to protect his people thus far and, since he and his fellow statists have largely disarmed the French, they’re easy prey.
Then there is the talk that isn’t merely cheap, but stupid. In the face of violence of insurrection proportions, some are propounding politically-correct theories and engaging in self-flagellation, instead of demanding that the government lock and load. Chirac took the cowardly lead as he obsequiously opined,
“[France] has not done everything possible for these youths, supported them so they feel understood, heard and respected.”
Not to be outdone, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin advocated a 35.5 billion-dollar handout and said,
“We must offer them hope and a future.”
Yeah, the “disaffected youth” need a few more cellphones and computers so they all can become high-tech Jihadists.
Listen, the time for Akhmed to be transformed into a moral being was when he was a wee lad at his mother’s knee. But when he’s grown and gruesome and charging you with an axe, it’s time to shoot. Liberals always prescribe an ounce of prevention when it’s time for a pound of cure. It’s all quite pathetic.
So, I have as message. Pusillanimity, thy name is liberal politician. Liberal politician, you are weak. You are entropy in action. Your ranks are filled with feminized capons and masculinized, clucking hens, leaving you only to ponder which sorry set makes for better men. And if you knew what masculinity was, what femininity was – if you even believed that such qualities were a reflection of the divine and not merely social constructs – you would have a prayer of reclaiming your manhood and resurrecting virtue in yourself at this, the eleventh hour. Alas, though, lost in a sea of confusion and androgyny you’ve become a pathetic creature, possessing neither Christian fortitude nor even pagan ferocity. Yet, you indulge the delusion that you’re fit to perpetuate civilization? You fancy yourself capable to run a nation? The only thing you can run is your mouth.
I also know that when you lose a loved one to the fangs of a viper whose base instincts were loosed upon the world by the permissive environment you cultivated, even this pain won’t inspire you to look inwards. Nay, you will blame some infernal bugaboo. It will be privation caused by trickle-down economics, a paucity of gun-control laws, the destruction of cultural identity, unequal education or disparities in caste and station, the pangs of teenage or black rage, oppressive summer heat or the persecuted Moslem street. All those “truths” that relativists learn in sociology class and embrace as self-evident will crystallize in your mind, causing you to cry out to the heavens for more of the disease and the smiting of those who, unbeknownst to you, hold the cure.
Sadly, the Western world is replete with governments that do a lot of what they shouldn’t and precious little of what they should. Government isn’t supposed to be dispensing condoms and teaching children about sex, offering free tattoo-removal programs, coercively extracting money from citizens for charitable endeavors, building 250 million dollar bridges to nowhere, or mandating that you must hire cross-dressers. A legitimate role of government, though, is to secure domestic tranquility. If the nanny state regimes in existence can’t even do that, they should go the way of the Dodo. And I say goodbye and good riddance.
There was a woman on crutches who, because of liberal compassion, now has another great cross to bear. And the family of Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec will see him no more. Compassion means protecting the good, not tolerating the iniquitous. Liberals, you have been found wanting and are enablers of evil. The blood of innocents is on your hands.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Selwyn Duke
