In Part 2 of his 3 part series, Rusere Shoniwa takes issue with commentary by the Right-leaning independent media who seized on the French riots as the perfect vehicle to illustrate the evils of immigration.
“Begin at the beginning,” the King said, very gravely, “and go on till you come to the end: then stop.” ― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
Begin at the beginning, unless you’ve got an agenda
Robert Malone goes to great lengths to defend his role in pioneering the mRNA technology on which the disastrous covid ‘vaccines’ are based. But he’s a covid dissident stalwart with a huge following and has made his opposition to this pharmaceutical experiment very clear. He also wants the world to know he’s a major-league scientist, with a brain the size of a watermelon. When he offered his opinion on the French riots, something we are all entitled to do, you’d think this major-league scientist would have respected basic principles of debate by following the advice of the great children’s story writer Lewis Carroll – begin at the beginning. But apparently, once you’ve reached the dizzy heights of science stardom, such mundanity no longer applies.
So where does the story of the French riots begin? Well, if you’re Robert Malone, they begin around about the point where THE IMMIGRANTS (!!), who “have very different traditional values than French culture” demonstrated that they “unsurprisingly have not been well assimilated into French culture and society.” Not, in other words, when an unarmed 17-year old boy was shot dead by a policeman for trying to evade a traffic stop.
Le Monde with AFP reported that “Nahel M. was shot point-blank on Tuesday [27th June] during a traffic stop captured on video”. The report goes on to describe the shooting:
“The teenager was killed as he pulled away from police who tried to stop him for traffic infractions. A video, authenticated by Agence France-Presse, showed two policemen standing by the side of the stationary car, with one pointing a weapon at the driver. A voice is heard saying: “You are going to get a bullet in the head.” The police officer then appears to fire as the car drives off.”
“The policeman accused of shooting Nahel M. in Nanterre, west of Paris, was charged with voluntary homicide and remanded in custody.”
The Nanterre prosecutor dealing with the case, Pascal Prache, said the officer did not meet the requirements to discharge his weapon and will remain in custody awaiting trial.
The slant in numerous Right-leaning independent media sites emphasises that the boy had been on the police’s radar, citing numerous police reports since 2021, and that the car he was driving was a Mercedes with Polish plates. The dog whistle in this slant is that the use of lethal force was justified because he was a bit of a bad boy.
France24 reported that “Nahel had no criminal record”, highlighting the difference between being a convicted criminal and being ‘known to the police’. The boy’s mother acknowledged her son’s previous brushes with the law, but asked: “In what world is that a reason to kill them?”
She said ‘them’ because her son’s death is not an isolated case of alleged callous treatment by the police. Since the beginning of 2022, there have been no fewer than 15 people killed by police in France during traffic stops.
Nahel was also enrolled in a programme designed to help with the integration of young people from troubled neighbourhoods through sports, in his case rugby. The head of the organisation he was enrolled in stressed that, while he was a school drop-out, he was “no big-time bandit”.
Malone’s, dog-whistle analysis disingenuously bypasses any mention of the event that sparked the riots. Whether or not you think the senseless execution of a 17-year-old justifies the mayhem that ensued, you have to at least acknowledge this inciting event. And acknowledging it makes the debate less clear-cut than reflexively condemning an unassimilable other. But if your agenda is to blow the anti-immigrant dog whistle, then ignoring Lewis Carrol’s advice to begin at the beginning is in fact an essential prerequisite for achieving your preset agenda.
Robert Malone’s real agenda appears to be deploying the French riots as a platform to argue for tighter border controls:
“the French immigration policies of relatively open borders offers yet more evidence that border control is a needed and necessary element of good national government.”
I have no problem with arguing for tighter border controls. If you believe, as I do, that real national sovereignty is a prerequisite for resisting globalisation, how could you argue any differently? If you’ve only tuned into Part II of this essay, please check out Part I to understand the sincerity of my stance on uncontrolled immigration. To summarise: Native Americans, Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand’s Maori, colonised Africans and Palestinians have all paid a heavy price for uncontrolled European migration, so it would be strange for countries in the West not to learn the lessons of such recent history and act accordingly. The Left seem more comfortable with uncontrolled immigration on the grounds that reverse uncontrolled immigration is a way of expunging colonial guilt. But they’re arguing in favour of two wrongs making a right.
Being concerned about uncontrolled immigration is one thing, but is it really wise of Malone to use the French riots to project his fears onto what is happening on America’s southern border? Why would you need to refer to the French riots to argue for control of a situation that is self-evidently out of control? Malone’s agenda-driven effort to shoehorn the French riots into his border control agenda result in some odd fits of misrepresentation and Freudian slips. Rather in the style I am deploying here, he grabs hold of an article in UnHerd to use as a counterpoint for his own argument. Fair enough. But he misrepresents what the article actually says, which is what happens when you’ve pre-judged something and decide that you need to shoot it down at all costs. He effectively creates a strawman and then proceeds to bayonet it. For example, Malone claims that:
“A recent Unherd article argues that the “urban policy priority districts” are essentially another form of apartheid – French style.” [emphasis added]
The problem with that statement is not once did the author of the UnHerd piece use the word ‘apartheid’. Apartheid is not a word to be bandied about lightly. I have used it in relation to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, as have more eminently qualified people than me. But I don’t believe it can be casually bandied about in relation to France, and it’s quite a leap for Malone to represent the UnHerd author’s characterisation of the French problem as apartheid. The word I would choose to characterise what the UnHerd author describes in France is ghettoisation. Here’s what the UnHerd piece actually says. See what you think:
“But every major French city is ringed by cités [suburban housing projects] where people of North African and black African descent dominate, and where rates of unemployment, poverty and crime far exceed national averages. The government does admit that nearly six million people, or a tenth of the country’s population, inhabit so-called “urban policy priority districts”.”
The UnHerd piece was not arguing for the existence of French apartheid, but was Malone’s own characterisation of its argument a Freudian slip?
The problem Malone really has with the UnHerd piece is that, in his opinion, it “equates border control with “far-right””. This is another example of Malone seeing phantoms in the UnHerd piece where they don’t exist. The author of the UnHerd piece does state that “the events of the past week are most likely to benefit the far-Right, possibly even bring it to power in the next presidential election.” The basis for that statement lies in a growing tendency by French voters (the ones not living in the cités) to view the French rioters as an unassimilable group of ‘others’ descended largely from immigrants who started arriving from North Africa in large numbers in the 50s and 60s. Voters adopting this viewpoint are more likely to be drawn to what the author terms as ‘far-Right’ parties who promise “reconquest” and bringing immigration to zero.
My cursory comment on those policies is go ahead and bring immigration down to zero all you like. When that has been achieved, what do you do with the excluded six million living in the cites? The scary part is ‘reconquest’ – it’s intended to evoke the military retaking of the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors.
The reason why Malone is making an accusation that doesn’t stick is because, as I said, he is creating a strawman. The author of the UnHerd piece is not equating border control with the far-Right. He is associating the French riots with a potential for increased votes going to political parties characterised as far-Right. This is not mere semantics. The author does not see the problem as one of ‘border control’ whereas Robert Malone does. The author of the UnHerd piece sees the French rioters as members of a community who, and I quote the author directly, “want an end to police violence against members of their community, and more broadly an end to discrimination against them.” In other words, rather than seeing them purely as an unassimilable group of immigrant descendants, the author of the UnHerd piece raises the prospect of the rioters being part of a socio-economic group of French citizens with unaddressed grievances. This is the premise rejected by Malone, who erects the strawman of border control because it would be far more difficult to address the actual argument the author has made.
Now, needless to say, it’s your choice as to whether you adopt the ‘unassimilable immigrant’ lens (Malone’s) or the ‘socio-economic group with unaddressed grievances’ lens (the UnHerd piece). I’m saying there is a choice to be made here, and avoiding that debate about which one to make is at best lazy and at worst dishonest.
Malone saves the worst for last with this policy proposal for France:
“These immigrant children recognize that they have little prospects in France. For those convicted of unlawful behavior, maybe transport back to their native country is in order?”
So, one of America’s foremost freedom warriors has suggested deporting French citizens, people born in France, back to their ‘native countries’. These “immigrant children”, as the scientist-turned-dog-whistler Robert Malone calls them, can’t be packed off like chattel to some far-off land. They don’t have rights of residency anywhere else and, if they’re French citizens, why should any other country be obligated to relieve France of its unwanted ‘others’? Why does Malone think that it’s the job of other countries to serve as a dustbin for his immigrant deplorables? I’m also pretty certain that the ‘native countries’ would want absolutely nothing to do with what they see as, in effect, 6 million unruly Westerners. They would be viewed as an even greater political threat to the so-called native countries than they are by their true home country – France. So, would Malone then shift to proposing building camps in some far-flung area of France to prevent the deplorables from blighting the otherwise perfect landscape?
Imagine if Malone wasn’t censored. You’d have a prominent scientist, possibly with mainstream media reach, advocating for deporting people he regards as problematic. A cursory skim through history might show that this has a tendency not to end well. And by the way, I’m not referring to the deportation of people who don’t have rights of citizenship, and nor is Malone. The dog-whistle phrase he uses is ‘immigrant children’, which strikes me as a veiled attempt to portray people who are descended from immigrants (who isn’t, especially in America?) as having no rights to live in France. Undocumented migrants tend not to go out looking for opportunities to get arrested and sent back to their country of origin, so the legal residency status of the rioters isn’t a point of contention and Malone doesn’t try to claim that it is, because he can’t. Does he have stats on what percentage of the rioters are born in France? I don’t, but it would be a brave (or foolish) man to bet against the majority of those youths being French born.
THE IMMIGRANT (!!) and Western civilisational collapse
Demosthenes, writing for TCW, put his/her own glib and cheery spin on the murder of a 17-year-old by smugly suggesting that “if a policeman was pointing a loaded gun at my head and telling me to turn off the engine, the last thing I’d do is put the pedal to the metal, but hey ho, each to his own.” No Demosthenes, you wouldn’t put the pedal to the metal, because I’m guessing you’re not 17 years old and I’m also guessing that your testosterone level is probably lower than that of a 75-year old eunuch. (If Demosthenes thinks it’s reasonable and humorous to imply that execution is just desserts for a stupid decision, then I’m content to suspend the rules of polite engagement when commenting on his/her vile insinuations.)
Acknowledging that his/her argument for justifying lethal force is pretty pathetic, he/she states that “in a fundamental sense, however, the circumstances of the event are irrelevant” before going on to roll out the bog standard anti-immigrant analysis of the riots – “citizenship, ultimately, is all about allegiance.” In other words, whether a fundamental injustice was perpetrated by this act of state violence is entirely irrelevant because immigrants gonna do their immigrant thang no matter what. He/she then goes on to ascribe acts and ways of thinking to THE MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS (!!) that make them, in his/her view, unassimilable.
Using TCW’s editorial line as a proxy for Demosthenes’ more general views about the state of Western ‘civilisation’, I’m going to assume he/she doesn’t advocate “allegiance” to the murderous biosecurity state taking control of the entire West. So I’m struggling to comprehend the logic of advocating for the stoic acceptance of state crimes such as pumping bullets into 17-year-olds at traffic stops, while simultaneously advocating for non-compliance with totalitarianism.
At any rate, all of Demosthenes’ arguments for allegiance centre on the immigrants’ religion (the Muslim menace) and their inability to get behind the national sports’ team. According to Demosthenes, a coherent society is all about “allegiance”. He/she explains:
“It has never been the case that a civilisation thinks it is perfectly acceptable to support the away team, or if such civilisations did exist, they did not last very long. But that is the position we find ourselves in today, both literally and figuratively, across the Western World.”
This particular dog whistle signals that we face civilisational collapse all because the bloody IMMIGRANTS (!!) won’t back the right side when the English cricket team plays Pakistan at The Oval. The rollout of the bio-security state, military grade government psyops, war with Russia, CBDCs and the climate catastrophe scam to implement the UN’s Agenda 2030 enslavement programme for humanity – the whole stinking WEF caboodle is a second order effect of the TREACHEROUS IMMIGRANT (!!), didn’t you know?
If only I had known in March 2020 that I and my fellow civilisational terrorists had it in our power to stop the juggernaut of global fascism by backing the right sports team, I personally would have pledged to lead the immigrant counter-revolution by instigating a campaign to collect immigrants’ tears of pain evinced by England’s perennial forswearing of victory in the World Cup. We could build a fountain of tears in Trafalgar Square. Lord knows the English football team’s performances would guarantee its constant flow, and the New World Order would be sure to wither on the vine, thanks to the new-found discovery by immigrants of the importance of bread and circuses. Be still, my heart, England expects!
Let’s use that facetious little tirade as a lead-in to these questions: What could possibly motivate someone to disingenuously lay the blame for the current collapse of Western civilisation at the feet of THE IMMIGRANTS (!!) when they ought to know that the collapse is being instigated by the powerful gatekeepers of Western finance? And, if the Great Replacement is one of the cabal’s stratagems for crushing Western ‘civilisation’, such as it is, should we blame the 1 million Syrians or the 1 million Ukrainians who escaped war, or should we blame the gatekeepers of financial wealth and power who fuel these wars? Specifically in relation to France, should we blame the six million people descended from North African immigrants who arrived in France in the 50s and 60s, three generations ago?
And as for “allegiance”, I’m sure Demosthenes would agree that it is the duty of every patriot to resist illegitimate authority. So how did immigrants fare on this measure of true allegiance in relation to covid totalitarianism? Ethnic minorities – immigrants and their descendants – disproportionately refused to partake in the ‘vaccine’ scam and the attempts to make participation in society conditional on waving a fascist QR code. It was disproportionately the native indigenous population who resoundingly endorsed it and propagandised it in the press. I would suggest to the dog-whistling Demosthenes that if you were looking for allies in the dissident movement, you might seriously consider enlisting THE IMMIGRANTS (!!). If there was a test given to people to find out who is inclined to resist indiscriminate state-sponsored violence, then the French rioters passed that test with flying colours. And I think it’s a safe bet that the French police will now be asked to think twice before shooting kids at traffic stops.
If the indigenous populations in the West could find an ounce of the spirit of resistance displayed by the French rioters, Western ‘civilisation’ might get back on an even keel. And it wouldn’t even require breaking furniture – just dignified non-compliance with the lurch to totalitarianism would be enough.
What I find incongruent, and therefore also amusing, about some of the alt media’s immigrant bashing is that nearly all Right-leaning alt media personalities and outlets, including Malone, do a fair bit of Bible bashing as well. Covid tyranny has been their road to Damascus. TCW is no exception. And yet when they shine that blinding Damascene light onto THE IMMIGRANTS (!!), all they can see is a foul nuisance. None of that love-thy-neighbour malarkey from the valiant Christian soldiers fighting the satanic fury of the globalist cabal. It’s Old Testament Flood and Fury with a smattering of final solution lite: pack the bastards off to a foreign land, what-ho!
More about that fighting talk from some of independent media’s Christian soldiers in Part III.
In Part III, I’ll offer a different perspective of the French riots from that prevailing in the Right-leaning independent media. I’ll also take a swipe at the fighting talk from alt media’s Christian soldiers and examine how their typical analysis of Islamic extremism misses the glaringly obvious big picture.