Theodore Dalrymple, who has spent a working lifetime examining “life at the bottom“, has just published a brief and insightful article on the roots of Muslim unrest in France, and its opportunistic exploitation by provocateurs of the Left.
An excerpt:
Islam, unfortunately, seems to be a religion ill-adapted to minority status because it so successfully instils in its adherents the strong conviction that it represents the final and absolute truth, even when those adherents are not themselves highly observant or do not even know much else about their religion. This conviction leads to a certain sense of superiority or disdain of other cultures and religions, but at the same time those who feel it find themselves in a subordinate and socially and economically inferior situation in most practical aspects.
Subordination and social and economic inferiority are rarely pleasant, particularly if there is a coexistent feeling of moral, religious and civilisational superiority. These conditions are therefore thought to be unjust and anomalous, standing as evidence that the society that permits them is malicious, or at the very least evilly disposed towards Muslims. They thus feel no loyalty to the country in which they live, and can become actively hostile towards it, even or especially when they are completely dependent on it.
Deep resentment is the natural accompaniment to all this, and unfortunately there are political entrepreneurs only too willing to take advantage of and magnify it. For electoral purposes, they assiduously propound the idea that, both on economic and racial grounds, French society is profoundly and irredeemably unjust, and will remain so until the present order is overthrown. Thus, far-left militant secularists are able to join with those who detest the official laicity of the state.
The Mephistophelian leaders of the left in France (such as Jean-Luc Mélenchon and the Mayor of Saint-Denis, Bally Bagayoko) do not promote violence in so many words; they call for peaceful, if continual and disruptive, protest, while at the same time saying that they understand why violence breaks out and that it is as inevitable as a geological event. And, as they conceive themselves romantically as heirs to the French Revolution (as well as to the revolutions of 1830 and 1848, and to the Paris Commune of 1871), they often say that political violence is sometimes justified. A pseudo-syllogism easily develops: Political violence is sometimes justified; we are politically violent; therefore, we are justified.
Dalrymple is always worth your time. Read the rest here.