Civil unrest has a long-established tradition in French life, though one cannot help notice that the incendiary sparks necessary to provoke it are coming from an increasingly narrow source. While outsiders might balk at similar incitement, l’esprit gaulois affords the French remarkable tolerance. They are, it seems, almost impervious to the recent fashion for ad hoc public beheadings; take the slaughter of their daughters in their stride, and go to great lengths not to overreact to the casual stabbing of toddlers in parks. Like most civilised nations however, they’ve got to draw the line somewhere, and that line is usually drawn by the religion of the sword: Islam.
Islam does not take kindly to the publication of offensive cartoons, bristles at the merest criticism, and certainly does not hold with the notion that immigrants to France should have to suffer the ignominy of adhering to their host nation’s laws. It is the last of these which has prompted the recent insurrection—the infernal chaos playing out on once picturesque French cities.
Nahel Merzouk, the Algerian Muslim fatally shot by police for refusing to stop on 27 June, is the latest in a long line of criminals whose tragic demise appears to serve as justification for the host nation’s fifth column to wreak havoc. As with the blueprint figure of George Floyd, certain sections of the media have attempted to beatify “Nahel” as a figure of innocence who “did not have a criminal record’” the truth however, is quite different. At just 17, Merzouk was already well-known to police, with five incidents of failure to comply under his belt. He had been apprehended driving with false number plates and with neither licence or insurance, not to mention selling and using narcotics—a criminal in all but age.
Did he deserve to die for failing to stop upon command? Of course not. But neither did he have the divine right to override reasonable requests from the authorities, particularly in a France ravaged by terrorism, where the French interior minister has just warned of the resumption of the “Islamist terror threat.” The threat level is so real, in fact, that French police had recently been granted permission to fire on those violating requests for traffic stops; a fact Merzouk would almost certainly have been aware of.
While the tragedy of this case and its concomitant grief are perfectly understandable, the naked politicking of the Left in response is contemptible. What conclusions are we to draw from it? That the routine slaughter of the innocent is an acceptable price to pay for the ‘benefits’ of diversity and the false utopia of a world without borders, but the death of an up-and-coming criminal as a direct consequence of his own actions is beyond the pale?
Were a native Frenchman killed in a similar vein, it would barely have made the news. And what of the officers involved? Naturally, if misconduct has taken place that must be dealt with. But equally, it cannot be the case that every single interaction between the authorities and the immigrant population they serve has to be handled with the flimsiest of kid gloves, to avoid the routine conflagration which manifests itself on the streets of L’Hexagone. No serving police officer should be expected to act under that amount of pressure. Instead, we must face the facts—something precious few Western politicians are prepared to do.
The death of Merzouk draws attention to the major dichotomy afflicting Western nations: the lie that diversity is our strength, rather than our downfall. Like the fifth column exploiting his death, Merzouk was not French in any meaningful sense beyond geographical. He undoubtedly neither loved the country nor felt any allegiance to it. It is unsurprising therefore that he did not recognise the authority of the gendarmes attempting to keep order.
Globalist politicians who facilitate the expansion of this fifth column acknowledge its dangers only when it is politically expedient to do so—an offense of which President Macron is particularly guilty. When elections are off the menu, Macron and his ilk ignore the issues raised by such evil in our midst, preferring to kick the can down the road with increasing welfare subsidies, safe in the knowledge that they will never be affected by the consequences of the decisions they foist on their embattled citizens. It is now clear that this is a mistaken belief, as a number of French officials have found themselves targeted personally.
This dichotomy is embodied Europe-wide by the left-wing politicians who embrace the lie of diversity, and their right-wing opponents who attempt to inject sanity into an increasingly narrow Overton window. In the Netherlands, this perennial battle has been raging between Mark Rutte and Geert Wilders; in Spain, the latest clash is between Pedro Sanchez and Santiago Abascal. But nowhere is the war more pronounced than the diametric opposition of Emmanuel Macron and the rising stock of Marine Le Pen.
The division afflicting La République could not have been more perfectly captured than during the President’s sweaty embrace of middle-finger toting criminals during his 2018 visit to the French West Indies, and the ensuing reaction of Marine Le Pen:
It is this photograph which will ultimately decide the fate not just of France, but of Western man in general. Which way, Monsieur? Are you going to stick with a Macron replica come 2027, or are you finally going to put your trust in Marine Le Pen? On the issue of patriotism at least, Le Pen is beyond reproach. In contrast to Macron, she bluntly refused to wear a headscarf when meeting with Lebanon’s Grand Mufti back in 2017—a stance for which she received a good deal of criticism. Her words at the time have never been more apposite: “You can pass on my respects to the Grand Mufti, but I will not cover myself up.”
“Cover myself up.” The future of Europe now hinges on this simple choice: do we elect fawning officials who suppress their nations’ proud heritage, clinging to office by the accommodation of increasingly restive migrant populations, or do we hand the baton to those who love their country wholeheartedly, and respect their people’s will? That is the question currently being asked across Europe, where one might tentatively suggest the Right is in the ascendancy.
Perhaps it is just as well for France that Macron cannot run for a third successive term in 2027. Perhaps it is just as well for him, seeing as Marine Le Pen is well on course to oust him anyway. Macron or not, this is a defining moment for the West—whether it will regain its sense of national pride, or whether it will fall. Diversity is not our strength—how much longer must the innocent pay the price for this lie?
This piece first appeared in The European Conservative, and is reproduced by kind permission.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
