Paris Update or, “Who Should I Believe? You or My Lying Eyes?”

 

This post begins and ends with an apology for being guilty of what’s driving me nuts. The other day I wrote what turned out to be a very widely-circulated post in response to a headline I saw on the Drudge Report: “Every Jew I Know Has Left Paris,” which linked to a Daily Mail article attributing the quote to Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle. Now, who should have known better than to trust a sensational headline? Who should have thought, “Drudge and The Daily Mail may not have quoted Mr. Pollard properly? Perhaps I should check to be sure?”

Yep, that would be me.

Stephen Pollard contacted me to let me know that this was not precisely what he said. You may read his own words in the Telegraph. They were “Anecdotally, every French Jew I know has either already left or is working out how to leave.” I agree that the words on Drudge are a sensationalized version of this, and not an accurate quote.

But I’m not sure that the words were so so far from his point as to suggest I missed it, so my response still stands. However, I apologize to Mr. Pollard for failing to treat with proper suspicion the things I see in the news, and ensure to my own satisfaction that the quote was entirely accurate. I’ve asked him to join us here on Ricochet to discuss his column — if ever he’d like to join a very civil conversation among friends — and hope that he’ll agree; I believe he’d find this a welcoming place.

Which brings me to my next point:

What the Hell? Why is every journalist in the world getting everything wrong? Where are all these idiot ideas about what’s going on in Paris coming from?

Which I believe I just answered.

However, that doesn’t change the fact that a lot of journalists are spreading ideas about France that are simply not true. They’re now in wide circulation in America, widely believed, and so wildly wrong that I don’t understand how anyone could believe them. Unless the world were, say, full of sensationalist and irresponsible journalists who can’t get their facts straight or properly confirm a quote. Which I guess is a possibility.

But some of these things are really untrue, and also important to understand. And I’m sure that they’re true because I’ve seen them. I do get a bit exercised when people keep insisting to me that my own eyes are lying because they know for a fact what they do because they read it on The Drudge Report.

Untruth 1: Muslim Silence

If another person tells me that “No Muslims are speaking out against this,” I will personally insert the entire Grand Mosquée de Paris in his orifices. How many more Jews do French Muslims have to save from terrorists — as one did at that Kosher deli (and fifteen of them, at that) — before people stop slandering them this way? Was the death of a cop who happened to be a Muslim and died trying to protect the victims of these animals not enough of a statement?

Is this enough? Or this? How about this:

In case you don’t understand, he is describing them as Satans. He is denouncing them as barbarians, criminals; he is saying we cannot stop weeping; he is saying they attacked liberty and the people who protect us; he is saying there can be no excuse, no qualification; that it is a disaster; they have outraged everything we treasure … and then he had to stop speaking, because he couldn’t keep from crying in public.

What more do you want? Have the people who keep saying Muslims refuse to denounce terrorism no decency? And why — in the first place — should every Muslim in the world be repeatedly insulted by the demand that they say they oppose murder? As far as I’m concerned, unless someone is either a murderer or someone who has clearly stated that he approves of murder, he or she is entitled to the presumption that he or she is opposed to it. Particularly if he or she is a member of a community that has recently been the object of it, not merely its subject.

Does France have a lot of home-grown, Islamist filth who murder or, at least, approve of murder? Indeed it does. I saw that with my own eyes folks, and in a particularly unpleasant way, so don’t don’t tell me it’s not true.

Does it also have many more Muslims who are appalled by this, outraged, and speaking up as loudly as they know how, to the point of screaming and wailing? To the point that it breaks my heart for them? It does: I saw thousands of them yesterday, too, perhaps tens of thousands. Do not tell my my eyes are lying. They are French citizens! They were born here. They have nowhere else to go.

And do not tell me they do. Not until you have personally spoken to one of them. One who has told you why she was born here. And I assure you, once you have, you will understand why he or she cannot go back. Does “Every one of my classmates was massacred by the Muslim Brotherhood in Algeria and I was the only one who survived, and only because my father had a shotgun” sound like a good enough reason? Do you want to look that woman in the face and say, “You have somewhere else to go to?” Well do it, if you want, but not in front of me.

Untruth 2: French Police Are Unarmed

480px-SIG_SAUER_SP_2022_with_magazine_and_reverseWhere did this idea come from? I’ve just seen this too many times and I can’t figure out why people believe it. What do people think those things on their hips are? Some kind of weird Gallic cellphone?

And I keep hearing this from people who laugh at journalists who confuse earplugs with bullets, too! If you can’t figure out that what the French police are carrying are weapons — and some very heavy firepower at that — I don’t think you’re in a position to laugh.

Now, at some point — because I know Ricochet is one of the few places where people will be interested in this — I will provide very full details of the kinds of weapons with which the French security forces are armed, and I know that many people here will appreciate that a SigPro 2022 is a perfectly reasonable choice for a standard service weapon. It’s not a cellphone and its magazine doesn’t hold earplugs. And it’s not the only kind of weapon they carry.

(Sidebar for those many who will be interested: Chamber: 9x19mm Para, .357SIG, .40 S&W; Weight with empty magazine: 760 g (9mm); 790 g (.40 & .357); Length: 187 mm; Barrel length: 99 mm; Capacity: 15 (9mm) or 12 (.40) rounds. Fitted with typical SIG frame-mounted decocker lever; slightly different from earlier SIGs in that there’s no separate disassembly lever on the frame and the slide release lever looks weird. Comes equipped, if you like, with a detachable silencer. Fixed sights dovetailed into the slide.)

So believe me, next person who tells me that French police are unarmed is… well, let’s just say I’m in no mood to defend to the death your right to say it, even with my own firearm.

Untruth 3: The French Themselves Are Unarmed

Which brings me to the next “I can’t believe people believe this” point. Why do people keep telling me that French citizens aren’t allowed to arm themselves? Of course they can. Limit of 1,000 rounds per weapon, but frankly, if you need more than that, you’ve got an aim problem, not a gun-control law problem. You can have up to 12 weapons. I don’t know how many you can handle at once — some of you may be unusually talented — but I suspect even the best of us wouldn’t use that many at once, and the best of sure wouldn’t have to.

Now, it is true that to acquire the amount of firepower I would ideally have in my apartment would put me at greater risk of dying of frustration with the amount of paperwork I’d have to fill out than of dying at the hands of a terrorist. But I suppose I don’t really need my own personal force de frappe, and probably wouldn’t even be able to acquire that all that easily even in the US. Though I suspect that if I filled out all the correct forms at my local préfecture, documented by several years’ worth of gas and electric bills, and submitted in triplicate, I could get even that.

Or I could do it the easy way: Believe me, if those bozos could get that many AKs in their hands despite being — and looking like — exactly the people who shouldn’t have them, I could get ten times as many in my apartment by tonight. It wouldn’t be my weapon of choice, for reasons those who can tell a bullet from an earplug will understand, so I’d probably go for something a bit more to my taste. But believe me, getting them wouldn’t be a problem. I mean: technically, it’s illegal to smoke weed in Paris. It sure doesn’t mean no one gets stoned.

Beyond that, for obvious reasons, I won’t further advertise all the details of my home protection strategy. But let’s put it this way: if I say, “I’m going to kill the next person who tells me I’m unable to arm myself in Paris,” you might consider taking my ability to do that literally.

Untruth 4: Neither The French Government Nor The French Has Shown Support for Jews

Where did you hear that one? When yesterday the President of the Republic said he’d call in the military to protect every synagogue, school, and kosher hot dog stand in France, even this Jew thought he was going overboard, martial law not being to my taste. Been there, done that. An enhanced police presence will be fine. As will better police training. As will listening to what your intelligence services are saying to you.

“But where are the signs saying Je suis Juif?” I hear. I throw up my hands at this point. See these? They’re not some elaborate photoshop conspiracy (and who would be behind that? I mean, the usual objects of conspiracy-theories are busy with more important things these days, I promise you.) I saw all of them yesterday with my own eyes.

Not my eyes lying. It’s your media, I’m afraid. So whoever is telling you that, ditch them.

And that’s all I’ve got to say for now.

Once again, my apologies to Stephen Pollard. Very careless of me, and I hope you’ll accept my apology as sincere. I hate it when jounalists do these things. It makes the world a vastly worse place. No one needs more arrant nonsense and sensationalism at a time like this. I’m sorry I contributed to the problem.

However, if you’d like to come to France and meet some Jews who aren’t leaving, I’d be happy to introduce you to them. I saw a lot of them yesterday. A lot of them feel just the way I do. Over our dead bodies. Literally.

But more likely: over yours, you terrorist scum. And yes, we do know how.

Image Credit: Tutti Frutti / Shutterstock.com

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 74 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    I was on a visit to a Northern European capital early last week.I visited a number of places of worship and was pleasantly surprised at the ease with which I could enter and admire the buildings, which had minimal or no security. Except for the Synagogue, which was barricaded and fenced like a high-security prison. As one sees elsewhere in Europe.

    These extraordinary measures are taken with very good reason.

    Regrettably I have zero expectation that matters will improve for European Jewry.

    It shouldn’t have to be about toughing it out to the bitter end.

    • #61
  2. Leigh Inactive
    Leigh
    @Leigh

    Claire, I strongly suspect that Untruth #2 is extrapolated from what we know about the UK.

    I know for a very real fact that the British police are often unarmed in cases where they had much better be armed.  Most conservative Americans who pay attention to international news (quite an exclusive group, that) have heard something of the prevalent anti-gun sentiment in Britain, and not much about laws on the Continent.

    We tend to think of the British as more sensible than the Continental nations: if the British have something wrong, France and Germany and Spain are probably even more wrong.  That’s not always true.  In that context, though, I can easily see how that rumor would start: it only takes one prominent talking head speculating why the police didn’t fight back successfully.

    • #62
  3. MikeHs Inactive
    MikeHs
    @MikeHs

    AUMom:

    MikeHs:Has any information about the four victims in the Paris kosher grocery story been published in the media; like sex, age, etc? I’ve looked in a number of places and all I see are references to the terrorist or the stock boy who helped people in the store to hide.

    http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Four-Jewish-victims-of-kosher-deli-siege-named-387299

    Thanks very much, AUMom.  Hopefully, these four men will not be overlooked (by non Israeli media).

    • #63
  4. Albert Arthur Coolidge
    Albert Arthur
    @AlbertArthur

    Well, I agree with you, Casey, that this is not about free speech. This is about Islam’s insatiable desire to dominate all.

    • #64
  5. Red Feline Inactive
    Red Feline
    @RedFeline

    AUMom:

    MikeHs:Has any information about the four victims in the Paris kosher grocery story been published in the media; like sex, age, etc? I’ve looked in a number of places and all I see are references to the terrorist or the stock boy who helped people in the store to hide.

    http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Four-Jewish-victims-of-kosher-deli-siege-named-387299

    Thanks AUMom! What an appalling tragedy! Four fine men, murdered, just because they are Jews.

    • #65
  6. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    James Gawron:Aaron is quite correct in being concerned about the Abbas presence. It was required by Holland if Bibi were allowed to be there. My question is about who wasn’t there. Le Pen was excluded.

    I think the French Govt would have preferred that neither Netanyahu nor Abbas attend the rally – but if one came they felt obliged to have the other as well.

    The reason for their preference (neither) was that they wanted to focus of the rally to remain on French unity (ie of all French people) rather than be side-tracked onto the Israel-Palestine conflict (on which there is not unanimity of opinion in France), onto some religious conflict narrative (whose very basis they see as politically illegitimate in France) or (hence no Le Pen) some ethnic or racial conflict (similarly with no legitimate basis).

    Iow, terrorists might get to identify themselves as enemy combatants by their actions, but they do not get to define the nature of the conflict – and the presence of people (French or other) whose political identity sort of buys into the jihadi world view is not helpful to the French effort – in fact perhaps the contrary.  Given the identity and rhetoric of the attackers, and the identity of many of their victims, this may not be the easiest position to take, but it’s an entirely honorable one.

    (I’m also curious how they kept Le Pen at bay.  If Netanyahu could crash the rally what would have stopped a determined Marine?)

    • #66
  7. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Albert Arthur:Well, I agree with you, Casey, that this is not about free speech. This is about Islam’s insatiable desire to dominate all.

    Controlling what people say (or draw) is a first step in controlling what they do and what they think.  That’s the point of defending free speech – it isn’t just an abstract good, it’s foundational.

    • #67
  8. user_82762 Inactive
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Zafar:

    Albert Arthur:Well, I agree with you, Casey, that this is not about free speech. This is about Islam’s insatiable desire to dominate all.

    Controlling what people say (or draw) is a first step in controlling what they do and what they think. That’s the point of defending free speech – it isn’t just an abstract good, it’s foundational.

    It’s about both. To obtain the domination of all you must first destroy free speech.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #68
  9. user_533354 Member
    user_533354
    @melissaosullivan

    Thanks for the frontline report, Claire!

    • #69
  10. user_891102 Member
    user_891102
    @DannyAlexander

    Claire, with regard to “Untruth #4,” you protest too much. As with my comment on your thread from Sunday, I applaud your sentiment(s), but that’s about it.

    And anecdotes simply won’t suffice — statistically speaking, the trend is not your friend (both in strict argumentation terms and also in larger, out-there-in-the-real-world-what-should-you-yourself-Claire-do-i.e.-should-you-stay-or-leave terms).

    Consider this (and please look beyond the headline to read all the way through, as there is much sagacity as regards the Jewish situation in France):

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-death-cult-ideology-that-france-prefers-not-to-name/

    Incidentally, with respect to your assertions about gang conflict in/around the Marais, they simply beg the questions:

    1) What was it about the Marais district that made the Muslim gang(s) believe that it constituted a more worthy target than others?

    2) Are the Muslim gangs attacking Jews in the Marais because they (the gangs) are acting as self-proclaimed “protectors” of *Muslim* businesses in and/or around the district?

    3) Similarly, have Muslim gangs been extorting the Jewish establishments in the Marais for protection money — or are they simply engaged in attacks (including both straight-up battery with no financial motive, as well as robberies)?

    4) Similarly, is the JDL “gang” attempting to extort protection monies from either/both the Marais-area Jewish establishments and/or *Muslim*-owned/operated businesses in the vicinity?

    My hunch is that beyond the likely obvious answer for #1, the answers to #2 through #4 are a collectively resounding “No.”

    In which case, we’re not talking about gang conflict in the slightest. It doesn’t matter if the JDL guys are minimally-educated greasers, and it doesn’t matter if the majority of Jewish business folk in the Marais aren’t exactly enthusiastic about JDL activity/presence. (What businessperson likes street violence?)

    We are talking about Jewish organized self-defense against jihadi-inspired and explicitly anti-Jewish ethno-religious marauders, plain and simple.

    Just because they might “rumble” from time to time in direct pitched combat (as opposed to combat incidental to protecting other Jewish individuals or establishments), it doesn’t change that corrected characterization (corrected from “gang war”). Philistines and Israelites used to have rumbles all the time, and for a very specific set of reasons.

    Moreover, the police characterization of this situation as mere gang conflict is self-serving QED stuff (i.e., self-serving to a police/intel/political establishment that preferred/prefers to re-cast the attacks/defense/counterattacks as strictly criminal in nature) — and that only underlines the cogency of TOI editor David Horovitz’s op-ed linked above.

    • #70
  11. user_3444 Coolidge
    user_3444
    @JosephStanko

    Claire Berlinski: Accurate. Have written about it a lot, actually. Hold on–CHANCE TO SELL A BOOK. I must remember this! As other Ricochet members have reminded me, I tend to miss these.

    Support Claire and a Ricochet sponsor and go listen to Menace in Europe on Audible.

    • #71
  12. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Randy Weivoda: Thanks, Claire. There are people who will not believe you because they only want to hear confirmation of what they already believe. I think you are a wonderful resource of Ricochet’s.

    All the Muslims in the rally were clearly engaging in Taqiyya. Obviously. </sarc>

    • #72
  13. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    Joseph Stanko:

    Claire Berlinski: Accurate. Have written about it a lot, actually. Hold on–CHANCE TO SELL A BOOK. I must remember this! As other Ricochet members have reminded me, I tend to miss these.

    Support Claire and a Ricochet sponsor and go listen to Menace in Europe on Audible.

    Or if you’re in the mood for fiction, try Loose Lips or Lion Eyes.

    • #73
  14. Albert Arthur Coolidge
    Albert Arthur
    @AlbertArthur

    James Gawron: It’s about both. To obtain the domination of all you must first destroy free speech.

    They did not attack Charlie Hebdo because it was a newspaper. They killed those people because of the Mohammad cartoons. It’s not about free speech. It’s about Islam.

    • #74
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.