The spirit was willing, but alas the flesh ran out of time. I was hoping to fit in some posts before signing off for the holidays but unfortunately my work pressures got the better of me. Apologies again for the patchy posts over the past three months; things should be back to normal in the new year. Meanwhile, happy Christmas and seasonal best wishes to everyone.

There is no doubt that Australia’s worsening civil disorder, in which Muslims and indigenous Aussies have been fighting pitched battles now for days, has been caused in part by white racists. However, the widespread spin that has been placed on this disorder, that it has been caused by white racists and that what it reveals is that, under its veneer of multiculturalism, Australia is a fundamentally racist society positively heaving with people with despicable views who have been itching to have a pop at blameless Lebanese Muslims, is very wide of the mark. For it appears that the current unrest was sparked by Lebanese Muslim attacks on two indigenous lifeguards, and that this was only the tip of an iceberg of aggression by this minority which — thanks to the censorship imposed by multiculturalism — has gone all but unreported.

An important article by Tim Priest, a retired Australian Police detective, reveals three deeply alarming developments in Australian society: 1) the extent of the aggression and violence by these gangs, 2) the extent of Australia’s denial of this phenomenon, and 3) the extent to which this denial has prevented the police from addressing and controlling it. These gangs were involved in heroin smuggling, extortion, armed robbery, gun running, organised factory and warehouse break-ins and large-scale car theft and conversion. They were extremely violent. But a loss of professional nerve in the Australian police led to a mindset that was more concerned with avoiding hostility by ethnic minorities than tackling crime (identical to the situation in Britain). Confronting even the most minor of misdemeanours in Muslim areas tended to provoke a terrifyingly violent response — to which the police response was abject surrender:

In the minds of the local population, the police were cowards and the message was, Lebs rule the streets. For a number of days, nothing was done to rectify this total breakdown of law and order. To the senior police in the area, it was more important to give the impression that local ethnic relations were never better…By avoiding confrontations with these thugs, the police gave away the streets in many of these areas in south-western Sydney. By putting in place inexperienced senior police who had never copped the odd punch in the mouth or broken nose in the line of duty, the police force hung the community and the local police out to dry…In hundreds upon hundreds of incidents police have backed down to Middle Eastern thugs and taken no action and allowed incidents to go unpunished. Again I stress the unbelievable influence that local politicians and religious leaders played in covering up the real state of play in the south-west.

The result has been an explosive amount of crime and extreme violence by gangs of Middle Eastern origin, with many racially motivated attacks by such gangs who target people simply because they are Australian. Priest comments:

I wonder whether the inventors of the racial hatred laws introduced during the golden years of multiculturalism ever took into account that we, the silent majority, would be the target of racial violence and hatred. I don’t remember any charges being laid in conjunction with the gang rapes of south-western Sydney in 2001, where race was clearly an issue and race was used to humiliate the victims. But then, unbelievably, a publicly-funded document produced by the Anti-Discrimination Board called “The Race for Headlines” was circulated, and it sought not only to cover up race as a motive for the rapes, but to criticise any accurate media reporting on this matter as racially biased. It worries many operational police that organisations like the Anti-Discrimination Board, the Privacy Council and the Civil Liberties Council have become unaccountable and push agendas that don’t represent the values that this great country was built on.

Many of you would have heard of the horrific problems in France with the outbreak of unprecedented crimes amongst an estimated five million Muslim immigrants. Middle Eastern males now make up 45,000 of the 90,000 inmates in French prisons. There are no-go areas in Paris for police and citizens alike. The rule of law has broken down so badly that when police went to one of these areas recently to round up three Islamic terrorists, they went in armoured vehicles, with heavy weaponry and over 1000 armed officers, just to arrest a few suspects. Why did it need such numbers? Because the threat of terrorist reprisal was minimal compared to the anticipated revolt by thousands of Middle Eastern and North African residents who have no respect for the rule of law in France and consider intrusions by police and authority a declaration of war.

The problems in Paris in Muslim communities are being replicated here in Sydney at an alarming rate. Paris has seen an explosion of rapes committed by Middle Eastern males on French women in the past fifteen years. The rapes are almost identical to those in Sydney. They are not only committed for sexual gratification but also with deep racial undertones along with threats of violence and retribution. What is more alarming is the identical reaction by some sections of the media and criminologists in France of downplaying the significance of race as an issue and even ganging up on those people who try to draw attention to the widening gulf between Middle Eastern youth and the rest of French society. That is what we are seeing here. The usual suspects come out of their institutions and libraries to downplay and even cover up the growing problem of Middle Eastern crime. Why? My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that these same social engineers have attempted to redefine our society. They have experimented with all manner of institutions, from prisons to mental institutions and recently to policing.

An insightful — and, in the current Stalinist climate, brave — article by Janet Albrechtsen in The Australian also gets it:

Recognising human nature means that multiculturalism, though a fine sentiment, can only work if we unite behind a core set of values. Unfortunately though, that policy has become a licence for rampant cultural relativism. We are loath to criticise any aspects of cultures (except our own) for fear of sounding terribly judgmental and unfashionably un-multicultural. Instead, culture is talked about only as an excuse for abhorrent behaviour so that the offender becomes the victim. Last week, a convicted gang rapist claimed he assaulted a 14-year-old girl because she was not wearing traditional Muslim dress and he thought she was promiscuous. Pointing to cultural differences, the 27-year-old Pakistani-born man said: 'I believed at the time I committed this offence that she had no right to say no. I believed I'm not doing anything wrong.' A month ago his lawyer told the court his client was a 'cultural time bomb'. If this view, that culture can be used as an excuse, represents the views of even a subset of Muslim youth, then we have a problem. If we are not talking openly about egregious aspects of some cultures (except as an excuse), we have only ended up with a bigger problem. And, to date, we have not been talking. Multiculturalism has been synonymous with a rights agenda - addressing minority grievances - rather than a framework for talking about responsibilities. The violence that has been brewing in Cronulla, culminating in the disgraceful rampages in recent days, is a pointer that if we're serious about social cohesion, it's time we all demonstrated social responsibility.

As in Britain, the white racists in Australia appear to be exploiting a situation which has been allowed to get completely out of hand. Racists are parasites who attach themselves to a decaying organism and feed off it. But the organism wouldn't attract them if it wasn't already decaying. Britain, France, Australia, Sweden — variations of the same phenomenon are happening all over the western world. Aggression and denial, creating a spiral of ever-worsening aggression, all because of a paralysis in acknowledging, let alone dealing with, the true nature of what we are all facing.

Who said Britain was the home of free speech? The Telegraph reports what happened to Lynette Burrows, an author on children's rights and a family campaigner, after she took part in a discussion on BBC Radio Five Live about the new Civil Partnership Act.

During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. ‘It is a risk,’ she said. ‘You would not give a small girl to two men.’ A member of the public complained to the police and an officer contacted Mrs Burrows the following day to say a ‘homophobic incident’ had been reported against her. ‘I was astounded,’ she said. ‘I told her this was a free country and we are allowed to express opinions on matters of public interest. She told me it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents. They were leaning on me, letting me know that the police had an interest in my views. I think it is sinister and completely unacceptable.’

Scotland Yard confirmed last night that Fulham police had investigated a complaint over the radio programme. A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were ‘priority crimes’. It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime. ‘It is all about reassuring the community,’ said the spokesman. ‘We can confirm that a member of the public brought to our attention an incident which he believed to be homophobic.All parties have been spoken to by the police. No allegation of crime has been made. A report has been taken but is now closed.

So voicing concern about gay adoption now gets the police to finger your collar. Expressing the ‘wrong’ opinion is no longer considered acceptable by the state, which has decided what views are acceptable and what are not. Is this not the definition of a police state? And are the views of Lynette Burrows not shared by many, if not most, of the population? And how does this sit with all the harrumphing over the Terrorism Bill provision to outlaw material which glorifies terrorism, which is being ferociously opposed on the basis that we must never ever surrender freedom of speech, the principle at the very heart of our democracy?

Britain’s Conservative party now has a shiny new leader. In electing David Cameron, the party’s grass-roots have paid the ultimate act of homage to the Labour leader Tony Blair. They’ve now got what they’ve always wanted, a Blair of their very own. They don’t know what policies Cameron has up his sleeve. They don’t care what policies Cameron’s got up his sleeve. All they know is that Cameron has the right image to appeal to young people and non- Conservative people. They’ve voted for a face that can win an election. They’ve voted for style over substance because they think that style is what wins power, and who cares about the substance. Cameron has oodles of charm, he’s a toff with perfect manners and a good education, he seems to be a nice person, he talks the language of hope and optimism. Above all, he is untainted by the Tory past, by its image of spivs and charlatans and grubby shiftiness and, oh, mean-spiritedness and backward-lookingness and petty narrow-mindedness. So hey, does anything else matter?

And maybe they are right. This is precisely what brought Blair to power in the first place, the desperate willingness of the British public to suspend disbelief in the face of a country whose post-war settlement was buckling. And yes, the old Tories are a deeply unattractive bunch. So maybe the country will indeed be thus charmed by this Lord of the Rings hero Frodo Cameron and his Samwise Osborne — who reportedly watched Tony Blair give birth to New Labour in the 1990s and decided then and there that the Conservative party needed similarly to tear itself up by the roots — as they set out on their journey to throw the ring of Conservatism into the fires of Mordor.

So stand by for (almost) all-women Tory candidates’ short-lists (according to the BBC’s excellent Nick Robinson this morning), and almost certainly support for the whole multicultural, libertine, victim culture lifestyle — and who knows, maybe a dash of exciting, trendy drug legalisation too, just to be in touch with ‘Britain as it now is’. For now we have the new Tory big idea, to be the non-opposition opposition, not just in the political but in the cultural sphere. New Labour’s victory song in 1997 was ‘Things can only get better’; the New Tory song is surely ‘Go with the flow’. And now the electorate has a novel choice — three ‘Not the Conservative party’ parties, a full hand. The rout of conservative values in the political sphere is almost complete.

Yes, it’s a win-win situation. The only losers are the conservative heartlands of Britain, which are now effectively politically disenfranchised; and of course, the nation itself, at a time of mortal cultural and security peril. But who cares about that when there’s an election to win?

Last weekend, London was host to something called a ‘Global Peace and Unity’ Conference presented by the new Islam Channel and sponsored by Emirates Airlines, Western Union and the Metropolitan Police. It was duly reported as a worthy event attracting some 20,000 Muslims from all around Britain. The Times reported that Ken Livingstone, Michael Mansfield, QC, and the former Pakistan cricketers Saeed Anwar and Imran Khan were among the speakers promoting ‘global peace and unity’. One participant, asked if she thought that non-Muslims would feel threatened by such a gathering, replied: ‘No, non-Muslims are more aware that we are here, that we live in this society and that we engage and integrate in a peaceful way.’

Carol Gould also attended this event. This, in her words, is how the cause of ‘global peace and unity’ gets British Muslims to ‘engage and integrate in a peaceful way’:

The eminent barrister Michael Mansfield QC, wearing black and white keffiyah scarf, shouted into the mike about the heinous crimes of the Western coalition countries. The crowd chanted and thundered its appreciation. The terrifying demagogue George Galloway ascended the podium and exhorted the crowd to stand up for the redemption of the oppressed Muslim world or else the nation had better get ready for ‘rioting in every street in Britain’.

The ‘slaughter in Palestine and Iraq’ being only part of the equation, Chechnya, Bosnia and Kashmir were also mentioned all day by every speaker including a crazed, chador-clad Yvonne Ridley, who at any moment I expected to self-immolate, such was her fury at the Zionists, the Americans and her fellow Britons. To my utter disbelief, she condemned the British police force as some form of fascist brigade in ‘jackboot Britain.’ To all of these exhortations came cries of ‘Alllahu Akhbar’ from the enormous, simmering crowd of what looked to me like the angriest gathering of young men and women with whom I have ever had the misfortune to be seated in my lifetime.

It must be noted for non-British and non-Commonwealth readers that legendary cricketer Imran Khan’s arrival from Pakistan to give a speech would be the equivalent of a sporting megastar doing similar in an American arena. The crowd of some 20,000 adoring, mostly young British Muslims went mad with joy when he ascended the stage and took to the dais. What followed was a stream of invective about his own leader, Parvez Musharraf, Egypt’s leader Hosni Mubarak, and of course the ‘axis of evil’ Bush, Blair and allies. (It must be noted here that in May, when the controversy arose about American soldiers allegedly flushing a Koran down a lavatory, Khan’s power over world Islam was such that he gave one short speech and riots ensued across the globe, including the horrifying flag-burnings in London’s Grosvenor Square. )

Khan actually said we should feel the degradation of modern Muslims in the context of Hitler and the Germans after Versailles. He used this example to accentuate the reason for ‘Muslim rage’ -- there was poor Germany belittled and humiliated, like the Muslim world today. He recounted being confronted by a fellow Pakistani after 9/11 who asked, ‘Do you not feel ashamed?’ and he told the adoring crowd he did not see what there was to be ashamed of, and anyway, 9/11 was an excuse for the criminal Washington neocons to start a New Crusade against Islam. To illustrate the level of extremism to which this event had degenerated, one of the organisers actually took the mike and said the event team wished to distance themselves from Khan’s 9/11 views.

Various ‘artists’ whom I had thought would offer a variety of musical numbers gave loud, piercing renditions of what seemed the same chant about Allah. OK, that is fine, but where are the Muslim Placido Domingos, Joan Sutherlands, Isaac Sterns and George Balanchines? Why were there no Muslim educators present at this ‘cultural festival’ asking this vast multitude of young people to sign up for music, theatre and art programmes?

An elderly sheikh in Pakistan was beamed in live to tell this excited crowd that he could hardly bring himself to articulate the word ‘Israel’ as this is not a country that even exists. (How would British Muslims like it if a rabbi got up and said partition had produced a country called Pakistan, a word he could barely utter because it is not a real country?) The sheikh's English was barely comprehensible but he appeared to imply that Jews from ‘eighty nations’ were brought to Palestine to drive the Arabs away and to commit murder, torture, imprisonment and theft of land and homes over fifty-odd years. The young and impressionable crowd seemed ready for a collective Jihad at this point.

What was interesting was the repeated theme by a string of sheikhs from across the globe that the leaders of Arab nations were a weak, spineless bunch of puppets of the Americans who did not have the guts to stand up to Israel and the United States. This theme caused tremendous excitement in the crowd, as if a global Intifadah might just start in this London arena.

Not surprisingly, Carol describes herself as being in a state of shock after this event. Her account needs to be brought to the widest possible public attention. The people participating in this hate-fest need to be exposed for the racist hate-mongers that they are. Her account should be shown to the government and to the Attorney-General with a view to possible prosecution for incitement to violence. Did I say prosecution? Fat chance! The Metropolitan Police was actually sponsoring this event. Someone should be asking it, as a matter of urgency, what the hell it thinks it is doing.

Living in Britain at present is like living in a dream world. Things are happening, trends are running and a particular logic has taken hold which are all driving the country towards an unspeakable future. Yet no-one talks about it, no-one acknowledges it and whenever the plain facts are blurted out by a brave and clear-eyed person like Carol Gould people’s eyes glaze over, they shuffle their feet and look the other way.

Wake up, Britain. Wake up.

What does the Telegraph think it was doing today, publishing a picture of the 'grieving mother' of the human bomb terrorist who blew up the shopping mall in Netanya and killed five Israelis yesterday? It thus drew a moral equivalence between the grief of the bomber's mother and the grief of the victims he murdered. Would the Telegraph have published pictures of the 'grieving mothers' of the 7/7 bombers, I wonder? Has it now joined those other examples of Britain's degraded and venomous media for whom dead Israelis count for less than other victims?

Once again, my apologies for the sparseness of posts at present. As I have said before, this is due to extreme pressure of work. Things should be back to normal in the new year. Until then, I will post items whenever I can squeeze a few extra seconds from the day.

On the Daily Ablution, Scott Burgess is doing heroic work digging into – and translating from the French – the claim that surfaced in Switzerland of an alleged Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to subjugate Europe to Islam. Last October, an article in the Swiss daily Le Temps recounted how journalist Sylvain Besson had stumbled across the discovery by Swiss investigators of ‘The Project’:

One western official who had studied it described the Project as ‘a totalitarian ideology of infiltration that represents, in the end, the gravest danger for European societies’: The Project, which will become a danger in 10 years, he said, will see emerging in Europe the demand for a parallel system, the creation of ‘Muslim Parliaments of the sort that already exists in Great Britain ... thus beginning the slow destruction of our institutions, of our structures.’ For this official, who asked not to be named, the Project is not a simple philosophical text, but a ‘road map’ of which certain elements have been put in place in the real world: notably, it anticipates the start of the war against Israel in the Palestinian territories, and the support given these past years by the Muslim Brotherhood to several armed Islamic groups, from Bosnia to the Phillipines.

The discovery of the Project also raises many questions which, for now, remain unanswered. The identity of its author, for example, remains unknown. Youssef Nada, the keeper of the Project for nearly 20 years, simply told the Swiss investigators that he hadn't written the text. Approached several times by Le Temps, he finally explained that the document had been drawn up by some ‘Islamic researchers’ but that it didn't represent the official position of the Islamic Brotherhood. ‘I don't agree with but 15 or 20% of the text’, he said. Why in that case, did he keep it at his house? ‘I don't know. I should have thrown it away’.

The importance of the Project lies as much in its history, and those of the men surrounding it, as with its content. Its intellectual origins date back to the 1960s, when the ‘theoretician-in-chief’ of the Muslim Brotherhood, Said Ramadan, found refuge in Geneva. In September, 1964, his newspaper El Muslimoun published an article calling for the launch of an ‘ideological war’ against the West. He thus acted in response to the creation of the state of Israel, considered by Islamists to be an element in a vast plot against the Muslim religion and its faithful. ‘That is why we're convinced the that sophisticated ideological plan has to be countered by an ideological plan just as sophisticated, and that it is necessary to respond to these ideological attacks, to this ideological war, with an ideological war.’

The article makes explicit reference to ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, a document fabricated by Tsarist police and which describes a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. Even though it's a forgery, the antisemitic text continues to be taken seriously in Islamist circles.

Last August, the Wall Street Journal revealed that the ‘Protocol’ was cited during a recent meeting of the ‘European Council of Fatwahs and Research’, an organisation designed to counsel the Muslims of Europe regarding their daily lives. According to a participant in the meeting, the Protocol demonstrates the existence of a Jewish conspiracy designed to destroy the moral values of Muslim families. It is understood that, inspired by such ideas, the Islamists wanted to react by developing their own Project.

The lead thinker of the Council of fatwas, Yousouf al-Qaradawi, was one of the principal shareholders of the Al-Taqwa bank of Lugano. He is without doubt the most popular preacher in Europe and the Arab world, and some of his ideas are in line with those of the Project. Thus, in a document published in 1990, he proposed to develop the presence of the Islamic Movement at the heart of ‘jihad groups’, in order to eliminate ‘all foreign influences’ in Islamic lands, from Morocco to Indonesia.

One must bear in mind the possibility that ‘The Project’ is an elaborate hoax. But this clearly merits careful scrutiny. Thanks to Burgess’s work, we can now begin to dig away.

Important and timely article by Emanuele Ottolenghi in Commentary rightly highlights the very disturbing contribution being made to western anti-Jewish feeling by Jewish intellectuals pursuing the delegitimisation of Israel. As Ottolenghi says, these Jews perceive Zionism as a disease and call upon other Jews to renounce Israel’s very existence in order to save the Jewish soul. This is calling upon them to renounce a core component of their identity, their sense of Jewish peoplehood as expressed through their attachment and commitment to the democratic state of Israel and to the Zionist enterprise. So much, so vile. But what Ottolenghi also brings out is the subtle echo of another, earlier age of barbarism when Jews were forcibly converted to Christianity and then demonstrated their reliability to their persecutors by converting other Jews. He points out the Christological vocabulary being used by the Jew-hating Jews of today – ‘grace,’ ‘purity,’ ‘original sin’, ‘immaculate conception’, ‘the thirty pieces of silver’ and ‘crown of thorns’:

For Israel, in this analysis, entrance into a new life of grace is contingent on shedding its identity as the Jewish national state. Instead, it must agree to a unitary, binational arrangement with the Palestinians. Only thus might the state of the Jews yet wash away the stain of its original sin. The signatories of the 2002 letter in the Guardian were explicit on this point. No mere condemnation of Israel’s allegedly brutal behavior would satisfy the demands of their Jewish conscience. What was necessary was the dissolution of Israel itself, its place to be taken by a new entity that would no longer be ruled by Jews but in which Jews and Palestinian Arabs would at last live together peacefully as equals.

Of course, this is absurd -- a fancy-dress re-wording of longstanding Arab propaganda about the illegitimacy of Israel’s national existence. It is also hypocritical: Europeans who expend such vast quantities of energy lecturing Israel on its supposed hypernationalist instincts give no thought whatsoever to ridding the Arabs of their own, rather more vivid, forms of nationalist sentiment. But for those European Jews who embrace the modish conviction that nationalism is not just a sin but the root of all modern evil, the fantasy of Israel’s de-nationalization serves another purpose. It ensures their own conformity with the latest European thinking on the best way for human beings to organize themselves in society—namely, as good Europeans...

Today, as yesterday, Jewish 'particularism,' then religious, now national, remains a thorn in Europe’s side. Today, as yesterday, removing the thorn involves a renunciation of particularism followed by an espousal of the regnant form of universal salvation—then Christianity, now the tenets of humanistic liberalism. This is not 1930’s-style anti-Semitism; in that narrow sense, anti-Israel Europeans are correct in protesting that they are not anti-Semites. Nevertheless, it is an age-old form of anti-Semitism, and one that has always called forth a typical pattern of response on the part of the Jews under scrutiny. For most, the choices are to lie low in hopes that the trouble will pass, to pick up and seek life elsewhere, or to resist and oppose to the extent they can. We have seen all three responses in European Jewish society over the last years, each bearing its cost. Some, however, take a different route, finding favor and reward by exerting every effort to assimilate themselves to whatever is required of them, including to the point of publicly dissociating themselves from their people’s history and fate.

As I have said before, these Jews – whose desire for Jewish self-negation was well analysed in Kenneth Levin’s Book The Oslo Syndrome (see earlier posts) – are endangering the Jewish people by lending support, respectability and an alibi to those in the west who want to see the Jewish state wiped off the map. To a Europe which has turned against Israel, they are the good Jews. Those who defend Israel against the calumnies, distortions and libels that are designed to pave the way to ethnic cleansing or genocide are the bad Jews. In the Middle Ages, the bad Jews were those who defended their faith and had to be erased; the good Jews were those who eagerly assisted in their conversion. The line between the two, as Ottolenghi shows, is as straight as it is deadly.

Those who believe the lie that Israel is intent on the ethnic cleansing of the Arabs from the disputed territories might like to digest this item in Ha’aretz:

Some 50,000 Arabs immigrated to Israel in the past five years, a student at the University of Derby in Israel found…The number 50,000 was taken from conversations with local leaders, from unrecorded data in absorbtion areas, from the Islamic movement's private education system and from human rights organizations, the researcher said. According to Nasrin, much of the immigration is an effort to achieve unity between extended family members, some of which may have lived in the territories while others were considered Arab Israelis in Israel proper.

A striking passage in an essay by Paul Berman in The New Republic (subscription only) on the pathology of anti-Americanism in France:

This numbing, this reticence to take action, this refusal to take risks has a name: it is the spirit of Vichy. The spirit of Vichy continues to haunt France despite the defeat of the French state and the expiatory trials conducted during these last years. Vichy is not just complicity with the genocide of the Jews: it is a pacifist and past-oriented vision of the world. And it is above all a refusal to participate in the troubles and misfortunes that are engendered by all resistance and by any pursuit of a ‘warrior adventure.’ Vichy is the belief that one can remove oneself from history and from its necessarily tragic dimensions, the belief that one can evoke moral principles in order to avoid combat--yesterday against Nazism, today against radical Islamism. This spirit is stronger than ever.

And Rigoulot goes on: ‘But Vichy is itself the product of a profounder evil, tied to the terrible consequences of the war of 1914-18, which shaped for decades a mentality increasingly marked by the incapacity to stand up against the adversaries of democracy. They weren't numerous, the resistance fighters of 1940!’ Rigoulot doesn't want to go too far with this remark. He explains, ‘Certainly, the spirit of Vichy, widely spread as it is in French public opinion, does not explain everything. But it is the guarantee that all of the anti-American discourses will find a favorable echo. Above all, in denouncing war. All war.’

It’s not just in France.