So, here we are—yet again. And so soon
after the Charlie Hebdo slaughter of February
7th, 2015. The new century is still in its early adolescence, and to the
rallying cry of “Je suis Charlie,” which
still echoes in the hearts and minds of a stunned world, must already be added
another, “J’suis Paris!” The fight is on. The outcome—anyone’s guess; and the
bookies are giving even odds with an overtime finish. In the near corner, in
the red-spattered clothes: enlightenment philosophy translated into political,
democratic freedoms. As with Charlie
Hebdo: on the line is the firm conviction that individuals can live out
their lives freely, and that “liberty and equality will yield a greater harvest
of human joy and fulfillment than any form of tyranny, whether of religion or
of state.” Versus, in the far corner, the tag-team of Religious Fundamentalism:
on the one side those in taqiyah skullcaps carrying
Kalashnikovs, and on the other the hallelujah gunmen (cf. here and here and especially here; analysis here) of the Christianized moral majority—a tag-team who will,
if they can, bring us all, heads bowed and chanting “Praise the Lord” or “Allah Akbar,” into their obscurant
fraternity of submission.
 |
| Liberty leading the People |
To
again borrow upon Abraham Lincoln’s rhythms—we are now engaged in a great
contest, to determine whether Men and Nations, “conceived in Liberty, and
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” can long endure.
And whether “government of the
people, by the people, for the people, shall […] perish from the earth.”
The
following text is Phrontisterion’s
translation of Riss’s Editorial from November 18th, 2015 (CH #1217),
the first edition of Charlie Hebdo to
appear on the newsstands after the massacre by Islamic fundamentalists in Paris
on November 13th. The attackers killed 130 people. There were 368
injuries. French authorities killed seven of the attackers. One (and perhaps a
second) has eluded arrest, to date.
(Phrases marked with an asterisk* were
spoken live on the set of LCI [the French Info Channel] the night of the
terrorist attacks).
“An evening we’ll remember for a long time.”*
This Friday evening, in a Parisian bistro,
the discussion between friends of Charlie
led, as it so often does, to telling the story, for the umpteenth time, of the
events of January 7th. Each one tells about what he lived through
that day, where he was at the precise moment of the attack, in the [Charlie] offices or outside, on the
sidewalk. And as we rehash the traumas and anxieties of the ones and the
others, a policeman tasked with our protection comes toward us and whispers in
our ears: “Are you going to be staying long?” And he adds: “There’s just been
an attack at the Stade de France.” We immediately ask for the bill, get into
the car, and, 15 minutes later, after crossing Paris, we are at home, sitting
in front of the television, safely confined, to protect ourselves against the
wolves that just entered Paris.
“Contrary to the month of January, this
time it’s just a blind massacre.” *
Paris has once again been attacked. We knew
that the January attacks would be followed by other attacks. We were waiting,
resigned, for it to fall on our heads, like the sword of Damocles, or the V1 and
the V2 rockets during the war. “Blood and tears,” prophesized Churchill. And so
it is. Without realizing it, the Parisians of 2015 have become a little like
the Londoners of 1940, determined not to yield either to fear or to acceptance,
no matter what should happen to fall on their heads. It is the only response one
can make to terrorists—by way of making ineffectual the very terror they try to
create.
“Didier Deschamps [current head coach of
the French national football team] cancelled his press conference.” *
After the attack against Charlie the mistake was to believe that it was going to happen again. But, no,
nothing identical to it happened.
Simultaneous attacks, explosive vests—stuff never seen before in France. The
next time, as well, it will be different. Perhaps a booby-trapped truck loaded
with explosives, or something else entirely, that even the police can’t
imagine. We have the impression of always being one step behind terrorist
perversities. The criminal imagination of those who are free is anemic compared
to that of killers alienated in terms of an ideology. As if the only type of
liberty authorized by their religious ideology were that of killing. A kind of
Islamist May 68: “Imagination in power, but only the imagination to kill.”
“Enjoy without boundaries, but enjoy only slaughtering without boundaries.”
“There is no reason why France, which is involved
in Syria, should not be hit.” *
After the horrors of the attacks we are
going to have to submit to yet another Calvary, that of analyses, explanations,
and theories. And it already started on Friday, live on the television. “Specialists”
claim that these attacks are the result of the French bombarding of Daech’s
fuel installations. The taking of hostages at the Bataclan was hardly over before the same type of guilt attributing speeches
could be heard. It’s because ‘we’ did something that they attacked us. Just
like with the comic depictions of Mahomet, which were supposedly the impetus
for everything that happened afterwards, these specialists make the victims
responsible. The French become the guilty party for taking part, for becoming
involved. For just simply existing. In fact, for these criminals there is
neither beginning nor end in France’s responsibility. For them, human rights,
liberty of expression, secularism [laïcité], are
values sufficient in and of themselves to legitimize their crimes. And these
specialists give us “explanations” that resemble “reasons” and that end up by
becoming “justifications.” It is still too early, but in a couple of days, when
emotions have settled down, these specialists will begin circling around the
dead, these professional vultures who, each and every time, find good reasons
for the killers. That’s how it is; that’s part of the process for each
assassination attempt: horror, emotion, trivialization, and justification.
“Did you hear these guys yell anything?” *
In the course of these terrible days many
words have been pronounced. Except one: “religion.” Religion has become an
embarrassing word. No one dares to say
it, but everyone understands that it is religion that motivated these killers,
and not some contrived geopolitical considerations. Even if there might exist
thousands of ways of believing and practicing, and even if we know that someone
can be a believer and yet democratic, can have faith and yet respect diversity
of opinion, we also know that religion can be transformed into a weapon of war.
The other word so very difficult to pronounce is the word “Islam.” Islam, in the
last twenty years, has become a battlefield where radicals want to exterminate
unbelievers and to subjugate by force moderates. French Muslims must not be
very comfortable seeing the murders committed in the name of their religion, all
the while feeling suspicion increase around them. And because they can expect nothing from the
Muslim religious authorities in France, who have always underwhelmed, French
Muslims are compelled to face this situation entirely on their own. On the one
hand, they are threatened with being marginalized by the rest of French
society, and, on the other, by being swallowed up in radicalism.
“They supposedly yelled ‘Allah Akbar!’” *
The only ones interested in seeing the
French begin to attack each other are the terrorists. That’s all they want—to
see hatred take hold of French citizens like it has taken hold of their own
brains. These terrorists are trying to drag everyone into their own violence
because that is their language, and in this domain they will always be stronger
than us. But avoiding the pitfall of becoming divided should not make us have
to give up our right to criticize religion—on the pretext that exercising this
right is sometimes irritating. Among all the fundamental liberties that make up
our lives, it is also this liberty that the killers wanted to eliminate on that
Friday evening.
“Our teams of reporters have been mobilized
in order to help you really experience this Friday evening’” *
 |
| Phrontisterion Middelburg_Nov. 27, 2015 |
Further reading:
·
Riss’ “Je suis Charlie”
editorial: http://nonimprimatur.blogspot.nl/2015/04/a-wager-on-history.html
·
“Yes, the Paris attacks had
something to do with Islam”--http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/yes-the-paris-attacks-had-something-to-do-with-islam/17659#.VllOVMq7Tu_
· “The left has an Islam problem: If liberals
won’t come to terms with religious extremism, the xenophobic right will carry
the day” --http://www.salon.com/2015/11/17/the_left_has_an_islam_problem_if_liberals_wont_come_to_terms_with_religious_extremism_the_xenophobic_right_will_carry_the_day/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
· “In a City of
Immigrants, Rotterdam's Muslim Mayor Leads by Example”-- http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/11/in-a-city-of-immigrants-rotterdams-muslim-mayor-leads-by-example/417075/
· “Does ISIS really have nothing to do with Islam? Islamic apologetics
carry serious risks.”-- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/18/does-isis-really-have-nothing-to-do-with-islam-islamic-apologetics-carry-serious-risks/?tid=sm_fb
