Sunday, May 07, 2006

The ugly European habit of singling people out

What may have had its’ genus in population density and a history of fearing mobs has led to a dichotomous condition where mob rule counterbalances statism. As uniform and deterministic as attitudes were in the 19 century, so we find many examples of this fetish continuing to this day. “Public relations therapy” and attempt at integration aside, genetic diversity is well ahead of an acceptance of the diversity of ideas. The possibilities of the future and a fear of the other keep societies back, just as they had in the century and a half of endless wars from Napoleon to the fall of Berlin.

Shmuel Trigano writing in the journal Azure (free subscription to magazine) comes straight to the point in his title: Is There a Future for French Jewry? Citing the origin of Zionism with Theodor Herzl while in Paris itself, arrived at the inevitable conclusion was that no Jew is safe without a Jewish state as a safe-haven.

Of the countries hardest hit by the current outbreak of anti-Semitism in Europe, France poses a particular dilemma. For contrary to much of what is said today about anti-Jewish sentiment in France, its roots are to be found not in any specific Israeli policy with respect to the Palestinians. Rather, they lie deep within the French body politic. For this reason, it is a profound error to argue, as many have, that the problem will be resolved through a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, or that any of the conventional methods--such as increased law enforcement or public-awareness campaigns--will succeed in defeating it. Indeed, the current outbreak of anti-Semitism in France is little more than a symptom of a far deeper crisis confronting French Jewry.

To understand the problem of Jewish life in France today, we must recall that political Zionism was itself conceived in Paris. As a young reporter covering the Dreyfus Affair in 1894, Theodor Herzl saw clearly how untenable was the condition of the Jew in modern Europe. For the Emancipation, he understood, had been only a partial solution to the Jewish problem: It had granted Jews full civil rights, but did not secure their future as a religious, national, or ethnic collective. In other words, it had made room for the Jewish individual, but not for Jewish peoplehood.

The anti-Semitism that Herzl witnessed in France was thus not the return of a repressed, pre-Enlightenment hatred, but a problem that was intimately connected with the Enlightenment itself.
The tribalistically hostile nature of factional politics of French society then (and it also is now) was the tipping point and the proof: ongoing European negativity and nationalism, the very thing that fantasists wag a finger at North America for, has caused the alienation and fear and death no different to that of the Nazis. It has created trends and movements which the hysterical anti-semites of Europe now turn that same deterministic hatred on. Once again.
Trigano, writing about the mutation of concepts – human rights into a means of global “side-taking”, and the changing of views for no purpose other than to “make equal” two forces with opposed opinions in a culture leaves one to conclude that what was true in centuries past hasn’t changes in western Europe. An effectively monolithic culture disembodies anything that looks like an outlier in the “curtsied-up” separatism of Political Correctness.
The first riddle to solve is, obviously, how did it come about that the French Jewish community was transformed into a "community of immigrants" who are considered to be of foreign origin and not French nationals. To do so, we have to go back to the 1980s and the end of socialism in France, which the Left (in power) ratified by choosing a "policy of economic and social stringency" which was at variance with the Socialist Party program. This pragmatic turn of events challenged the ideological ideals and hopes that the Left had once represented and which had been the most powerful source of its influence. Hope had always been found on the Left in French postwar culture.

In order to reduce the political anemia produced by such a decision, Francois Mitterand revived the "anti-fascist front" strategy that had previously worked so well for the socialists/communists. Since the appointed enemy, that was artificially created, was the National Front of Jean Marie LePen and its racist ideology, it had to be opposed in the name of well-accepted "human rights." Juridical in concept, this became an ideological cause that served partisan interests. This use of human rights as a political weapon is what we call "human-rightism."

Fifteen years of French policy were organized around this axis. During those years, the Right was crushed between the extremes activated by Francois Mitterand and could not achieve power. Democratic forces were invited to join this front, while the Right was hesitant to enter into a coalition with extreme Right forces in the parliamentary elections.
Employed in that fashion, the concept’s utility began to fade as a real and meaningful thing. The outcome, like the obvious need for a Jewish safe-haven abroad is extended fragmentation. Whether this takes the form of suburbs being transformed into landlocked Swazilands, Quebec’s or any other form of political quarantine, they show that that founding principals of a culture – once they have been employed politically and abused rarely survive. Case in point: an organization called “SOS Racisme” singles out sectors of a population and nominates them an enemy – cultural integration, or a common set of principals that a social contract can be based on.

The disease finally got to the last healthy blood cell.

The fuse is lit!

No comments: