Sunday, January 11, 2015

French Prime Minister Declares ‘War’ on Radical Islam

France has declared war against Islamic terrorism and hate, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said Saturday in defiant speeches aimed at rallying his country in the aftermath of a three-day jihad spree that left 17 dead, reports NyPo.

“We are at war — not a war against a religion, not a war against a civilization, but to defend our values, which are universal,” Valls said.

I note this comes from a foreign minister of a country whose "values" include banning the modest dress of female Muslims who wear  face-covering  niqabs and burqas.

I repeat, anyone should be able to say, write or draw anything they want on their own property (or anyone else's property where they are allowed.)  BUT, I feel no personal obligation to fight and protect the type of disgusting filth put out by Charlie Hebdo. An organization, I feel compelled to point out, that fired a writer for being ant-Semitic.

If you travel into dangerous territory, then you need to deal with the consequences. If you plan to head into San Francisco's Tenderloin at 3:00 AM, don't call me to protect you. And if you plan to insult anyone's God, don't expect me to go down fighting for you.

Valls and other French officials are simply opportunist posers. They are using the recent attacks as an opportunity to encourage rallying around a government. There is no way the French government can protect the French against pissed off Muslims. It is a myth. In the real world, when you tempt fate, you better be prepared for the consequences.

Most governments are a lot more dangerous then extremist Muslims, but there isn't a damn one of you reading this post, who is going to fight, today, to death, to protect me against any damn outrageous government regulation.  Not going to happen.

Get over it. Most of the time you deal with violence by staying away from it and not provoking it. A government call for fighting "hate," is simply a call for growing the ultimate evil organization, government itself.



  1. It's worth noting that one of the shooting victims at 10 Rue Nicolas-Appert was an SDLP officer assigned to protect the magazine editor. If a trained member of France's elite national police unit was totally ineffctual at protecting the lives of those who were known to be high profile targets of amateur radical Islamists, how on earth does Valls (or any other political parasite) intend to protect the citizenry?

    The notion of government protection is again demonstrably, and in this instance fatally, a myth.

  2. Robert, the persons who attacked Charlie Hebdo are criminals. They must be brought to justice. Please do not lose sight of that simply because Charlie Hebdo's satire was outrageous.

  3. Most government officials are criminals, are you go to bring them to justice? LOL

  4. So because we cannot bring all criminals to justice we should not bring any? Most government officials are criminals like you said but so are the people who attacked Charlie Hebdo. In the latter case those criminals might be able to be brought to justice and should be.

  5. Glad that here the govts of all the nations are criticized at every possible opportunity, but this time the context and priorities seem very twisted.

    Govts are known to use every crisis to their advantage, it's great that you point that out but what's troubling is that you justify a fatal attack on pvt property and life because the views of those individuals were "disgusting"? What about "I repeat, anyone should be able to say, write or draw anything they want on their own property"?

    If we recant NAP as soon as an individual is "disgusting" or blasphemous then that is one slippery slope. The point is not that actions have consequences, but to emphasize that we cannot go around imposing our own ideas of justice on other individuals for subjective reasons.

  6. Of course French officials are opportunist posers. Did you see the Twitter picture of Hollande on the telephone with Obama and a Charlie Hebdo book carefully placed on his desk?

    While nothing in the NAP obliges you to protect the rights of others, you should be alarmed that 8 of your fellow journalists are dead for expressing their beliefs. And you should be alarmed about the people who are killed, raped and robbed in your city in the Tenderloin. No need to carry water for their killers, nor for the 3am criminals in the Tenderloin that terrorize innocents passing through, saying that the victims were asking for it. The barbarians deserve unequivocal condemnation and we should hope they are brought to justice in one way or another, and that's the end of the debate about where the blame lies. The same can be said about government officials, but that is a beast difficult to bring to justice; as you and Gary North have written on this blog, the answer is not direct confrontation or revolution, it is secession and withdrawing consent.

    As far as the "root cause analysis" that another commenter mentioned, you are right to talk about the inflammatory material published by the journalists. (though I will say this was not an Islamophobic publication, their most recent edition was mocking a novelist theorizing about a future France controlled by Muslims. they are basically nihilistic communists that mock all religions including Judaism ) Also, blowback from Middle East adventurism, the lousy French economy devoid of opportunities, welfare tearing apart families and creating degenerates, the failure of public education: these are all important points to make for a "root cause analysis".

  7. You are enlisting criminal group A to apprehend criminal group B, and imagining criminal group A will just call it a day once that matter is done. They won't. To quote Die Hard's Hans, "Sooner or later I may get to someone you do care about."

  8. I agree with pittsburghlibertarian, msreekan and Michael. The principle involved is that speech should be replied to with speech, not with violence. It is a libertarian one (an application of the non-aggression principle) and one that libertarians ought to support consistently.

    An attack on freedom of speech is not ONLY to be opposed if committed by the state. We libertarians, after all, recognize that the state is just a group of people. We don't deify the state as some do; nor do we apply different sets of moral rules to state and non-state organizations.

  9. Pope Francis will agree with Wenzel's take!