Here are a few Front Page Magazine articles on France and Islam.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7758

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5239

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6976

WAK

My French Paw Paw would be unsurprised. My dear Daddy can attest that his PaPa wrote off my Paw Paw’s French blood-relative ingrates as communists many years earlier: the 1940’s. So it is no surprise my relatives are behaving badly. This is significant information to our younger readers.

Every uncomplimentary thing Guy Millière says about Jacques Chirac in the articles Mr. Kehowski provided above is true. Of major Western leaders today he is probably the worst. In a field that includes Tony Blair, that is quite a distinction. He is like George W. Bush (note that I am not saying, much as I dislike Bush as our president, that Bush and Chirac are morally equivalent) in appearing to prefer a foreign fifth column that is wreaking havoc in his country to his own countrymen. If we can help explain Bush’s curious blind spot about Mexicans through a combination of ignorance and solicitude for his in-laws, Chirac has no such excuses (not that I am excusing Bush).

Chirac is very intelligent and broadly experienced (he is older than he looks). Like his mortal enemy Jean-Marie Le Pen, he served as an officer in the Algerian War, so he has seen Moslem societies first-hand. He has been a fixture of French politics for almost 40 years. He first served as prime minister in the 1970s; before that he even served as a junior minister while General de Gaulle was still president in the late 1960s; he was mayor of Paris for a very long time (French politicians can, and often do, hold major mayoralties and be members of parliament, even ministers, at the same time). Chirac has seen all that mass Moslem immigration has done to French society. He has made his peace with it. More accurately, he has sold out to Moslem governments and interests, as he is also selling France out to the EU. While he has avoided prison so far, Chirac has a general reputation for corruption. General de Gaulle, could he see it, would detest the Chirac of today and all he stands for.

Despite winning the presidency twice now, Chirac is not very popular among the French. That may help explain why he courts Moslem immigrants so assiduously; he knows he does not play so well with real Frenchmen. It might also help explain some of his grandstanding in opposition to the American invasion of Iraq; there is always a superficial attraction for French pols in anti-Americanism, although French anti-Americanism is not nearly as widespread as the neocons would have us believe. Over many years of living in and visiting France I have encountered a lot of gratitude for the Americans’ help in 1918 and 1944. Some of what Americans mistake for ingratitude is the French belief, which happens to be true, that the U.S. government’s motive for entering both world wars was not to rescue France.

Chirac has been lucky twice. In 1995 he was able to run against the legacy of François Mitterand, who was worn-out (dying, in fact), had presided over a worsening of the country’s condition under Socialist governments, and was tainted by recent revelations of a less than pleasant past (service in Vichy governments; a bastard daughter whom he had kept at the State’s expense). In 2002, Le Pen faced him in the run-off (the top two vote-getters in the first round of a French presidential election face each other in a second round). The Left stopped accusing Chirac of lies and corruption for a few weeks and rallied massively to his side to keep the feared Le Pen out. Scare tactics were quite successful at suppressing Le Pen’s share of the vote, so Chirac won the appearance of a landslide, largely on the votes of Leftists who hate him, but hate Le Pen more.

The immigration crisis is visibly worse today even than during the 2002 election, and more widely reported in French media. Chirac’s pandering is not very representative; most Frenchmen do not want masses of Moslems in their midst. Something to watch is how Le Pen’s Front National performs in the March 2004 regional elections; they are trying to capitalize on dissatisfaction and unease about immigration. If they do well, things could begin to change. Even Chirac’s government is starting to tighten immigration controls, although not nearly enough. Also worth watching is the man to whom Chirac made his lying observation: Philippe de Villiers. He is trying to make inroads through defending France’s sovereignty against the EU. On that issue also the French elite’s views are not very representative.

France is the country to watch. While I don’t entirely share Millière’s pessimism, France is the Western country most challenged by Islam (so far). If there is to be a French reaction against the Islamization of France, it needs to happen pretty soon. I believe the sentiment is there. HRS

Mr. Sutherland wrote,

” … France is the Western country most challenged by Islam … . If there is to be a French reaction against the Islamization of France, it needs to happen pretty soon.”

There’s precedent for it: Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours some thirteen centuries ago.

Go for it, France! Don’t let us down! Don’t let your own ancestors down! You are a great nation!

Hate to bring up this point against Unadorned, but Charles Martel and the dominating element in the Frankish monarchy — this was before there was a France in the sense we understand it — came from the Austrasian or Germanic part of the kingdom. The French proper, it is true, were the dominant element in the Crusades — but they failed. Ah well, I hope Unadorned sentiments prove right anyway!

Mr. Levine is right about the Germanic origins of the Franks, who had been in Gaul in force from the fourth century and dominated it from the late fifth century on. Nevertheless, the distinction of which he speaks, between a French kingdom in the West, a German kingdom in the East and the Lotharingian kingdom in the middle, did not come about until the Treaty of Verdun of 843, which divided the Carolingian empire among Charlemagne’s grandsons. Charles Martel was himself Charlemagne’s grandfather. At the time of Tours (really fought nearer Poitiers in 732) there was no such distinction. The kingdom of the day was the very loosely organized Merovingian kingdom of the Franks. There was as yet no meaningful distinction between Frenchmen and Germans. Today’s northern Frenchmen still have a Germanic strain among their roots, as do today’s Englishmen. We can only pray there are still some Frenchmen who will take courage from Charles Martel’s example. HRS

Howard Sutherland is absolutely right to point out that there was no real distinction then between French and Germans. I merely meant to point out that the center of Carolingian power was in the area that is now Germany, not the part of the kingdom that became France — Charlemagne’s household tongue was old German and his capital was at Aachen. To be fair, one should point out that Duke Eudo of Aquitaine had already repelled one Muslim invasion before Tours, and his domain was certainly part of the later France!
I hope no one took my little light-hearted comments as a serious criticism of France, much less supposed that I was aping the hysteria of too many neocons— of the sort who call the French “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.” Have those people ever heard of the battle of Verdun?

Among the uncomplimentary things I said about Jacques Chirac in previous posts is that he is a false heir of General de Gaulle, whom I admire. In truth, between his acceptance of the islamising of France and the dissolution of French sovereignty in the EU, he is a complete traitor to real Gaullism. I thought some VFR readers might be interested in what de Gaulle had to say about these issues, to show how complete Chirac’s betrayal is.

In 1959, in the context of realizing that it would be impossible and ultimately harmful to keep Algeria French, President de Gaulle made the following observations to Alain Peyrefitte: “It’s fine to have yellow Frenchmen, black Frenchmen, brown Frenchmen. They show that France is open to all races and has a universal vocation. [So far, sounds pretty Chiraquien, but the General goes on:] But on the condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are after all a European people of the white race, of greek and latin culture and of the Christian religion. … If we proceeded with integration [of Algeria completely into France], if all the Arabs and Berbers of Algeria were considered French, how would one prevent them from installing themselves in metropolitan France, since the standard of living is so much higher here? My village wouldn’t be called Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises [C of the Two Churches] any more, but Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées!” [no translation needed!]

Chirac is trying to make a reality of something Charles de Gaulle clearly saw as a nightmare to avoid at all costs. Chirac may be the worst of a bad breed in Western Europe today, but he is unfortunately representative. HRS

Excellent quote from DeGaulle. Does Mr. Sutherland have a citation for this?

I am pretty sure it is from Peyrefitte’s “C’était de Gaulle,” a collection of de Gaulle’s thoughts on various topics published in 1994. I found it in Le Figaro (great newspaper). HRS

I do not know the exact source for the De Gaulle quote, but it is worth noting that it is very similar to the assessment of the probable consequences of “integrating” Algeria into France made years earlier by the French thinker Raymond Aron, a “Gaullist of the first hour” in 1940.

Aron had his differences with de Gaulle in later years, especially over the anti-Anglo-Saxon pettiness of his irresponsible “vive le Québec libre” speech of 1967 and over the decision to cut French arms supplies to Israel after the Six Day War. Still, there is no doubt that Aron influenced de Gaulle’s thinking earlier, so Mr. Levine’s connection makes sense. Patriotic and Catholic as he was, however, I do not believe de Gaulle needed much prompting from intellectuals to formulate his “certaine idée de la France.”

I would think (hope) that most Frenchmen with any sense would have the same reservations as he did about importing Arabs and Berbers en masse. Evidently, at least with respect to today’s governing elite, I would be wrong. I have a good idea of what Charles de Gaulle wanted for his country, as I have a pretty good idea of what Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher wanted for theirs (even if they failed ultimately to restore conservative government). I am honestly stumped about what current “leaders” like Jacques Chirac, GW Bush and Tony Blair want for the same countries. Their words express a liberal void, while their deeds appear calculated to destroy their countries. Charles de Gaulle would despise them all. HRS

“I am honestly stumped about what current ‘leaders’ like Jacques Chirac, GW Bush and Tony Blair want for the same countries. Their words express a liberal void, while their deeds appear calculated to destroy their countries.”

I think Mr. Sutherland has answered his own question. These leaders and the liberal elites and masses they represent seek the void, though most of them don’t consciously realize it yet. The liberal language they have adopted (like Orwell’s Newspeak) makes it impossible for them to express or even to conceive any actual national realities. Furthermore, to want such things is to be evil. And, as Nietzsche said in the concluding sentence of The Geneology of Morals, “Man would rather will the void than be void of will.”

Also, as Nietzsche’s madman says in the famous scene about the death of God in The Gay Science, Section 125:

“This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering, it has not yet reached the ears of men…. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves.”

Modern liberal people, including “conservatives,” including even many Christians, are at least in part nihilists, because they deny the objective value of key sectors of reality, including peoplehood and nationhood. Just as secular liberals have “killed” the objective value God, modern conservatives have killed the objective value of nationhood by turning it into an abstraction. But, as with the complacent nihilists Nietzsche describes, the realization of the cataclysmic thing they have done hasn’t reached them yet. It is more distant from them than the most distant stars.

In any case, that is why in my booklet Erasing America I speak of the double crisis we face, consisting of “the nihilism that is destroying us from within and the demographic invasion that is swamping us from without.”

I received an interesting off-line comment about Mr. Auster’s original post of this thread. My correspondent asked if the attitude behind such things as Chirac’s evident preference for Moslems over his countrymen (and Bush’s mexiphilia at our expense) is not the product of anti-racialist Leftist brainwashing that leaves most white Westerners incapable of preferring their own to the Other, any other. Since one cannot, on pain of being “racist,” prefer one’s own, and since someone must be preferred, today’s Western statesmen (the ones who can win elections, anyway) always act against the interest of their own people - and their native lands. I think there is something to it.

Look at the evolution of terms, and let’s stick with Charles de Gaulle, since this thread is about the Frogs. In 1940, General de Gaulle was a patriot. By 1960, the British and American press characterized President de Gaulle, as often as not, as chauvinist. Since about 1980, it has become fashionable in PC circles to characterize him as a bigot. Today, a new book accusing him of selling out Algeria (both ways: European pieds-noirs and Moslem harkis loyal to France alike) goes the distance: the patriot become a chauvinist become a bigot has become a racist. The essentials about Charles de Gaulle never changed after 1940, but the Western mind surely has. HRS

Mr. Sutherland writes:

“Since one cannot, on pain of being “racist,” prefer one’s own, and since someone must be preferred, today’s Western statesmen (the ones who can win elections, anyway) always act against the interest of their own people - and their native lands. I think there is something to it.”

Exactly! Man would rather will the void than be void of will.

By the way, the version I used of that line, from Golfing’s translation of The Genealogy of Morals, while very powerful (when I first read it at age 21 I almost fell out of my chair), is not literal. The original is:

Lieber will noch der Mensch _das Nichts_ wollen, als _nicht_ wollen.

Which is rendered more literally, if not very happily, by Walter Kaufmann:

“Man would rather will _nothingness_ than _not_ will.”

Nietzsche wrote:
“Man would rather will _nothingness_ than _not_ will.”

And what are the practical political consequence of actively willing nothing, one naturally asks?

To will nothing but stop short of immediate personal suicide is to will that particulars don’t matter: it is to will equality. It is to will perfect equality among the ubermensch alongside utter extermination of the untermensch; the untermensch who is subhuman because of his attachment to enslaving particulars, to which he not only submits himself in his nature as slave but to which he also attempts to subject the ubermensch. The untermensch is both slave (the worst contemptible sort, a slave who accepts his slavery) and oppressor at the same time.

The great thing about Nietzsche is that he understood the full implications of the liberal project far better than did the liberals themselves. That could be part of the reason why he went insane before he died, although some think it may have been syphilis. Despite his clarity of understanding he didn’t take his own thought to its rational conclusion though, which would entail a complete rejection of modernity as intellectual suicide. You can’t will anything when you are dead.

But certainly we shouldn’t underestimate the value of reading Nietzsche in order to understand liberal modernism.

Matt writes:

“To will nothing but stop short of immediate personal suicide is to will that particulars don’t matter: it is to will equality.”

That is a brilliant addition to what I was saying. But it approaches the subject from a different angle. In the terms Mr. Sutherland and I were using, the liberal denial of particularity is the starting point. That is, because modern people are not allowed to affirm their own particularity, and since man must by nature affirm something, modern people end up affirming the alien and the Other at the expense of their own. By contrast, in Matt’s terms, the liberal denial of particularity is the end point rather than the starting point. Matt starts with nihilism itself, a general will to non-being, and shows how that general will to non-being manifests itself as a liberal denial of our own particularities.

In other words, liberalism is a quasi-suicide or half-suicide. The liberal has an urge to non-being, but doesn’t actually want to end his own existence. So he goes half-way to non-being, by denying his own particularity.

This by the way fits with Fr. Seraphim Rose’s definition of liberalism as an early or moderate stage of nihilism.

Of course, it also fits with our analysis of the unprincipled exception. Consistent nihilism—pure liberalism—would be suicide. Practical liberalism is a compromise with that. The liberal’s very existence is an unprincipled exception from his own liberal principles. That’s why tv dramas like “The West Wing” and “The Practice” are shown in weird, three-quarters darkness. The liberal is guilty for existing, even as he worships at the altar of his own self-esteem.

I am glad to see Nietzsche being discussed, having felt for over 40 years that he was absolutely prophetic about the inability of man to live without sustaining myth, and the long range consequences of the enlightenment’s project to subject everything to Socratic “reason,” namely, a nihilist catastrophe that would culminate in blind rage. Unfortunately, he was not a systematic writer and is difficult to read. The best book on him is “What Nietzsche Means” by George A. Morgan, which will have to be obtained through an online used book service as it is out of print.

sorry, but all this talk about “liberalism as an early or moderate stage of nihilism” or “liberalism as a quasi-suicide or half-suicide” is intelectually dishonest nonsense

first of all, you can be a nihilist only on paper
if you are alive you must act, and if you act you act for a reason (well, at least most of the time), and acting for a reason means that you see something as valuable

that’s way liberals, leftists, (post)modernists - all the people you see as your opponents - have values (things thay value)
problem is, these are not your values (and vice versa)

you can disagree with liberals but you cannot deny that they value some things - right-wing liberals value (or even believe in) free trade, left-wing liberals believe in equality and human rights, feminists believe in the sort of things they believe, etc.

even people who think only (mainly) about their careers and precious things they buy in the mall - well, they have their values, no matter how much you despise these values

of course, all these people, are not nihilists and don’t think about suicide - on the contrary, death is their taboo

“The great thing about Nietzsche is that he understood the full implications of the liberal project far better than did the liberals themselves.”

The other thing about Nietzsche is, as we all know, that he loathed Christianity. We’re all aware also of a somewhat mysterious Christianity-liberalism nexus. (Nietzsche admired the Old Testament.) Is there a way to disentangle Christianity from liberalism? For instance, can we consider that what Nietzsche detested was the “perversion” of Christianity by the dishonesty of a certain sort of male moral weakling on the male side, and by certain of women’s natural predispositions on the female side, rather than the underlying doctrine itself? Notice that the destructive female influence on the Dem Party (together with a certain sort of dishonest male weakling eunuchoid influence which thrives on allying itself with feminine cluelessness in the furtherance of mischiefmaking) which makes us despise it so much is similar to the female interpretation of and influence on the practice of Christianity. Notice that what many Christianity haters of the 1800s and early 1900s, such as Nietzsche, the English mathematician G.H. Hardy (who once refused to accept a high academic honor his university — Cambridge I think it was — wished to bestow because to do so required attending a ceremony held in a college chapel, a place where he refused ever to set foot), and tons of others — notice that what many of them couldn’t stand about Christianity closely resembled what many of us can’t stand today about liberalism.

Notice that never since the world began has any woman been an admirer of Friedrich Nietzsche.

well, I think his sister was his admirer… of sorts

more to the point: Nietzsche was basically right about Christian roots of liberalism
he was smart enough to see that liberalism (aka modernity, call it as you like) is not ‘perversity’ of christianism (as you would like so much to believe…) but its logical (or even inevitable) consequence

and if say that liberalism means that particulars don’t matter - it’s only a half-truth
because for a liberal (modernist, leftist, etc.) particularity (nationality, ethnicity, family, etc.) doesn’t matter because individuality (individual self-creation) and universality (universally equal human rights) is ALL that matters
read a bit of rorty (or dworkin or rawls) - that is what he basically says

and of course - this is all very christian, especially very protestant: only individual matters, beloved by his God who loves every one, Greek, Roman or Jew…

so - Nietzsche will not help you, for he was an individualist to the extreme; he hated each and every set of people who claimed that their ideas contain universal message for whole humanity

but Freddy also hated particularity, he - being German - hated Germans, he hated his own family, he did not even manage to fall in love or to have friends

he wasn’t a conservative in even remote sense of the term

he was rather someone like Foucault, obsesses with his own obsessions, on the road to madness…

Re Ironically European’s comments, the issue here isn’t whether Nietzsche was a conservative, but whether he foresaw certain consequences of the intellectual climate prevailing in Europe after the Enlightenment. He saw that the “death of God” had knocked the underpinnings out from morality. This is why men like Rorty, Rawls, and Dworkin are floating in air - essentially intellectually frivolous, enjoying a transient popularity with the NY Times readership set because they seem somehow to confirm their unfounded liberal views, though there is no “there” “there.”

“He saw that the “death of God” had knocked the underpinnings out from morality.”

I doubt. Notion that teistic morality is the only possible one is your prejudice, i’m afraid

The ironic european one seems to think that Nietzsche is being viewed as an icon to be respected and followed. That would be a misreading at least of the intent of my post. Nietzsche I think realized that ultimately the rational Western man can only be either a nihilist or a Christian traditionalist (the mystical man may have other options, but rational Western man does not). He rather admired himself for the supposed bravery in choosing the putative emancipation of the former.

On ironically’s point about the half-truths of liberalism, I would invite him to read the VFR archives wherever the unprincipled exception is mentioned; the values he ascribes to liberals fit perfectly. Liberalism is fundamentally self-contradictory. Often someone will enter these discussions and say that we must have liberalism wrong, because such and such that some liberals actually do is in conflict with the principles we ascribe to liberals. In this case IE mentions things that certain classes of liberals value to juxtapose to liberalism-as-nihilism, as if the contradiction demonstrates that our understanding of liberalism is wrong. Au contraire: we expect self-contradiction and are not the least surprised by it.

On Unadorned’s question I think it is valid to view liberalism as (at least in part) a pick-and-choosy corruption of Christian moral universalism. Thomas Jefferson said it well:

“But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object.” — Letter to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

Like most liberal corruptors of Christianity, Jefferson didn’t have even a basic understanding of what Christian doctrine entails (for example his mistake in calling out the “immaculate conception of Jesus” when the immaculate conception in Catholic doctrine refers to the conception of Mary, Jesus’ original-sinless (immaculate) mother, not the virgin conception of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit).

So I think there is some validity in viewing liberalism as something secular nihilist ignoramuses created from a corruption of Christendom; a self-contradictory attempt to make my will the ultimate standard without actually immediately committing suicide.

The poster named “ironically european” has got to improve his manners, as well as his typing and grammar, if he is to continue posting here. Referring dismissively to serious ideas and beliefs as “intellectually dishonest nonsense” and as “your prejudice” is not an acceptable way to participate in a discussion.

Also, he doesn’t even understand the things he is attacking. Nietzsche was introduced here because a couple of his insights were extremely valuable, not because anyone here is embracing him as a fellow conservative.

I wrote:
“So I think there is some validity in viewing liberalism as something secular nihilist ignoramuses created from a corruption of Christendom; a self-contradictory attempt to make my will the ultimate standard without actually immediately committing suicide.”

It is important to keep this teleological aspect of liberalism in mind in order to make sense of what loyal liberals actually do. To commit personal suicide right now is to leave the world as it is, to leave humanity enslaved to the particularities of tradition, race, and creed. If the emancipation of the free and equal human will is the ultimate goal then personal suicide won’t achieve it; only universal suicide, the active elimination of all authoritative particularities, will achieve it. The liberal sort of nihilism is a teleological nihilism: all of the oppressor-untermenschen must be exterminated, and all of the supermen must live in harmony as free equals emancipated from all authoritative particularities. That this becomes a demand for universal death isn’t always clear to the individual liberal - the point isn’t death, it is liberty-or-death (or, as Nietzsche was one of the few to understand, liberty AND death).

That it demands personal death occasionally becomes clear to the random shotgun-swallowing rock star though.

OK, I’ll repeat it because you seem to concentrate on my last (rather mariginal) remark on Nietzsche (and on my grammar and manners) choosing to ignore far more important points:

1. Liberals aren’t nihilists, they just believe in something different then you do. They deny the value(s) of particularity praising individuality and universality instead.

2. Nietzsche was basically right: liberalism is not ‘perversity’ of christianism but its logical (or even inevitable) consequence.

If you could comment on that, I would be glad, if not - it just means you are avoiding serious discussion prefering to agree with people who happen to have the same opinion on almost everything as you do.

(oh, BTW, dear Lawrence, check my grammar and spelling :o)

“Also, he doesn’t even understand the things he is attacking.”
I’m not attacking anything here.

“The poster named “ironically european” has got to improve his manners”
Yeah, sure, my master. Your perfect manners give you right to say what I quote above.

“…if he is to continue posting here”
I’m paralysed. You’re so awsome, master.

BTW, notion that teistic morality is the only possible one just IS prejudice. At least you should justify this sort of statement. People like buddhists, Vikings, ancient Greeks, marxists, fascits, etc. have or had a morality but were they (mono)theists?

I’m not anyone’s master. But this website, like any human institution large or small, has limits as to what sort of behavior it accepts or doesn’t accept.

IE wrote:
“Liberals aren’t nihilists, they just believe in something different then you do. They deny the value(s) of particularity praising individuality and universality instead.”

It is true that nobody can be an immiment nihilist without immediately committing personal suicide and taking as many with him as possible. Nevertheless a teleological consequence of liberalism is nihilism, and an imminent consequence of teleological nihilism is liberalism. I noticed that IE ignored that, as well as the rest of my posts; possibly because of their inconvenience to this thesis of IE’s which he imputes also to Nietzsche:

“liberalism is not ‘perversity’ of christianism but its logical (or even inevitable) consequence.”

Thomas Jefferson’s liberalism is a self-conscious perversion of Christianity, “separating the diamond from the dunghill” in his view as the quote I provided shows clearly.