Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Mistaking the state

From a comment at Bonald's site we get the following:
Rachida Dati, herself a Muslim and former French Minister of Justice (garde des Sceaux) told the National Assembly that “The Republic is alone capable of uniting men and women of different origins, colours and religions around the principles of tolerance, liberty, solidarity and laïcité making the Republic truly one and indivisible”

When I read that I was struck immediately by its cruelty: it establishes the Republic as a neutral space with "procedural values" (values aimed at function) at its heart.

But France is not a neutral space, it is the homeland of the French and the one place that the French tradition has a chance to exist.

It would be different if representatives of the French state were to proclaim "We represent and defend the French tradition, but we will provide protection within our society for those minorities who do not belong to the mainstream tradition."

And what happens if you do belong to the mainstream tradition in a society which decides to be a neutral space ruled by procedural values? Most likely the state can't wait to reduce you to one amongst many, as this fits in better with the concept of such a society. Why should one group predominate if the focus is on neutrality?

7 comments:

  1. Your quote ... "We represent and defend the French tradition, but we will provide protection within our society for those minorities who do not belong to the mainstream tradition." is very good.

    But with a neverending stream of migrants (cheap labour wanted by the owner/manager class and liberal lefties believing that migration is great for a countries 'culture'), this may look anachronistic in the future. The mainstream tradition may only be the main culture in a pluralist country. That is, it may only cover, say, 40% of people.

    Savvas Tzionis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. With respect, I do not find it a fair point. It's a "wrong side of history" argument. It is to say "well if immigration dilutes the people, then you can't fight it."

      A clue is the wording: "this may" (weaselish) "look anachronistic" (the inevitability argument).

      It is not that immigration is the inexorable force of the cosmos against which tradition must fall. If one brings up immigration, the point rather is that immigration is one of the weapons against tradition (in addition to the rhetoric you point out in your post, MR).

      It is your blog but I think you are too polite to this anonymous commenter. Good post.

      Delete
    2. Savvas Tzionis: "But with a neverending stream of migrants (cheap labour wanted by the owner/manager class and liberal lefties believing that migration is great for a countries 'culture'), this may look anachronistic in the future."

      A never-ending stream of migrants implies genocide. All lineages will terminate. THE END.

      What may look anachronistic at one stage in the destruction of the nation doesn't matter. If this is the scenario, the nation is going away regardless.

      If you hook someone up to a Kevorkian machine, and tie them down (or deceive them as to what the machine does), and turn the machine on, and leave it on, they're going to die. At some point in the dying process, they may muse that breathing is antiquated. But that doesn't matter.

      Delete
  2. It seems the trouble began with the republic. It truly cut France from her roots.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.