[For the purpose of this and kindred commentaries, “Gallic” is my anachronistic term for “traditional French.” The obtuse will fail to know whom I mean; the politically correct will pretend not to.--Anthony Flood]
Underlying most mainstream commentary on the riots is the notion that the French, i.e., Gallics, may not (in the sense of “are socially forbidden to”) define themselves if they exclude non-Gallics who have lived in France, speak French, have French spouses, pay taxes to various French governmental entities, etc.
This tacit prohibition has one exception: Gallics may define themselves as French only when accepting (a) blame for the failure of non-Gallic aspirations and (b) responsibility to make reparation.
Gallics have failed non-Gallics, you see, by passively letting them into France and then refusing to treat them like long-lost relatives. So it is perfectly understandable, if not justifiable, that non-Gallics destroy Gallic property, indeed, shoot at Gallics.
Again, no ambiguity attaches to “French” when the focal point is the assignment of blame for the current turmoil, as Mr. Diouf in the prefatory quote proves: after all, the French “who don’t think he’s French” are obviously other than the French he thinks he exemplifies. (One wonders whether his wife is French like, say,
Audrey Tautou or “French” like him.)
When entitlement to Gallic resources is the topic, however, virtually all the pundits suggest that Gallic self-identification is an evil exercise of mythic group egoism. Underpinning almost every editorial is the presupposition that discrimination is
ipso facto and irredeemably evil, when in fact it is the essence of liberty, with which Gallics once had a cordial relation.
As Craig Smith, the author of the
Times article, condescendingly spins it: “The concept of French identity remains rooted deep in the country's centuries-old culture, and a significant portion of the population has yet to accept the increasingly multiethnic makeup of the nation. Put simply, being French, for many people, remains a baguette-and-beret affair.”
Translation: Gallics are just one “portion of the population” among others in the land-mass called “France,” but think they’re somehow special. The country’s millennium-and-a-half history is “centuries-old” and its culture superficial (bread and caps). Recall Mr. Mohamed’s question, which I cited a
recent post: “. . . what more do they want [me to do to prove I’m French]? . . . [D]rink alcohol?” One of the noblest products of Gallic culture, revered the world over, is snidely reduced to its chemical base (perhaps the better to exploit its association with social pathology). Mr. Smith felt no need to comment, but I do: France’s non-Gallic vandals sporting a chip on their shoulders have other uses for ethanol: Molotov cocktails.
Even if every non-Gallic were peace-loving and violence-foreswearing, however, forcing Gallics to trade with or rent to or hire them is unjust, as it would be if the situation were reversed. That’s the principle at stake. It is not any less a principle because people excoriate it in terms once reserved for theological heresies—or because affirmative-action-on-steroids is coming like Christmas.
When I discriminate against one person in favor of another, for whatever reason, I may indeed be harming his or her
interests, but
I do not violate his or her rights. The current regime in France, America, and elsewhere insists otherwise. But to say that I violate X’s rights when I refuse to do business with X is to imply that in some sense X already has a pseudo-“right” to the prospective benefit of transacting with me. This pseudo-“right” then functions as the basis of an action at law. At the conclusion of any given statutorily sanctioned scam, probably much more property is forcibly transferred from me to X than was initially at stake.
That is, my declaration of an intention to buy, sell, rent, or hire is tethered to the presumption that the first respondent I encounter is already in some fuzzy sense entitled to my tendered good or service. It falls on me to defeat that presumption. If I fail, he takes title. The very effort to defeat the presumption, however, brands me a racist (than which, you understand, there is no lower form of life), and so if someone set my car alight, I got off easy.
Such is the racket to which Westerners have subjected themselves for the past half-century. Unfortunately, Gallics have failed to populate France at replacement levels, largely because they have rejected the religion that once defined Europe: the First Daughter of the Church has too few daughters willing to bear little Gallics for the future. And now, in the face of riots that may engulf Europe, they have no conceptual shield with which to withstand the onslaught of those who are filling those vacancies (in accordance with
their religion).
The Times’ Mr. Smith seems also to think that a “nation,” whose Latin root (
nati) means “to be born,” can be multi-ethnic. He is not alone in this, of course. But the term “multi-national nation” exhibits a contradiction in terms. What obscures the absurdity, umbrella-like, is the State that exacts tribute from all, conscripts its multi-national serfs to fight the multi-national serfs of other States, and otherwise interfere in their lives, always, however, with the tacit grant of legitimacy from those serfs. The State functions as the great common denominator, the
super pluribus unum that exploits with the blessing of the exploited. Undermining the mystique of State should always be the libertarian’s primary goal.
Since the State has proven to be only the Great Aggravator, not ameliorator, of group conflict, libertarian theory must recognize ethnic group aspirations as legitimate extensions and aggregates of individual interests. Of course, only individuals have rights, which one may never violate in the name of those aspirations.
The temporary (historically speaking) self-assortment of individuals into groups will inevitably issue in groups’ abutting each other in their cooperation and competition for resources.
Abutment, however, need not mean butting heads. The rules of group engagement should merely extend the rules of individual engagement and be bound by the principle of equal liberty. But land, all land, must be privately held. “Public land” set the stage for the current crisis. Unfortunately, however, nationalists are as a rule proud of their economic ignorance, and foolishly embrace the State, head-butter extraordinaire, as Savior.
Every individual, in concert with other individuals, has a right to celebrate and protect and his or her identity based on mutual appreciation of common traits, but not at the expense of the like aspirations of others.
Including Jews, but not only Jews. That is, including Gallics.
