Manichaeism Islamism Islamist moral sense crusade pure evil
Voluntary Legion against Islamism —recruitment office

 

 

 

What if we got the wrong enemy?

And what if we were not the “victims of terrorism” but of our immaturity?

 

And what if we were the victims of our shallowness, of our difficulty to perceive the complexity of the world, and of our easiness to interpret it through naïve stories?

 

And what if we were the victims of our lack of consideration for others and of our inability to see things from others' perspectives, particularly from the perspective of those whose interests and logic contradict ours?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what if we were not fighting for humankind but for ourselves?

How can we condemn violence on our soil —by striving to take into account, even in the most criminal and barbaric crimes, the weight of determinism, to better understand the origin of the behavior of a person— and yet, simultaneously, grant ourselves the right, to unleash uninhibited violence against those who aren’t on our side? Shouldn't the "Human Rights" include all humanity, even our enemies?

As our disgust of violence, of death penalty, dictatorship doesn't extend beyond the western borders, are we really fighting for human rights and universal values or merely for our own interests?

 

And what about taking advantage of these events to assess the level of maturity of our sacred values ― the one we kill for.

How could we dare to glorify ourselves for our “civilizing humanist values”, for “our disgust of hatred” and, at the same time, launching our deadly crusades?

And what if we were victims of our lack of integrity, of our dizzying gap between what we believe we are and who we really are?

And what if we were also victims of our difficulties to stand back from our emotions and to question our moral intuitions and certitudes?

And what if our difficulty to put ourselves in someone else's shoes prevented us to value the life of the others?

And what if, our difficulty to see things from the perspective prevented us to extend our conception of the human rights to all humans, including to the non-occidental humans?

And what if our inability to apply our human rights to the non-Westerners showed that we still continue, to perceive them as subhumans?

 

And what if, instead of focussing on the barbarism of our enemies, we took the opportunity to evaluate our own level of civilization?

It seems that the simplest way to define “civilization” is to describe what it is not. The less civilized nations seem to follow similar patterns:

• The political notion of absolute good embodied by “universal values” (“Sharia” or "republican/democratic values” depending on the birthplace) and of absolute evil embodied by a person or an ideology which needs to be fought.

• Demonstrations collective of piety, solemn public declarations to show off our loyalty towards the moral norms and our great virtue. Public indignation against immorality: public ablutions and prayers on one side and "I am Charlie / totally against evil" on the other.

• The imposition by the authorities, under penalty of arrest, of the cult of "sacred universal values". The cult of religion on one side, the cult of the "republic" or "democracy" on the others. The arrest of the disbeliever does not respect their religious duty on one side or of children refusing to participate in the "minute of silence", to take part in the "solidarity round".

• Censorship ―or, what the westerners called: the freedom of expression restricted to the limits of what is acceptable. The limit of expression is set by the sacred moral norms and unquestionable truths. : “you are free to say what you want … as long as you don't offend the moral norms” (freedom of expression did not yet reach France which is far behind several African countries).

• An immature justice and a lawlessness state: it is not the law that directs the nation, but the most influent people. The police dominate the justice system which ensures the eradication of immorality by sanctioning opinions that deviate from the norm. (The  state of emergency officially placed the police above justice in France, but the French justice system is by default submitted to the political authority.).

• Self-righteous attitude, and the inability to question oneself: we are the good one, they are wrong and bad.

• The demonization of the opponents using Manichaeist and orthodox words such as “terrorist”, “hatred” or “sacred values”.

• Violence. The idea that it is acceptable to execute our opponents (directly or by proxy), in the name of sacred principles.

 

And what about taking a break in our crusade against "the evil" and against the Islamic dogmatic beliefs, to start questioning ourselves about our own beliefs concerning the origin of evil?

And what about starting to question our Western belief in an evil that would come from outside our naturally virtuous, innocent or rational human nature? What about questioning this belief that bad behaviors are only learned, that all evil, human stupidity and the root of our problems come from outside our nature: from religions, money, society, etc. ?

And what if the enemy and the evil we should fight was neither Islamists nor “terrorists” nor even any evil that could be embodied in a person or in an ideology, but simply immaturity.

And what if our immaturity was showing up in our western beliefs, our Manichaeistic reasoning, our violence, our ingroup tendency and our inability to give value to the lives of others, those who aren't from our group?

And what if the victims of these attacks in France, and the victims of our bombs (which are even more numerous) were also the victims of the shallowness of our approach to human behavior?

 

What about quitting killing each other and starting to fight against what, in our nature, belittles us, but also for what, in our nature, elevates us?

 

 

 


 

● Edit (Dec. 2015):

Concerning the attack in Paris in November 2015 and what followed

The current situation shows that this was in fact not only a difficulty to extend our concept of “human rights” outside our (French) borders but a difficulty to apply them within our national boundary: the French people from all political sides have accepted to put the police above their justice system (“state of emergency”). As in the old good days, anyone could be arrested and imprisoned for political divergence.

Exhausted by the weight of civilizing values, the French government has accepted to give up human rights values (an official announced has been made) without bothering to ask the French about it. But it did not bother the French since most of them support, hand on heart, the civilizing crusades (except the one launched by the USA in 2001). The French try (very seriously) to promote their humanistic sacred principles such as peace, democracy, freedom of expression or human rights via their police state, censorship, violence, and dictatorship support. Sadly, no one finds it funny, not even the Syrians despite living in the center of this joke.

The fact that a simple shooting was enough to knock down the French “sacred values” proudly written on our public building (“liberty, equality, and fraternity”), shows that these values were more a thin varnish than a well thought out ethic based on profound personal values.  If 130 victims of a shooting were enough to overthrow the French democracy, establish a police state, and justify censorship, we can just imagine what the double would (will?) be able to achieve...

 

Adversity reveals who we really are, it reveals the level of civilization.

 

● About the credibility of our “human rights”

One could also question the credibility of our “human rights”. We show them off when all goes well on our land, but we are quick to bury them outside our borders, or even inside when things become more difficult. How could we blame the Middle East fighters not to be bothered with these “human rights” in their fight, when we do the same? And how could we blame them for not being interested in our so-called “human rights” since they don’t apply to them?

 

● And about the French “state of emergency”

It is a pity that the French did not find any better way to get out of centuries of authoritarian and moralist regimes than to establish a state of lawlessness, where selfishness and the law of the jungle were erected as fundamental human rights. And it is unfortunate that the French did not find any better idea to get out of the last decades of laxity by falling back again into the authoritarianism “state of emergency”. It is unfortunate that the French went from a lawless state to another, without having the intelligence to build a genuine rule of law.

 
What if the level of civilization of a nation depends as much as on its ability to choose fair laws, as on its ability to enforce them?
 

 


Charlie Hebdo FlawsHollande denonce barbarie

 

Patrioc act in FranceJail sentence for a tweet

emprisonné pour un tweet

Counterterrorism Bill Threatens Rights

 

Les évènements qui ont suivi les attaques de Paris de novembre 2015 confirment qu’il ne s’agit, finalement, pas seulement d’une difficulté à étendre la notion de droit, et d'état de droit, à l’extérieur de nos frontières, mais d’abord d’une difficulté à véritablement la mettre en pratique, chez nous. En plaçant la police au-dessus de la justice, les prisons françaises ont renoué avec la tradition républicaine d’accueil de prisonniers politiques. Épuisés par la difficulté des valeurs civilisatrices, les Français ont préféré laisser leurs élus enterrer les droits de l’homme (voir l’annonce officielle faite au Conseil de l’Europe) et éditer leur constitution, sans débat public. Le peuple (la majorité des Français) ne s’en est d’ailleurs pas offusqué puisqu’il soutient, main sur le cœur, les croisades civilisatrices occidentales visant à promouvoir, par des politiques barbares ("état d'urgence", bombardement, soutient de dictateur torturant et exécutant leurs opposants), les principes sacrés de liberté d’expression, de droit de l'homme, de démocratie et d’état de droit...

Le fait qu’une simple fusillade ait pu suffire à renverser les "grands principes sacrés de la France" en dit long sur le niveau de civilisation du pays. Cet évènement montre qu’il s'agissait plus de valeurs de façade, de vernis moral qu’une éthique réfléchie reposant sur des valeurs profondes. Car si 130 morts suffisent à renverser la démocratie française, établir un état policier, justifier, ici, la censure et l’emprisonnement de prisonniers politiques, et là-bas, les bombardements, exécutions et la torture, de on peut d’ores et déjà imaginer ce que le double réussira à accomplir...

C’est dans les difficultés qu’on reconnait les valeurs qui animent vraiment une personne, un groupe de personne, une nation.