Paris atrocities: can anything good come out of this?

Mustela nivalis

First, I was overcome by negative emotions. Then I remembered that my theology informs me that in the end, the Good will win. Therefore, even in the darkest hours there is some light. One only has to look for it. OK, some may think that’s naive. For me, it’s a survival strategy. But I also think I’m right.

Now, what could be the good thing coming out of the carnage in Paris? Two things: a) People waking up to the fact that the state is crumbling, and b)  freedom of speech is on the agenda, proclaimed by the unlikeliest of contemporaries. Both of these points are valid irrespective of whether this was blowback or a false flag. I won’t speculate on the origins. We may never know. What we can influence in the meantime is how we react to the event independent of what the cause was. And there is some reason for hope.

First point: The Charlie Hebdo editors relied on the state to protect them. I think one of them had a bodyguard. I don’t know who paid for him. Other than that, there was at least one policeman guarding the building. And he got shot as well. Even though he was called Ahmed, but that’s beside the point. The point is he was taxpayer funded. I’ve heard that France’s gun laws are much more liberal than in current Britain. However and whatever, there is no gun culture in statist France. Therefore, criminals can assume that in any given situation, they are the only people with guns. Certainly when attacking an ultra-left outfit such as Charlie Hebdo. Ultra-leftists not only believe in the state, they worship it. Carrying guns privately would be as sacrilegious to the satirists as their drawings apparently were to the recent “visitors” at 10 Rue Nicolas-Appert. However, not everyone in France is an ultra-leftist. Another sign of a weakening state is that despite all the billions pouring into surveillance, this thing happened. If this doesn’t make people begin to realise that there is either something fishy going on or that the overextended state cannot (or, if they are inclined to believe conspiracy theories: will not) protect them, nothing will. If and when it does, they will begin to demand and carry guns. This will further weaken the grip the state has on everyone.

Second point: All these Charlies who are proclaiming “bravely” that they are Charlies for free speech. Yes, they are sickening hypocrites, most of them. However, they can now be held to account the next time a baker is persecuted for not wanting to design a wedding cake for a gay couple, or anyone for simply saying something that “offends” someone who is not a white male heterosexual Anglo-Saxon who likes his Christian heritage. The proper response will be: “You’re offended, are you? So were those hobos in Paris. What are you going to do about it? I thought you were Charlie!” Will this cause a change overnight? No, of course not. Because the true defenders of free speech are too few, for the moment. But the seed is planted. It cannot be uprooted. All those Charlies proudly holding up cardboards proclaiming what a good Charlie they are: as long as the internet is alive, these pictures will not go away. They can all be held to account. We are now in the age of Charlies. All these leftist totalitarians or, as IanB would say, puritans, have just handed their behinds to the world. Or their faces. Whatever.

There is the issue of the second assault, on the Jewish supermarket. It has been said that the attacker knew the other two personally. If true it is unlikely to have been a simple copycat crime. The incidents are likely to be linked more closely than that. So there are two issues here: The cultural clash concerning blasphemy and then the racial/religious hatred of Jews. Or at least the hatred of Israel for which Jews elsewhere are made to suffer. In both cases however, the only sane solution is this: liberalisation of gun control and the establishment of a gun culture. The gun culture in Israel is very effective, by the way.

Statists of course will try to profit from this by doing the exact opposite: spread irrational fears, disarm people even more, surveil even more, control even more. I don’t think they can get away with this much longer. The anti-Islamist PEGIDA movement in Germany, while not libertarian, is very distrustful of current policies, politicians and the mainstream media.

Am I being too optimistic? As I said, it’s a survival strategy. I think in the long term necessity will drive change our way. The question that only the future can answer is: How much deeper into darkness will society delve before a sufficient amount of people will see the light?



  1. I see little chance of good coming out of this – if anything the calls for yet more “gun control” will get louder. As for any action to defend the West against the forces of Islam – who have been attacking since the 7th century, any such action would be denounced as “racist”. Even though Islam is a religion and a hostile political ideology – not a race.

    Already the cry is up from the political and cultural elite that this is “nothing to do with Islam” – sadly modern Western “liberalism” (which is just about the opposite of what Classical Liberals such as Gladstone believed) has become a suicide cult.

    A suicide cult that controls the education system (the schools and universities) and the mainstream media, and the political establishments.

  2. one small thing, the BBC did show, briefly, one of the cartoons yesterday, being held by the editor of the magazine. It may not have been “the” cartoon, and my French is terrible, but it definitely featured one man in a turban.

    I did think that the islamists may have jumped the shark here, and in time they may have proved to have done, but my heart sank yesterday when the French president uttered the mandatory “this is nothing to do with Islam ” during his address.

  3. I would wet myself with delight to hope that M nivalis is right, and that we are coming to a turning point. But I am not optimistic. For a start, that woman Merkel in effect threatening PEGIDA to “watch themselves or else”, was not a good development.

  4. I think it’s safe to say that all the lefties who are Charlie will have no problem turning on a dime and condemning the next right winger who hits the headlines as peddling hate speech. Collectivists live their entire lives at variance with any kind of relationship to facts and logic and goldfish have more effective memories.

    Likewise on the victim dismarment thing, belief in the collective is faith based so it doesn’t matter how far the belief is at variance from observable reality. All incidents involving gun use other than by an agent of the state are seen as a failure of “gun control” whether it’s an assault or use in self defence. Further, many collectivists want to ban guns because guns are used in hunting and this will always be a motivator for them whatever the circumstance of gun ownership or use.

    What perhaps you’re putting your faith in that “silent majority” who bend with whichever way the wind is going. They’re the most despicable of all and you’re wasting your time placing faith in such people. They have no morals, no values, other than their own self interest and are useless as the basis for a society. They are the followers, the slaves, and nothing of value can come from them. I suspect that, fortunately, there’s less of the “silent majority” than is imagined here. If you take the trouble to challenge random people on their beliefs they become confused and defensive and are unable to argue coherently but they’re not going to give up collectivism. Try telling any random person you make the acquaintance of that the National Health Service should be axed and see how far you get trying to persuade them of that.

    By the way, although I stand by Charlie Hebden’s right to free speech I condemn his cartoons as gratuitiously offensive crap. Though I don’t agree with his murder I can’t help thinking, “good riddance the world doesn’t need people like that.”

Leave a Reply