Paris: A Few Political Points to Make

Paris: A Few Political Points to Make
Keir Martland
(14th November 2015)

I disagree that it is crude to make a political point out of atrocities such as that in Paris yesterday. Bad politics causes these attacks and better politics can prevent them. Here are a few political points I’d like to make.

In the first place, most of us have imperfect information about the events of last night. I was flicking back and forth from Sky to BBC, who, in turn, were getting their most reliable information from BFM. Even as I write, the death toll is disputed as is the question of whether the terrorists definitely were Muslims.

Terrorism scares people in this country. It scares them to the point that they will lie back and think of the State as the anti-terror legislation is rammed through Parliament.

I imagine attitudes are similar in France. I don’t know the specifics of the anti-terror legislation in France, but I don’t think it would be unreasonable to assume that powers of the state have increased since January, though I understand they may presently have rather more rights to privacy and so forth than we have. Last night, I predicted that President Hollande would respond one of two ways: either he would argue that without the existing surveillance and police powers there would have been more deaths, and leave it at that; or he would demand more such powers. From his statement today, it seems he has opted for the latter.

The “international community” has responded. Obama says this is an attack on “humanity”. Cameron has pledged his support. In France, 15000 military men are in Paris. The French border is closed. There is a “state of emergency.” With such a response, I think, rather like after 9/11, we can kiss goodbye to any open debates on the collection of metadata. All the usual “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” legislation will be passed. Furthermore, Britain’s intervention in Syria will once again be on the cards. If the Commons rejects it again, Cameron will use the royal prerogative powers this time. All-in-all, this is not good for freedom.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am, as many of you will know, vehemently opposed to mass-immigration. It is tantamount to subsidised trespass. As for the latest wave of immigration, it is appalling and must be stopped, and indeed reversed. Closing the borders temporarily, followed by voluntary but encouraged repatriation of recent immigrants would also help to abate racial and religious tensions.

But it strikes me as absurd to blame “the immigrants” or even “immigration” for this. For one thing, if the reports that ISIS committed last night’s atrocities are correct, then these are the very same US-backed lunatics that have helped to wreck Syria and Iraq in the first place. In other words, if you blame the recent wave of immigrants in their entirety for last night’s attacks, you are barking up the wrong tree. These terrorists are the people that many of the immigrants have come to Europe to avoid. I am not arguing that the immigrants had a right to come here. I am merely pointing out that many did not want to.

So we should have a think about how to help them go home. One thing we need to do is to stop bombing their countries. At the moment, there is a five-way civil war in Syria. It seems to me that of all the bombing, only Russia is seriously bombing ISIS. As for the intention of the British State, it seems to be simple regime change, since the plan is for “no fly zones” which would impact Assad and not ISIS. The situation in Syria alone is mind-bogglingly complex. Step one in resolving it is for the western states at the very least to let well alone where bombing is concerned.

The US is supporting the “moderate rebels” in Syria who will no doubt become the ISIS of 2016. ISIS is already kitted out with $1bn worth of US armoured vehicles, and more besides. I heard from someone recently that the ISIS fighters are being supplied with drugs by the Americans that make them think they are invincible – this may or may not be true. Step two in helping the immigrants go home, then, has to be to stop funding the men on the ground who are destroying their countries.

These two steps would not only help sort out Syria and the rest of the Middle East, but they would also make us a damn sight safer. Formerly US mercenaries, ISIS has now got out of control to the point that the western powers are trying, but failing to contain them. ISIS has allegedly claimed responsibility for last night’s attacks. Their reason was clear: France is meddling in Syria and meddling with ISIS. If we get out of the Middle East, neither funding nor bombing, I think we’ll find that the terrorists are less interested in bombing our countries.

I shall recommend one further measure to make us safer. No, not ID cards. Not internet censorship. Not arming the police. What we need to do is remove all gun control legislation. Guns are excellent equalisers. The saying goes that God made man, but Sam Colt made him equal. If you are an honest person in this country, or any of the western countries except to some extent America, and you want to get a gun for self-defence, you can’t. If you are a criminal and you want to get a gun, that’s easy. So what we have is a situation where the criminals are armed and the victims are not. What we have is a situation where, if a terrorist lunatic with an automatic rifle decides that he wants to kill a few innocent civilians, he can do so with no effectual resistance against him. Arm the people instead and then see how effective the terrorists are.

What I am saying is this: while it may be true that the recent, unprecedented wave of immigrants is undesirable, it was caused by our own states. This is not a time for moaning about immigration. This is instead a time to caution against hawkish foreign policy abroad and Big Brother police state measures at home. As Dr Gabb said last month at his talk to the Traditional Britain Conference, these people are not attacking us because they hate our freedom; if they hated our freedom, they would just sit at home and wait for it to disappear. Instead, they hate us because we are bombing their countries, funding and arming almost every side in the civil war, and asking them to be grateful for it. The solution to both the problems of the Middle East and the West is simple: more libertarianism, not less. No more interventionism and no police state, thank you very much.


  1. There is a well known (virtually “viral”) little article that has been around for years that describes the degree of Islamic violence and other behaviours in a society as directly proportional to the proportion of Muslims within the society. On that basis, it may be argued that these kinds of incidents are little to do with specifics (e.g. our military bombing Muslim nations) and a simple consequence of a transition of behaviours due to the crossing a proportion threshold.

    Is this correct? I don’t know. But I am less and less convinced by the “blowback theory”. The problem is that for some strains of Islamic thought which are currently rather assertive within that religion, “The West” is not an enemy for them because of what it does but because of what it is, because they see our values as utterly sinful and decadent, which is why Muslim terrorists have such a fondness for attacking nightclubs where dirty whores dance around their handbags. Remember the failed attack on Tiger Tiger here, for instance.

    As such, the cause of such Islamist aggression is not caused by our doing, but our being.

    • But we have existed for such a long time without the terrorism. The terrorism seems to have at least some link to the deaths of, for example, 120,000 Iraqi civilians.

      • These are religious fanatics. We must resist the modern Western tendency towards secularism in analysis. What might motivate one of “us” is not the same as might motivate one of “them”; if you like, what we call “radicalisation” is the switching of a person from a primarily secular worldview to a primarily religious worldview.

        As I said in the above comment, the “switch” may be simply due to the crossing of a threshold in terms of Muslim population.

        Why target a heavy metal concert? It’s not political. It is however sinful, Satanic Western music and idolatry arousing sin and lust in the participants, etc.

        These people kill other Muslims routinely, as in Iraq. One of my colleagues is Muslim, and she is quite clear and vociferous on the issue that the primary threat to human life in Iraq is Jihadists. I really do doubt that they are much motivated by Muslim deaths. They’re fighting a Culture War (like our own Puritans), except they do it literally. It’s the death of Western Culture they seek. After all, any Good Muslim killed by a Western bomb goes to Paradise anyway.

        • You should make this into an article and send it to Sean. It’s a completely different and mutually exclusive explanation to mine. I don’t agree, but it deserves a thread in its own right.

          • Well maybe if I can get the motivation, which I never seem to do.

            I think one way to look at it is this; it’s paradoxical to declare that the primary motivation for these people is the loss of human life, when they don’t respect any human life, even their own. You’ve got to see this through their (faith based) eyes rather than our own.

            If, as I argue, these are Muslim Puritans, their primary interest is the eradication of sinful behaviour. We should thus base our understanding on that, rather than trying to make them motivated by the things we think would upset us.

                  • They don’t need and don’t have a pretext. They’ve stated precisely enough why they’re doing all this. They want to destroy Western Society and make ultimately the whole world conform to their version of Islam. We even had transcripts of the failed London bombers laughing about how we think they’re motivated by the oppression of the Palestinians, when it’s actually all about whores in nightclubs.

                    Once you’ve decided to bring the world to Allah by killing people, sure you need money and guns. And it’s much easier if your cultural enemy is ruled by idiot universalists. But motivation is the important thing to understand. With the motivation, they’ll always somehow get the money, and get the arms.

      • Everybody quotes cosmically-vast stats of deaths of Iraqi civilians. All the time.

        I merely wonder if it is accurately known if it was “The British and the Americans” that killed them, or perhaps someone else?

        If I was a Wahhabist/ISIS (whatever) terrorist in Iraq, I would kill summarily anyone who I even slightly thought would even slightly disagree with (or even not nod respectfully at) my interpretation of my right to 72 dried white grapes after death. Specially since I would naturally have a loaded gun, and they might be some teacher or university employee or other minor functionary, who probably doesn’t have one and has a family to stand in front of (they’ll go too) that might contain daughters. If it did, then I could get a dried grape or two while alive, to know what to experience while I am dead later.

        I am not sure that intellectual libertarians, be we ever so objective and analytical, realise quite how pissed-off normal people, who don’t have the luxury of spending so much time thinking as we do, now are getting.

        • The number of Iraqi deaths which are attributable to our illegal involvement is not just the ones the British and US forces themselves killed. The bigger number was deaths at the hands of other Iraqis and Iranians but these would not have happened if law and order had been maintained.

          While Sadam may have been an unpleasant man, the death rate was lower when he was in charge.

          If Blair and Co had been able to dream up a legal reason to go in the least they should have done was to maintain law and order to protect the people; they did not do that and so they (and we vicariously) are responsible for those deaths.

          • The problem here is that you end up arguing that crime or violations of rights, in Libertarian terms, is caused by a lack of policing. That is, certainly from a Libertarian position, a very dubious argument indeed.

  2. Steve Sailer has summed up the cause of the problem thus: “Invade the world, invite the world”. Each half on its own would ensure the destruction of our own countries. Combining the two ensures it happens ten times faster.

    I believe people should have an unconditional right to own whatever weapons they choose. But no matter how well armed they are, they can’t defend themselves against what is in effect a hostile nation within their own borders. You can defend yourself against burglars with a shotgun, but the way to remain safe from Islamic terrorists is to keep a well-guarded international border between them and you. And of course, to stop killing Muslims in their own countries. For some reason, they don’t appreciate being massacred any more than we do.

  3. I am pleased to go on the Record saying I support Ian’s explanation and implied solutions, and not Keir’s solutions, although Keir’s analysis is very important and useful.

    The Q’uran (or however it ought to be spelled in whatever tradition) is quite disarmingly (sorry, bad oxymoron) frank on these points. Aid and comfort is given to the enemy within this civilization which they want to destroy actively, by White British Ethnic Puritans and other socialists of the Enemy-Classes. (This definition is deemed to include Americans and most Europeans.)

    There is nothing we can give these foul people shambling about with loaded assault-rifles and explosives, in accommodating supposed “demands” that they might deign to accept – for the moment only. We are now approaching 1936/37 (ish) and time is short. They have decided to be right because they firmly believe that they know that they are. Everyone else is therefore wrong.

    They fervently believe they are right, and we march by contrast to “uncertain trumpets”. This means they will win unless we get a grip. This is a true re-rendition of a proper High-Mediaeval battle, in which the side that pushes hardest wins well inside two hours, sometimes much less. (The Longbow counts as a “modern” weapon.)

    The reason all this is happening now is that the targetted infidel civilization looks more ripe for destruction than for centuries. If I was their War Secretary, I would say that since a Final War must be had because of God’s Will,then the best time to have it is now.

    • A good phrase there David; in response to it I will say that I believe that winning the war against Islamismism is dependent on “making our own trumpets certain”. And the key to that is to win the war within Christendom for our own culture, by ejecting, once again, the Cromwellians from power. This is the first essential step.

  4. Also, just to reiterate my first point, I think the answer to the question being asked of “Why France again?” is simply that they are further down the road of Islamisation than we are.

  5. I dunno. I think jihadist terrorism is a bit more recent. Sure, they justify their actions by the Quran, but nobody was talking about suicide bombers 50 years ago. Islam is like any other religion: it changes. For some reason people still insist on talking about it like it’s some eternal constant of the universe.

  6. After the Paris headline: cette fois c’est la guerre …
    and assuming that IS is based in Raqqa …
    why is it not a smoking hole in the ground by now?

  7. What we have now is something that could have been stopped a long time ago. We have an Islamic Terrorist Army that has made it very clear what it wants to achieve. The only way now that they can be stopped is to ‘Destroy’ the enemy within as they are very much active in this country as I was watching a documentary whereby muslims form other countries were going into training camps in both Syria and Iraq.

    The Fusionist position on this I believe is that surveillance must only be used on those who genuinely pose a threat to life in this country and this is where it should end as we should not have any surveillance at all on our citizens.

    With Social Media, it is now very easy to spot who is likely to pose a threat but common sense must be used to approach this with success.

    I firmly believe that if we take a hard stance with those who pose that threat, maybe ISIS will think twice before training up radicals.

  8. […] and the Paris Atrocity, and I elaborated on these causes in two essays written at the time, Paris: A Few Political Points to Make (14th November 2015) andBrussels: Déjà vu (22nd March 2016). I will now attempt to summarise the […]

Leave a Reply