Article copyIn a France crippled with geriatric Socialisms from both the Left and the Right, and their cohort of deficiency and disease, could a single book cure the French from mental debility and spare them a painful and violent agony?
They would have to
Let's give them a taste of it: (translation by your devoted frogman)
In the past, the open society found itself confronted with Nazism, and then with Communism. Today it confronts with Islam such as it is, with militant Islam, with Islam's soldiers. The danger is different: it's not embodied in an army backed by a State anymore.I have little hope that today's heirs of the spirit of Munich, those rude and selfish children of "the 35 hours" who draw a striking and very concerning parallel of lethal airiness with their grandparent from the 1936 Popular Front, can still wake up and learn how to defend their freedom and values - if it's not to late already - or to aim and fire a rifle - if it is too late to save the babe. I have in fact little hope that they actually want to.
This danger is 8 centuries old and at the same time it's a 20th century danger, scattered, diffuse, able to use today's technologies and discourses to propagate itself. (...)
If militant Islam is the main danger, it has, today, multiple partners of sacking and destruction. Former or new Nazis, anti-Semites of all allegiance. People from the Right and the Far Right, blinded by their own hatreds, or people from the Left and the Far Left lost by their own dogmas. (...) All of those who divide, fragment, hurt, erode, deteriorate the West.
The West... You do not like this word, I know. For me it means so much: all that could be lost if we do not care. Indiscriminately, and once again: respect of the individual, the right to have rights, freedom to act and to think, spirit of venture, sciences, Humanism. It is true, I have not used that word so far: Humanism. (...) Militant Islam, and more widely today's Islam, is one of the root component of anti-Humanism. This is what I think. This is what I say. It has to change.
30 years ago, the cohorts were protesting, shouting "make love, not war». Indeed, they allowed people in South Vietnam to make neither love nor war, but to end atrociously tortured by the hundreds of thousands. 20 years ago, the same cohorts were marching, saying "better red than dead». Today, they say "better green-Islam than dead». They also say: "woo, not war». Woo the dictators and the terrorists of the Muslim world, not war, oh! no... Admit the defeat. Consent to say that you are defeated...
Should we accept, it would be more than open societies that would be defeated: it would be the very idea of open society. The world would slide down to an era of barbarity unknown for centuries. We can fight, yes. We have to fight. This is just the beginning. Let an unbiased debate begin. At last!
Just like their grandparents, yes.
But who knows. In the past, for the good as for the worse, so many changes started with a single book that I could be wrong this time.