Jacobinian Islamism: when the subject becomes annoying

Translated by Michael Theodosiadis
The article in Greek here

This article raises concerns about some, hitherto, unshakable certainties of the left, which are stubbornly negated by reality. Sadly, we have reached the point where such a debate cannot be done without avoiding biased approaches from anyone who discusses this topic; and this means that the right of free speech has already suffered irreparable damages.

In critical thinking the blackmail of the expected response always hangs like the sword of Damocles over our heads. As if to realise that walking on the wrong path should automatically mean one always has another path to propose. It is not so! Some paths should never have been followed whilst somewhere else perspectives have to be formed based in paths that do not carry the burden of previous choices. Obviously democracy and its reinforcement in its structures and content is another uncharted path that we should ourselves open, eliminating certainties (such as «sheltering» freedom from enemies) that, hitherto, have led to dead ends. We must appeal to broadening democracy itself without fearing whether it is not liberal enough for our standards (to invest in its growth rather in its ‘protection’). But the latter is primarily an issue of political action to undertake, and secondarily of political thought to be discussed.

From the suburbs to Nazism

Perhaps few noticed the under-story of the murderous attack in Paris; «the two perpetrators of Charlie Hebdo were born and grew up in France from Algerian parents». The «Islamic terrorists» who extended the western Islamic war-front a few hundred kilometres west of Kobane were French-born citizens, nourished in the bowels of the French Republique. The Algerian state, home of Camus and Zidane is not an Iraq or an underdeveloped Afghanistan cut off and isolated from Western values ​​(the markets), that fell into the obscurantism of fundamentalism, but a genuine child of French colonialism.

Even fewer are those who might combine the fact that the people we denounce as obscurantist terrorists or «Nazi fascists» nowadays, are the same people who during the «uprisings of the Banlieue» of the Parisian suburbs were viewed as the revolutionary subject. We have to admit – no matter how inconvenient it is – that the brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi are typical representatives of this youth whose wrath (la Haine) was so sang and praised by the left. Both were born in the east suburbs of Paris from Algerian parents who died when the two brothers were still children. They grew up in an orphanage in the city of Rennes. They held «precariat»jobs, like Pizza delivery etc., they followed the fashion of Rap and have always had problems with the police for minor crimes. However, Umberto Eco, expressing a general feeling, did not hesitate to classify them as neo-Nazis, apparently judging them by the actions, rather than by their class or their ideological beliefs.

It is common to classify as «Nazist» anything unpleasant for the liberal Western culture, and not necessarily as heinous as mass murder. Yet, perhaps for the wrong reasons, Eco rightly reflects a kind of truth, as indeed «the apocalyptic desire of ISIS to conquer the world» – as the most expressed form of politicized Islam in the world – is a kind of inverted Enlightenment, or to stress it differently, it is part of modernity; a modernist reaction to modernity rather than a pre-modern revival of barbarization. In essence, the ISIS has more to do with the cultural revolution of Mao than with some historical continuity of caliphates of the past. In this sense it is more post-modernist rather than a conservative revolution, and is diametrically opposed to the religious mosaics and genuine multiculturalism upon which the caliphates of pre-modernist world were structured.

This hypocritical contradiction of the ISIS as the most advanced stage of political Islam in the 21st century, shows that the objectives of politicized Islamists are not a guarantee of their religion or even a form of cultural autonomy (as in the case of the Zapatistas and other indigenous groups) but rather the creation of a nation-state, i.e. the epitome of modernist culture, and even a clearly colonial-imperialist nation-state («Islam should prevail over all») which is similar not only with the totalitarian deviations but also with the colonial domination of market liberal culture in the whole world. In a perverse way the commitments of the Islamic Jihadists to the ultimate goal are quite similar to that of the Jacobins and the Narodniks, and this historic comparison, especially for anyone who falls into their hands, should not be considered a farce.

The privileges of the really poor

It is much more convenient for liberal Europe that demonstrates these days in grief for the victims, to ignore the causes and the past, pretending that the Kouachi brothers is a postmodern «moment» fell from the sky, an incomprehensible product of distortion of Islam, or a mission of terrorists from the «mountain of the Assassins» instead of accepting that they are Parisians just as their victims.

But there is something more that the Kouachi brothers and Stéphane Charbonnier, Georges Wolinski, Jean Cabut and Bernard Verlhac shared equally. They are all victims of the modernist world; the victims as exponents of the ‘right to freedom of expression’, whilst the perpetrators of the» right to cultural identity». And here is one of the innumerable conflicts the modernist world produces, where one right negates the other but together constitute the same world under the undisputed roof of the market. It is very difficult for leftists to understand another reason beyond blind fanaticism (whose right to cultural identity was so much supported by Charlie Hebdo) which pushed Kouachi brothers to render them bullets instead of gratitude. And it is much easier to believe that anyone who lacks undeniable rights should automatically be sensitive to the rights of others. According to this pourtousissisme to struggle for the right to cultural identity and religious faith is equally progressive with fighting for the right of expression to mock this faith in their face. In the psychic world of a European leftist, the rebellious hatred of the Kouachi brothers towards this progressivism is understood only as a product of a ruthless ingratitude.

How is it possible for the «rebellious proletarians‘ of the suburbs to become transformed into «Nazi-jihadists»? For a bleeding-heart leftist such a reduction is unthinkable. The oppressed identity that rebels, throwing stones at police officers and setting its neighborhood on fire seems to be a legitimate uprising against capitalist exploitation that has turned the contemporary youth into metropolitan pariahs, especially if the pariahs are not European indigenous. Therefore denying European chauvinism is positive in itself, even worse (why not?) if such pariahs constitute «the damned of the earth», the new messianic subject that came to replace the proletariat in its historic role. But when the subject acquires a face and a name, when it becomes Cherif and Said, and turns his wrath on the whole system that gave birth to the «capitalist exploitation» including all the values of the Enlightenment, ​​then this subject that we used to approach with instrumental sympathy automatically becomes a «Nazi jihadist».

But why do all these ideological and class interpretations matter, since the «subjects» change constantly? All the above do not significantly differ from the way the left viewed the indigenous European proletariat in the early 20th century when the working class immediately and hurriedly ran to embrace the fascist call. So today a minority that embraces anti-modernism is itself an incomprehensible development, such as when the factory worker registers himself in the fascist party of his neighbourhood. The usual reason that explaining the phenomenon in both cases is still the same and is attributed to a lack of understanding on the part of the oppressed of the root causes of their oppression. On why the subjects do not follow the revolutionary call, the usual answer is more and thorough study of the texts of Marx[1]

And, indeed, why not? If the angry minority person expresses a critique of the hypocrisy of the Enlightenment, as Adorno and Horkheimer set the theoretical foundations of this interpretation[2]. Moreover, the above observation means that the ideal of an international Enlightenment (a global western socialism pourtousissisme [for all]) constituted from its birth a chimeric monster[3]. We Westerners should be the last to preach at those «murderers», «fascists» and «totalitarians» since we ourselves have taught them the charm of political assassination, and terror that rises from the punishment of collective responsibility and the ideal of totalitarianism. Even more, it is us who sanctified their predicament. For the left, it is enough to be oppressed to be classified as a rebel in order to express your righteous anger.

The young lumpen of the Parisian suburbs have received an unspoken education of the new-left of post-colonial studies and have learned from it constantly to blame the West for their dire position in the class pyramid, but ultimately they themselves do nothing in order to organize and fight against this situation. Instead they persist only in victimizing themselves aiming to claim some extra benefits. The only time we see a massive «response» is through political Islam. With the announcements of multiculturalism along with the urban divisions of the metropolitan planning, every suburb managed to establish itself in «autonimised» micro-communities that do not interact with each other. The result is every minority living in a «bowl» ignoring par excellence the other communities and, of course, the Republique tout court.

The liberal Janus

The inability of the left for non-abstract thought has made all liberals to think in a «lame» fashion, and to perceive only half of reality, or to put it clearly, to perceive only the dimension that follows their imaginary ideology. In exactly the same manner (but perhaps with the other leg) the right’s thinking is also «lame». For both the «other» is absolutely good or absolutely bad; from this lame thinking derives the trend of the era regarding ‘islamophobia’ either in its right-wing version as a racist jam or in leftist as ‘antiracism’.

For leftists the issue is fixed. If something is haunted by the right then the left has a contracted responsibility to defend it. This position consolidated since the Dreyfus affair has so much infused the essence of being a leftist, that defense is now provided to «anything» uncritically and unconditionally as long as «it» is prosecuted by the right. The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo up to their tragic death «always remained irreconcilable enemies of racism» and «all of them convinced atheists»[1]. The only difference is that never before did all this match together, because if we think in terms of combining together the above, that is of an «anti-racist atheism», then something is wrong with similar campaigns against Islamophobia, and this «something» is our thinking.

For the right-wing the issue is simpler. The best problem is the ‘no problem’. So it would have been better to have no Muslims in Europe or any other person if possible. Historically the right likes to ask the impossible, secretly wishing for a new final solution for Muslims. Therefore, they one more time wish the self-destruction of Europe and of themselves. But the desire of the left is no less childish. The enlightened Muslim, namely the Muslim without Islamism, can only find its counterpart in the Christian hypocrite who acts contrary to his beliefs. The solidarity embrace of the European liberals to the Muslims is the entry ticket to a Europe which, in contrast to the left, has a clear condition: the only Islam acceptable in Europe is the «liberal Islam»; this is simply impossible!

In order to become European citizens Muslims should first become like us, people without a serious faith, without values ​​apart from an unlimited commitment to individual rights… everyone lives his dream in a world that digests everything. We invite immigrants and Muslims in Europe to lose anything good or bad that defines their existence, to get a job like all of us, a house like all of us, a color TV like all of us, and the right to go shopping like us all without the being asked for their documents by the police, and we call this multicultural society?

What remains after all this? The most certain is what already exists. Liberalism will continue to fight for the rights and freedoms of all of us, annihilating us at the same time as human beings. And most likely it will eventually digest Islamism as it did with Christianity. The standard of the «good European Islamist» has already been formed and this is carried out everywhere by European antiracist groups. Personally I find it hard to see in this any distinction between left and right. There are countless ways to uproot a man from himself. The right use fear, the left adopt hypocrisy. Let each of us prefer what hurts the least.

If we understand the above, however bitter they may sound, we may realize in the end what is the charm that we are no longer able to offer ourselves, which they young Algerians from Paris have found in the Jacobin Islamism.

1. See. Charlie, from what God died? George Mitralias
2. See Adorno and Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment.
3. See John Gray, Black Mass. Apocalyptic religion and the death of utopia.

Islamic Apologism: The Cultural Imperialism of the Radical Left

Sent by: Anonymous Anarchist 4-4-2013

The recent events over the «topless jihad» protests in the Middle East received very little consideration by the radical left. In almost every case where serious violations of human rights caused by Muslim fundamentalists or theocratic non-Western regimes, the radical left tends to adopt a mild stance, by avoiding to criticize the disastrous effects of religious fanaticism. The main issue here is how many leftists supporters reject this apologetic stance for Islam, viewing this religion (and every other religion for that matter) through the same lens as they view the post-enlightenment western Christianity that they were exposed to within their own culture. In other words, they make broad generalizations when dealing with «religion» and assume that all major world religions preach exactly the same thing in terms of rituals, values, human relationships, authorities  or hierarchies, politics, economics, the dichotomy between the individual and the collective, and so on.

First of all, it needs to be pointed out that the Quran is not like the Bible. While many Christians do not take every single word of the Bible as a literal truth (though many fundamentalists do), the Quran is to be taken literally, as it is allegedly the direct, undisputed word of God. Second of all, Islam is overtly political. To make a comparison, for the first few hundred years of Christianity (however authoritarian Christianity may be in its own right), Christians appear to act outside the political sphere, with the exception of Greece and Russia where Christian religious bureaucracies still play a significant role in the public opinion, penetrating political decisions and their practical implementations. In  contrast, for most of its existence as an established faith, Islam has been an almost totalitarian socio-political system. Religiously speaking, Muhammad was both king and Pope in his own right, exercising unlimited patriarchal rights par excellence. Politics and religion in the case of Islam are deeply integrated and interconnected. This isn’t to say that politics and religion in an Islamic-dominated society cannot be separated at any degree (the amount of secular Muslims is on the rise, while there have been many attempts to reject absolutism during the 20th century in the Arab and greater Muslim World), but rather that the role Islam plays in the political realm is very different – both historically and in the present – than the Christianity most westerners are used to. To claim that Islam is not political, or only political in a certain framework, does not force women to become unquestionably and brutally subordinated to their husbands, is not just wrong but also ahistorical, unless one is referring to a secularized, modernized sect, which either attempts to rationalize Islamic ethics or even adopts a less religious-centric approach, by embracing other values and norms. However, such examples are clearly not representative of the organized Orthodox Islam that’s practiced and preached by the majority of Muslims today.

What many of the leftists who act as apologists for Islam insist on is that the authoritarian and patriarchal aspects of Muslim fundamentalists (or any organized religion for that matter) are not the «real Islam», because the «real Islam» is the version that preaches values consistent with those of western radical leftists. Of course, they provide no evidence for this; after all, most of these leftists do not come from Muslim backgrounds or cultures themselves, and, hence, they know very little of the Islamic religion (in most cases they have only been in contact through secondary source materials). Though within this apologism, western leftists project the following justification: «this is what a religion ought to be», namely, that Islam needs to be divorced from its authoritarian traditions and teachings regardless if the majority of the world’s Muslims will accept it that way. And of course, western leftists have the privilege of deciding what a religion ought to be, as they (allegedly) know what is best. They have the opportunity to decide what is and isn’t the «real Islam» – or in other cases, the «real [insert organized religion  or ideology here]» – because they hold so much more intellect than everyone else. In a true showing of elitism they breed there own form of cultural imperialism by throwing non-western cultures into a western context in order to make them seem more approachable or likable to «the west». To use another example, take the notion of «primitive communism»:  many indigenous cultures were not communist in the sense that they didn’t live in stateless, classless societies which held all things in common. Many of them had governing hierarchies, forms of exchange similar to markets, inequality between the sexes, and so on. However, the misled notion continues to inspire leftist radicals who dream of «going back»  to a more egalitarian past, without any realization of how those  indigenous societies actually functioned. The same is true in this case: Islam is undoubtedly patriarchal, and strictly anti-communist or anti-feminist, yet the leftists turn a blind eye on it and try to shave away these aspects in order to make it  consistent with their values, regardless of what the religion truly teaches and what history shows. The goal is obviously to project their own paradigms on this absolutist religion, either out of ignorance or out of some political agenda.

Speaking from a pragmatic point-of-view, radical leftists are shooting themselves in the foot whenever they decide to become allies with religious fundamentalists, only because these groups denounce an existing undeniable inequity: the malefactions of western expansionism and globalization. In Iran, radical leftist dissidents are frequently targeted by the Islamic theocracy. During the 1979 coup’ d’ etat in Iran, many Marxists, anarchists, and western-style intellectuals took part; when the Islamic theocrats took power, some of the first people they imprisoned, expelled, or executed were these same Marxists, anarchists, sexual minorities and western-style intellectuals who fought alongside them. Likewise, anarchists in Syria and Egypt remain targeted by the Islamist factions brewing in both states. It should be understood very well that extremist Islamic groups are not calling for workers’ self-management or freedom from governing authority: they are calling for a religious dictatorial state and a social order based entirely on metaphysical doctrine.

It is obvious that the radical left is massively fetishized with the anti-imperialist imaginary. Any critique against the theocratic regimes of Middle East is automatically translated like «an apology of western colonial culture.» When recently Israel attacked Palestine killing hundreds of civilians, Hamas authorities did not hesitate to practice similar brutal policies against every ‘suspect’ of Mossad collaboration, against any potential political threat. The left has been solely restricted to condemning the Israeli foreign policy. There is no doubt regarding Israel’s brutalities in this area, neither about the atrocities committed by the American army in the occupied territories. These crimes have to be rejected in the consciousness of the majority, and the fact that there are still individuals who passionately embrace western militarism clearly reveals the anthropological decay of our times, the inability of a society to become truly independent from its nationalistic imperialist deliriums. However, closing our eyes to the Islamic fundamentalist voices, to the brutalities coming from Hamas and embracing anti-Jewish rambling, deprives us of our purposes for a radical social transformation. The Machiavellian logic of «the enemy of the enemy is my friend» has totally disorientated the leftists from their objectives: the enfranchisement of human beings from every oppressor.

Organized religion remains a tool of social control, and in order to form a free society we must break ourselves from its strongholds as well. We must cease seeing the world as a battlefield between two opposite sides that both express a similar amount of fanaticism, intolerance and racism. We, undoubtedly, have to acknowledge that Muslim people in the West are a particularly vulnerable social group, targeted by the media systematically and scapegoated by the entire right-wing press. Nonetheless, the level of sympathy we need to show with the Others – individuals of any faith – who face direct or indirect discrimination should not exceed the admissible A-level which allows us to recognize that exploitation (of any kind) and injustice can also occur within a minority. We cannot whitewash authoritarian religious teachings or shove the religions and cultures of others into our own frames. After all, wasn’t Karl Marx who said «religion is the opium of the masses»?

Don LaCoss: On Blasphemy and Imagination: Arab Surrealism Against Islam

«God can do anything except suicide»
– Malcolm de Chazal

In 1973, a small network of Arab students living in Paris, London, and Vienna founded the Arab Surrealist Movement in Exile. At the group’s core was Abdul Kader el-Janabi, Farid Lariby, Mohammed Awadh, and Maroine Dib; they re-oriented surrealist elements against the intense misery they saw rampant in the Middle East: despotic police-state politics, nationalism (particularly Ba’athism in Syria and Iraq), militarism, patriarchal oppression, neo-colonial European interference, grueling poverty, and suppressed imaginations.

They integrated surrealism with ideas culled from Situationists, radical feminists, the rebel student and autonomist worker movements of the late 1960s, and the revolutionary struggles in what was then called “the Third World” (including the ghettoes and reservations in the US).

Most of their publications (most notably ar-Raghba al-ibahiyya [Libertarian Desire]) were outlawed in every Arab-speaking nation in the Middle East and North Africa for their seditious, blasphemous, and outrageously scabrous content.

Drawing from the work of important radical liberation theorists of the time such as Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Germaine Greer, the Arab Surrealist Movement in Exile formulated a sharp analysis of the ways in which political oppression, sexual repression, and Islam mutually reinforced one another in so many regimes in the Arab world (and, after 1979, in Iran).

It is difficult to find images or texts by the surrealists that attack the tyrannies of Islam without also encountering references to other authoritarian efforts to control, re-direct, or distort desire and sexual expression; frequently, the surrealists argued that State terrorism in the Middle East was at least partially rooted in traditional patriarchal Muslim violence against women and gay men, much in the same way that fascism has been understood by writers like Wilhelm Reich, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Klaus Theweleit, and George Mosse.

This excerpt from the Exile Movement’s founding manifesto sums up many of their concerns: “Our surrealism destroys the so-called ‘Arab fatherland.’ We call upon individuals and the masses to unleash their instincts against all forms of repression, including the repressive ‘reason’ of the bourgeois order. We explode the mosques and the streets with the scandal of sex returning to its body, bursting into flames at each encounter. We poison the intellectual atmosphere with the elixir of the imagination, so that the poet’s self will be realized in realizing the historical transformation of poetry. We liberate language from the prisons and stock markets of capitalist confusion.”

What follows is a combination of the definitions of “blasphemy” and “imagination” from a glossary of sorts that was supposed to be a regular column in ar-Raghba al-ibahiyya.

It was published in 1974; this is the first time it has been reprinted or translated. Readers interested in more information can check out the relevant chapters in Sibylla Krainick’s Arabischer Surrealismus im Exil. Der irakische Dichter und Publizist Abd al Quadir al-Ganabi (Reichert, 2001).

On Blasphemy and Imagination

If you toss the detestable banalities of religion into the lap of humiliation, then leave them where you threw them and ignore them for good. But don’t let that prevent you from practicing blasphemy. Some critics ask what would be the value of insulting Allah after we have established with certainty that He does not exist, but blasphemy does not validate religion or make that it more truthful. Pronouncing blasphemy’s rough and outrageous words is significant and necessary if for no other reason that they become a delightful pleasure to utter. Moreover, blasphemy lends a hand to the imagination.

Imagination is a force whose existence is dismissed by journalists, economists, and anyone else generally concerned with obstructing the restless vitality of free thinking and sexual feelings. The reason for this is because the visions that are awakened by this force are so beyond our control that it has the potential ability to control us.

Imagination reveals to us the scope of human potential and nourishes desire by giving us the hope needed to fulfill these potentials. All dimensions of human happiness lie in the imagination. No one can be fully satisfied until all fantasies of this imagination have been achieved.

Via The Anarchist Library

La forteresse Europe et le rejet du communautarisme Haro sur l’Islam

De : Professeur Chems Eddine Chitour

«Le pauvre devine ce que donne la richesse, le riche ne sait pas ce que signifie la pauvreté.»
-Proverbe chinois

Dans l’émission Paroles aux Français du vendredi 11 février, le président Sarkozy a décrit sa nouvelle vision de la société française. Deux confirmations, il parle de son rejet de l’ostentation et du prosélytisme; en clair il est contre les prières des musulmans dans les rues, mais il ne donne aucune piste pour ne pas prier dans la rue. Il est contre le communautarisme qui, dit-il, a été un échec. Par cette affirmation, il fait écho au discours d’Angela Merkel en Allemagne, en octobre, discours dans lequel elle disait qu’il fallait tirer les conséquences de l’échec du communautarisme. Dans le même temps, on apprend que 200.000 Turcs allemands diplômés ont quitté l’Allemagne qui aurait besoin de 400.000 diplômés. La déclaration d’Angela Merkel visait aussi, à couper l’herbe au parti adverse surtout, après la publication de Theo Sarrasin où il accusait l’Islam d’être un danger pour l’Allemagne. Une déclaration similaire a été faite par David Cameron lors de la réunion de Munich début février, lui aussi rejette le communautarisme pourtant socle du vivre- ensemble du modèle britannique. Dans toutes ces positions, si on ajoute aussi celle de Sylvio Berlusconi dont on connait l’affection qu’il a pour l’Islam, il y a une situation nouvelle. L’ennemi de l’Europe est clairement désigné, c’est l’Islam, les Turcs, les Pakistanais et les Arabes du Maghreb.

Pourtant, en France pendant de longues années, l’ancien ministre de l’Intérieur, président actuel, déclarait à qui voulait l’entendre que les communautés devraient s’organiser. Il a ainsi, donné corps au Cfcm (Conseil français du culte musulman). Mieux, en janvier il nomme Monsieur Dahmani comme conseiller à l’Elysée chargé justement du contact avec les communautés, fonction qui empiète sur celle de Yazid Sabeg chargé de promouvoir la Diversité.

Préoccupations bassement électoralistes

Parmi les communautés, il y en a une qui échappe à toute norme, il s’agit du Crif (Conseil représentatif des Juifs de France) dont l’aura réelle est plus due à sa capacité de nuisance qu’à son apport à la société française. Le Crif se dit représenter les 600.000 Juifs de France, c’est-à-dire 1%. En fait, ce n’est pas vrai, il représenterait dans le meilleur des cas 60.000 Juifs c’est- à-dire 0,1% de la population française. Se déclarant pro-sioniste et aligné sur la politique israélienne, il tétanise tous ceux qui osent critiquer Israël le Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France, mis en place sous Laurent Fabius, en 1985, invite régulièrment à un dîner toute la classe politique et les autorités religieuses, un tribunal dînatoire selon l’expression, pour une fois heureuse, du philosophe tout-terrain Alain Finkielkraut.

Le Crif n’a pas toujours été ce qu’il est actuellement , « C’était à l’époque de Théo Klein, un espace de discussion loin de toute emprise idéologique. Depuis, Roger Cuckermann, puis Richard Prasquier fidèles zélés d’Israël, «convoquent», à l’occasion de ce dîner, la classe politique française et lui tracent les lignes directives. En 2010, le président de la République, Nicolas Sarkozy a, effectué un bref passage le 3 février à Paris. Il déclarait (…) «La sécurité d’Israël est pour la France une priorité absolue», Très souvent, par le passé, déclare le président Sarkozy, je suis venu au dîner du Crif. Je connais cette tradition. (..) En invitant chaque année les plus hautes autorités de la Nation à partager votre dîner, en invitant en particulier le Premier ministre, et cette année, pour la première fois, le président de la République, vous entendez renouveler votre attachement indéfectible à la République et à la France. (….) Il est sain que vos invités rassemblés dans cette salle, dont certains exercent d’éminentes responsabilités, fassent mémoire de ces moments douloureux qui précipitèrent tant de familles dans l’abomination, et notre pays dans la honte. […] (1)»

On remarquera que le président fait preuve d’une repentance à géométrie variable. Il admet que la France puisse avoir honte de la façon dont elle a traité les Juifs en laissant le pouvoir hitlérien les déporter, mais il n’a pas à avoir honte de la colonisation directe de la France qui, pendant plus d’un siècle, a pillé, volé, incendié, violé et déstructuré la société algérienne qui en porte encore les stigmates.

En 2011, après avoir écouté le discours du président du Crif, comme d’habitude d’une rare violence envers ceux qui critiquent Israël, et aussi envers l’Iran en appelant à son renversement, il fait le bilan des actes antisémites de 2010, que le Crif a recensés et transmis au ministère de l’Intérieur pour dire une fois de plus que trop c’est trop. Pour pouvoir juger du réel pouvoir du Crif, qu’il nous suffise de rapporter un article du Canard enchaîné du mercredi 16 mai 2007, où nous apprenons que le très sioniste Roger Cukierman est intervenu personnellement pour s’opposer à la nomination de Hubert Védrine au poste de ministre des Affaires étrangères. Il a joint directement Sarkozy et lui a dit que la communauté juive prendrait la nomination de Védrine comme un «casus belli».

Pourtant, il s’est trouvé des Français de confession juive qui sont scandalisés par le comportement du Crif. Parmi eux, Maurice Szafran qui fit un éditorial à ce propos dans le journal Marianne n°642. «Quelle que soit la qualité de certains qui en font partie et qui se déclarent à regret, minoritaires, il faut bien constater que les dérapages communautaristes du Crif deviennent de plus en plus nombreux et alimentent un antisémitisme à la fois insidieux et secret. Pour le moment, personne n’ose dire que le roi est nu et que dans certaines affaires qui relèvent soit de la solidarité inconditionnelle et aveugle avec l’extrême droite de l’Etat d’Israël, soit d’un judéo-centrisme obsessionnel et névrotique, les juifs ne peuvent plus se sentir en sécurité intellectuelle.»(1)

Une dépêche courageuse de l’AFP passée inaperçue à l’époque, et pour cause, eu égard au maillage serré des médias à l’époque, s’interrogeait sur la place du Crif. S’est interrogée l’Agence : est-il devenu un nouveau département ministériel, au même titre que celui de l’Intérieur, de l’Agriculture ou encore de la Défense?(2).

Géométrie variable

Aux côtés du CRI, le Cfcm qui représenterait les 6 millions de musulmans (10% de la population française, est plus évanescent que jamais. On n’ose pas imaginer même pour rire, un diner du Cfcm où le millier des personnalités représentant la politique et le pouvoir en France viendraient faire allégeance à des représentants qui n’osent même plus parler et défendre l’état misérable de cette communauté en errance et qui, pour une grande partie, ne demande qu’à vivre l’Islam à l’ombre des lois de la République. On remarquera au passage, que le président Sarkozy déclare ne reconnaître qu’un Islam de France et non pas un Islam en France. Ceci est très important, car cela veut dire que c’est un Islam qui doit être laïco-compatible, qui ne fait pas de l’ombre aux racines chrétiennes de la France et qui est en paix avec le Crif. En clair, il devra être un Islam sans aspérité, nous verrons alors, à ce rythme des Fatwas sur mesure, pour déclarer Halal telle ou telle mesure, une décision de la République, le Coran serait revu. Pourquoi pas? Le problème est que la République, qui doit avoir une forte volonté d’intégration, doit être équidistante des religions, le spirituel devant être de la sphère privée. Ce n’est pas le cas, on diabolise et on dicte la norme.

A ce rythme, on peut imaginer aussi un judaïsme de France, un hindouisme de France. Je serai curieux d’entendre la réaction de ces communautés. Cette offensive concertée contre l’Islam en Europe sera de plus en plus récurrente. Les gouvernants surfant sur les peurs font dans la diversion pour faire passer des réformes impopulaires, il faut un bouc émissaire, ce sera l’Islam qui servira de variable d’ajustement

Il faudra empêcher les hordes du Sud d’envahir le Nord et faire en sorte de ne laisser en Europe que ceux qui rentrent dans le moule de cette Europe qui devient de plus intolérante, elle qui a été la cause du malheur toujours recommencé à la fois de la colonisation de ces pays qui viennent taper à la porte du supermarché planétaire construit sur la sueur des Suds épuisés, mais aussi la cause d’un autre malheur, celui des indépendances formelles et bâclées parque que nous avons remplacé le colon par un pouvoir qui continue d’asservir les masses, aidé et conforté justement par les anciennes puissances coloniales qui ne veulent surtout pas perdre leurs chasses gardées.

Comment faire pour éloigner les barbares?

Nous avons vu que la paranoïa concernant l’Islam est doublée de la nécessité de barricader l’Europe en contrôlant les entrants. A ce titre, l’Europe, qui se lave les mains de ce qui se passe en Tunisie, est en train de chercher une parade pour arrêter l’exode des damnés de la terre qui fuient la misère. Les Européens, qui n’arrêtent pas de parler de droits de l’homme, ont ouvert la «Boite de Pandore», ils doivent regretter la belle époque de Ben Ali qui leur permettait de tenir en respect ces hordes de «gueux» qui envahissent Lampedusa. La mise en branle de Frontex, une armada de guerre, permettra de suivre, même de nuit, comme le Sive (installé en Espagne), tous les mouvements de la Côte africaine. La «mise à niveau», présentée comme technique, du système d’information Schengen sert de paravent à un glissement de ses objectifs, de l’accompagnement de la liberté de circulation vers la constitution d’une base de données de surveillance et d’enquête.

«Dans le quartier du Neuhof, écrit Jelle Van Buuren, à Strasbourg, un bâtiment sous haute garde, de classe «antiterroriste», abrite l’ordinateur central du Système d’information Schengen (SIS). Les mémoires de ce serveur informatique, poumon numérique de la coopération policière européenne, stockent des millions d’informations sur les étrangers interdits de séjour en Europe, les criminels recherchés, les armes et les suspects à placer sous surveillance. Les listes de desiderata, que les Etats membres font circuler à Bruxelles, ne s’arrêtent pas là : ils souhaitent intégrer dans le fichier central les photographies, les empreintes digitales, les empreintes ADN et des données biométriques. En reliant aux fichiers des systèmes de reconnaissance faciale et de l’iris des yeux.»(3)

En fait, cette paranoïa occidentale alimente un marché juteux : le marché de la peur évalué à des dizaines de milliards de dollars. José Saramago, prix Nobel de littérature, s’interroge : «Les Occidentaux sont-ils civilisés entre eux et barbares avec les autres? Que reste-t-il alors des «valeurs» de l’Occident «Liberté, Démocratie et Justice» après le passage du cyclone Bush et des petites tempêtes de ses clones, vassaux et perroquets un peu partout dans le monde? Où vont les fameuses «démocraties occidentales», missionnaires de leur «Liberté obligatoire» comme dirait l’écrivain et dramaturge italien Dario Fo? La gauche va-t-elle gober sans broncher les attaques convergentes de la droite et de l’extrême-droite contre ce qu’elles appellent le «multiculturalisme»? «Liberté» aux saveurs du pétrole, de l’opium, du fouet et des bombes…» (4)


Michel Wieviorka, sociologue, directeur d’études à l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales, écrit justement à propos de ce rejet du multiculturalisme : «Je ne peux que le féliciter», a déclaré Marine le Pen, la nouvelle dirigeante du Front national, après que David Cameron, le Premier ministre britannique, a affirmé le 5 février, que le multiculturalisme est un échec. Quatre mois auparavant, en Allemagne, Angela Merkel, la chancelière, des droites en déclarant que «cette approche a échoué, totalement échoué». Et lors de l’émission Paroles aux Français sur TF1, vendredi, Nicolas Sarkozy, le chef d’Etat français, a apporté sa contribution à la disqualification du multiculturalisme en reprenant la même antienne. Dans son cas, on hésite quant au diagnostic : renversement complet ou incohérence? Ces charges donnent l’image d’une grande cohérence idéologique des droites d’Europe. Otons l’Islam du débat : que reste-t-il dans le rejet du «multiculturalisme»? (…) Le terme de multiculturalisme est inapproprié ici, car ce qui est en jeu est d’abord et avant tout une religion, et non une culture. Que celles-ci puissent se recouper est une évidence, mais cela n’autorise en aucune façon à les confondre, et à rejeter le multiculturalisme pour en réalité flatter l’islamophobie. (…) Il est légitime et souhaitable qu’un chef d’Etat s’en prenne au terrorisme, à la violence, agisse pour mettre fin à la domination des groupes et de leurs leaders sur les individus relevant de minorités, à commencer par les femmes.»(5)

«Mais imputer ces maux au multiculturalisme, c’est en faire un bouc émissaire trop commode, ou, au mieux, ne s’intéresser qu’aux dérives des modèles qu’il promeut, et non à ces modèles eux-mêmes. Que signifie l’injonction de l’intégration des immigrés? La critique du multiculturalisme par les droites et les extrêmes droites comporte une dimension qui mérite d’être soulignée : elle va de pair avec l’appel à l’intégration des immigrés. Cet appel est toujours présenté comme une nécessité pour la nation, pour la société dans son ensemble, et jamais du point de vue des immigrés.»(5)

«Ceux-ci sont alors définis comme autant de problèmes ou de sources de difficultés, rien d’autre, et le message qui leur est adressé est vite si peu conforme aux réalités de leur expérience sociale qu’il ne peut être qu’incantatoire, et répressif : que signifie l’injonction de l’intégration, si les moyens de la réussir ne sont guère proposés? Tempéré, le multiculturalisme est une opportunité pour la gauche. Il y a néanmoins, un avantage dans ce rejet par les droites et extrêmes droites du multiculturalisme au nom d’une intégration qui devient mythique : il interpelle les gauches. En France, notamment, l’attachement à l’idéal républicain, version nationale des valeurs universelles, s’est souvent soldé, y compris à gauche, par un refus de tout ce qui semble déboucher sur une reconnaissance des minorités, et sur un encouragement, dès lors, aux horreurs du communautarisme. La gauche aurait bien tort d’être paresseuse, ou idéologique, et de se contenter d’embrayer le pas aux droites et aux extrêmes droites.»(5)

Le temps sera de moins en moins clément en Europe, l’Islam servira de repoussoir pour des considérations électorales et le musulman, même avec une foi incolore, devra continuellement donner des preuves de son rejet de sa foi pour pouvoir survivre.

1. Memoires d’un vieux con:  Jean Daniel flingue le CRIF
2. Le Crif nouveau ministère de la République, AFP 18 décembre 2003
3. Jelle Van Buuren : Les tentacules du système Schengen. Le Monde diplomatique. Mars 2003
4. José Saramago «De la justice à la démocratie,…». Le Monde diplomatique. Mars 2002
5.Michel Wieviorka, Quand la gauche va-t-elle défendre le multiculturalisme?
Pr Chems Eddine CHITOUR
Ecole Polytechnique

Article paru dans: Bella Ciao


Short URL:

Rebellions in the Arab World: News from Libya, Iran, Iraq and Egypt

LIBYA: [1]Protesters have clashed with police and government supporters in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, reports say. Demonstrators gathered in the early hours of Wednesday morning in front of police headquarters and chanted slogans against the «corrupt rulers of the country».

Police fired tear gas and violently dispersed protesters, the sources said without providing further details. The online edition of Libya’s privately-owned Quryna newspaper, which is based in Benghazi, said the protesters were armed with petrol bombs and threw stones. According to the newspaper, 14 people were injured in the clashes, including three demonstrators and 10 security officials.

‘Day of rage’ called

Anti-government protesters have also called on citizens to observe Thursday as a «Day of Rage». They are hoping to emulate recent popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia to end Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s 41-year-old rule. The rare protests reportedly began after relatives of those killed in a prison massacre about 15 years ago took to streets. They were joined by scores of other supporters. The relatives were said to have been angered by the detention of Fathi Terbil, human rights lawyer and official spokesman of the victims’ families, who was arrested by the Libyan security forces, for no apparent reason.

However, Terbil was later released, according to reports. Twelve-hundred prisoners were killed in the Abu Slim prison massacre on June 29, 1996, after they had objected to their inhumane conditions inside the prison. Those killed were buried in the prison’s courtyard and in mass graves in Tripoli. The families of the victims have been demanding that the culprits be punished.

Mohammed Maree, an Egyptian blogger, said «Gaddafi’s regime has not listened to such pleas and continues to treat the Libyan people with lead and fire.» «This is why we announce our solidarity with the Libyan people and the families of the martyrs until the criminals are punished, starting with Muammer and his family.»

Libyan state television reported that rallies were taking place all over the country early this morning in support of the rule of the people by the people”.

Signed statement

A group of prominent Libyans and members of human rights organisations have also demanded the resignation of Gaddafi.

They said that the Libyans have the right to express themselves through peaceful demonstrations without any threat of harassment from the regime.The demands came in a statement signed by 213 personalities from different segments of the Libyan society, including political activists, lawyers, students, and government officials.

Meanwhile, a local human rights activist told Reuters news agency that the authorities have decided to release 110 prisoners jailed for membership of banned organisation, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. The prisoners to be freed on Wednesday, are the last members of the group still being held and will be set free from Tripoli’s Abu Salim jail, Mohamed Ternish, chairman of the Libya Human Rights Association said. Hundreds of alleged members of the group have been freed from jail after it renounced violence last year.

IRAN: [2] Clashes between pro-government activists and dissidents took place in Tehran, as the Iranian television reported. The clashes broke out when a crowd of people who attended the funeral of Zalech Sani, a student who lost his life in yesterday’s clashes, was attacked by a group of pro-government supporters. The government, however, denies any responsibility.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said tonight that the «enemies» who organize anti-government demonstrations in Iran are unable to achieve their goals. «It is clear that the Iranian nation has enemies because it is a country that wants to shine (…) and change its relationships in the world,» Ahmadinejad said in an interview on public television.

IRAQ: [2]Many small demonstrations across the country took place yesterday. Iraqis protested against corruption and high unemployment in their war-torn country. In Fallujah, about 1000 people gathered near the town hall asking local officials to improve services and do more to combat corruption. In Kirkuk, a small demonstration by 100 people took place near the building of the provincial council. About 200 protesters also descended on the streets of Basra in the south.

So far the demonstrations in Iraq are small. However, organizations seeking through social networking site Facebook to organize a mass protest on 25 February. A group calling itself the «Revolution of Iraq» and has 6000 supporters, called on Iraqis to participate in this demonstration. «We are part of the world affected by what happens around us. The revolution in Tunisia and Egypt is a big motivation for us,» wrote a member of the group on Facebook.

EGYPT: [3]The Egyptian military top brass have taken over the running of the country and, while they are promising a transition to “democracy” at some stage, they are more concerned in the short term about what they see as “chaos and disorder”. That is, not just the rallies that have gripped all of Egypt’s major cities, but something far more dangerous in their view, the growing strike wave.

14 February, public transport workers on strike protesting outside Ministry of Interior. Photo: 3arabawyAccording to latest reports, thousands of public sector workers, including ambulance drivers and transport workers, are out protesting for better wages and conditions. Even the ordinary police have been affected by this new mood of worker militancy. Around 200 of them have been out demonstrating, demanding better pay. Oil and gas workers have been protesting, as have the workers in the national steel industries, as well as in textiles, telecoms, railways, post offices, banks, oil and pharmaceutical companies. Even the workers in the tourist industry held a protest near the Great Pyramids.

Hundreds of bank workers rallied outside a branch of the Bank of Alexandria in Cairo. They were demanding that their bosses step down. As a result Tarek Amer resigned as chairman of the state-owned National Bank of Egypt, the country’s biggest commercial bank. This came after angry workers stopped him from reaching his office. So big has the strike wave been among the bank workers that the military declared Monday a bank holiday, hoping thus to defuse the strike movement.

Military considered banning strikes

In response to this wave of worker militancy, according to an Al Jazeera report, Egypt’s military leaders yesterday were “reportedly preparing to ban strikes and act against ‘chaos and disorder’ in an attempt to restore order in the country following weeks of protests that led to the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak. A military source said the Supreme Military Council would issue an order on Monday [February 14] that would ban meetings by labour unions or professional syndicates, effectively forbidding strikes, and would tell all Egyptians to get back to work.” (Al Jazeera, 14 February 2011)

According to the same report:

____Earlier in the day, pro-democracy protesters in the square said they had been told by the army to leave or face arrest. Meanwhile, the army ordered Al Jazeera and other international media outlets to stop filming in the square.

This gives a clear indication of what the army is now trying to do. This is what is meant by a “controlled transition” to democracy. As Al Jazeera’s James Bays, reporting from Cairo, said, “I think the military is concerned that this could turn into a series of protests across the country. If that happened, the only way they could stop them would probably be to use force. And if they use force, that would end the respect and the legitimacy the army has in the eyes of the ordinary people.”

That is already beginning to happen now, as the masses see what the army chiefs are doing. They feel that the revolution could slip out of their hands and into those of the men of the old regime, unless they actively intervene to stop this from happening. That also explains why the military had to step back from its planned ban on strikes.

In this we see how the army Supreme Council, together with the bourgeois “opposition” leaders are concerned that the fall of Mubarak is unleashing class forces that go beyond the mere demands for democracy. We have to remember that for the workers, democracy means greater rights, such as the right to organise, to assembly and to strike. These rights the workers yearn for in order to be able to fight for better wages and conditions.

Precisely because these minimum democratic rights are the basic conditions that allow workers to express themselves and to organise freely, they are not prepared to delegate all powers to the military chiefs. Let us not forget that this is the same military that served Mubarak well during his 30-year dictatorship.

Just as the workers do not trust the military, the Generals look with concern at the role the Egyptian working class has been playing. When it became clear that Mubarak was attempting to manoeuvre to remain in power, in spite of the mass protests shaking the country, the workers in the factories decided it was time to make their presence felt. The Generals understand full well that what gave Mubarak the final push was when the workers began to organise as a class and started to come out on strike, in some cases taking over their workplaces.

But workers will resist

14 February, striking oil and gas workers staging a protest. Photo: 3arabawyNow those same workers will not be satisfied with mere promises for some form of transition to democracy. They are pressing all their social and economic demands. That explains the wave of strikes that is gripping the country. Workers want better wages, better working conditions, healthcare, pensions, decent housing. These are actually the problems that were at the root of the revolution itself.

Ironically for the Egyptian bourgeois, it was the very economic “success story” of Egypt that has led to this situation. The working class of Egypt has been enormously strengthened by the boom of the past decade. Since 2003 Egyptian GDP has been growing by an average of 5.5% per year, some years even reaching more than 7%. This has meant the opening of many new factories. And this in turn increased the size and weight of the working class.

However, economic booms do not necessarily benefit all classes equally. There was a growing social polarisation, which sooner or later had to lead to a confrontation between the classes. This explosion had been coming for some time. In the past few years we have witnessed in Egypt the biggest strike wave since the end of Second World War.

We have reported on this in recent years, as for example in Egypt: The victory of Mahalla workers exposes the weakness of Mubarak’s regime (by Frederik Ohsten and Francesco Merli, October 4, 2007 and Unprecedented strike wave of Egyptian workers (by Jorge Martin, April 23, 2007). We have consistently explained that this growing worker unrest would sooner or later lead to revolution. This has now come, and having gained a feel of their own power the workers are not going to simply go back to work as if everything has now been sorted, simply because Mubarak is no more. (…)

Al Jazeera: Violent protests break out in Libya
Athens Indymedia: Εξεγέρσεις στον αραβικό κόσμο: Όλες οι εξελίξεις (*)
Fred Weston: Egyptian army manoeuvres in attempt to cut across worker protests
Editing, presentation, (*) translation: Michael Theo

Short URL :