the massive waves of immigration, both legal and clandestine, our country has experienced for decades have prevented the implementation of a proper assimilation policy (…) [w]ithout a policy restricting immigration, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to fight against communalism and the rise of ways of life at odds with laïcité, France’s distinctive form of secularism, and other laws and values of the French Republic.
The concept of community and communalism is central here. I absolutely agree with the stated need of fighting communalism, i.e. the forming of small groups of people who, for whatever reason, live outside and beyond what is commonly accepted as the social norm. To many, this might sound like a praise of oppression and a call to conformity; to those, I’d simply answer that communities are the way humans have found of maximizing their individual level of freedom: on the one hand, it’s impossible to be free on one’s own; on the other hand cooperation has infinitely enhanced our chances of survival, as we’ve known at least since we succeeded to kill the first mammoth. Larger, more comprehensive communities which allow more room for social experimentation widen individual horizons and chances. Personally I feel that my community is the whole of mankind, perhaps even more than that. That’s actually where my disagreement with Le Pen starts: her notion of community is far too narrow for me. In fact, and despite my love of French cheese, the baguette, Cassoulet and Bordeaux wine, I’d probably find myself excluded from her vision of a neat alpine douce France. The romantic nationalist notion of nation is in itself a form of narrow communalism and civic republican France is also a sort of religious praxis, with its rituals, its public gatherings, its solemnity and fanfarre. Nationalism is also a sort of revealed absolute truth and thus as prone as religion to fuel violence and war. All over Europe history readers shiver when she equates the name of France to the very idea of freedom: it reminds them of the revolutionary wars of the XIXth century.
My rejection of narrow communalism doesn't amount to an overall rejection of the notion of community. As culture is the binding fabric of community, there has to be some comprehensive yet unified cultural environment even in contemporary European societies. The simple truth is that not all conceivable lifestyles are mutually compatible and consequently there are indeed limits to tolerance. Suttee was incompatible with British law in colonial India, a situation which was solved by superior Western firepower: but really, does anyone miss that lovely cultural peculiarity? Aren't there, after all, lifestyles which are obviously more worthy than others and thus deserve being generalized, as opposed to some which should be eradicated? The problem is, however, that this is a battle nobody in post-war Europe really felt like fighting: the war for hearts and minds. An article by Stratfor exposes the lie at the heart of post-war Europe, but there’s a word in German which summarizes the whole thing, Gastarbeiter, or guest-worker: basically the ingrained notion that all those Turks, Italians and even Portuguese who were economically useful during the Wirtschaftswunder years were just a passing feature of the German landscape, bound to be blown away by the wind of economic change. As they weren't going to stay anyway the need to make them German, French or European was perceived as secondary.
This dilemma is compounded by Europe's hidden secret: The Europeans do not see Muslims from North Africa or Turkey as Europeans, nor do they intend to allow them to be Europeans. The European solution to their isolation is the concept of multiculturalism — on the surface a most liberal notion, and in practice, a movement for both cultural fragmentation and ghettoization. (…)[T]he dirty secret of multiculturalism was that its consequence was to perpetuate Muslim isolation. And it was not the intention of Muslims to become Europeans, even if they could. They came to make money, not become French. The shallowness of the European post-war values system thereby becomes the horror show that occurred in Paris last week. A War Between Two Worlds | Stratfor
Live and let live has thus led to indifference. Unable to believe in ourselves we have waived the right and duty to convince others. Traumatized perhaps by centuries of colonial empire we have groomed radical otherness within our own borders. With some hindsight it’s perfectly clear that it was only a matter of time before something like this happened. The battle for hearts and minds may be a lot more difficult to win now, but still there's no alternative.
