We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Links we recommend
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons

  National Suicide, French Style
by Steven D. Laib, J.D. M.S.
March 2003 French Flag

The better course for the French would be to participate in the attack themselves, and show the spirit of Napoleon is not completely dead.

One can but wonder, what was behind the French recalcitrance over the situation in Iraq.  Regardless of how you view the situation it made no sense.  Consider, for example, the issue of the current Iraqi regime’s debt to French businesses.  A clever politician could work with the United States to broker an agreement by which, in exchange for government cooperation these businesses would get money, oil, or other compensation once the new government is established.  It is also a virtual certainty that somehow silence over French dealing with Iraq under the table during the UN sanctioned embargo could be assured.  What went wrong?  Based on their history, you would think that they could and would have done better.  

Consider first that France, despite its lack of international stature since 1900 and perhaps earlier has always been a bastion of patriotism.  For example the term “chauvinism,” according to The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition is “derived from the name of Nicolas Chauvin, a soldier of the First French Empire. Used first for a passionate admiration of Napoleon, it now expresses exaggerated and aggressive nationalism …  chauvinism exalts consciousness of nationality, spreads hatred of minorities and other nations, and is associated with militarism, imperialism, and racism.” 

This is reflected to some extent in the French outlook on some other parts of the world.   In Tahiti, a.k.a. French Polynesia. the colonial government attempted to outlaw the use of the native Tahitian language and substitute French in its stead.  Or consider the attitude shown by General De Gaulle when the Anglo-American forces were about to liberate his native land.  Rather than showing gratitude he wanted to take all of the credit for himself. 

As a nation which has a history of some diplomatic sophistication, France should know better how to properly deal with the situation in the Middle East.  Even Brigit Bardot knows that the current major threat to French culture comes in the form of unchecked immigration by people who could not care less about Louis XIV, Napoleon (yes, he was a Corsican) or for that matter Maurice Chevalier.  Certainly, the Tahitians were never going to give up taro in favor of croissants, or take to importing Bordeaux by the shipload, but the fact is that pretty much everyone who lives in Tahiti wants to be left in peace to enjoy the climate, scenery, and so on.  Not so the Africans and Arabs who have slowly and steadily eroded the French population base.  Already some wags have begun referring to France as part of “Eurabia,” with potentially disastrous consequences for anyone who enjoys the French grape, not to mention other cultural traits.  Just remember that Muslims are not supposed to drink alcohol. 

French hands are decidedly unclean on the Iraqi situation; thus it is not proper for them wave the UN flag, which they have already ignored.  The better course would be to do a little dealing, as above, and if they really want to look like leaders, propose the attack themselves, participate in it, and show that spirit of Napoleon is not completely dead. 

Meanwhile, the people of France should know by now that their culture is fighting for its very life.  If the Wahabbi extremists achieve any significant level of power in French politics you can probably kiss the Louvre and all the religious, as well as secular art in it, goodbye.  Perhaps Versailles would be turned into a mosque and horror of horrors, the thousand year old vineyards could be put to the torch for producing a forbidden beverage. 

France and Britain have always been rivals.  Sometimes more friendly, and sometimes not, as the 100 Years War (as well as numerous others) will attest to. Some experts believe that by causing a split with America, French President Chirac is trying to force other European countries to take sides, thus creating a new European union in which he would be the leader.  This is a possible explanation, but patently silly.  No one takes French leadership seriously anymore, except, perhaps, Chirac.  By siding with the Americans, England has already trumped their cross channel cousins and assumed any leadership role which can still be held in western Europe. 

When the Anglo-American forces march to victory in Baghdad, France may well be left out, and will lose what glory it could have garnered by being on the winning side.  The power base in Europe is shifting eastward toward the former Soviet bloc nations.  They know where their bread was buttered.  Ronald Reagan’s legacy in bringing down the Berlin wall and then the Iron Curtain is their inspiration.  Nothing coming from Paris carries any weight in comparison.  It is obviously high time that the French people and their political leadership rethink their national policy goals and get on board the train into the new world, instead of relying on and trying to recapture their past.  After all, as Manuel, the valet in the screen version of Collette’s “Gigi” said, “You owe it, Sir, to France!”


Email Steven D. Laib

Send this Article to a Friend