Patschef

It is important for us in order to fight collectivism to alert the interntional community about the true situation in France. The administration being chiefly an auxilliary to the collectivists, the press and the justice being largely controlled by them, it is pointless to try and change the state of public opinion in France. Just like you can't fight the Gulag by sending a letter to the Pravda. We must follow the steps of Havel, Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, and have the courage to constantly inform the rest of the world about the daily oppression that we live. People have to stop waking up every morning with the (implicit) idea that France is "OK". They have to keep in mind that France is a "problem", just like North Korea or Cuba are a problem.

Are there concentration camps in France? There aren't any formal concentration camps but life in certain areas increasingly resemble life in concentration camps. People are victimized (robbed, assaulted, raped, tortured) by mobs of (typically) ethnic youth under the complete passivity of the "police". Their crimes? It varies. Resisting racket. Not being a drug addict. Not being a drug dealer. Not being a muslim. Being a muslim girl who does not wear a veil. Working at school. Being an easy prey (elderly). Having refused to give a cigarette. Having filed a complaint with the police following an act of vandalism. People can't escape these neighborhood for economic reasons and they are totally let down by the police. So, what's the difference between that and a concentration camp?

Fair enough, but what does that have to do with collectivism? Well, a basic premise of collectivism is that, in a free society, it is impossible for individuals to improve their lot by hard work and voluntary exchange. Once this premise is gone, so is collectivism. Therefore, when the collectivists get in power, they make it impossible for poor people to escape poverty by their own individual effort. Hence the importance of letting violent predators victimize these people. If law and order were maintained in these neighborhoods, some people would make it, and the whole theory that they are helpless and that the state should take care of them would entirely collapse. Let's put them in a nightmarish concentration camp in order to make sure they won't succeed. A incorrect theory should never be put to empirical test. The Gulag is the secret place where those who jeopardize the theory end up.

Collectivism has produced a new kind of human being. In my French Blog I call him Homo Collectivus Gallus. What is he? A frustrated, impotent loser who blames others for his own failures. A guy who only knows how to deploy energy in order to destroy. A guy whose main feeling, by far, is envy. Who only shows "courage" when in a crowd against a weaker party. A lot of such people have invaded the ministry of education. They penalize brilliant children by imposing on them a feeling of guilt. They block any conceivable evolution. They lobby for further funding which eventually funds their lazy absenteeism. They don't mind to spoil the future of children by sabotaging an entire trimester with a strike. For these people, the ministry of education is meant to provide services to them. And the children are just hostages; to make sure they can grab enough from society. Their most important choice in life was made not on the basis of positive considerations (what am I going to do for a living?), but on the basis of negative ones (when shall I retire? When is the next vacation? How about sickness benefits?). The job is of interest to them not because of what you do in the job but because of what you don't do. And in the process, they train more Homines
Collectivi Galli.

Among the traditional values that the collectivists virtually abolished, one is individual responsibility. A prerequisite for individual responsibility is freedom. If you are not free to act, why should you be liable for your actions? But, conversely, a prerequisite for freedom is responsibility. If you are not held responsible for your acts, why should you abstain from infringing on other's freedom? So if we manage to convince people that people should not be accountable for the consequences of their acts upon others because it is "too tough", then you have won. Especially if at the same time, building on feelings of anger, you maintain that somebody is responsible. You're going to substitute prevention for punishment. You're going to transfer responsibility from the individual to other connected individuals or to society as a whole. I'm not going to sell you a knife because you could use it as a weapon -- but trust me, I won't do it -- I can't trust you, if you kill somebody with it, people say you aren't really responsible and they might even say I'm responsible. We don't want such bad social outcomes, do we? We want a nice and peaceful society. How do we get it when we are so nice we can't punish criminals. Well, let's be precautionary. Let's avoid trouble. Let's prohibit the sale of knives altogether.

So let's reduce the freedom of non-criminals to avoid crime caused by criminals.
Let's reduce the freedom of good drivers to avoid accidents caused by bad drivers.
Let's prohibit bathing in that river because careless people might hurt themselves.