The Massacre Of Words.


13b71abb9890694df5533a4da0c4d4675d00f1fc_mAfter Friday 13th November, even words have gone to war. Starting from
the word used to label the enemy. Who massacred helpless civilians in
Paris? In France there are no doubts: the name used to denote the warriors of the Caliphate is Daesh. In other parts of the world, Italy included (in light of the fact that linguistic sovereignty reflects political and economic sovereignty) there is a preference for the anglophone term Isis.
The disagreement is not based on a literal translation of the arabic name Al Dawla Al Islamiya fi al Iraq wa al
Sham, so much as on the meaning that it carries with it. Daesh is an acronym that comes from the Arabic name; Isis is an acronym of its
English translation.
The first sounds incomprehensible and is well known
to be intolerable to those whom it describes, perhaps due to the its
assonance with another Arabic term that means “sowers of discord”; the
second is easily understood by everyone but is embarrassing for those
who do not want to couple the concepts of the State (and/or Islam) and
of terror.

Leaving aside the fact that the soldiers of this religious war abandoned
the term a while ago in preference of the more essential term Islamic
State, it is nonetheless interesting to note the concerns that fester
behind this semantic battle. Within the space of a week there seems to
be an emerging tendency to abandon the use of the term Isis in favour or
Daesh, not only in homage to the country in which the carnage occurred,
but also for more strategic reasons. As long as the Caliphate was funded
from an anti-insurrectionist perspective (Syrian or Kurdish) and along
with it, maintained good business in the oil sector, there was nothing
wrong with considering it a State that was also Islamic. After all, it
is impossible to hide the fact that within its territories, its men
provide services to the local populations and administer justice in
accordance with koranic laws. But now things have changed; now there is
a growing need to consider them only as terrorists. This is a question
that may seem pedantic, but in reality is one of substance. If these
islamic fundamentalists are a State, they cannot be completely
destroyed. It’s not a dog-eat-dog situation. This is why there are now
many discussions that aim to establish whether the massacre under the
Eiffel tower was an act of war perpetrated by a scoundrel-State (to be
overthrown) or an act of terrorism carried out by an armed group (to be
The friends of the State cannot accept that these assassins set on
conquest though looting and extermination, proclaim themselves a State.
We must never forget the millennial efforts that were made to drill into
all of our minds (and anyone who opposes will be sorry) the belief that
the State is synonymous with legitimate organisation. Ranks of
philosophers and scholars of all kinds, from ancient times to the
present day, are there to provide us with a rationale for the existence
of the State that is to our liking. The State can be understood as “the
need to associate” and as “an extension of our soul” (Plato), or as “a
product of nature” (Aristotle). The State can be established to put an
end to the bellum omnium contra omnes [the war of all against all]
(Hobbes) or can be the result of a Social Contract (just like Grozio,
Spinoza and Locke had intended to demonstrate long before Rousseau). The
State can be “ a means to the higher purpose of the eternal, regular and
continuous development of what is human in a nation” (Fichte), or “the
realised substantive will, which, having its reality in the particular
self-consciousness raised to the plane of the universal, is absolutely
rational” (Hegel). The State can be “a lawful government of several
households and of their common belongings, of sovereign power” (Bodin)
or “the material representation of a people” (Savigny). And there are
thousands of other theories that can be found which aim to persuade us
of how beautiful, just and necessary a State is.
In order to critique this nonsense, there is no need to even resort to
the classics of anarchism (with their infantile and obscene, idealistic
and resentful ideologies, among other things). It’s more than enough for
us to remember what the economist and liberal socialist Franz
Oppenheimer recognised over a century ago: “The State, completely in its
genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of
its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of
men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the
dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing
itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad.
Ideologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic
exploitation of the vanquished by the victors” […] On this point, the
assurance may be accepted that here again our general rule is valid
without exception. Everywhere, whether in the Malay Archipelago, or in
the “great sociological laboratory of Africa,” at all places on this
planet where the development of tribes has at all attained a higher
form, the State grew from the subjugation of one group of men by
another. Its basic justification, its raison d’être, was and is the
economic exploitation of those subjugated”.
The German scholar went on to claim that there are 6 evident stages in
the creation of the State:
looting – “the first stage comprises robbery and killing in border
fights, endless combats broken neither by peace nor by armistice. It is
marked by killing of men, carrying away of children and women, looting
of herds, and burning of dwellings”.
truce – “gradually, from this first stage, there develops the second, in
which the peasant, through thousands of unsuccessful attempts at revolt,
has accepted his fate and has ceased every resistance. About this time,
it begins to dawn on the consciousness of the wild herdsman that a
murdered peasant can no longer plow, and that a fruit tree hacked down
will no longer bear. In his own interest, then, wherever it is possible,
he lets the peasant live and the tree stand. The expedition of the
herdsmen comes just as before, every member bristling with arms, but no
longer intending nor expecting war and violent appropriation”.
tribute – “the third stage arrives when the “surplus” obtained by the
peasantry is brought by them regularly to the tents of the herdsmen as
“tribute,” a regulation which affords to both parties self-evident and
considerable advantages. By this means, the peasantry is relieved
entirely from the little irregularities connected with the former method
of taxation, such as a few men knocked on the head, women violated, or
farmhouses burned down.”
occupation – “the fourth stage, once more, is of very great importance,
since it adds the decisive factor in the development of the state, as we
are accustomed to see it, namely, the union on one strip of land of both
ethnic groups (It is well known that no legal definition of a state can
be arrived at without the concept of state territory.) From now on, the
relation of the two groups, which was originally international,
gradually becomes more and more international”.
monopoly – “the logic of events presses quickly from the fourth to the
fifth stage, and fashions almost completely the full state. Quarrels
arise between neighboring villages or clans, which the lords no longer
permit to be fought out, since by this the capacity of the peasants for
service would be impaired. The lords assume the right to arbitrate, and
in case of need, to enforce their judgment. In the end, it happens that
at each “court” of the village king or chief of the clan there is an
official deputy who exercises the power, while the chiefs are permitted
to retain the appearance of authority”.
State – “In all places, the same results are brought about by force of
the same socio-psychological causes. The necessity of keeping the
subjects in order and at the same time of maintaining them at their full
capacity for labor, leads step by step from the fifth to the sixth
stage, in which the state, by acquiring full intra-nationality and by
the evolution of “Nationality,” is developed in every sense. The need
becomes more and more frequent to interfere, to allay difficulties, to
punish, or to coerce obedience; and thus develop the habit of rule and
the usages of government. The two groups, separated, to begin with, and
then united on one territory, are at first merely laid alongside one
another, then are scattered through one another like a mechanical
mixture, as the term is used in chemistry, until gradually they become
more and more of a “chemical combination.” They intermingle, unite,
amalgamate to unity, in customs and habits, in speech and worship”.
This is what States are and how they have come into being in the past,
like in the present and the future. As for the friends of Islam, they
cannot stand the fact that some cutthroats have made the Koran their own
religious book. They don’t like to remember the generous funds that many
Arab countries have given the Caliphate, just like the thousands of
worshippers from all over the world who join their ranks. Just to avoid
questioning their adored religion – which in their case presents itself
magnificently, with a name that means submission – they prefer to
attribute the recent massacres to a Jewish conspiracy that aims to taint
their pacific reputation. These brief reflections help explain the
reasons why we, in contrast to the current trend, take the liberty of
observing that the term chosen by the slaughterers of Paris is
fundamentally accurate: the Islamic State. Namely, terrestrial and
divine authorities united, hand in hand, in the exploitation and
massacre of every human freedom.


Translated by Actforfreedom now!

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.