But here is an example of blue scarf rhetoric apparently coming out of France at the moment:
These [Muslim] invaders insult us, call us “chalk face,” attack us, rob us, drug our children, rape our girls, burn our cars by the thousands, burn our churches, burn our infrastructure, our schools, our libraries, but we Frenchmen are forced to remain silent.
I accuse the leaders we have had for the last 30 years for the evil that they have done to our civilization, our country, our people, our religious beliefs; for allowing these people in and granting them quick citizenship.
But we are now beginning to revolt against this genocide of ethnic Europeans, against this inquisition, against the extinction of our country that many now call Francarabia. This revolutionary movement is called the Blue Revolution and it is growing rapidly. We all wear blue scarves as a sign of solidarity.
As in the former Soviet dictatorships, people who “upset the apple-cart” disappear one way or another. Methods used on Solzhenitsyn are back in vogue here and I know I am taking a great risk.
I ask for your understanding and for your support. I would like to ask for your troops to liberate us, but I know this cannot be. The important thing to remember is that we are all in the same boat, all in the same fight.
This is an excerpt from a letter ostensibly sent to the French translator for Lawrence Auster's blog, View From the Right, where you can read the whole thing, at the preceding link. Auster naturally queries the veracity of the letter.
But this is somewhat besides the point because this unsigned letter is obviously part of a rhetorical war that has broken out within the west between those who would defend or apologize for violence performed in the name of Islam, and those who find such apologetics unacceptable. Rhetoric can be somewhat rough stuff (never as rough as, always preferable to, outright silencing) but it is a necessary means for us to discover and avow new political truths. I would suggest to my readers that as they struggle to chooose among rhetorics, they reject, in the first place, any rhetoric that proposes to eliminate the free movement of rhetoric itself. And this is the situation we face in the midst of the present cartoon revelation, with countless western "leaders" implicitly or explicitly proposing/suggesting/hoping to curtail disrespectful speech in the name of some false moral equivalency.
If we are to have free rhetoric, it must be because we believe in the search for shared human truths. We must value all humans as our equals, but not their ideas or beliefs which are subject to the tests of history. This entails finding some rhetorics superior to others, just as I find, in the war of the two great proselytizing monotheisms, the rhetoric of Christianity superior to that of Islam, precisely because the latter calls on us to obey its rhetoric as the final world, without testing this word's validity within particular historical contexts on behalf of an ongoing revelation or evolution towards some higher, transcendent model of divine personhood. To follow Mohammed, as so many are presently making clear to us, is to obey, much less to become.
Our small project of becoming better persons, in the fight against western nihilism or liberal relativism which may now include among its numbers our Conservative Prime Minister, but not the CAIR-type parasites such nihilism and relativism attracts, continues this Thursday, 7pm at the Mcdonalds at Main and Terminal in Vancouver, British Columbia.
UPDATE: Here is Dag's latest blue scarf post with a statement by Claude Reichman, the ostensible leader of the Blue Revolution in France.