Total Divestiture?

Few have heard about this new law on finances, but according to François Desouche and his sources, it is a matter of great urgency:

If you take time to read the law on finances for the year 2010, you will see that there is a clear indication of the destruction, by the French State under Nicolas Sarkozy, of more than two centuries of protection of our national heritage.

It was in 1794 that Abbé Grégoire, attacking revolutionary vandalism (...), affirmed the existence of a collective patrimony that the Nation was duty-bound to protect: "public respect must surround in particular national objects which, since they belong to no one, are the property of everyone."

Immediately thereafter the Convention decided to protect "objects relating to the arts, history and instruction". Guizot, in 1830, created the first post of inspector of historic monuments, a post that Prosper Mérimée occupied with passion from 1834 to 1853, establishing the foundations for State protection of important monuments and instituting a classification of buildings.

The article then describes how successive regimes continued this policy and how the buildings themselves grew in number, especially in the 20th century.

In 2003, Jean-Jacques Aillagon (former minister of culture) had already authorized the ceding of certain monuments to the regions, but besides the fact that few were anxious to buy buildings that required expensive maintenance, the minister of culture had at that time very precisely limited the possibilities for the State to divest itself of its patrimony.

Now, article 52 of the law on finances extends the perimeter of the transferable monuments and sites, which will no longer be limited to a list fixed by decree, but which will include, starting in 2010, the totality of monuments belonging to the State and to its public establishments. Moreover, the State will now be able to transfer classified properties.

On first reading the law, one could say that ceding the patrimony to the regions is merely the lesser evil. Except that the law is silent on this point: nothing bars the regions from making another transfer to a commercially oriented cultural enterprise, or even to an individual.

Finally, it is essential to point out that only the prefect will be able to rule on these transfers, the minister of culture, though involved in the beginning, will not have to be consulted.

Some UMP party members are openly happy about this, and the special rapporteur of the finance committee reveals the underlying logic of the plan when he says: "It is in line with the "désétatisation" (i.e. withdrawal of the State) of the heritage that was recommended in a 2002 report on historical monuments. In truth, it is the job of the whole society to preserve and maintain the national patrimony. The State cannot have any monopoly in this matter."

Note: I can't help noticing that the State divests itself of anything that recalls the monarchical and Catholic past, the artistic and architectural past, etc... But the State is omnipotent and ubiquitous in all matters of the present: affirmative action, hiring practices, métissage, school curriculum, bio-ethics, immigration, etc... The French State wants no monopoly over issues relating to the preservation of its cultural heritage, only over those issues relating to the destruction of that very heritage.

The extreme gravity of this decision explains the troubled reaction of a few deputies from the Right, like Nicolas Perruchot, special rapporteur of the finance committee in the National Assembly, who, though unwilling to oppose the free-market logic of the plan, proposes that there be at least, within a "negative list" those properties that are "non-transferable", such as the Arc de Triomphe, Versailles, las Invalides and the Louvre, to cite his examples. But it is easy to imagine that a prefect might agree to unload Chartres Cathedral, the Vendôme Column, or the Pont du Gard, even Mont-Saint-Michel, so dear to the heart of Nicolas Sarkozy.

At a time when the president is wallowing in national identity, evoking the carnal link of the Frenchman with the earth and those who have died on it, and demanding that a museum devoted to national history be built, it is clear that the free-market logic wins the day, for him and his party, over any attachment of the Nation to its patrimony, that he couldn't care less about French traditions, and that, in truth, his so-called attachment to our past is nothing more than a source of campaign financing.

Note: I strongly oppose any argument that says that this is MAINLY a free-market issue. While he may make some money on this immoral deal, he would make infinitely more money if he kept the State monopoly over the national patrimony and stopped his policies of immigration, welfare benefits, free housing to invaders, affirmative action jobs, phony (and ultimately costly) diplomas to people who hate France, and so forth. The Welfare State, when it spills out beyond the precinct of entitlements to ethnic Frenchmen, becoming entitlements to ANYBODY who happens to land in France, is the costliest of all boondoggles.

The truth is, as I have indicated in my note above, and as the author of the article says in a somewhat roundabout way, is that Nicolas Sarkozy WANTS to divest French territory of any trace of the past (except a few tokens for tourists) while pursuing his extravagantly prohibitive and destructive policies of immigration/Islamization/"deculturization"/re-formation of identity.

A school full of State-indoctrinated teachers and violent pupils who receive State diplomas is a million times costlier than a good old-fashioned school next to an old Catholic church that has to be repaired or repainted.

Or, to put it differently: he wants to make money in any way he can WITHOUT disrupting his anti-French programs. Thus the free-market logic is put into the service of nation-destroying government policies, but this free-market logic COULD be put to good use FOR the French people in the context of traditional France, all the while keeping the social legislation they want.

Never forget what Sarkozy said to Philippe de Villiers years ago:

"You're lucky, Philippe, you love France, her history and her countryside. But all of that leaves me cold. I'm only interested in the future..."

French readers may be interested in this companion piece from Le Monde.

I have dealt with this topic before. Here is one example.

Photo is of the rose windows of Reims cathedral. As of now it is not for sale.