A Statue for Steven Lane?
Some of you may find this post objectionable because of the language and a faint odor of antisemitism. I found it very funny, and sincerely hope that antisemitism does not become an issue in this affair, although it is not possible to avoid certain facts. The man at the center of it all is Jewish, but more than that, his most ardent supporters, the ones who immediately came to his rescue - Bernard-Henri Lévy, Jean-François Kahn, Jack Lang, Robert Badinter - are also Jewish. They are the faces seen nightly on French television. Theirs is the liberal policy of open borders, sexual liberty, globalism, anti-nationalism, multiculturalism, etc… All the evils we perceive as destroying the French nation, they perceive as good things BECAUSE they are destroying the French nation. In the longstanding tradition of François Mitterrand, the nation is the greatest evil; progress (i.e., Socialism) the greatest good. Dominique Strauss-Kahn was a good Socialist.
The post by Paul Dautrans is from Scriptoblog
Hurraaaaah! LOVELY!
Oh hell! They're going to crucify him. They're going to put him in a penitentiary full of blacks (necessarily). With a sign around his neck: "I'm Jewish, I'm rich, and I raped a black girl from behind".
Hurraaaaah!
I promise not to say anything bad about the American leagues of virtue. For a whole week. It'll be tough, but I'll manage. What I wrote above is the last until next Monday. I swear.
Not one Americano-skeptic remark from the pen of Uncle Paul. Promise. God bless America.
You've got to admit, that this time it isn't a peasant girl from Lorraine who will have saved France, but an improbable New York cop.
In the event, it was Steven Lane, badge 03295, as the indictment below attests.
I demand a statue for Steven Lane. "To Steven Lane, from France eternally grateful."
Twenty meters high, on the promontory of the Pointe du Raz , his eyes riveted on the Yankee coast all the way over there, on the other side of the pond.
Thank you Mr. Lane. God Bless You!
Hurraaaaah! LOVELY!
While I have been receiving lots of e-mails and comments about how disgraced France is in the eyes of the world, the above article is emblematic of so many others I have read. Not all Frenchmen are feeling disgraced. Why should they? They didn't do what DSK did. Au contraire, they are almost elated this happened to such a prominent Socialist who would have been catastrophic for France had he become president. If they are gloating because he is Jewish, this is partly because there are too many prominent Jewish Socialists blabbing daily on French television about how racist the French are, how backwardly puritanical the United States is, and how great the virtues of Socialism are compared to the evils of Capitalism. The beauty of DSK is that he is a perfect example of the money-obsessed Socialist, who doles out crumbs to the workers of France, making them work harder and harder for less and less, making their daily lives miserable through lax policies on crime and immigration, sapping them of their will to take private initiatives, and at the same time slowly destroying their ancient traditions, religion and values.Also, to some female readers who are afraid that DSK is typical of Frenchmen, I can only remind you that DSK is typical of a spoiled rich man used to having his way. If he cannot control himself, somebody should have stopped him. The same was true of Bernie Madoff - they knew what he was doing, they should of stopped him. Ditto John F. Kennedy. But people are afraid of getting involved, afraid of losing their jobs, or worse.
I think the disgrace for France is not so much what DSK did, but that the backwardly puritanical "Ricains" caught him and hold him. If only he had done this at Sofitel Bangkok!
Now, MY biggest fear is that we will mess up as we did in the O.J. Simpson trial and let him off easy because he is a privileged member of what the French are calling the "Caste".
Labels: DSK, Ethics/Morals, Justice, United States
posted by tiberge @ 4:45 PM
23 comments
links to this post
23 Comments:
Man, I wish they would pin that sign on Strauss-Kahn! At any rate, Mr. Dautrans is also right in that: this is the biggest favor we Americans have done the French in years!
«Theirs is the liberal policy of open borders, (...) globalism, anti-nationalism, multiculturalism, (...) they perceive as good things BECAUSE they are destroying the (...) nation.»
It's not just the socialists! Capitalists too! Even the church is acting weird!
@ anonymous
Yes, that's true. But everyone is infected with liberalism - the Church, the "conservatives", and all political parties that claim to be traditionalist, except perhaps for the monarchists, who constitute a tiny minority. And they too might prove themselves "infected" should they ever gain power.
Liberalism/Socialism has become too all-prevailing to be denied, except by a few brave souls who get labeled "extremists"
Still, this event has released a flood of commentary that reveals that all Frenchmen are not fooled.
Yes, I also do not want to see anti-Semitism become a factor in this issue.
A Jewish friend ( who was a Reform Jew and liberal and is now Orthodox and conservative) told me a year ago "When you look at an Orthodox Jew, you are looking at an conservative voter." But liberal, secular Jews in the US far outnumber the orthodox, conservative Jews.
I am pro-Israel, not for religious reasons but because I believe we should not turn our backs on the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East. I do not understand European sympathy with the Palestinians.
But also, although I have no animosity toward Israel, I dislike DSK's statement that he wakes up every morning thinking about what he can do to help Israel. France should be the first concern of a French president, just as America should be the first concern of an American.
Diane
@ Diane,
In addition to which one can ask what he would have done for Israel. He is a Socialist. Israel, like so many other Western countries is today fighting for its survival because of Socialist policies that have favored Arabs and that have allowed Arabs to sit in the Knesset. Is there an Arab nation with Jews in its parliament? How would he have dealt with the huge number of Muslims in France, and at the same time helped Israel? As mayor of Sarcelles he showed great initiative in creating jobs for the North African population, including many Moroccans. He was a good friend of the fallen leader of Tunisia Ben Ali. He owns a huge property in Marrakech Morocco. If he wakes up every morning worrying about Israel, it's no wonder! I would too with him as president of France. He would have triple loyalties. I shudder to think what would have happened with him as president.
Crusader88,
How right you are about "the biggest favor ....in years"! A slightly less important favor : by reacting as he did, Bernard-Henri Levy must have convinced many Americans that he is no genuine "philosopher" : another good riddance!
Anonymous,
You are right too : socialists and capitalist have worked together for decades to destroy ALL western nations, not only France ; just look at what the City and the Labour have done to Britain!
Diane,
Don't worry ; there is not yet much antisemitism in France, except from the muslim population ; of course, the simultaneous "levée de bouclier" in favor of DSK by people in politics, the media or showbiz, people who HAPPEN to be Jews...well, this is not going to help, is it? It is our job here to make sure that everybody understands these "stars" are not representative of the Jewish community ; I know Jews who are furious atJack Lang, for instance, because they think he "creates" antisemitism!
Now a short answer to one of your previous comments : French lovers, Latin Lovers...are sheer myths that many French or Italian men cherish ; it makes them self-confident, poor things! In fact, I am convinced that the rate of faithful couples is roughly the same everywhere. On the other hand, it is true that after 1968, what had been known only of "the rich" (who "got the pleasure") was demanded by "the poor" (who no longer wanted to "take the blame"). Just a personal anecdote : once a friend -a school-friend, really - told me I was not normal because I did not "sleep with another man than my husband ; she was even sorry for me, because she feared I was missing a lot of pleasant experiments ; she told me I should try everything....To all this I answered that there was a difference between being "normal" and being "in the norm" ; I am afraid she did not catch my meaning.
Tiberge,
We were so worried at the prospect of DSK in the Elysée that we are relieved in spite of the mess he has created, in spite of the damage he has caused to our country which, I am sure, he has never felt as his country.
Something amusing : apparently, according to the media, the disappearence of DSK from the political stage is bringing Marine's popularity down....
Tiberge,
Since at least the 60's/70's that politicians have been promising to halt immigration! POLITICIANS ARE COHORTS OF CAPITALISTS! CAPISTALISTS WANT MASS IMMIGRATION TO SCREW PEOPLE'S SALARIES, ETC.
@ anonymous
Everything you say is doubly true of Socialists. Today, there is no national capitalism, geared to the enrichment of a nation. It is global capitalism, dependent on vast waves of immigrants moving around, taking jobs and welfare subsidies, and, through the weapons of anti-racist policies and political correctness, driving fear into the hearts of anyone who criticizes them. If you don't like immigrants, you are a racist.
The authentic nationalists/patriots/traditionalists are now relegated to a lepers' colony. Socialist capitalism is prevailing and DSK is a good example.
Capitalism, in and of itself, is not connected to a political ideology, but in earlier times, Socialists took an anti-capitalist stand in the name of equality of distribution of wealth. But now that has changed. It is the Socialists who hold the power to distribute wealth. In order to survive they have to silence and disable the older order, based on individual effort and private enterprise.
Socialist policies are not necessarily evil when they are geared to the needs of a specific nation, provided there is enough free enterprise, freedom of speech and personal motivation to self-improvement. But when they are geared to the destruction of that nation and to population replacement, then they become evil.
There are of course many on the "Right" who also participating in this dismantling of the older order because they want cheap labor. In view of the general civilizational crisis, I cannot regard these people as authentic conservatives or even as capitalists in the older sense. They are "libertarians" in the sense of "greed is good."
Tiberge,
the welfare system is under attack.
Today, there is no national capitalism, geared to the enrichment of a nation.
it is geared to the enrichment of some people.
They are "libertarians" in the sense of "greed is good."
they are capitalists in the sense «they would sell their own mothers».
Recently in the United States the Supreme Court issue a ruling that overturned the McCain - Feingold campaign finance reform law that limited the ability of corporations to spend money on political advertising. The ruling was based on the issue of free speech, which the court ruled applies to corporations which for over a century have been considered a person under the law.
The idea that corporate groups have rights equal to those of real persons in a society is a threat to any form of democracy based on the equality of the individual, and is a step in social evolution backward towards the structures of the Middle Ages. Recognizing the rights of corporations as equal to those of actual persons increases the power of accumulated wealth to decide what the rules are that govern how we can live our lives. When corporations exercise their influence there is little doubt that when the question is between corporate interest and the well being of society, which way they will influence the decision.
The power of corporations is a direct threat to personal freedom. The more this power increases the more people are made dependent upon them and the less ability people have to deviate from what the corporations want them to do. As corporate power grows corporations absorb more and more of our infrastructure, buying up businesses and property and taking over government services. The end result could be a return to a feudal system where most of the population are serfs in the service of one corporation or another. Unlike the older feudal structures, however, instead of the ruler being at the top of the pile, in today's developing feudal society the corporations own the rulers who are being reduced to corporate functionaries. The real power lies in the board rooms.
The recent Supreme Court ruling is a step in the direction of greater corporate influence in our lives, and not just American lives since the United States has such a great impact on world society, whatever happens there sends ripples throughout the rest of the world, particularly in Canada which is so closely bound to it.
The future will depend on whether the trend of increasing corporate wealth and power is allowed to continue. If it does, the ideals of freedom and democracy will be replaced with ones emphasizing compliance and loyalty to corporate will. Reversing the trend will require public pressure, a lot of it, to reduce corporate power and increase the power of the individual.
To maintain and expand our freedom we need to vote for politicians willing to change the legal status of corporations, and make them subservient to the public, not the other way around. We need leaders who will take away corporate personhood, who will make corporations justify their existence and go through a public review process before they are granted a charter, and go through it periodically to get their charter renewed. We need to put an end to limited liability and make those who own corporations responsible for corporate actions.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-New-Feudalism-by-Jerry-West-100126-217.html
What's fascinating about the time in which we live is that modern serfs are still, at present, willing to fight to the death so that their Lords can maintain this ridiculous inequity. To suggest, as Chesterton did, that the principal trouble with capitalism is that there are too few capitalists is to invite being shouted down as a socialist, Marxist or Commie not by the CEO, but by the people who are watching their savings vanish, their jobs disappear, and their buying power dwindle while presidents of failed corporations ditch the plane in a golden parachute. Ideology is the triumph of the All Explaining Theory of Everything over reality. The Commie wants the wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the State. The Capitalist wants it concentrated in the hands of the rich man. Chesterton thought wealth and power shouldn't be concentrated but part of the common good and that everybody should own a little property, run a little business and take care of his family. Naturally, he is vilified as a closet communist by the people who think Ayn Rand is a genius.
"Chesterton thought wealth and power shouldn't be concentrated but part of the common good and that everybody should own a little property, run a little business and take care of his family."
Chesterton was a good and wise man.
I once called myself a libertarian. I was a former liberal who didn't feel comfortable with that horrifying word "conservative." Until I realized that really, I was actually a Burkean conservative. I have a great regard for tradition, for the accumulated wisdom of generations. Libertarians, like leftists, do not. In fact the major priority of most libertarians I know seems to be repeal of the drug laws, which is rather low on my own "must-do" list. I can't stand Ayn Rand, and, as a Christian, I find her disdain of charity and championing of selfishness objectionable. While I am for as small a government as possible, I recognize the need for a safety net for the weakest and most vulnerable among us. I have a friend with a Downs syndrome child. The child - actually he is now 20, but behaves more like a 6 year old - will never be able to support himself and my friend worries constantly about what will happen to her much-loved son after she is dead and unable to look after him. I have no objection to my tax money helping people like Evan. That is not a libertarian stance.
However, I don't worry about the libertarians, because a world they envision is no more probable than a world which lollipops rain from the heavens. The least of my worries is what we will do with MINIMAL government. No, the danger is the reverse, that so many people are addicted to the massive nanny state, and will react violently once the spigots are turned off. We are seeing the end of the social welfare state in the West and my guess is that we are in for 15-20 very rough years because many people will not accept the demographic facts - the boomers are retiring and did not have enough children to support them in their old age. True in New Jersey and California, true in France and the UK and Germany. People can yell and scream all day - that doesn't change the fact that the money just isn't there.
As Mark Steyn says, the paradox is that you need a religious society's birthrate to sustain a secular welfare state.
So, anon., I agree with you and believe that the ideal society is one in which everyone owns a small piece of property. But right now that vision is threatened, and not mainly, or primarily by Ayn Rand devotees, but by leftists - like DSK who want the rest of us to sacrifice, while they enjoy $3000 a night hotels (like DSK) and homes with every amenity (like Al Gore.)
Diane
@ diane,
Thank you for undertaking to respond to Anon's thesis. I admit I was overwhelmed at the thought. But you have expressed many of my own thoughts better than I could.
Diane
laboral precarity, low salaries, mass importation of thirld-world workers, etc: that's why people don't have more children.
"Israel, like so many other Western countries."
You are a Western country by virtue of being a country of Western peoples. The Jews are a semetic people. You can be a Western country by virtue of being in the West. Isreal is in the middle east. For a millenium the West was synonomous with Christianity and was often referred to as "Christiandom", Israel is not a Christian country.
I see no basis for calling Isreal a Western country, anymore than I would call Japan a Western country. Japan has a market economy, multi-party democracy, a strong social safety net. It's organized like England or the USA, but it's still not a Western country.
Funny how people always make this claim about Isreal.
"the ones who immediately came to his rescue - Bernard-Henri Lévy, Jean-François Kahn, Jack Lang, Robert Badinter - are also Jewish. They are the faces seen nightly on French television"
I have gathered many links and quotes from the English-language media in Top International Banker Arrested.
«We are seeing the end of the social welfare state in the West»
THE TRAITOROUS ELITE HAVE BEEN OVER-SPENDING IT WITH THIRD-WORLD-MASS-INVASION!
«I have no objection to my tax money helping people like Evan. That is not a libertarian stance.»
I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO MY TAX MONEY HELPING EUROPEAN PEOPLE. The others should ask islam (lol) and bug off to where they came from!
G8 IS GOING TO GIVE BILLION OF EUROS TO RICH OIL ARAB COUNTRIES!
@ anonymous
Not relevant to this post. But see my latest post on the G8.
off-topic?
American Jewish groups are fighting a proposed ban of Sharia law in the state of Oklahoma.
The AJC filed a brief last week with the US Court of Appeals arguing that the ban is an attack on religious freedom.
He said American Jewish groups often work with mainstream Islamic organisations. "The AJC has organised three trips for moderate Muslims to visit Israel," Mr Schwartz said.
http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/49526/jewish-groups-us-backing-sharia-law
The above link is not relevant to the post. But it was interesting enough to post. Stephen Schwartz is not a good example to use in judging Jewish political positions. Once converted, he should have just stayed a Muslim. Still it is true that most American Jews are liberals and are stupid enough to believe that moderate Islam is a reality. They are not the only ones by any means, but since they are a group their naivete is a reflection of "group think". They may be doing harm to their country, but most naive people don't care if they do harm. They cling to their naivete like a crutch.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home