Rabbi Bernheim - Sequel

Jewish acceptance of Marine Le Pen is still a problem for the Front National, despite determined efforts by the party leadership to dispel the doubts of the Jewish community. But more than that, non-Jewish Frenchmen can be persuaded not to vote for her on grounds that the party is inherently antisemitic, a claim made by several prominent French Jews.

On January 20, I posted an article on the remarks made by the grand Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim. Remarks that were criticized and rebutted by Riposte Laïque. Now an article by Jacques Rosen, of the Union of Jewish Frenchmen (U-F-J), on the same topic, has been posted at Nations Presse:

Gilles Bernheim, grand Rabbi of France, has just presented his book, N'oublions pas de penser la France, in an interview in the February 25 issue of the magazine Marianne.

Note: The book's title translates "Let us not forget to think of France."

Once again, Gilles Bernheim uses the journal to designate the main enemy of the Jews according to him, Marine Le Pen, whom he pigeonholes in what he calls "a movement anchored for a hundred years in French political life and which, from Action française to 'pétainisme' and to 'lepenisme', has always been intrinsically antisemitic." He then hammers in the nail: "Even if Madame Le Pen is a friend of the Jews, what she says about other minorities, notably the offensive way she treats the Muslims of France, is incompatible with the laws of Judaism."

Note: Read about the monarchist organization Action française at Wikipedia. (Remember that the Front National is not and has never been monarchist.)

Here is the second paragraph:

It was founded during the Dreyfus affair, partly in reaction to the left-wing revitalization that materialized in defense of the army captain, famously launched by Emile Zola's J'accuse. Originally a nationalist organization that attracted figures such as Maurice Barrès, it became monarchist under the influence of Charles Maurras, who followed the counter-revolutionary theorist, Joseph de Maistre. Until its dissolution at the end of the Second World War, the Action Française was a prominent proponent of far-right integral nationalism, which regarded the nation as an organic entity, a wedding of blood and soil.

Note: "Pétainsime" and "lepenisme" derive from Pétain and Le Pen.

Then, remembering perhaps that the antisemitism today in France is for the most part of Islamic origin, the grand Rabbi launches into a diatribe to remind the Muslim immigrants who do not play by the rules, without naming them, of course, of their duties on French soil: "Why take the liberty of doing on foreign soil, and more so in a host country, what would not be tolerated in the homeland? … Usage and custom tactfully observed… without behaving as if in conquered territory, without giving lessons or disrupting local customs… Their legitimate demands for the preservation of their 'differences' cannot justify attempts at destabilization or veritable dissidence, by importing external conflicts and conduct that is no longer merely exotic but totally deviant, or by threatening public order, juridical order, as well as the fundamental specificities of civilization of the national community."

Note: The Rabbi seems to have a clear perception of what the Muslims are doing to France: destabilizing, dissenting, acting like conquerors, threatening the peace of the State, etc… But none of this helps to exonerate Marine Le Pen. He may be working in the service of Nicolas Sarkozy, either officially or otherwise.

Rabbi Bernheim, is a minimal sense of history too much to ask of the religious authority you represent? You have worn thin the thread of "pétainisme", thick as it is: once again you have to be reminded that the overwhelming majority of Vichy personnel came from the Left before the war, and that a large number returned to the Left AFTER the war, such as Mitterand who never concealed the fact, and who is still the model for Socialists today, without your feeling the slightest concern. And if you were to really seek an ancestor of today's French patriotic movement, it would be rather in the Croix-de-Feu movement that you would find it, of which many French Jews were members who were always on the side of the Resistance.

Note: The Croix-de-Feu began as a nationalist veterans group and evolved into the Parti social français. According to Wikipedia it opposed racism and antisemitism. Still, some historians regard it as a native form of fascism. The story of the Croix-de-feu is complex, and new to me. Here are links to Wikipedia, in English and French.

Rabbi Bernheim, is a minimal coherency too much to ask of the religious authority you represent? Why would what Marine Le Pen says about those Muslim immigrants who do not conduct themselves correctly in our country, which is exactly what you yourself say, namely that they have responsibilities on French soil and they are expected to behave in accordance with our laws, be "incompatible with the values of Judaism"? In what way would these healthy words be "offensive" from the mouth of Marine Le Pen, and revealed truth from yours? Do you realize that when you ostracize Marine Le Pen this way, you are trying at the same time to blacklist all those who are legitimately concerned about the Islamization of France, including many French Jews? Do you understand that no other French political leader today, no other presidential candidate, has shown the will to really act in accordance with this observation, namely to really demand respect for our laws and institutions from everybody?

Rabbi Bernheim, is minimal courage too much to ask of the religious authority you represent? What is changed by the fact that you don't even dare name the Muslims who disrespect our laws? Do you think that by refusing to name the problem the Jews and non-Jews of France will be able to fight Islamic antisemitism? Or do you believe it is a service you are rendering to all the other Muslims who do respect our laws when you pretend not to see what, in Islam, is incompatible with "public order, juridical order, as well as the fundamental specificities of civilization of the national community."

Rabbi Bernheim, would it be asking too much of the philosopher, the priest, the man, that he open his eyes before it is too late?

Note: As I read the French Wikipedia page on the Front National, I did not note any special affinity with either the Croix-de-feu or the Action française. The FN was founded in 1972 by Jean-Marie Le Pen and was at first a loosely organized association of various right-wing ideologies. In some ways the party today is still a composite of many ideologies: national-republicanism, nationalism, sovereignty, Euro-skepticism, populism, conservatism, social conservatism. And despite the provocative remarks made over the years by Jean-Marie Le Pen, it is hard to imagine that such a party has been demonized to the extent it has.

Marine Le Pen for Rural Traditions

Marine Le Pen has started a new website called Ruralité 2012, devoted to rural traditions and current problems in the countryside. Her immediate goal is to try to convince the mayors who gave their signatures to the CPNT party to give them to her.

The CPNT (Chasse, Pêche, Nature et Traditions - Hunting, Fishing, Nature and Traditions) is a lesser known party attached to the UMP party of Nicolas Sarkozy. The CPNT candidate, Frédéric Nihous dropped out of the race recently and threw his support to Sarkozy. Several other lesser candidates have dropped out as well.

A letter from Guillaume Vouzellaud, environmental adviser to Marine Le Pen, was addressed to the mayors who had sponsored Nihous. Here is an excerpt:

Beyond your personal convictions, you thought - justifiably so - that Frédéric Nihous would participate, with others, in the democratic debate preceding this election that will determine the political life of our country. However, with his withdrawal, and those of Jean-Pierre Chevènement, Christine Boutin and Hervé Morin, you can see that everything is being done to restrict the choices offered to our citizens. Political pluralism is in danger!

More serious still for the countryside, it seems that the unfortunate candidate of the CPNT was used merely as a "collector of votes" for the UMP candidate since he threw his complete support to Nicolas Sarkozy, a veritable gravedigger of country life, rural public services, and free administration of territorial collectivities… the countryside, for the UMP, is a France that's dead!

A few topics from Ruralité 2012:

- The rampant privatization of our national heritage goes on. Now it is the famous "haras national du Pin", in Normandy, department of l'Orne, the jewel in the crown of French equestrian art, that is being removed from State control.

Note: "Haras national" refers to the French national association of horse-breeders.

- Three months from the election Nicolas Sarkozy removed the hunting moratorium on curlews and eider that has been in place since 2003. We already are familiar with the migratory habits of these two elegant birds and we are thrilled that the mere approach of an election is sufficient to remove the dangers that threaten them…

One of the strongest criticisms hurled at Sarkozy is his adherence to the laws of the European Union that regulate the planting of vineyards:

- In 10 years the number of individual growers has decreased by 10% to the benefit of large companies, accentuating the progressive disappearance of independent growers and small cooperatives...

Turkey Walks Out

From Yves Daoudal we learn that Turkey is in a snit, fortunately for Europe:

According to Die Welt, the Turkish government announced to European authorities that it would suspend all official relations with the EU during the rotating presidency of Cyprus (during the second semester).

It had already warned that it would not negotiate its candidacy with a country it does not recognize.

The admissions process will therefore remain a dead issue this year. Last year, for the first time since the start of the process, in 2005, no new chapter of negotiations was opened.

At Le Salon Beige this was welcome news. One commenter expressed what everybody was thinking:

- In this case, couldn't we grant a permanent honorary presidency to Cyprus?

Campaigning

Here's a refreshing campaign poster from Marine.

Halal on the Table

As a follow-up to my previous post, this article by Roger Heurtebise of Riposte Laïque, describes what happened after Marine Le Pen announced legal proceedings against distributors of halal meat.

Last Thursday a report on France 2 revealed to the public what Riposte Laïque and many others (Brigitte Bardot Foundation, Bloc Identitaire, etc…) have been saying for months and even years: the French people are consuming halal meat without knowing it, whether purchased from their local butcher or from the supermarket.

The political reactions to this report? None.

But the following weekend, Marine Le Pen repeated these findings during the campaign meeting of the Front National in Lille.

And suddenly there was a general uproar from the Front de Gauche to the UMP, from the ministers to the media! The truth had become, in their eyes, political manipulation and "Islamophobie."

Thus, after the Lille meeting, the television program Mots Croisés (Crosswords) on France 2, Monday February 20, held a round-table discussion. Yves Calvi had as his guests:

- Bruno Le Maire, Minister of Agriculture
- Julien Dray, Socialist deputy
- Clémentine Autain, spokesman for the Front de Gauche (a left-wing coalition including the Communist Party)
- Jean-Luc Bennahmias, European deputy, and vice-chairman of the Modem (a centrist party)
- Florian Philippot, campaign strategist for Marine Le Pen
- Guillaume Roquette, editor of Valeurs Actuelles (a moderate conservative journal)

Note: The following is greatly condensed:

On the topic of halal meat the four politicians joined forces as one man against Florian Philippot. They made no attempt to find the truth. Instead they continuously harassed him.

Their witch hunt was reduced to two overused methods of misinformation: it's not true, and even if it is true, you are only saying it to stigmatize Muslims.

After denials, the Minister of Agriculture finally admitted there had been "abuses" and "wrong turns", and that beginning in July 2012, by government decree, ritual slaughter will be done only in response to orders that are strictly halal or kosher.

Florian Philippot reviewed the facts about halal slaughter: the UMP opposition to the EU's directive to label all meat, the suffering of the animals, the contamination of the meat, the promises made by Nicolas Sarkozy to Brigitte Bardot - promises broken.

In the opinion of Bruno Le Maire, Marine Le Pen brought up this topic during her campaign to stigmatize and create a scapegoat. He found the debate "ignoble" and divisive.

Clémentine Autain wondered what the debate could be about if not to "stigmatize Arabs and Muslims" which is "intolerable racism."

Julien Dray explained that he did his homework and asked the butcher in his supermarket if the meat was halal. The butcher said no. Dray concluded that there was no problem. Dray also went after Florian Philippot saying: "You place halal meat at the center of this debate because you are losing politically." He accused Philippot of not respecting Muslims. He also dared to imply it was a Front National strategy: "There is the question of a virus, and of an illness" only to make people afraid of their "fellow citizens who have been stigmatized."

Note: The "virus" here may refer to the E coli bacteria that some veterinarians believe is present in halal meat.

Jean-Luc Bennahmias agreed in substance (sic!), but turned the conversation to other themes related to agriculture.

Guillaume Roquette dared to go against the politically correct current: "This is not a trivial debate, halal is a social practice, there is concern, and not only from the Front National, about ethnic communitarianism."

Julian Dray tried one more time to silence the heretics: "French society has evolved, there is a new France, and in this new France, there are millions of citizens who have the right to eat halal meat."

But no one questions this. The debate was not about the right of Muslims to eat halal, but the right of non-Muslims not to eat halal!

This is what we have come to in France: defending the right of French people not to eat halal is not good, and the victims are not the non-Muslims who are racists for demanding their rights, but the Muslims who are once again "stigmatized."

These people are topsy-turvy, and to think they want us to vote for them… Can you imagine what would happen if a Dray or an Autain had one ounce of power: the non-Muslims would be forced to comply with sharia, to hug the walls, and to shut their mouths, or risk assassination by the media, if not a trial for racism.

Note: Julian Dray's remarks about a "new France" are the most telling. He does not disguise the fact that France today, by design, is not traditional France. And he implies that you better get used to it because it's here to stay.

Halal in Ile-de-France

During a campaign convention of the Front National held over the weekend in Lille, Marine Le Pen announced her desire to begin legal proceedings for misrepresentation of merchandise, saying that "all" the meat sold in the Ile-de-France region is "halal".

Note: The article below may be subject to some correction due to the use of the word "all". Obviously this cannot include pork. Secondly there was some question over the conflicting figures for "tonnage" versus "animals slaughtered". That topic was discussed in another article. There may be a few other issues as well. Since so much has been written over the past few days about the situation in Ile-de-France, there will surely be more articles to come. The article is from Le Figaro and appears also at UFJ.:

"I have requested that our lawyers initiate legal proceedings against several major retailers in Ile-de-France for misrepresentation of merchandise," declared the chairman of the Front National to newspaper reporters . "It happens that the totality of meat distributed in Ile-de-France, unbeknownst to the consumer, is exclusively halal meat. This is a veritable scam, the government has known about the situation for months," she added, saying that she had "proof".

"All the slaughterhouses in Ile-de-France sell halal, without exception. Nothing but halal", she insisted. She explained that she wanted to file a suit as plaintiff so that an examining magistrate could be put in charge. An investigation lasting several months could then ensue.

Asked if she hoped to relaunch her campaign with this initiative two months from the election, she replied: "It's a way of showing the French people that they are disdained in their own country." She added that she intended "to have this scam condemned and to force the (distributors) to inform consumers about the meat they buy. "The fact that everyone is obligated to submit to the dietary rules of a religion, which, as I have always said, is new to us, is something profoundly inadmissible and scandalous."

Early in 2010 Marine Le Pen had already sparked a controversy over the halal menu at Quick fast-food chain.

Below, an illustration from Riposte Laïque, showing a pig (an emblem of a France without halal) waving the red disqualifying card.

DSK Questioned

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who arrived this morning (February 21) at the Lille gendarmerie for questioning in the Carlton Affair, has been placed in custody, according to BFM-TV.

From Le Figaro.

A reminder that I posted a long article on the Carlton Affair back in November.

Marine vs Laurent Ruquier

Update: February 21 - The video originally placed in this post was removed by the author for reasons unknown. I have replaced it with a longer version of the same material. The text translated below begins at 3'10" into the segment.

In this three-minute segment from a much longer program Saturday night, Marine Le Pen battled with Laurent Ruquier. She didn't win, but she didn't lose either. She didn't really have a chance against this aggressive and cynical talk show host. The main topic was that loathsome poster, below, that Ruquier had displayed on his show. See my post from January.



Ruquier: Your book is entitled "Pour que vive la France", by Marine Le Pen. I'm happy you accepted our invitation. Just a word - and I'll give you the time to respond to me - I grant you your electoral legitimacy but you must grant that my legitimacy comes not from the seraglio from which I come, nor from my family, but it is thanks to my audience that I am on the public media. (Applause)

Marine: Monsieur Ruquier, I don't question your professionalism, I don't want you to forget that 20% of your salary is paid for by my constituents.

Ruquier: I don't think we have forgotten that this evening. We haven't forgotten it.

Marine: Often you do.

Ruquier: In the context of this electoral campaign, I'm delighted to have you here. (Applause)

Marine: In the context of the electoral campaign, will you reduce the bill for the 20%?

Ruquier: We'll see. We'll see. If the viewers aren't happy with my programs they can zap, you know.

Marine: OK, but the problem is that we are on public media… and it happens that my 20%...

At this point they are talking at the same time.

Ruquier: … and for now I am rendering a service to the majority who like this program

Marine: … are legitimately shocked because they contribute to the existence of this program...

Ruquier: If the majority of the public were really shocked they wouldn't watch this program.

Marine: … and to your salary, and the revenues of your corporation, and they wonder why they are disdained this way, when they are financing public media…

Ruquier: But Madame I don't disdain your voters…

Marine: Oh, so it's just me then?

Note: She got him there, and there was applause.

Ruquier: No really, I don't disdain your voters

Marine: Then you perhaps committed an error when you displayed the poster with the words "The candidate who is like you". Maybe you can take the time now to apologize.

Ruquier: No, I just showed the poster that Charlie Hebdo had chosen in its story about you

Marine: You chose the poster from Charlie Hebdo...

Ruquier: I posted all the posters of all the candidates that evening…

Marine: And they were all normally depicted except for me "the candidate who is like you"...

Ruquier: I don't draw Charlie Hebdo's illustrations, Madame.

Marine: I'm not the problem, it's that the 20%, the millions of voters who…

Audrey Pulvar (in blue dress): Time's up!

Ruquier: Your time is up Madame Le Pen.




Note: What Ruquier does not point out, in his reply about zapping, is that even though viewers can turn the TV off, they cannot not pay their taxes that go into French media services. So while everybody pays, not everybody receives. This is true of all forced mutual systems. If you live in an American city, you must pay school taxes even if your children go to private schools. In France if you pay into the national health system, you must pay for abortions, even if you are opposed to them. Most people are willing to pay for reasonable and necessary services. But when cultural, ethical and ideological trends infiltrate these services, such as schools, then the people unwillingly, unknowingly, are paying for the very forces that will destroy them.

This short segment, as I indicated above, is from a longer video of over an hour. In the longer version we see that it was really Audrey Pulvar (the woman in blue) who disdained Marine Le Pen, more so than Ruquier. Audrey Pulvar is the companion of Arnaud Montebourg, an up-and-coming young Socialist politician, proud of his mixed blood, with his eyes on the prize in some future presidential election. Time permitting I will post some of it.

For the moment, here is an excerpt from an article on Pulvar's performance last night:

No attempt to listen to the responses of the candidate; visible hatred and disdain barely concealed behind her feigned exasperation, Audrey Pulvar was equal to herself and to her Socialist Party: sectarian, idiotic, holder of high morality, lesson-giver... in a word, tiresome.

Note: I do not believe "tiresome" is the right word. "Evil" sounds better. Marine can never beat "evil". Last night, she was surrounded by enemies on Ruquier's show which is the most watched political program in France.

Christian Vanneste Explains

Above is a twelve-minute version of Christian Vanneste's remarks on homosexuality. The original video is twenty minutes long and can be viewed at Liberté Politique.

There is a partial transcript of his words in French at Embruns.

This what he says, in substance, in response to questions posed by Antoine Besson:

- You are president of the Family and Freedom Association. Today the gay lobbies seem to monopolize the debate on the family. How do you explain that?

- It's a serious matter. The consequences are not measurable. Today I think that 63% of the French say they support homosexual marriage.

(Note: At this point in the video a small note appears in the upper left, saying that radio and television polls show the French are against it. This little intrusion is obviously the work of the uploader of the video.)

This is the result, obviously, of brainwashing, of media harassment, that works one-way. How do we explain this phenomenon? One of the fundamentals of homosexuality is narcissism - of course this is not always the case, but the most wide-spread fundamental of homosexuality, at least the most visible one, is narcissism. The refusal of the other. A homosexual is someone who does not refuse someone of his own sex, he refuses the other sex. And he has something of a preference, if it's a man, for the young man that he was between 17 and 20 years of age. The one he is attracted to will be his own image. Oscar Wilde, who was a lucid homosexual, said that if Adam had been homosexual, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. So he exposes very well this narcissistic reality in The Picture of Dorian Gray - the character who preserves his beauty for his whole life, who remains himself.

It goes without saying we're all a little narcissistic. In politics there are many. We adore our own image. And because of that, there are many (homosexuals) in the world of culture and the world of the media, in the whole field of communication. And what characterizes our society? It's that the media are in power. We are a "mediocratic" society - a society where the power is in the hands of the media. Because of this there has been a reversal in the importance of homosexuality. It used to be a discreet, marginal behavior, sometimes the object of jokes, and did not play a major role, even though we knew it was there. Today, it is completely different in so far as it is at the heart of power where it plays, by sheer numbers, a role that has nothing to do with the role it plays in the population. In the population it continues to be extremely marginal - 4% maximum.

Note: At this point, another note appears on the left saying that homosexuals visit websites in large numbers to manipulate the conversations that follow articles.

Today you will have trouble finding someone from the media who is not favorable toward homosexuality, and who, in addition, possesses the consummate art of deforming the facts systematically. An example: they say there are 300,000 homosexual couples who have children. It's completely false, there are about 20,000 at the most. But they systematically rig the figures. And there's the famous legend about the deportation of homosexuals. We have to be very clear here - obviously Himmler had a personal account to settle with homosexuals. In Germany there was a repression of homosexuals and a deportation of about 30,000, but this did not happen elsewhere. Except for three annexed departments there was no deportation of homosexuals in France. You could say, if you want to be nasty, and Monsieur Buisson was when he spoke about sexuality under the Occupation, that when a certain number of French intellectuals went to pay their respects to Monsieur Goebbels half of them were homosexuals. In particular the head of their group, Pétain's minister, Abel Bonnard, who everybody knew was homosexual, and whom the resistance called the "Gestapette", you may or may not find that amusing, according to your point of view. (…)

Note: Patrick Buisson wrote a book about sexuality under the Occupation called 1940 - 1945 Années érotiques, (1940 - 1945 The Erotic Years). See image below.

What is the relationship between this type of behavior and the interest of society? Very weak. For three reasons. First, if you allow homosexual marriage, why refuse polygamy? How will they have children? How will the next generation be born? Unless you turn to mechanical exploitative concepts regarding the human body - surrogate mothers, in-vitro fecundation. No. It removes from man the dignity of being alive. And then, there are those two models of humanity. You know, this "gender theory" is completely stupid. Nothing is more stupid. How can anyone imagine for one second that serious people could give any credibility to this stupid theory that mixes completely nature and culture. In human nature there are two natures, there is the nature of man and the nature of woman. The fact that this man and this woman play roles that are determined by society is true, but that has nothing to do with it. You mustn't confuse the sex with the role assigned to it. When you use the word "gender" you confuse the two, so all of that is false, wiped away with a sweep of the hand.

The child has a right to the two models of humanity, however their roles may be determined by society. He has the right to have a father and a mother, and this is very important.

A second reason is that at bottom, narcissism is a mighty egoism… Do you know what Americans call gays? They call them DINK's. That means "Double income, no kids". And it's true, when you have a double income, you live well, often luxuriously. When you don't have children, promotion is assured. Social success is assured. There are famous examples, everybody knows them… in the world of culture, in the world of fashion, in politics, there are more and more in politics. There are more and more on the Right, I have noticed, who rise quickly. That's fine… but I do not think that you can lead people when your life is so different from that of the majority. I think the opposite - it's through knowing the real lives of people that you have the right to lead them. That, I believe, is the essential.

Third point, there is a problem that has never been stated. I had stated it in a philosophical way, and for this reason it was not understood. I pointed out that it is not homosexuality, but homosexual marriage that is an anthropological aberration. An anthropological aberration quite simply because it goes against the very key of humanity, and the key of humanity is choosing the other. (…)

What does that mean? It means for example the ban on incest. What is the ban on incest? It is the ban on the "same". You will not marry within your group, because the key of humanity is exchange, matrimonial exchange, seeking one's spouse in a group other than one's own. And if you realize, then, the extent to which homosexual marriage is an aberration, because it is a sort of double negation of this key of humanity. I choose my other in the same… (he laughs) in the same sex, which means that this other will not lead to the birth of another, the child.

It is a double negation of otherness, it is an anthropological aberration, and I think that we cannot underestimate this, because often politicians, when they themselves don't defend their own personal life-style, and this is more and more the case as I said - and it worries me - they are subject to trends. Today it is not fashionable to reflect deeply, we stay on the surface of things, on the surface of polls, on the surface of the headlines that are spread by the media, which, as I said before, are in general very sexually oriented, if I may say so.

Below, the cover of the book mentioned above, from which we learn that there was great sexual freedom under the Occupation, and that this applied to homosexuals as well as to heterosexuals.

The Wages of Free Speech

Imagine for a moment you are a practicing Catholic, a member of a very politically correct ruling Party, a representative in Parliament, and opposed on religious grounds to homosexual marriage and to the influence of the gay lobby, in general. Imagine you are accused by homosexual groups of being homophobic. You are tried in court, convicted, fined, and eventually (almost four years later) absolved since the court determined that what you had said did not go beyond what is allowed by freedom of speech laws. Imagine that through all of this you have problems with the Party leadership that regards you as a detriment, but at the same time you remain in the Party, albeit on the fringes in a smaller party you founded for yourself and your sympathizers. Many traditionalist Catholics wonder about your sincerity and your basic principles. How can you remain in a Party that supports homosexual marriage and adoption, all the while proclaiming your opposition to the act of homosexuality? How can you vote for the leader of such a Party?

Now it is 2012. Imagine that once again you put your foot in it. It's election time and you decide to say to a Catholic publication certain things that homosexuals do not want to hear, even though they are true, and historians have said they are true. This time, it's too much. The politically correct Party kicks you out. There is a major scandal around your name and reputation, you are vilified in the press and by liberal organizations. Some on the Right defend you, others do not, despite your attempts to justify your action.

The little work of fiction above was the only way I could present the current scandal revolving around Christian Vanneste, the deputy from Tourcoing in the department of the Nord (northern France). I wrote much about him in the past, when he was sued by homosexuals for his comments about the "inferiority" of homosexuality. And once again he has generated more articles and commentary than can comfortably be condensed in one post.

Recently he declared that there was no deportation of French homosexuals during the Second World War, except for some that were in departments annexed by the Reich.

Nicolas Sarkozy expressed outrage and horror at such homophobia.

Historian Serge Klarsfeld, lawyer Gilles-William Goldnadel and journalist Eric Zemmour, all Jews, came to his defense.

The Front National has turned against him. The reasons for this are not clear. Some say the FN is sanitizing itself too much, and is now behaving more like the Establishment. Some feel that Vanneste is unreliable and provocative and the FN should stay away from him in this critical election period. The communiqués from the FN indicate a belief that there were homosexuals deported from France.

Here we have another example of how certain lobbies, special interest groups, ethnic communities, etc… make reasonable discourse impossible, and thus divert a nation's path from one of freedom and progress to one of fear and stagnation.

French readers can read and listen to Eric Zemmour at NDF. Here is a sample:

"Never were French homosexuals sent to concentration camps because of their sexual orientation. In Germany, they were. In France, no. The only Frenchmen sent to the camps were Alsatian citizens of the Reich, hence Germans."

Zemmour also points out that there was almost unfettered sexual freedom under the Occupation, as reported by those who have studied the period or lived through it, such as Jean-Paul Sartre.

Serge Klarsfeld's remarks are also at NDF. Again, an excerpt:

"If they say that the deportation of homosexuals took place anywhere but in the Reich, notably in France, either they are innocently mistaken, or they are knowingly mistaken.

You absolutely cannot compare this type of deportation with that of the Jews. What is really interesting is in finding out how and why in Germany, while some Nazis were homosexuals, they were arresting homosexuals."

My thoughts: Deputy Vanneste should have left the UMP party long ago. He is now trying to say he has had enough of the UMP, but he should have had enough long ago. And the Front National should have taken his side on grounds of freedom of speech.

As I was about to post, this "flash" from Le Figaro arrived in my box. How ironic:

The appeals court of Paris today condemned Jean-Marie Le Pen to a three months suspended sentence and 10,000 euros. Le Pen was re-tried for having declared that the German Occupation had not been "particularly inhuman." (…)

The former chairman of the Front National had declared: "In France at least, the German Occupation was not particularly inhuman, even if there were errors, inevitable in a country of 550,000 square meters." He had also presented a version of the Ascq massacre, perpetrated during the night of April 1 - April 2, 1944, that some found shocking. Eighty-six Frenchmen were executed in retaliation for the derailment of a German train.

Note: Although Le Pen made his remarks in 2005, the case was first judged in February 2008. In January 2009, the appeals court confirmed the condemnation for "contesting a crime against humanity", but exonerated him on the charge of being an "apologist" for crimes against humanity. Le Pen appealed again and in April 2011, the appeals court confirmed the above exoneration, but overturned everything else. The whole case was re-tried in December 2011.

A Strong France

Nicolas Sarkozy's campaign poster was released today and the parodies soon followed. There are other versions of the poster at Le Parisien.

Nicolas Sarkozy: Disqualified!

Nicolas Sarkozy has officially declared his candidacy and Marine Le Pen has responded to this rather perfunctory act with predictable irony. The video begins in the middle of a sentence:

- Marine Le Pen: …it will only be a pale copy of 2007. He'll bring out the smoke machine, but he gives the impression that he himself really no longer believes in his ability to once again convince people of his promises, so often repeated, but hardly ever fulfilled. (…) The only problem is that two months of campaign promises will not erase a five year term in office, because in this domain, Nicolas Sarkozy's record is shameful. Worse, he has betrayed the French people since, in a completely voluntary and cynical way he made false promises, he was manipulative repeatedly, he betrayed the hope that the French had placed in him. Candidate Sarkozy's word will have no bearing in this campaign. It will have no bearing because it will emanate from a president who cannot escape the record he is accountable for. A record that the French know only too well, since they endure it on a daily basis. In short, we know this only too well since the man has not changed. Nicolas Sarkozy will try for the umpteenth time to pull off another 2007, to attract the public through abundant speeches, and media saturation. Prepare yourselves. In his campaign he will act as if nothing has happened, as if everything can begin again, as if the incumbent president were a young colt in the world of politics, full of hope, with a future before him. His strategy will be clear - obviously he must avoid speaking of his results, and he must make people forget that he has just spent five years leading the country after five years under Jacques Chirac. That makes ten years. Ten years is long for such pitiful results. Nicolas Sarkozy is the candidate of false appearances. Nothing about him is sincere, nothing is true, everything is posture and imposture and I might add that this was particularly evident this evening. He speaks of values, but which values is he advocating, he who believes in nothing? He changes his mind regularly about everything. He who believes in no value but the stock market, a value he shares with his pals, cronies and pleasure-seeking companions. My fellow Frenchmen, a vote for Sarkozy is a wasted vote, a useless vote for a useless candidate who will certainly not do tomorrow what he did not do in five years. The French people should give Nicolas Sarkozy what he deserves - a red card. Too many betrayals, too many lies, too many manipulations, Nicolas Sarkozy must leave the stage and allow in a bold, enthusiastic, courageous and lucid team - mine!

Note that the reporters laugh along with her at the end.

The red card is a new feature of Marine Le Pen's campaign. She has asked her constituents to download the logo (below) and use it wherever they can as a replacement for their own avatar. A red card is used in sports to indicate a penalty or a disqualification.



Top banner and logo are from Nations Presse.

Sarkozy's Bid To Win Le Pen Voters

Here's an English-language article from the Independent about the French campaign. It's not bad. The author seems to understand both her appeal and the mixture of Left-Right politics in her newly "toughened" agenda.

Marine Le Pen on Christian France

In another excerpt from Marine's speech in Strasbourg she reminds her audience that France is a country of Christian traditions.



- Marine Le Pen: In a recent interview, he never mentions Islam but he severely attacks the Catholic Church that still benefits from exorbitant privileges in his opinion. But my friends, have they all forgotten that France is a country of Christian traditions? (Applause) Have they turned us into nomads to the point where they brutally cut us off from our roots? Have they all forgotten that France is the land of the "white mantle of cathedrals", that for fifteen centuries Catholicism was the religion of nearly all Frenchmen? Let us be proud of this history and let us stop denying it or avoiding it!

Note: Because this excerpt is so short, we don't know the name of the person interviewed. It will be necessary to go back over the whole speech to find it. I doubt that Sarkozy would talk like that. Possibly Hollande or Jacques Attali, etc...

Remembering Saint Valentine

Here are a few words about Saint Valentine from Alexandre Simonnot of the Front National:

Though Valentine's Day has become, alas, more temporal than spiritual, having been extracted from the pious calendar of the saints for commercial ends, it remains, above all, the commemoration of a great saint, who died a martyr.

Saint Valentine was a priest. His virtue was so great and so dazzling in the city of Rome that Emperor Claudius learned of him and had him arrested. After holding him for two days in prison, in chains, he had him brought before the tribunal for interrogation. The Emperor wanted to understand why Valentine did not take advantage of the pleasures of this world. Valentine replied that his only pleasure, his only desire was to serve Jesus Christ.

One of the judges asked Valentine what he thought of the gods Jupiter and Mercury. He answered that they were wretched and had spent their whole life in voluptuousness and bodily pleasures. Accused of blasphemy, Valentine surprised the Emperor through the wisdom of his answers.

Tempted to protect Valentine, but fearing the anger of the people, Claudius turned him over to the Prefect who placed him in the hands of the judge, Asterius, to be investigated and punished for sacrilege. Asterius asked Valentine for proof of Jesus Christ. Valentine went about the task and restored sight to a young blind girl. The judge and his wife prostrated themselves before Valentine who ordered them to destroy all idols and to convert to the Christian faith.

Judge Asterius, his wife and forty-six persons were thus baptized. This aroused the fears of the Emperor who ordered the arrest of all these people. Valentine, after a long stay in a narrow prison, was beaten with clubs. Finally on February 14, 268, he was decapitated on the Via Flaminia.

Several centuries after his death, Valentine was canonized in honor of his sacrifice for Love. His feast day was instituted to counteract the Lupercalia, the pagan holiday celebrated on fertility day and dedicated to Lupercus, god of flocks and shepherds.

Wikipedia quotes Plutarch on Lupercalia:

"Lupercalia, of which many write that it was anciently celebrated by shepherds, and has also some connection with the Arcadian Lycaea. At this time many of the noble youths and magistrates run up and down through the city naked, for sport and laughter striking those they meet with shaggy thongs. And many women of rank also purposely get in their way, and like children at school present their hands to be struck, believing that the pregnant will thus be helped in delivery, and the barren to pregnancy."

And so Saint Valentine became the patron of young engaged couples and lovers. To give them fertility and prosperity.

The very model of sacrifice of oneself for others, may Saint Valentine bless and protect young lovers and accompany them in the giving of oneself, in fidelity and in Love.

There is another Wikipedia page on Saint Valentine's Day. The account differs from the one above in that it states that almost nothing is known about Saint Valentine:

"Saint Valentine's head was preserved in the abbey of New Minster, Winchester and venerated. But there is no evidence that Saint Valentine was a popular saint before Chaucer's poems in 14th century, not even in the area of Winchester. Saint Valentine's celebration didn't differ from the celebrations of many other saints, and no church was ever dedicated to him.

In the 1969 revision of the Roman Catholic Calendar of Saints, the feast day of Saint Valentine on February 14 was removed from the General Roman Calendar and relegated to particular (local or even national) calendars for the following reason: 'Though the memorial of Saint Valentine is ancient, it is left to particular calendars, since, apart from his name, nothing is known of Saint Valentine except that he was buried on the Via Flaminia on February 14'"

Here's more about Valentine's Day in France:

"Using the language of the law courts for the rituals of courtly love, a 'High Court of Love' was established in Paris on Valentine's Day in 1400. The court dealt with love contracts, betrayals, and violence against women. Judges were selected by women on the basis of a poetry reading."

Note: What a novel method for choosing judges!

"The earliest surviving valentine is a 15th-century rondeau written by Charles, Duke of Orléans to his wife. At the time, the duke was being held in the Tower of London following his capture at the Battle of Agincourt, 1415."

Original French:

Je suis déjà d’amour tanné,
Ma très douce Valentinée,
Car pour moi fûtes trop tard née,
Et moi pour vous fus trop tôt né.
Dieu lui pardonne qui estrené
M’a de vous, pour toute l’année
Je suis déjà, etc.
Ma très douce, etc.
Bien m’étais suspeçonné,
Qu’aurais telle destinée,
Ainsi que passât ceste journée,
Combien qu’Amours l’eût ordonné.
Je suis déjà, etc.

English version:

I am already sick of love,
My very gentle Valentine,
Since for me you were born too soon,
And I for you was born too late.
God forgives he who has estranged
Me from you for the whole year.
I am already sick of love,
My very gentle Valentine,
Well might I have suspected,
That such a destiny,
Thus would have happened this day,
How much Love would have commanded it to be.
I am already sick of love,
My very gentle Valentine

Source

Is it merely coincidence that the first Valentine poem was in French, by a nobleman fighting for his country?

Wikipedia also discusses the holiday in Muslim countries and the attempts to ban it. There is nothing surprising about banning Valentine's Day in an Islamic country, therefore, there should be nothing surprising about banning sharia, halal and burqas in a Western country.

Note: This post is a day late. As usual I went off in different directions, and read more about this holiday than I intended. I also re-read parts of Hamlet - don't forget, Ophelia sings a song about Valentine's Day, and it is not a happy one. Having been seduced by Hamlet, her fate is now sealed (see Act IV, scene 5).