Monday, 13 January 2014

Reading the French press about the "Affaire Dieudonné", it is shocking to see how prevalent anti-free speech attitudes now are in France among the elite classes. Perhaps almost as shocking as the demands to suppress freed speech is the fact the people making them almost always accompany them with fervent expressions of support for free speech. It seems the human mind is capable of almost limitless self-deception. We see this continually with Jews, even in the comments on this website, who proclaim their support for free speech "but Holocaust denial isn't free speech" or "except Hate Speech". I remember a few years ago I was watching something about the German government. There was this minister in the government, a Green, I think. She must have been in her 60s. She had purple hair. She obviously still considered herself a crazy rebel fighting against the system, just like in '68. Yet the government of which she was a part was sending people to prison for expressing unapproved opinions, depriving them of their livelihood, trying to shut down opposition political parties. It is amazing that people can support these kinds of initiative yet still consider themselves anti-totalitarian freedom fighters.

Just to clarify what has been happening, to those who haven't been paying that much attention. The French Conseil d'Etat agreed to ban Dieudonné's performance in Nantes a priori.
The claims that the criminally liable remarks whose natures calls national cohesion into question heard during performances of the show Le Mur [The Wall] in Paris will not be repeated in Nantes are not sufficient to rule out the serious risk that there will be new infringements of the respect for the values and principles, particularly the dignity of the human person, consecrated by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens and by Republican tradition.

This concept of an a priori ban on something, or prior restraint, is unknown in French law, which is instead based on the model of retrospective prosecution of "crimes" once they have occurred. They are now just making it up as they go along, inventing completely new principles to support their diversity mania, banning the performance of a show because of the mere possibility that some "objectionable" remark will be made during it. Shocking.

It's a good illustration of the general principle of the corrosive effect on liberty that diversity has. When different peoples live in the same land, their genetically-conditioned lack of empathy with one another, will cause them to act in ways that members of other ethnic factions find injurious or offensive. The other factions will react to the injury, sometimes violently. These reactions will cause the government, in the interests of preserving public order, to gradually infringe liberty more and more. Only a cast-iron constitutional commitment, like the American first amendment, can stand as a bulwark against these tendencies. And even that I would expect to be subject to continuous and growing pressure.

We Europeans are having our lands colonised by alien peoples. And as these aliens - Jews, Arabs, Africans - pursue their absurd quarrels with one another, it is our freedom that is being chipped away.


Dr Bazooka said...

Valls is married to a Jewish violinist. An interesting statement :

The first judge (Conseil d'État), who censored the show, is Olivier Stirn, a descendant of Alfred Dreyfus.
His brother is Bernard Stirn, ruler of a pro-Israeli lobby.

Another judge of the Conseil d'État is Arnaud Klarsfeld, who served in the Israeli army and who is the son of the nazi hunter Serge Klarsfeld.
A cartoon :

Dr Bazooka said...

This is all a story –incomprehensible for the non francophone readers. A very interesting and pleasant saga, in fact. Possibly a cultural turn in the French chaos.

Dieudonné M’bala M’bala was first a creature of the Jewish antiracist movement.
The more he was spitting on the French, on the Europeans, on the Whites, the more he was invited on TV shows. He was also an actor, who played in big budget films.
But… he began to skid (déraper™), saying that the transatlantic trade (and only this one) was the same thing as the Shoah. First scandal! Not because this was absurd, but because the Shoah is unique.
The breaking with the Jewish community became definitive when he did the “Isra-Heil sketch”. And since, the golem has heightened its provocations.
For the anecdote, Jean-Marie Le Pen is the godfather of one of his son. The kid’s name? Judas.

In my opinion, Valls attacked Dieudonné, because the public order was really threatened. The “French Republic”, which is meant to be “une et indivisible”, was the theater of communal clashes, and not between Jews and Muslims (this would be just classic), not between Jews and a bunch of neo-Nazis, but between the LDJ and some perfectly common French guys.!RN1a4rlhRKTC6/

Valls trampled the rule of law, because it was urgent to stop the crescendo and to appease the Jewish youth...
The republican fairy tale continues... But for how long?

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

LOL, a descendant of Dreyfus. You couldn't make this stuff up. I've just been reading a book about the Dreyfus case. Maybe the Dieudonné case will be the new Dreyfus case and people will still be reading books about it a hundred years from now.

Anonymous said...

"they" are not "making it up as they go along": both islamic sharia and talmudic judaism have this concept of 'hate speech', 'blasphemy' including non-theological) and 'evil speech' which is partly why Western laws and societies are facing so many restrictions on freedom of speech. In the Anglo-Saxon Western legal tradition, the truth of a spoken or written statement and its lack of malicious intent could be used as a legal defence against charges of slander or libel. In judaic law and tradition 'lashon hara' ('evil speech') is deemed to be any negative, hurtful speech about others or even about oneself, whether true or false, and whether or not it is spoken maliciously, and is seen as sinful because the one who engages in it commits a form of murder (of himself, the one who hears it, and the one who is the subject of it). Because this is seen as a very human tendency, one should seek to make it difficult to speak such 'evil speech' and, by logical extension, we can see where this can lead, from restrictions within a tight community of one ethnicity, to tensions when there is cultural diversity, and the impetus to restrict free speech, however true it may be, in the "interests" of "social cohesion." In judaic law in the Babylonian Talmud, it is even possible to consider that the dead can be slandered and one can also see how all this leads to the concept of 'defamation' of a group in its entirety, not only of an individual. This is also because such speech can be considered 'evil' if it says something negative about a person or party, is not previously known to the general public, is not seriously intended to correct or improve a negative situation, and is true; and it covers all forms of communication, verbal and written. This is partly from where islamic sharia's concepts of 'blasphemy' and 'slander' arise and it is a minefield which is detrimental to Western law and freedom of speech.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

Very interesting. I will read up on this.

Anonymous said...

"When all nations and all ages have persecuted you, there must be some motive behind it all. The Jew, up to our own time, insinuated himself everywhere, claiming the protection of the common law; but, in reality, remaining outside the common law. He retained his own status; he wished to have the same guarantees as everyone else, and, over and above that, his own exceptions and special laws. He desired the advantages of the nations without being a nation, without helping to bear the burdens of the nations. No people has ever been able to tolerate this. The nations are military creations founded and maintained by the sword; they are the work of peasants and soldiers; towards establishing them the Jews have contributed nothing. Herein is the great fallacy inspired in Israelite pretensions. The tolerated alien can be useful to a country, but only on condition that the country does not allow itself to be invaded by him. It is not fair to claim family rights in a house which one has not built, like those birds which come and take up their quarters in a nest which does not belong to them, or like the crustaceans which steal the shell of another species."


Anonymous said...

M'Bala M'Bala decided to go on stage with his show on African myths instead,
"Asu Zoa" (qui signifie "éléphant" en Camerounais), a show whipped up during three nights, according to the Nouvel Obs on Monday.

Interesting to see this show in connection with a recent list on the richest men in the world, where a Mali ruler is conveniently put on top of the list, and also taking into consideration the fact that certain forces are working to keep French - and European in general - education system from teaching documented history concerning France and Europe, but enforcing myths about non-documented North African kingdoms.

- Is there a connection here?

"Toute éducation supposant l’acquisition de fondamentaux et de connaissances de base sans lesquelles il est impossible ou vain de vouloir aller plus loin, il est donc insensé de vouloir faire apprendre l’histoire du Mali à des enfants qui ne savent pas si Napoléon a vécu avant ou après Louis XIV…"

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews