THURSDAY 10 JULY 2008
A video of Le Pen’s attack on Sarkozy at the European Parliament can be found here. Whether or not you understand French, I recommend watching this just for the times the camera pans to a dour Sarkozy, listening to Le Pen's fervent attack. Stay till the bitter end, when the camera fades to a still frame of an unhappy French President. Great image!
Perhaps some of our European readers can tell whether Le Pen is being laughed at or laughed with. There are certainly some amused faces, but the joke is not obvious to this American.
Here is a transcript in French of Le Pen’s speech.
The following English translation was made by a commenter at fdesouche. Other commenters offer their versions. I particularly like this translation of one sentence:
“Alas for you, the Irish People’s will has foiled your scheme.”. That sounds more Le Pen-esque.
Mister President,
You are currently in charge, for the next 6 months, in this rotating and short-lived position, as President of the European Union.
Contrary to the majority of the French electorate, you have revealed yourself as a zealous europeist, even daring to reintroduce (under a hardly changed format of the Lisbon Treaty) the Constitution that the Dutch, alongside the French, rejected in 2005.
Your project to re-introduce the Lisbon Treaty has failed again because it has stumbled on the will of the Irish people. Therefore, it is null and void, despite all the manoeuvers to try to impose the will of the reining euro-internationalist camarilla on the European people.
As a young deputy, I voted in 1957 against the Treaty of Rome, which was the first stage of a process aiming to lead to the United States of Europe according to its promoters: Monnet and Coudenhove-kalergi among others.
Given that this Tower of Babel was only able to be built on the debris of the nations and initially of my fatherland France, I have been its determined adversary ever since. It is said that globalization involves fundamental changes everywhere to which we must subdue ourselves.
But the truth is that, in the world, the nations are getting stronger, supported by enthusiastic patriotism, except in only one place, Europe, where nations and fatherlands are sold off, dismantled, demoralized for the profit of a project without power, without identity, while the foreign migratory waves invade it gradually and that the opening of our economic borders, delivers it to the unrestrained competition of the rest of the world.
- - - - - - - - -
None of the promises made (so that Europeans could accept the loss of their independence, their sovereignty, their identity, of their culture) were kept - neither economic growth, neither full employment, neither prosperity, nor safety. And it is anguish which prevails at the start of the coming systemic crisis: energy, food and financial meltdown. By then, it is true the media carousel will continue to turn; yesterday, the European soccer tournament, tennis at Roland Garros, tomorrow the Olympic games of Beijing and today the miraculous saga of an icon: Ingrid who laughs, who cries, who prays, who comes and goes supported by your fraternal arm.
In your desire to be the libertador (the liberator in English), you were misled in accepting negotiations with the terrorists of the FARC. But it is neither you, nor Mr Chavez who released the Colombian Senator Mrs Betancourt. It is President Uribe, who with tenacity, against the general mobilization of world progressives, gained a decisive victory over criminal terrorism.
You multiplied the approaches to negotiate in vain and you even went to the length of inviting the repented communist terrorists of the FARC to profit from asylum in France, but to protect them from whom? From Uribe the democrat! While you were at it, why not the talibans, the Hezbollah, the Tamils Tigers? You are like the amphisbene, dear to Césaire.
Do not doubt at any moment, Mr. President, that all your talent as media director will not be enough to avert the brewing crisis which you will have to face before the end of the year. Your Europe is a drifting vessel, windswept and beaten by the waves. It is the only region in the world to have deliberately dismantled its political and moral structures.
Without borders, gradually invaded by a mass immigration which is only at its beginning, economically ruined by the ultra-liberalism, socially impoverished, weakened demographically, without spirit and military strength. At best, it will fall under the American protectorate, at worse it will become a slave of the dhimmitude.
It is now long overdue to give up on the deadly illusion of federalism and to build a Europe of the nations, united in concrete alliances, probably more modest, but more effective.
Both failures, the Constitution and the Treaty, must be used as warnings. The people of Europe do not want them. They will not allow them to be forced upon them because they do not want to die.
Oh dear, I forgot. Mr. Le Pen is a racist. Therefore everything he says is wrong. People don’t mind dying if Mr Sarkozy and the other EU elites decide it’s a good idea.
Never mind.
Hat tip: Gaia
46 comments:
One of the guys laughing looks like Daniel Cohn-Bendit from the French Green Party.
Who does he feel most resentment against, Sarkozy or Le Pen. Surely Le Pen. However, he might be laughing at both of them.
Dang!
He whipped Sarkozy with a knotted plow line.
Someone who opposes the mass EU-icide, for a change.
The Pen is mightier than the Sark?
CS - I think we'll be able to say that progress is being made in Europe when Danny the Red finds nothing to laugh about (may that day come soon).
What really struck me about LePen's speech was his praise of President Uribe. As a former resident of Bogota, I saw close up his determination to fight the FARC and the unity of the Colombian people. It was inspiring.
Here's a monely quote:
But the truth is that, in the world, the nations are getting stronger, supported by enthusiastic patriotism, except in only one place, Europe, where nations and fatherlands are sold off, dismantled, demoralized for the profit of a project without power, without identity, while the foreign migratory waves invade it gradually and that the opening of our economic borders, delivers it to the unrestrained competition of the rest of the world.
And here's another:
Your Europe is a drifting vessel, windswept and beaten by the waves. It is the only region in the world to have deliberately dismantled its political and moral structures.
Without borders, gradually invaded by a mass immigration which is only at its beginning, economically ruined by the ultra-liberalism, socially impoverished, weakened demographically, without spirit and military strength. At best, it will fall under the American protectorate, at worse it will become a slave of the dhimmitude.
Holy guacamole! Some actual truth manages to get its foot in the EU's door. Whadda concept!
The truth teller Le Pen has been demonized as untouchable by the PC pinhead crowd the way they kill all messengers with messages contrary to their own lies. As a result he will not be heard or believed by the average brainwashed European, just as Cassandra's prophesies were not believed, including the Fall of Troy.
The pinheads (and Sarkozy is clearly among them now despite some early false promise) think they are riding the Arab tiger to increasing power. Instead, they are its next meal.
Arabs are already laughing their heads off at such poor negotiators on Europe's side. Let's see. Arabs got unlimited immigration and welfare for their deadbeats who set up beachheads called mosques all over their future domain as well as total immunity from criticism of their hostile (criminal)actions and religion. And Europe gets - nothing. No money. No manpower (they're not taking the menial jobs that were supposed to be the justification for immigration). No reciprocal rights for non-Muslims in Arab countries. Bupkus.
Oh what big brains the Europeans have acting for them! Let us bow down to such superior intellects! With champions like these, who needs enemies?
Oh, he's being laughed at allright. No doubt about that. He's considered a clown, no matter what he says. If he were to proclaim that 1+1 equals 2, he would be ridiculed as well.
Currently, no major politician in the West would employ the term "dhimmitude" (much less even know what it means) as Le Pen did in this consummate harangue.
And yet, Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch, fastidiously holding his nose at the rumored "racism" (and even more tenuous anti-Semitism) of Le Pen, would rather wait, and wait, and wait, for the more "acceptable" politicians to wake up. Not too long ago, he even thought Sarkozy was a hopeful; until Sarkozy let us down.
As long as anti-jihad analysts let themselves be cowed by the tendentiously defined "racism" of politically correct multi-culturalists by which the latter successfully marginalize and ostracize the worthy along with the unworthy, we may not find any good leaders in time.
Don't get your hopes up. Sarkozy and the rest of the European MPs shown in this video are bored and amused. And yes, that IS Daniel Cohn-Bendit whom you see laughing. That admitted pedophile should be dangling from a lamp post instead of being a MP.
I dont understand French but I bet the lines that got the biggest groans are the ones these tools know deep down are true. It is like the old expression. Did I hit a nerve?
Erich,
The problem with Le Pen is obviously not that he's racist, but how he sides with the Muslims and Islam. He sided with the Muslims in the Muhammad Cartoon affair, he calls the immigrant North African youths "branches of the French tree", and is standing up for Iran's "right" to build a nuke. Pat Buchanan is also into this sort of twisted kumbaya of winning "the hearts and minds" of Muslims, how we must never do anything to offend them, etc.
So Le Pen's understanding of the concept dhimmitude is not as deep as we could have wished for. But he's definitely less of a dhimmi than Sarkozy. So it's a great satisfaction to see him deliver this excellent harangue at him (and Sarkoy's face in the end was priceless).
Currently, no major politician in the West would employ the term "dhimmitude" (much less even know what it means) as Le Pen did in this consummate harangue.
Oh, probably 15 years ago. And then Le Pen didn't act like a dhimmi himself. But today there are many politicians who understand the full meaning of this concept better than Le Pen: in the Danish People's Party, in Vlaams Belang, in the Italian government, in Norway, Switzerland, Austria, just to name a few.
W_O_W_!!!!!!!
Conservative Swede,
"today there are many politicians who understand the full meaning of this concept better than Le Pen: in the Danish People's Party, in Vlaams Belang, in the Italian government, in Norway, Switzerland, Austria, just to name a few."
That's why I qualified my claim with the adjective "major". Outside of Le Pen and Nick Griffith, I don't consider any of the politicians in Europe who show signs of having gotten the problem of Islam as "major politicians" (and Nick Griffith is for the most part only "major" because of the infamy that dogs his image, whether rightfully or wrongfully). They may be "major" to some regional Europeans, but not in the statesman-like way that Le Pen is. A few years ago, Pim Fortuyn was fast becoming a major politician who got the problem (and we all know what happened to him).
Conservative Swede,
"The problem with Le Pen is obviously not that he's racist, but how he sides with the Muslims and Islam. He sided with the Muslims in the Muhammad Cartoon affair, he calls the immigrant North African youths "branches of the French tree", and is standing up for Iran's "right" to build a nuke."
I'd have to read these positions straight from the horse's mouth. If you have links to them, I'd appreciate it. From what I've read, Le Pen's view of Muslims was burned into his brain during the French-Algerian War and he has said he had long and close experience with the savagery of Muslims in that formative event. It seems to me that most of the problematic postures he affects relate to a Gallic chauvinism competitive with, and suspicious of, America.
Erich,
In Holland we have Geert Wilders who is surely as major as Le Pen. In Denmark we have Pia Kjærsgaard and her Danish People's Party who have completely changed the political landscape of Denmark. The awareness about Islam and immigration is very high. There are several politicians that could be mentioned, even actually on the left-wing. That's how much the backdrop of the discourse has changed there.
In Belgium there is e.g. Filip Dewinter of Vlaams Belang. In Italy Allainza Nationale and Lega Nord are now part of the government. In Switzerland the Swiss People's Party is very strong. In Austria there is not only FPÖ (Susannne Winter anyone?), but there is a faction of ÖVP now properly aware of the threat from Islam. And in Norway, the Progress Party is not only strong but has an actual change of forming the government after the next election.
I like Nick Griffin very much, and he's taking his party in a good direction. But unfortunately he has some Buchanan sort of kumbaya tendencies.
Erich,
Here are some links on Le Pen that you should read. The things I already mentioned, from the horse's mouth, and more:
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/04/16/muslims-for-le-pen/
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/frances-le-pen-to-strike-a-deal-with-muslims/27822/
http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2006/02/le-pens-reaction-to-cartoon-fury.html
http://www.voxnr.com/cc/dep_interieur/EEukkkElEyBadKlGrX.shtml
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3246
Just as an example of the sort of derangement within Front National:
"Jean-Claude Martinez, a National Front member of the European Parliament and Mr. Le Pen's "strategic adviser ... He even expressed enthusiasm for black and Arab rap, as long as it is sung in French rather than English."
I like Nick Griffin very much, and he's taking his party in a good direction. But unfortunately he has some Buchanan sort of kumbaya tendencies.
Let me explain better what I mean here. The kumbaya I refer to here is at its first level that "we should do nothing to offend Muslims". The second level is "we should win the hearts and minds of Muslims". The third level is "we should embrace the Muslims in our country and make them vote for us".
Le Pen goes all the way to level three.
Buchanan goes to level two.
While Griffin is only at level one.
Griffin, unlike Le Pen, would never suggest allying with the Muslims of his country. Therefore he's a good force and can be trusted. Still he's too much about just putting up fences and then being good friends. "Oh, do not care at all what they do as long as they do not do it here". That position is too weak. And so BNP will find out. Putting up fences is a good start, however, and I support that.
So here's how I think it's all strung together. The old fashioned sort of anti-Americanism leads to the conclusion that we must not offend Muslims, because that's the sort of thing neocons do. Therefore we must do the opposite of them.
Griffin only has a touch of this anti-Americanism compared to Le Pen and Buchanan, it's more like a backdrop from the history of his party. But there is such an ingredient there, and this is why he's somewhat warped, and this is where his lack of will for proper imperialism comes.
@ConservativeSwede:
"So here's how I think it's all strung together. The old fashioned sort of anti-Americanism leads to the conclusion that we must not offend Muslims, because that's the sort of thing neocons do."
Can you elaborate on your point that offending muslims is what neocons do? Because I don't see them doing it all. I thought they diligently distinguish between "Islamism", "Islamofascicm" and Islam and believe that democracies can be installed in Islamic countries. Furthermore they supported the NATO war against Serbia and now support the Chechenyans against Russia.
Pasta,
Can you elaborate on your point that offending muslims is what neocons do?
No I can't.
Because I don't see them doing it all.
Well at least not in the proper way.
So now enter the mind warp of the Buchanans and Le Pens and their view of the neocons, and how they perfectly share the anti-American sentiment of the leftists in how the neocons are the worst ones in offending the Muslims, and how they themselves instead show such maturity, righteousness, etc. in their way of... well actually, in their way of acting as dhimmis.
The problem with Le Pen is he's not a politician at all. He's not really concerned about furthering his ideas, or convincing people, or winning power. He's more of a professional provocateur.
He's been right on immigration, and he was practically alone on this for a very long time. He says some truths on Europe (but I wouldn't bet on him to come up with an alternative solution).
And his agenda is full of contradictions. He can't make his mind about many issues.
He has some libertarian policies, but he wants the state to protect the people more, not less. He's broadly against Muslim immigration, but there is a distinct and persistant anti-semitic streak within him and his party.
He can't resist churning up a regular flow of offending jokes during interviews. They go along well with his voters, because they love to see the old man dissing the elites.
However, they turn off just about everybody else, and they prevent him from advancing whatever might be correct in his ideas.
It's not any jokes, either. He, and others within his party, have been suggesting for years now that, you know, the Holocaust might have been a bit overstated... maybe there were not that many dead Jews after all... anyway we should look into the matter -- this sort of thing.
Also, he is believed to have tortured prisoners himself during the Algerian war (he admitted to it, then denied it), which makes him unacceptable to a lot of Frenchmen as a legitimate politician.
Essentially, Le Pen is a man from the past. He's quite old now, and has resisted grooming his successor for too long, although his daughter stands a good chance to take the leadership of his party after him.
But apart from that, he never really understood his times. He's stuck with obsolete, uneffective tendencies of the French psyche. Although he likes to portray himself as the only opponent to the class of professional politicians who never quit, he was himself elected a member of parliament more than half a century ago, and it shows.
He represents the small shop-keepers who were pushed aside by hypermarkets forty years ago. Decent people for sure, but their era isn't about to come back.
He represents Frenchmen whose ancestors colonised Algeria and raised families there in the 19th century, before being ignominiously expelled when Algeria became independant in 1962. A sad fate certainly, but the clock can't be turned back, and Le Pen never came up with a plausible proposition to heal the wounds that are still gaping on both sides -- only nostalgia for the old empire.
He represents this old, irrational, anti-semitic streak, which is closely intertwined nowadays with traditional French anti-americanism. Not that there is nothing to be said against US policies and way of life, but this brand of anti-americanism is not going anywhere.
Just to give you an idea, young, brilliant Frenchmen would rather tend nowadays to emigrate to the US -- or to Ireland, or to China -- in order to get a job, gain experience and see the world. This does not mean they are uncritical about America; just that this worldview of America as the devil is increasingly obsolete, even if it has quite a lot of traction yet in all walks of French society.
Contrast this with the way Geert Wilders handles the muslim issue. I have no idea about his views on agricultural policy, health care, the euro and whatnot.
However, his moves on islam show he's looking straight into the future -- not the past, he concentrates on the fundamental problems -- not on details, he speaks straight, does not mince words but does not seek to gratuitously offend either -- and he actually puts his life on the line.
At the same time, you can hear Le Pen boasting about having done menial errands for the Resistance during World War II (it might be true, or not), and about having served in the military in Algeria.
More recently, he manhandled a female, socialist opponent during an electoral campaign (and was convicted for that, as far as I remember).
Apart from that, he's quite safe.
Wilders and Le Pen are a world apart.
For all the comedians that don't know Le Pen (he is pro-Islam, a dhimmi, a provacateur, etc.) : Le Pen is scheduled to speak in Cologne (Germany) against the islamification of Europe.
www.pro-koeln.org
Robert,
Great characterization of Le Pen (and comparison with Wilders). I hope everybody reads it.
I assume you are French. Are you?
The article by Tiberge I linked above, also characterize Le Pen as a professional provocateur.
Thoughts on Le Pen
To Steevie:
How does Le Pen's speaking in Köln counter anything said in the characterization of him by me or Robert?
Well, how can Le Pen be pro-muslim and not want to offend muslims(your words right?) and then go and speak against the islamification of Europe.
As far as Marchenoir, his characterization of Le Pen is very simplistic. Let's take a single sentence: "He has some libertarian policies, but he wants the state to protect the people more, not less".
That's not a contradiction, it is really very simple: the State has a role to protect its citizen (even libertarians would agree with the State providing security and police) while, given this protection, grant as much liberty and freedom to its citizens within the framework of the State.
Steevie,
Well, how can Le Pen be pro-muslim and not want to offend muslims(your words right?) and then go and speak against the islamification of Europe.
Well that's characteristic of a provocateur. The main feature of his statements are not their substance. And French politicians seems to have a special talent for expressing several contradicting opinions at the same time. Just look at Sarkozy.
It's not possible to make any sense out of what any of them is saying. But surely none of them are up to no good.
Well, Le Pen manages to deliver great speeches as the one above. And each time he does that, he should be applauded. But we should always keep in mind that his kind cannot be trusted.
And of course the ideas of not offending Muslims and of stopping Islamization in Europe are not contradictory. Nick Griffin holds this sort of opinion, having as an ideal how Westerners and Muslims live separately in peace.
But Le Pen and his National Front goes farther than that, He actually tries to appeal to Muslims. I guess he figured that the Muslims now hold such a significant weight among the French electorate.
Compare it to John Kerry. The message changes depending on who's currently sitting in the audience. In that sense, Le Pen seems to be a typical politician.
Robert Marchenoir
>It's not any jokes, either. He, >and others within his party, have >been suggesting for years now >that, you know, the Holocaust >might have been a bit >overstated...
Not quite. He certainly, as well as Gollnisch, has been right into recalling two main things: historical research on the Second World War should not be hindered by laws passed by a communist (Gayssot) and, really, although the Jewish Holocaust has been a very large tragedy, when you consider the greater scope of things, it is but an episode in the Second World War (see the Memoirs of Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, etc. Not a word.)
The main criticism one can lay here is that Le Pen speaks his mind, to some this is indeed typical of a provocateur.
> maybe there were not that many >dead Jews after all... anyway we >should look into the matter -- >this sort of thing.
Tsk Tsk. You basically repeat Le Pen opponents' characterization.
He and Gollnisch rather say that historians should be allowed to look into this matter as in any other one, not jailed or scared into not studying it.
>Also, he is believed to have >tortured prisoners himself during >the Algerian war (he admitted to >it,
in 1962 ?
Well, read what he wrote the next day after the reporter of Combat claimed Le Pen told him that he admitted torturing Muslims "terrorists".
http://www.veritesurlefn.org/modules/xfsection/article.php?articleid=183
"Les méthodes de contrainte utilisées pour démanteler les réseaux terroristes F.L.N., qui s'attaquaient exclusivement à la population civile dans le but d'y faire régner la terreur, n'ont, dans les unités que j'ai personnellement connues, jamais pu être assimilées à des tortures."
"The interrogation methods used, in the units I personally came to know, to dismantle the terrorist FLN networks cannot be assimilated to tortures."
>then denied it),
It is not at all proved, apparently he could physically not be where tortures was used
http://www.veritesurlefn.org/modules/xfsection/article.php?articleid=202
"Il avait été démontré, preuves à l'appui, que Jean-Marie Le Pen, incorporé au sein du 1 er REP, ne pouvait pas, en février-mars 1957, intervenir avec sa compagnie dans la Casbah qui était le secteur du 3ème Régiment de Parachutistes Coloniaux, commandé par Bigeard."
> which makes him unacceptable to >a lot of Frenchmen as a >legitimate politician.
It is indeed what Le Pen's enemies would like people to think. I'm not too sure it matters: people know it was a dirty war where innocents youngsters were killed in bomb attacks like the Milk Bar in Algiers.
>Essentially, Le Pen is a man from >the past.
Obviously.
>He's quite old now, and has >resisted grooming his successor >for too long, although his >daughter stands a good chance to >take the leadership of his party >after him.
Sounds like a subtle grooming to me.
Steevie,
What's your comment to this:
Le Pen "ne voit pas" pourquoi l'Iran ne devrait pas avoir l'arme atomique
Le Pen can't see why Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
He writes so in the editorial of "Français d'Abord", Front National's monthly publication in March 2006.
Why should we reproach Ahmadinejad when we didn't do it with India, Pakistan or Israel? says Le Pen.
According to Le Pen it's all about America wanting to find a reason to start a war with Iran, which they so highly desire.
So Steevie. Do you agree with Le Pen about this? Do you think like Le Pen that it is all OK and all cool with a Iran with nukes? And there is no problem with it whatsoever? Only American evilcons who search for a reason to start a war.
Conservative Swede: yes, I'm French. Thank you for your kind comments.
Steevie: I'm sorry I will not address your defence of Le Pen. We don't share the same logic. If you're able to write...
"You basically repeat Le Pen opponents' characterization."
...and think this is an argument, there's nothing I can do.
Robert Marchenoir,
You say :
« quoting me : "You basically repeat Le Pen opponents' characterization."
...and think this is an argument, there's nothing I can do.»
Well, firstly I showed that the rumours are baseless or, at the very least, very much subject to debate. For me, you simply don't like Le Pen, but I have not understood why, except that he did not succeed fully.
Secondly, repeating the characterization of Le Pen's enemies (rather than opponents) is not an argument either!
There's is nothing I can do for you if you think not arguing is an answer.
Lastly, in general, it is funny to see people saying Le Pen is not "ideologically" pure and then that he is not a really politician (that's you, he is only a provocateur, right ?).
Le Pen had to bring together many different right-wing factions and this sometimes meant adopting "impure" doctrines (this is typical of a politician by the way). Le Pen did well and were it not for the lack of proportional parliamentary representation in France, he would be a very important player in French politics.
Comparisons with politicians that can be elected through proportional representation are thus really not valid (Holland, Denmark, etc.)
To the Conservative Swede,
"Steevie,
What's your comment to this:
Le Pen "ne voit pas" pourquoi l'Iran ne devrait pas avoir l'arme atomique
Le Pen can't see why Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
Well, on the basis of international law, this is certainly true. Why not Iran but Pakistan and India? BTW, do you really trust Pakistan?
Now, Le Pen's argument is twofold (if I remember properly):
1) Are you going to launch a war against Iran to deny what was not denied to its neighbour (Pakistan for instance)?
2) Nuclear weapons are weapons of fear which are not used when your neighbour has the same one. Nuclear weapons only matter when you are about the only one that can use it (see Nagasaki).
CS : "According to Le Pen it's all about America wanting to find a reason to start a war with Iran, which they so highly desire."
Is this a precise quote from Le Pen?
CS : "Only American evilcons who search for a reason to start a war."
Well, it must be said that the neo-cons (often radical Liberals and not at all conservatives as far as morals and values are concerned) have led the US in a useless quagmire in Iraq under such a false pretext (the infamous "weapons of mass destructions"). You will excuse non-neo-cons from taking the neocons warmongering with a pinch of salt.
The priority is saving Europe from a demographic implosion and an African and Muslim (largely) peaceful invasion, not invading Iran.
We are currently subtitling Le Pen's speech on Fdesouche.com. We'd sincerely appreciate the help from native English speakers.
For example, we don't know how to translate "ultra-libéralisme".
Thank you.
http://www.fdesouche.com/?p=4318
OK Steevie. So to you the Mullahs in Iran having nukes is all OK and all cool (and matter of fairness and international law and the usual leftist junk).
Thanks. That's all I needed to know.
Is this a precise quote from Le Pen?
Here is the precise quote:
Dans son éditorial, M. Le Pen suggère que l'opinion mondiale est "chauffée à blanc" sur le sujet, parce que les Etats-Unis et leurs "alliés inconditionnels" "désirent ardemment" la guerre contre l'Iran.
"Après les interventions en Afghanistan et en Irak, il faut mettre l'Iran au pas, pour sécuriser les approvisionnements en pétrole, mettre Israël à l'abri, et peut-être aussi faire une guerre d'anéantissement contre l'Islam, conformément au souhait des faucons évangélistes qui dominent les institutions américaines", écrit M. Le Pen.
Dans le même texte, M. Le Pen suggère également que la récente polémique internationale sur les caricatures de Mahomet est liée au bras de fer international avec Téhéran. "Il faut préparer l'opinion à la guerre" contre l'Iran, et "quoi de mieux pour ce faire qu'une bonne polémique internationale à propos de l'islam", déclare-t-il.
to CS :
Iran having the nukes is just as OK and cool as the "US ally" Pakistan having them. Or India for that matter (India and its BJP are not very cool to Christians you know).
Pakistan has more talibans and more Muslims than Afghanistan (or even Iran).
To Robin:
>For example, we don't know how to >translate "ultra-libéralisme"
I saw various good propositions, I don't know why you are not using something like "radical free-marketeers".
Steeevie,
And consequently you are standing up for the "right" of Iran to get nukes. Good night!
I can see clearly how you can support Le Pen now.
PS. In the translation above ultra-libéralisme is translated with ultra-liberalism.
Steevie,
I can't help but getting back to what you wrote. It's crazy on so many levels. First there is this logic of "Hey, two of my children already ate deadly poison, so why shouldn't I let the third one do it too? ... Who am I to stop him? It's only fair."
Then there is this idea that Indians are going to nuke Christian countries.
You see, Islamic fanatics do not back off from suicide bombing or Armageddon. Their prime focus is in a world beyond which they happily die for. MAD just doesn't work with these guys. We are lucky that they have a military dictator in charge in Pakistan and not religious fanatics as in Iran.
Of course it would be truly a problem if the Islamic fanatics would topple Musharraf in Pakistan. And your suggestion for how to dealing with that? Standing up for the "rights" of the fanatical mullahs of Iran to have nukes!!! ("on the basis of international law yada yada yodeli") Why not Syria, Libya, North Korea and Saudi Arabia too, while we are at it?
I think you are Jimmy Carter in disguise (if not actually him).
And we see again how "international law" is solely and nothing but an incantation invoked by people with a leftist mind warp.
There is no international law! It doesn't exist! It's just an incantation. And only weak minds fall for it (which unfortunately means the vast majority of the Westerners.)
Sigh. Last message. My life is already far too busy.
CS: "First there is this logic of "Hey, two of my children already ate deadly poison, so why shouldn't I let the third one do it too? ... Who am I to stop him? It's only fair.""
Where were you neocons when Pakistan and India were getting their nukes? Did you just get activated recently because you were told to get angry at Iran?
CS : "Then there is this idea that Indians are going to nuke Christian countries."
You are funny, I never said that. I said that India is not friendly to Christians (its own and missionaries). They are not nice people either, I don't see why they should get nukes if only nice people should have those weapons. Not anymore than Pakistan.
Secondly, if you had followed, I actually don't believe Iran will nuke Christian countries in any case: there are already too many Muslims there (;-)) and they would be nuked back. Nukes are worthless when your enemies (or neighbours that you can reach with your vectors) also have them, never mind if they have far more than you. Let's not even speak about the fact they might intercept them all a day (when your vectors would have a sufficient range).
CS: "You see, Islamic fanatics do not back off from suicide bombing or Armageddon. Their prime focus is in a world beyond which they happily die for. MAD just doesn't work with these guys"
No, I don't see. Although, I would prefer a world where only Christian had nukes (not even Israel given its siege mentality ;-)), I don't believe that the Iranians are ready for Armageddon (why don't they wage a large war right now ?), not any more than the Soviets.
Again, stop being obsessed by the prospect of invading the Middle-East (what a mess), defend Europe, the USA.
And, no, I don't buy the argument that its better to invade Iraq than having terrorists in France, Britain, etc. You will get both if you don't solve the massive immigration problems the Western World is facing and the rapid islamification of Europe!
I think your priorities are completely screwed up: the colonization-invasion of Europe by tens of millions of Muslims is far more important than denying Iran a bomb (it is not close obtaining, it will not be able to use without assured destruction, and denying this bomb will create yet more chaos while the US already does not have enough troops to solve the mess it is in).
Okay,bye the Gates of Vienna! Defend Europe first, stop wanting to attack and invade the East while you are already in two quagmires.
OK, Steevie, so I guess I'll have to explain my last comment. You wrote:
"Tsk Tsk. You basically repeat Le Pen opponents' characterization."
And this is supposed to be a damning argument against my comment on Le Pen (which you perceived as anti-Le Pen -- there were more aspects to it, but never mind).
So, in order to prove that I am wrong to oppose Le Pen, you write that I oppose Le Pen.
Can't you see this is a circular, therefore stupid, argument?
Obviously you don't, since you further argue, one comment later:
"Repeating the characterization of Le Pen's enemies (rather than opponents) is not an argument either."
Now you're at a loss to explain yourself, so you're trying to split hairs by making a difference between "enemies" and "opponents".
This is a reaction I've witnessed thousands of times on blogs (and also on mainstream media).
It characterizes fanatics. These people divide humanity between people who are on their side and people who are against them ("enemies").
When they discuss something, their aim is not to explore reality, try and find the truth, confront their views with others', etc. Their aim is to detect whether you're on the "good" side, or whether you're an "enemy".
That's the reason they keep scrutinizing your speech for telltale words or phrases.
Haha! You've said such and such. That's the way the enemy talks. Therefore you're on the enemy's side. Therefore everything you've just said is rubbish.
Obviously. Since the truth is on our side.
Note, also, the way these people always suggest that you're some sort of dumb ass not being able to think for yourself.
You see, you "repeat the characterizations of Le Pen's enemies". (It's Le Pen here, but it could be just about anybody else.)
Of course, the fact that Le Pen's enemies (or opponents, or people disagreeing with him, in part or fully), might have some solid ground and good reasons to do so, and might have applied some thorough knowledge and deep thinking to it, is totally excluded from the picture, right away. This would be absurd: the only proper opinion is to be pro-Le Pen.
The irony of this twisted mindset is that it's universally practised by the French Left.
I've stopped counting the number of times I've been on the receiving end of such rebuttals on French blogs: "Haha! You've said such and such! There you are! You're obviously a racist, a fascist, a Le Pen supporter!"
Defeating the islamisation of Europe and the attack on Western civilisation will take more than this type of school-yard chit-chat.
Robert,
When they discuss something, their aim is not to explore reality, try and find the truth, confront their views with others', etc. Their aim is to detect whether you're on the "good" side, or whether you're an "enemy".
Aha, so that's why he starts referring to me as "you neocons".
He got me confused there for a while.
Steevie wrote:
CS: "First there is this logic of "Hey, two of my children already ate deadly poison, so why shouldn't I let the third one do it too? ... Who am I to stop him? It's only fair.""
Where were you neocons when Pakistan and India were getting their nukes?
Wonderful, I can hear you quarreling with your wife "Where were you evil witches when the first two kids ate the deadly poison? ... So there you go, now it's only fair that the third one eats it too! It's international law. I have every single dictator thug in the UN with me on this."
How mature...
The funniest thing is if anyone would suggest to actually deal with Pakistan (let's detoxificate one of the kids, right!), he'd just pitch it up a level and complain even more. Because this whole charade is nothing but the usual leftist mind warp.
When there was a lot of discussion regarding the invasion of Iraq, I very often heard arguments like "Oh they should have invaded Baghdad in the first Gulf War, but now it's too late/wrong."
Or "It's unfair to invade Iraq, why don't they invade North Korea instead?"
So then I asked "So you want them to invade North Korea then?"
To which the answer was always a frightened "No no no!"
Very mature...
The rest of the comment is at the same level of maturity so I decline from answering.
This is the deal:
Leftists like Steevie do not complain about Pakistan because they actually wanted something to have been done about it. Instead they are happy that nothing was done, so that they can forever complain about it. Dealing with the problem is the biggest threat of all to their position. It's the last thing they want.
The same when these leftists say that Bush I should have invaded Baghdad on the first Gulf War. Of course they didn't want that at all. They are happy he didn't invade, so that they could endlessly use that line.
Surely I'm one of the most powerful critics of American foreign policy. But at least I would have wanted them to do it right.
In response to what Robert Marchenoir wrote:
"The problem with Le Pen is he's not a politician at all. He's not really concerned about furthering his ideas, or convincing people, or winning power. He's more of a professional provocateur."
Le Pen is more than an agitator. I think professional agitators are mainly left-wing. They like to irritate people by talking politically correct nonsense. They then receive praise from the media for challenging received wisdom. On the contrary, Le Pen defends common sense and says the truth against the leftist journalists who hold the media. He doesn't believe in diplomacy, and it is very refreshing to watch him rout the arrogant leftist journalists when he gives them an interview.
But I agree with Marchenoir that Le Pen didn't try to grab power. I think he is a waste of time for the anti-immigration movement. He enjoys being a political martyr. He's been involved for a very long time with the French "extreme right", which seems to be an assortment of eccentrics who also have a culture of being political martyrs. Some of them still believe in monarchy, dress every sunday to go to the mass, enjoy being old fogeys and defending the truth against the whole world. But the French "extreme right", including the monarchists, has absorbed the extreme-left ideals of the French revolution. They tend to idolize the French state even though it destroys natural society. This is also true of Le Pen.
"He's been right on immigration, and he was practically alone on this for a very long time."
This is true. Although he has not ALWAYS been right on that question.
Read this: (in french)
"He represents this old, irrational, anti-semitic streak, which is closely intertwined nowadays with traditional French anti-americanism."
I've never heard Le Pen say anything anti-american.
"Pendant des années la France avait eu le grand malheur d'avoir l'extrême droite la plus puissante d'Europe mais en vous entendant Mr le président Le Pen, je suis bien content que ce soit terminé."
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x66i6z_sarkozy-clash-lepen-au-parlement-ex_news
This video was removed by the totalitarian liberals of youtube,, they could not handle the truth
As a BNP member, Le Pen, IS GUILTY OF THE MOST EVIL CRIME, speaking
the truth, I perdict that between 2020 and 2329, war will come to europe vire the clowns that now goven use, iT will be a war beween Islam and the JEWISH CHRISTAIN WORLD, When I, look at present politics in the west ,it is like standing in the Australian bush at night and seeing a thin red line in the distance,= ISLAM and a 100 mile wind blowing, towards you , with gum leave up to you knees, Do you think the average Aussie is stupid ,and stay there, no he will run to the nearist river . STUPID EUROPE
Post a Comment