Révélations sur le politiquement correct, les partis pris et le refus de mettre en doute les grandiloquences auto-congratulatoires des autorités (avec preuves à l'appui) qui sévissent dans le journal de référence, Le Monde, et dans d'autres médias français…….Bilingual Documenting and Exposing of the Biased Character of French Media, Including its Newspaper of Reference, Le Monde
"If you don't support the Left when you are 20, you have no heart", Winston Churchill has been quoted as saying; "If you don't support the Right when you are 40, you have no brains."
Why — why on Earth — should high school students (and for that matter, university students as well) join in deciding the future of the country, if they have no brains?
Sorry if you (or your parents) feel offended, but the question is an honest one.
Most young people are more interested in girls or boys than in how a government works. In fact, most boys' political choices are more about impressing girls (and, in the best case — in their point of view — ending up in bed with one of them).
One of the Danish high school students who was interviewed when lowering the age limit was discussed in Denmark a few years ago admits as much when she confesses upfront that "the political views of my friends are quite limited."
Instapundit's Ed Driscoll reports that in the UK, 16-Year-Olds Can Vote in the Next British General Election. When the idea was floated in Denmark in 2022, I responded with the current text
(slightly shortened, for space
reasons, when sent to the local newspaper). When a feminist wrote that democracy should be inclusive
(meaning voting for 16- and 17-year-olds as well as for foreigners — not distinguishing between legal and illegal aliens), I shot back that democracy should not be inclusive, but rational. Why should foreigners have the right to vote, I asked? I lived in
Paris for more than 20 years and never received (or even asked for)
French citizenship.
As a young Dennis Prager
reacted, when 18(!)-year-olds got the vote in 1971: "Why are they giving me the vote? I don't know anything!"
In America, the 26th
Amendment dates back to the Vietnam War: "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote." But notice what is (very) wrong with this — simplistic — quote (see Alexis de Tocqueville quote below). The message is this: You cannot — no one can — trust your families to defend, or even care for, you: Our fathers and mothers are so indifferent to our well-being that they would vote for war and not care that we would fall on the battlefield; in fact, the only angels wise enough to defend us (as well as our aforementioned fathers and mothers) are those in government — as long as it is run by (left-wing) politicians and bureaucrats.
In other words: the 26th Amendment is based on typical anti-family Marxism.
"We must help the poor"; "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote"; "we stand for tolerance"; "no person is illegal"; "we must fix the climate." As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, as far back as the 1830s, "It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth."
The Left loves teenagers because children — like the Leftists themselves — are drama queens (not to mention emotionally unbalanced) who fall for simple platitudes and who love the idea of joining in the Left's next hysterical Crusade. That is why socialists constantly want to lower the voting age — to 18, to 17, to 16, to — what'll be the next thing? 11?!
But if Greta Thunberg is right (that we are "at the beginning of a mass extinction"), shouldn't the only logical conclusion be that "young people" like her alone should be allowed to vote, while we pathetic adult twits who, after all, "have stolen [their] childhood" should be denied that right?
"Ignorant, officious, self-important students shouldn’t have that much influence," opines law professor Glenn Reynolds, while Ed Driscoll adds that "the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience."
"The problem isn’t that I don’t get what you’re saying or that I’m old" laughsBill Maher. "The problem is that your ideas are stupid."
It's even worse than it looks, says P.J. O'Rourke: "The grim truth is, kids are born communists."
Again: Why — why on Earth — should brainless Maoists with stupid ideas vote?
As for the green transition, do children — and let's be honest, many adults — have any idea that the miserable times (with price hikes, fuel shortages, etc.) we have been living through are largely due to the green movement's ludicrously absurd "climate-friendly" energy decisions that have been failing across Europe and North America (in the USA's case, until January 2025)?
"You become an adult when you decide to act like one," thunders Dennis Prager. "You don't become an adult because you turn a certain age."
Here is a new and better proposal: Change the law, so people don't get the vote until they reach about 25; unless they get a job at a younger age (including, naturally, serving in the military) and until they have paid their first tax bill.
Appearing on Tocsin Media to discuss how rightist speakers and journalists are unduly censored by l'ARCOM (Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique, Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication), is one of the victims, ROF's very own Nicolas Conquer.
💥« L’épouse du président de l’Arcom dirige Destin Commun, un think tank immigrationniste financé par George #Soros. »
Il n'y a, en général, que les conceptions simples qui s'emparent de l'esprit du peuple. Une idée fausse, mais claire et précise, aura toujours plus de puissance dans le monde qu'une idée vraie mais complexe. — Alexis de Tocqueville
En défendant la Grèce aux Thermopyles en 480 av. JC, 300 Spartes ont vaillamment résisté à l'armée perse de Xerxès I pendant trois jours, avant de sombrer en martyrs.
Pourtant, ce n'est pas les dizaines de milliers de soldats perses de Xerxès qu'on traite de braves, de héros (même en Iran) ; ce sont les Spartiates du roi Léonidas qui, eux, n'ont perdu "que" quelques centaines de combattants.
Ce qui nous ramène en France aux XXe et XXIe siècles, où on nous avance sans cesse que parce que l'URSS aurait perdu 50 fois plus de morts que l'Amérique pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, nous devons, et l'Europe doit, plus de gratitude aux Russes qu'aux Américains (qui, il faut le dire, n'étaient point mutuellement adversaires — a priori ; voir ci-bas).
De fait, je n'ai jamais participé à, ou même entendu, un discours en France sur la Seconde Guerre Mondiale sans que quelqu'un dise, souvent avec un sourire entendu : "Mais les Ricains l'ont fait pour leurs propres intérêts (économiques)"
Il paraît que ce ne serait pas de l'anti-américanisme pur, pur et dur. En êtes vous sûr ?
Réflechissez-y : Comment quelqu'un pourrait dire — à tort ou à raison — que "les Belges ou les Français ou les Danois ou les Philippins ont fait la guerre pour leurs propres intérêts?" C'est du non-sens. Absolu. Il n'y en a que pour les Amerloques, comme jadis Monsieur Sylvestre était le seul Guignol qui n'était pas la caricature d'un seul individu particulier (français ou étranger) mais le stéréotype de tout un peuple.
Par ailleurs, plus de 16 millions Américains ont servi sous les drapeaux dans les années 1940. Pense-t'on qu'il y avait en Amérique des dizaines de millions de parents qui auraient dit : "Oui, notre fils adoré : quitte notre Home Sweet Home, prends un fusil, enfile l'uniforme, traverse les océans, vas-t'en en guerre, nous voulons risquer que tu perde ta vie pour que Coca-Cola puisse vendre plus de bouteilles aux Frenchies" ?!
Ah oui, si les capitalistes yankees sont tellement macchiavéliques — diaboliques, pourrait-on dire — ou abrutis, commme le martèle la propagande communiste, c'est que ladite propagande a effectivement fait fondre les cerveaux des Français.
Suite à l'article d'Évelyne Joslain sur le 80e anniversaire de la victoire en Europe (VE Day, Les 4 Vérités nº 1495), un lecteur/confrère a "bondi au plafond" par ce qu'il appelle une "réécriture de l'histoire" : "les
troupes anglo-américaines" insiste-t'il, "n’étaient pas
des héros mais des amateurs qui se battaient pour les intérêts
économiques de leur pays et rien d’autre."
Comme de nombreux Français — qui ne semblent, bizarrement, jamais parler des intérêts des Soviétiques — Jean-Marie Pichard ne semble pas s'en rendre compte, mais de fait, si quelqu'un est dupe de la réécriture de l'histoire, c'est bien lui : avec les mensonges gauchistes, tout est tourné sur la tête. Doublement. Les Américains et non les communistes sont accusés de faire la guerre pour leurs "propres intérêts." Tandis que les gens — que dis-je, les peuples — qui sont loués pour leur courage inné et considérés l'équivalent des Spartiates sus-nommés sont les soviétiques et non les Yankees.
On souffre donc sous une double déception : d'un côté, on attribue les sombres desseins (très réels) de Staline aux Yankees ; De l'autre, on attribue aux fantassins cocos tant des vertus martiales que des vertus quasi-bibliques dans un fantasme où les Russes sont comparés aux Spartiates ci-haut nommés.
Les statistiques de la mort au combat seraient symboliques d'une espèce de bravoure intérieure, qui de plus est nationale ou communale et reflète la nation entière, faisant preuve d'une valeur, d'une vaillance sans équivalent et qui manqueraient (cruellement?) aux cœurs des Yankees fourbes.
Beaucoup de lecteurs des 4 Vérités
et d'auditeurs de Radio Courtoisie
se révendiquent de la religion chrétienne, mais ne faut-il pas se
demander si nous versons vers une superstition quasi-païenne,
avec des louanges quasi-mythiques à la Russie profonde et immortelle et des panégyriques à l'âme de la Russie éternelle. Nous faisons face, selon Evelyne Joslain, à "des inversions parfaites de la réalité
factuelle".
D'ailleurs, l'avez-vous remarqué ? Quoi qu'ils fassent (ou qu'ils ne fassent pas), les Américains ne peuvent pas gagner. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." Quand ils font la guerre, c'est pour des raisons crapuleuses. Et quand ils essaient de rester en-dehors de la guerre, ils sont condamnés pour ne pas être entré dans le conflit assez tôt.
"Les chiffres parlent d’eux-mêmes" prétend Jean-Marie Pichard : "les pertes totales US de la Deuxième
Guerre mondiale sont de l’ordre du cinquantième des pertes russes
(militaires et civils additionnés)." M. Pichard ne sait-il pas pourquoi les statistiques sont à comparer avec un bikini ? Parce que les deux dévoilent beaucoup, mais elles cachent l'essentiel.
La vérité n'est-elle pas que l'hécatombe soviétique dans la Grande Guerre Patriotique est entièrement due à l'inclinaison des dictateurs de ne pas avoir le moindre estime pour la vie de leurs sujets et de considérer ces troufions, souvent mal formés et "envoyés au casse-pipe", comme de la chair à canon (comme, 2500 ans plus tôt, les Perses de Xerxès). Dans cette perspective, l'Allemagne et le Japon ont eux aussi perdu (beaucoup) plus de vies, tant parmi les civils que parmi les militaires, que les USA (ou le Royaume-Uni) — faut-il aussi multiplier les louanges sur la culture des SS et des Japonais fanatiques par-dessus celle, républicaine et démocrate, des GIs (et des Tommies) ?!
Comme le dit Antony Beevor à propos de l'hécatombe soviétique, n'est-il pas plutôt dû au "mépris stupéfiant quant à la vie humaine de la part de Staline" ? Dans The Soviet Role in World War II, l'historien écrit que l'
On
ne peut jamais s’attendre à ce que l’armée d’une démocratie libérale
combatte aussi impitoyablement que celle d’une dictature.
Par ailleurs, Jean-Marie Pichard sait-il que parmi les millions de soldats soviétiques morts, selon lui, à cause de "l’acharnement de l’Armée Rouge à défendre le sol natal", des centaines de milliers ont perdu la vie abattus et mitraillés par… ladite Armée Rouge ? Oui, l'ordre nº 227 du Tyran Rouge du Kremlin interdisait aux soldats de battre en retraite, ordonnant à la troupe à l'arrière d'abattre froidement leurs camarades s'ils contraignaient à cet ordre et revenaient, perdants, vers la "sécurité" des lignes soviétiques.
On parle aussi de centaines de milliers de soldats soviétiques qui ont été exécutés par ordre de Moscou (pour ne pas parler des Polonais de Katyn).
Soyons réalistes : Les seuls qui ont fait la guerre pour leurs propres intérêts (économiques ou autres) ce sont les dictatures : l'Allemagne nazie, le Japon impérial et — oui — la Russie communiste.
Le seul qui après 1945 sort gagnant est le Vojd, à tel point qu'un historien (Sean McMeekin) a appellé son livre sur le conflit Stalin's War (étonnamment, non traduit en français).
• Quant à l'avance éclair des Rouges, à quoi faut-il vraiment l'attribuer ? au désir du citoyen moyen de Murmansk, d'Astana, de Vladivostok et de Novosibirsk de libérer … la Roumanie, la Hollande ou la France (?!). Encore une fois, faut-il attribuer "le rouleau compresseur russe [qui] avance inexorablement à l’est" à la bravoure innée des valeureux qui symbolisent l'âme russe éternelle ?
Ou n'est-ce pas plutôt aux jeeps et aux camions de l'Oncle Sam — 400 000 en tout ? C'est l'avis de l'historien Antony Beevor qui écrit dans La Deuxième Guerre Mondiale : "Sans les camions américains fournis dans le cadre du Prêt-bail (Lend-lease), l'Armée rouge n'aurait jamais pu atteindre Berlin avant les Américains."
Au total, l’aide américaine a représenté environ 180 milliards de
dollars (d’aujourd’hui) : 400 000 jeeps et camions, 14 000 avions, 8 000
tracteurs, 13 000 chars [etc, etc, etc…]
Dans leurs mémoires, l'ambassadeur américain à Moscou, Averell Harriman, et Nikita Khrouchtchev ont tous les deux cité Staline en personne : "L'Amérique est un pays de machines ; sans ces machines, nous perdrions cette guerre."
Une fois la reconquête du territoire national achevée s'ouvre un autre
chapitre : en Roumanie d'abord, en Hongrie, puis en Prusse-Occidentale,
les soldats soviétiques se livrent à « une orgie de crimes de guerre » au premier rang desquels les viols massifs.
Par ailleurs, après l'invasion de Normandie et après nombre de victoires depuis un an environ — Rome tombe aux mains des alliés deux jours plus tôt, le 4 juin 1944 — voilà que les alliés subissent des défaites importantes ou en tout cas des revers quasi-catastrophiques, notamment pendant l'Opération Market Garden pour s'emparer des ponts en Hollande ou pendant l'offensive-surprise de von Rundstedt qui inaugurera la Bataille des Ardennes (la bataille la plus sanglante pour les Américains pendant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale); il y a des théories comme quoi le Kremlin a partagé moults renseignements des Occidentaux, directement ou indirectement, avec Berlin, afin de saigner tant les Alliés que les Allemands. Quels formidables alliés ces Russes !
Dans cette perspective, une autre excuse pour vilipender l'Oncle Sam est d'avoir lâché deux bombes atomiques sur le Japon, et cela "seulement" pour intimider notre grand allié russe.
Mais de fait, il s'avère que cette intimidation a réussi, et Staline a mis fin à certains de ses projets macchiavéliques. Non pas par rapport au Japon et à l'Asie, mais par rapport à… l'Europe de l'Ouest. C'est depuis 14 ans que nous connaissons les projets secrets de Staline, date de sortie du livre par le plus grand historien de notre génération. L'armée Rouge n'allait pas s'arrêter à Berlin, révèle Antony Beevor dans La Deuxième Guerre Mondiale. Les 400 divisions allaient poursuivre inexorablement leurs avancées et — avec l'aide des partis
communistes locaux — rafler toute l'Europe, occidentale comme
orientale. Oui, après la défaite de l'Allemagne, le Kremlin avait pour projet de
trahir ses alliés et de lâcher ses divisions sur le reste de l'Europe. Pourquoi ce projet ne s'est-il pas, finalement (et heureusement), réalisé ? Car le NKVD (l'ancêtre du KGB) de Beria a appris l'existence de la bombe atomique (autre excuse pour les anti-Américains de tous pays de fustiger l'Oncle Sam).
Quelle tristesse ! Si seulement Staline avait pu balayer les armées anglo-américaines et occuper Paris et à Copenhague avec ses chars, cela aurait évité aux nostalgiques de l'Union Soviétique d'avoir à vivre sous le cauchemar de Coca-Cola, de Hollywood et d'une souris nommée Mickey.
Moi, je dis un grand Thank you aux GIs américains, vilipendés, ainsi qu'à leur bombe nucléaire, toute aussi diabolisée. • Mais nous arrivons à ce que je considère comme la chose la plus ridicule, sinon obscène, du conte de fées français sur la glorification des Russes pendant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale.
Effectivement, toutes les louanges sur la bravoure, vraie ou imaginée, de l'âme russe oublient une chose, fondamentale.
Jean-Marie Pichard tonne qu'il ne faut pas récrire l'histoire. Ce n'est pas faux, mais M. Pichard ne sait pas pourquoi. Pour continuer son mépris du peuple américain, il se sent obligé de référer à leur "lobby pro-hithlérien" (sic) d'avant-guerre. M. Pichard, vous ne le savez pas, mais il n'y avait pas de lobby plus pro-hitlérien que… l'URSS de Joseph Staline.
En effet, c'est une erreur, une réécriture de l'histoire, voire un mythe (encore un), d'affirmer que la guerre a commencé quand Hitler a envahi la Pologne. Non : il est plus juste de dire que la guerre a commencé quand Hitler et le petit Père des Peuples ont ensemble envahi la Pologne, la Wehrmacht la Pologne occidentale et l'Armée Rouge (deux semaines plus tard) la Pologne orientale.
De fait, Jeff Jacoby a proposé que la guerre ne devrait plus être considéré comme ayant débuté en septembre 1939 mais en août, le jour de la signature du Pacte germano-soviétique neuf jours auparavant. La guerre n'aurait donc pas commencé le 1 septembre 1939, selon le journaliste du Boston Herald, mais le 23 août 1939.
Eh oui, pendant les premières deux années du conflit, les Nazis et les communistes étaient alliés. D'abord, invasion de la Pologne. Ensuite attaque et (tentative d')occupation des pays nordiques (Danemark et Norvège pour le Führer, les pays Baltes et la Finlande pour le Vojd). Plus tard, attaque de la Hollande, la Belgique et la France pour Berlin, la Bessarabie et la Roumanie pour Moscou. Tout ceci concorde, par ailleurs, avec le fait, déjà établi, que Staline a essayé de s'emparer de plusieurs pays et régions du continent et par la suite, de l'Europe toute entière — y compris (comme nous l'avons vu) la partie occidentale.
Il est de notoriété publique qu'avant l'invasion de l'URSS en juin 1941, les partis communistes tasaient toute critique sur les Nazis. Ce qui est beaucoup plus rarement précisé, c'est que les Nazis allemands et les communistes soviétiques étaient de fait des alliés.
Sans le pacte Ribbentrop-Molotov, Hitler n'aurait jamais commencé la guerre (et, par ailleurs, Staline non plus). La vérité est que la Seconde Guerre Mondiale n'aurait jamais commencé sans l'aval, et sans la participation, de Staline.
Quand les deux alliés sont
devenus adversaires (mortels), ce n'est point devenu le Bien contre le Mal ;
c'était (comme depuis le début) le Mal contre le Mal.
Il y a incontestablement beaucoup de choses à admirer dans la culture russe, mais une des choses qui est régulièrement ignorée est l'extrême brutalité de cette société, impensable dans les sociétés occidentales en ces temps modernes. Tout le monde est tenu (même si la tradition de tous les gouvernements, et surtout des autorités communistes, est de mentir ou en tout cas d'exagérer). Sait-on, par exemple, combien de Russes sont morts pendant la guerre civile russe entre Rouges et Blancs après la prise du pouvoir par les bolchéviques ? Vingt millions. Oui, c'est le même chiffre de fatalités que pendant la Grande Guerre Patriotique et par ailleurs, c'est un chiffre qui éclipse les pertes du régime tsariste pendant la Première Guerre Mondiale, prétendument des chiffres "inacceptables" (dix fois moindres que les quatre années qui suivirent et donc dix fois moindres aussi que les pertes de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale) qui exigeaient la nécessité de rien de moindre qu'une révolution communiste.
Chaque fois que j'entends un Français dire que ce sont les Russes qui ont
libéré l'Europe, je l'invite à venir en vacances avec moi. Oui, partons
ensemble, M. Pichard
allons visiter, par exemple, les pays de l'Europe de l'Est, de
l'Estonie à la Roumanie en passant par la Slovaquie. SI jamais le
Français commence à repéter ces âneries, je lui couvrirai (gentiment) la
bouche pour éviter qu'il ne se retrouve dans une asile d'aliénés.
À Tallinn, le musée estonien de l'histoire du vingtième siècle est nommée le Musée des Deux Occupations. Un Lithuanien, lui, disait : "j'ai vécu sous l'occupation fasciste et sous l'occupation communiste ; eh bien si c'était à refaire et si j'avais le choix, je préférerais dix ans sous les Schleus qu'une seule année sous les Ruskoffs"
Il ne faut pas être de confession juive, loin s'en faut, pour approuver la phrase du Talmud :
« Si vous êtes gentil avec les cruels, vous finirez par être cruel avec les gentils. »
Cela explique toute la politique de la Gauche en général, dans quelque pays que cela soit, et c'est particulièrement vrai avec l'indulgence française envers les soviétiques valeureux des années 1940 contrastée avec la méfiance pour les Américains prétendument fourbes.
… out of nowhere, not only is Epstein trending, but every single blog I
frequent is full of people screaming that if Trump doesn’t fire Pam
Bondi NOOOOOW (and possibly Patel and Bongino too) he’s a pedophile, and
supporting pedophiles.
And twitter accounts are screaming that the administration is just
all corrupted and co-opted by the deep state and if you tell these
accounts they’re insane, they call you a pedophile-lover. Or scream
about their feels that Trump promised he’d take down pedophiles and this
is the most important thing right now.
… Trump such as he is is obviously the best we can get right now and get
elected, and like he says we should concentrate on cleaning the
elections first before we go saying we’ll punish him or what not.
… If you throw away this miraculous chance we got to search for some
mythical perfect, you are in fact an idiot. They had their claws at our
neck. We managed to sweep them aside using Trump. But now you want to
throw it all away because Trump is not a perfect person or a perfect
president.
Sarah's final paragraph is especially illuminating.
And here we return to how my present post was originally slated to start:
In one of his reports a decade or two ago, on the subject of sexual relations, John Stossel pointed out that being on a sex-offender registry had gotten one man banned from a park where he wanted to play with small children. How was that fellow a pedophile? Stossel asked none other than the "sex offender" in question and… his wife by his side. He had bedded a girl of… (wait for it) 17! When he himself was virtually the same age — albeit an adult — 18 or 19! It wasn't some random hook-up either, one in perhaps a long list of icky Casanova-type seductions.
She was his girlfriend, his fiancée whom he loved — and whom he was faithful to — and indeed they would later go on to get married, and have kids. And during the Stossel interview, she was now standing, as mentioned, by his side. And the children that the "sex offender" wanted to play with at the park? They were his very own (as well as those of the above-mentioned girl's/wife's)! This man did not have the right to be alone with his own kids, fathered with the woman/girl/wife that he had (monogamous) sex with for the sole reason that he was in love with her!
And the authorities? The lawmakers and the law enforcers? When asked by Stossel about the case, a policeman refused to condemn the man's dire fate or even acknowledge, let alone simply see, the absurdity of the case, simply repeating over and over, like an automaton and unable to wipe the smirk off his face, that "that's the law!"
Conservatives have embraced the terms "pedophile" and "sex offender" — as well as the fight against same — but perhaps it's time to wonder whether those aren't to be linked to the Left's hysterical attempts (and hysterical terms) to shame and demonize anybody and everybody who is in the mainstream (racist! sexist! transphobe! colonialist! imperialist! traitor! convicted felon! misogynist! pedophile!) — with words invented out of whole cloth for that very goal — and not a member of some kind of minority (where such accusations are routinely excused and/or ignored).
That may be the most unvarnished truth about pedophiles: isn't the main reason the term exists (and was invented) so that drama queens have yet another weapon to shame and demonize the average citizen of the United States, as well as of other Western countries, for what is often pretty run-of-the-mill (mis?)behavior?
Indeed, when you think about it, hasn't the sexual revolution been not about freedom but about the very opposite? Hasn't the sexual revolution been not about freedom but about government and the authorities moving more and more (just like perverts?) into the sphere of what was once considered private life? Hasn't the sexual revolution been about "freeing" the people who lean towards being dependent on the government (i.e., females; who can do no wrong—we must not judge) while putting more and more chains on the people who enjoy being free and independent (i.e., males; whose motives and whose very personalities are regularly described as problematic, icky, and toxic—judgment not only necessary but highly desired)?
An embarrassing question is bound to arise: doesn't it seem like a great amount of — if not all (!) — the notorious rape accusations of the past generation or two have turned out to be exaggerations if not outright hoaxes?
Try googling the first crop of names of famous (infamous?) "survivors" over the past generation or two that come to mind: Tawana Brawley (Al Sharpton case), Crystal Mangum (Duke lacrosse team), Jackie Coakley (Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax), Emma Sulkowicz (Mattress Girl), Mary Zolkowski (Michigan's Delta College), Nikki Yovino (Sacred Heart University), Sherita Dixon-Cole (DUI arrest), Morgan Wright (law professor Francesco Parisi), Amber Heard (Johnny Depp), Halina Kuta (casino mogul Steve Wynn), Cathy Abreu (Tucker Carlson), Eleanor Williams, and, last but not least, Jessica Gallagher (an upstate New York woman claiming she was raped was in reality angry at a man she met on a dating app because he wouldn’t give her a ride home).
The men involved in the cases with these drama queens invariably met with (unbelievably high levels of) opprobrium and punishment but, as Ann Coulter puts it, "From the Duke Lacrosse team, the Columbia mattress girl and the University of Virginia, the left has not been able to produce one actual rape on a college campus."
An article in Reason by Elizabeth Nolan Brown, written in 2015 before #metoo— probably predicting the popularity of one Donald Trump — posits that
"If there is political consensus on anything in the United States today, it is the consensus that our government has overcriminalized and overincarcerated the American public," [write law professors and lecturers from the University of Pittsburgh, Duke University, Rutgers, Harvard, and Georgetown University]. Yet "against this political consensus and judicial backdrop, the current ALI [American Law Institute] draft is an extreme deviation, focused on expanding criminal sanctions for sexual behavior." … "None of this is inadvertent or the result of loose drafting," the lawyers and professors suggest.
One of the most egregious cases was the instance of the police captain proudly announcing the arrest of a "child pornographer" sending nude photos of a teen girl from their phone (i.e., sexting) and threatening to put that villainous pervert engaged in"pornography" if not in jail, at least on the sex-offender registry. The "child pornographer" sending the nude photos of an underage girl — one single naked girl, not myriads — and threatened with jail and/or having the rest of their life ruined by "a system of prolonged
public punishment" was none other than… the underage teen girl herself! And the (lone) guy she was sexting was (as in the case mentioned in the introductory paragraph) her boyfriend.
Think of the innumerable videos of police arresting American parents for letting their kids walk to school. Think of the videos of police arresting right-wing protestors, both in America and abroad, while letting members of leftist mobs go free. Think of the FBI under Obama and Biden (not to mention under Trump's first term). Think of British police (weren't London bobbies once the height of respect?) and German policemen.
I'm all for "supporting law enforcement" and "our boys in blue," but I hate to say it, it turns out that too often these people, after joining the force, fail to use their brains and their common sense.
Red State's Andrea Ruth points out that her "grandmother was 15 when she married", — adding that "Roughly 13% of marriages in 1950 took place between brides and grooms who were15-19 year-olds" — and leading Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds to reveal this hardly believable truth:
Teen-agers have been having sex forever. Their bodies are maturing,
their hormones are raging and doing what comes naturally is, well,
natural. Indeed, for most of human history, teen sex was an entirely
normal part of life, since people tended to marry and be treated as
adults at what were, by modern standards, very early ages.
Not that some stories sound, and are, horrific — particularly those linked to Jeffrey Epstein and his island — and in no way am I saying that there aren't true cases where the authorities should be called. Having said that, regularly reading scandal stories about elder teens being bedded by some teacher, I have to say that I am sorry, but that I sometimes wonder what the fuss was/is about and to what extent the kids themselves are at the origin of the complaints. Indeed, such reports invariably feature a number of comments by grown men wishing that they had had a teacher like that back in the day…
Do you remember the 1965 (black-and-white) candid camera where a stunningly beautiful or handsome teacher comes into the classroom with two kids of the opposite sex to tell them he or she will be their new teacher? The girls just stare "at the Teacher, kinda slack-jawed." The teacher is then told that he or she has a phone call and leaves the room. As they are left alone, the girls look stunned while the boys go berserk, with Wows, face slaps, "Holy mackerels", and tongues hanging out. In my school, we had that really happening when we were about 11, 12, or 13, with the school's director introducing the whole classroom to a replacement teacher in Latin who was as stunning as "Miss Darling". All the boys were dumbstruck and "had cartoon hearts springing out of their eyes!" One of our classmates got into trouble as he let out a whistle, and he was loudly berated by an irate director.
In my early teens (possibly as early as 11 or 12), I was already harboring fantasies about models in ads, actresses in movies, the girls in my classroom, and the female teachers in my school. Would it have been a bad thing for me had, say, the French teacher (ohlala!) tried to fulfill said fantasy when I was slightly older? Possibly, but I certainly wouldn't have demanded that the police get involved and/or have my parents insist on getting the teacher put behind bars.
I remember reading the story of a single mother in Italy who derived her income from renting out apartments in the building she owned. At one point she learned that her teen son had lost his virginity. Whom by? He had been "deflowered" by a widow in one of her apartments. The mother's reaction? She didn't say a word, but the next time the widow got her monthly bill, she was surprised to see that her rent had been lowered.
To their credit, even some on the Left seem to accept that the "Busybodies" and the "nanny-state advocates who want to infantilize everyone" (Glenn Reynolds) have gone too far. In his advice column as the New York Times "Ethicist" — and this article was the starting point which led me to pen the present post — Kwame Anthony Appiah makes several pointed remarks as he answers a reader's question, "I Saw a Neighbor on the Sex-Offender Registry. Should I Tell Others?"
Sex-offender
registries in the United States were created for the reason you’d
expect: to protect the vulnerable by informing the public. … But what began as a
law-enforcement tool has, over time, evolved into a system of prolonged
public punishment, treating vastly different cases as if they were the
same.
Some
people are on the registry for horrifying, predatory acts. Others wind
up on a registry for nonviolent conduct committed when they were
children or teenagers, including a 10-year-old girl who “pantsed” a
classmate. But that’s what the system has allowed. Teenagers in a
relationship who consensually swapped nude pics, adults who got busy in a
car parked in a municipal lot, a drunken undergraduate who went
streaking across the quad — all may be subject to lengthy registration
mandates. Even those no longer on the official registries may find that
for-profit data-collection websites still display their names and
photos, demanding payment for delisting.
In theory, registries can distinguish
among offenses by labeling them according to tier and type. In practice,
a person on the list becomes a sex offender —
full stop — regardless of the details. Elizabeth J. Letourneau, who
directs a center at Johns Hopkins University dedicated to the prevention
of child sexual abuse, has observed that a vast majority of sexual
offenses are committed by individuals who aren’t on any registry. A
concern for evidence-based policy has led the American Law Institute to
recommend eliminating public notification and limiting registry access
to law enforcement. Public registries don’t reduce recidivism or protect
people, researchers have concluded. The old “once a sex offender,
always a sex offender” wisdom is a discredited generalization. Yet
policies built on that assumption remain, despite a growing belief among
experts that the registries do more harm than good.
You
recently decided not to purchase a house after discovering that a
neighbor was on the registry. You didn’t mention what the offense was or
how long ago it occurred; presumably the person’s mere presence on the
registry was enough for you. That’s your prerogative, of course. But
it’s worth pausing to think about what your decision was based on.
How
dangerous is this neighbor, really? That depends on details the
registries rarely convey: what happened, how long ago it happened, how
old the person was at the time and what the person has done since. A
quarter of people currently on the registries, it has been estimated,
were minors at the time of their offense. The presence of a name on a
list tells you very little about your actual risk.
JC Skarbowsky manages to make Loreine and Nicolas crack up (1:27:30, screenshot by Randy Yaloz)
One of the two main subjects discussed on the set of Bistro Libertés was whether Donald Trump was the savior or the gravedigger of the Planet. Among the guests were Yves Pozzo di Burgo, Florian Philippot, Jean-Charles Skarbowsky, and Loreine (Lauren Kim-Minn), along with — last but not least — ROF's very own Nicolas Conquer. Check out the caricature made of the ROF spokesman at 1:51:22 (Ignace's caricatures of all the guests start at 1:50:42).
In no particular order, I would like to extend my deepest thanks for their support to the Republicans Overseas France (ROF) organization in Paris and its members, particularly Randy Yaloz and Paul Reen. Stateside, deep thanks are due, over at Instapundit (without which it would have been hard to survive the past two decades), to Glenn Reynolds, Ed Driscoll, Sarah Hoyt, Stephen Green, and — last but not least — Gail Heriot. Also to Damian Bennett, Duncan Hill, Linda, Michael, Donna, Valerie, LTK, Hervé, Aléric, Carine, Fausta, and Benny Huang, not to mention W2, who was present as a fellow blogger at No Pasarán's birth in 2004. There are many others, but life has been a bit stressful these past weeks, so forgive me if I left anybody out.
Our
good friend Erik Svane is still struggling with getting the ¡No
Pasarán! blog back online. For now you can find him at Le Monde Watch ( http://lemondewatch.blogspot.com ). Good read.
¡No
Pasarán! was platformed on Blogger. [In late May] Blogger threw a switch
-- no reason given -- and and memory-holed ¡No Pasarán!'s 21-year
history of opinion and comment. POOF! -- just like that. Disappearing
¡No Pasarán! for me and others is erasing Europa from the news, because
God help us trying to suss out what is actually going on over there when
left with the BBC, AFP, Reuters, Guardian, and Daily Mail as primary
sources.
Something needs to be done. Has anyone experience in
organizing censorship pushback? Ideas, support welcome. The goal is to
bring ¡No Pasarán! BACK, not rebuild it or replatform elsewhere. Blogger
has acted in bad faith and it needs to correct its behavior.
Ed Driscoll goes on to reminisce and provide some perspective:
OLD AND BUSTED: “Don’t Be Evil.”
The New Hotness? Evil:
… In the early 2000s, Blogspot, which Google had then only recently
acquired, was a great platform to get started on; the original version
of Instapundit was on Blogspot, which encouraged both Steve and
I to launch our first blogs there. It took only a few minutes to get a
new blog uploaded, and then it was off to the races. But any blog that’s
remotely controversial … runs the risk of angering Google’s rapacious
censorship department, and then it’s down the memory hole.
In my honest opinion, I'm assuming that Google did not make this decision as a company or as a blogger department, but that it was either some young radical "fact-checker" (sic) who lashed out or, as a lawyer recently advised, some machine (AI?) which automatically responded to some algorithm. That may sound like "If only the Tsar knew", but the thing is that over the years, a (very low) number of posts — including posts that had been on the internet for as many as ten years without the slightest controversy — have been reset to "draft status" for allegedly violating "community values." In the previous sentence, "allegedly" was the correct term as every single time that I protested and asked for a review (which indeed was every single time), the post was reinstated. Also, I have reason to believe that the Belgian government, or at least its premier television channel, bears at least some responsibility.
Other people have been saying I should migrate to, say, Substack, sometimes calling me quite nasty names for the folly (real or alleged) of remaining with Blogger/Blogspot. There may be some truth in that, and this weekend, I will be looking into Substack, WordPress, and Brave (are there others of good repute?), but there is something that the critics don't understand. Even if this migration were to take effect, and even if the Wayback Machine can find posts in the archives, I would still want — needless to say — the 21 years, and the 14,000 posts, of commentary, to remain visible to the reading public. I have for instance a number of posts on American history that I think are quite definite, that I want to remain visible plus that I want to revisit myself…
Late night on Monday, ROF's president, Randy Yaloz, appeared face to face with Darius Rochebin in an LCI debate that starts at 1:28:50 with Alligator Alcatraz and ends at 2:05:43. Watching that part of the two-hour show 30 minutes before midnight, ROF's media liaison, Paul Reen, provides commentary: ROF's president appears while
they discuss the great Alligator Alcatraz. boy it’s too inhumane for [the French]. Randy defended it well. They then discuss whether Trump deserves the Nobel Peace prize after Iran attack. of course no, but to me the winner of the most unhinged TDS journalist goes to Samantha de Bendern at the 1:45:20 mark where she says NO and explains why — that after the number of deaths in Ukraine, Israel, Iran and Gaza “since Trump has been in office” it’s a No for her. Conveniently forgetting that the Ukraine war started in Feb 2022, and that Hamas attacked Israel in Oct 7, 2023 all when Biden was President not Trump. Renaud Giraud defended Trump and tried to shut her down but she was not having it and had to fall back on the TDS default response that « he said he could end it in 24hrs!! » clown.
When they aren't comparing Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler — or with Benito Mussolini — they are comparing him with… Joseph Stalin!
The LCI debate:
Le 22h Rochebin du lundi 30 juin 2025
Publié hier à 23h59
Au
sommaire : Canicule, 2003-2025... n'a-t-on rien appris ? Nucléaire,
l'Iran reconstruit déjà sa bombe ? Corée du Nord, les larmes de Kim
Jong-un.
Le Nouvel Obs (previously Le Nouvel Observateur or The New Observer) has a special issue on America First or The Mad History of the American Empire. The weekly's cover features a parody (yet another) of the Marines raising the Stars and Strips over Iwo Jima, with most of the leathernecks replaced by Donald Trump, John Wayne, Beyoncé, and Mickey Mouse, while Superman flies overhead in a stream of dollar bills.
It is a unique case in the history of humanity: in less than two hundred years, a sparsely populated colony, the United States, managed to become the world's leading power, embodying the most uninhibited imperialism. Acting as both a "gentle giant," a dream factory capable of capturing the hearts of millions of humans, and a ruthless policeman of the planet ready to do anything to defend its interests, Uncle Sam's homeland has sparked dollars, enthusiasm... and bloodshed.
Just to make sure that we don't miss the message, assistant editor-in-chief Arnaud Gonzague treats us to an article on "President Donald Trump's brutal and erratic policies", Never Has the United States Frightened Us This Much, replete with examples of the adjective "American" replaced by the woke PC word "Unitedstateser" (e.g., l'impérialisme étasunien).
America is frightening. It has probably never been so scary. In this year 2025, the White House became home to a determined and dangerous man for world peace. Donald Trump is openly hostile to democracy, and for him, the only thing that matters is the law of the strongest. Yet, this is not the only face of the United States. Let us remember how this immense country has, in the past, been able to sow stars in our eyes. Its energy captivated us, its confidence fascinated us, as did its proactive morality—distinctive in all Disney movies—according to which each of us can/must "follow our dreams." It is the nation of Obama, Kennedy, Neil Armstrong, "Star Wars," Beyoncé…
Wait a minute: If America is praised as "the nation of … Beyoncé", what is she doing with John Wayne on the "frightening nation" cover?
But it is also the country of sovereign selfishness, to whom everything is owed and which, in the name of defending its interests, is capable of any dirty trick. This America is that of Trump and before him, of a painful history, which saw the Native American people exterminated, Vietnam and Iraq invaded, fascisms imposed in Latin America or the global economy deregulated by the most carnivorous neo-liberalism…
Compare that with a special issue of when the Democrats were in power, from October 2012 (right before that year's election), called A Trip Through The America We Like/We Love and the One We Find Frightening. The America that France and Europe loves showcases Barack Obama, George
Clooney, and Scarlett Johansson while the one that they fear features Mitt Romney and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger — both of whom (need we remind you?) turned out to be, at least partially, RINOs.
For two nights in a row — Tuesday and Wednesday — ROF's Isaac Barchichat appeared face to face with Darius Rochebin in an LCI debate that lasted 10 minutes short of two hours each time.
ROF's vice-president was surprised to find sympathy for "Daddy" Trump in LCI's studio, one of the last places in France that one would expect to find it. Darius Rochebin is a Swiss journalist, the son of an Iranian father.
June 24 issues:
Behind the Scenes of Trump's Maneuvers
Donald Trump tries to impose his ceasefire by force. At the NATO summit in The Hague, he disrupts all conventions.
Face à Darius Rochebin du mardi 24 juin 2025 - Édition Spéciale : Dans les coulisses des manœuvres de Trump
Publié le 24 juin 2025 à 20h19
Donald Trump essaie d’imposer par la force son cessez-le-feu. Il bouscule tous les usages au sommet de l’OTAN à La Haye.
Source : Face à Darius Rochebin
June 25: Nuclear matters, NATO — Trump is the one setting the rules!
In this special edition: "Daddy Trump," is NATO putting itself at the service of the "leader"? How did the Ground commandos operate in Iran?
"Bomb Iran" — the surprising clip about American B-2s.
Le 22h Rochebin du mercredi 25 juin 2025 - Édition spéciale : Nucléaire, OTAN... c'est Trump qui fixe les règles !
Publié hier à 1h11
Au
sommaire de cette édition spéciale : "Papa Trump", l'OTAN se met au
service du "chef" ? Commando terrestre : comment a-t-il agi en Iran ?
"Bomb Iran", l'étonnant clip sur les B-2 américains.
Have a cursory glance at the artificial intelligence news cycle under the new administration,
and you might think it is only about data centers, trillions of dollars
in investments, bellicose statements regarding geopolitical rivalries,
and rescinding woke AI policies. Yet, underneath the surface, there are also important matters of AI governance being settled this month.
AI governance is an obscure field that has baffled policy experts,
jurists, and philosophers in recent years. Anticipating usages of AI on a
case-by-case basis is unfathomable, not only because the technology
will evolve in novel ways but also because it will be used for governing
societal, economic, and political aspects of our existence. It is very likely, with overwhelming deficits and crumbling
bureaucracies, that our government apparatus will at some point be
reorganized around AI systems. (In this regard, the Department of
Government Efficiency is only a first experiment.)
While Donald Trump meets up in the Netherlands with the likes of the president of France, Elodie Laye Mielczareck tries to answer the question about whether Emmanuel Macron has become Donald Trump's favorite punching ball.
The Semiotician and linguist is quoted in Diane Regny's 20 Minutes newspaper article as
noting that the relationship between the two presidents seems to have
gone from Bromance via Brofade all the way to Foemance:
Regarding the evolution of the relationship between Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron, we can note a shift in positioning ⏰
1️⃣ We have moved from BROMANCE (portmanteau of "Bro" and "romance," which refers to a kind of virile friendship) stemming from the famous handshake),
2️⃣ to BROFADE (a relationship where one partner silently disengages, the gradual disappearance of the bond), synergized during the famous Vatikanet scene where Macron is sidelined.
3️⃣ Today we are at the final stage: FOEMANCE ("foe" meaning "enemy"). The breakup seems to have begun; words no longer embellish or mask, they discredit and belittle.
En français :
Concernant l'évolution
de LA RELATION ENTRE DONALD TRUMP ET ÉMMANUEL MACRON, nous pouvons noter
un changement de positionnement ⏰ 1️⃣
Nous sommes passés de la BROMANCE (construction de "Bro" et "romance"
qui désigne une sorte d'amitié virile) issue de la fameuse poignée de
main), 2️⃣ à la
BROFADE (une relation où l'un des partenaires se désengage
silencieusement, c'est la disparition progressive du lien), visible lors
de la fameuse scène du Vatican où Macron est mis de côté. 3️⃣Aujourd'hui
nous sommes au dernier stade : la FOEMANCE ("foe" signalant "ennemi"),
la rupture semble amorcée, les mots n'enjolivent plus ou ne masquent
plus, ils décrédibilisent et rabaissent.
And now for something completely different: Belgium's RTBF brings a sketch about Donald Trump and Elon Musk being told to behave, like naughty brats — by Brigitte Macron (who is known to slap presidents around and arriving at the tune of Darth Vader's imperial theme — video). It's pure anti-Trump, needless to say, but it may still make you chuckle…
Philippe Karsenty felt like he almost got into a brawl as he showed up at Frontières (8:12 or 9:15-41:28) to debate one Pierre d'Herbès, an "expert" en relations internationales.
Lors de notre matinale du 19 juin, nous accueillons Pierre d'Herbès, expert en relation internationale ainsi que Philippe Karsenty, porte-parole du Comité Trump France. Nous examinons le conflit entre Israël et l'Iran : quels sont les objectifs de Netanyahou, et le régime des mollahs est-il en danger ?
The atmosphere was slightly more cordial when the porte-parole for the Trump France committee showed up on Eric Morillot's Les Incorrectibles, but he still fired off broadside after broadside against one Didier Maïsto.
Ce vendredi, @EricMorillot reçoit Philippe Karsenty (@pkarsenty), porte-parole du Comité @TrumpFrance, et Didier Maïsto (@DidierMaisto), journaliste indépendant, pour un débat choc dans Les Incorrectibles ! ⚡️
Randy Yaloz, president of Republican Overseas, explains the reasons for the division in American society and the impact of the Los Angeles riots on the country's cohesion.
The president of ROF also has an article in the magazine format of Le Spectacle du Monde # 21, Summer 2025 (p 48-49), on Donald Trump Resetting Relations with the Persian Gulf's Monarchies.
Since this weekend, needless to say, his numerous appearances on French TV (France Info TV, I24 News, etc — while ROF VP Isaac Barchichat joined the LCI studio) have been with regards to Donald Trump's sending his bombers to destroy Iran's Nuclear facilities — which we will bring to you when we can find the permalinks on the internet.
:quality(50)/2025/06/23/000-63ak4lp-6859bac7399cc805570265.jpg)
