Friday, April 04, 2008

Note to SuperFrenchie Readers

On a fairly regular basis, the webmaster and/or the readers of the website SuperFrenchie leave comments on the comments page with hyperlinks towards the latest post of his (often with few arguments; apparently the SF post says it all and is nothing if not the final word on a given subject). Which is fine with us.

However (regarding the final word on a subject), while SuperFrenchy (and/or his readers) are, as a general rule, allowed to come here, post his/their comments, and leave hyperlinks towards SuperFrenchie and like-minded websites (they seem to do so fairly often, and we have no problem with that), it would seem that the favor (isn't it really a basic règle déontologique not to mention common courtesy?) is not returned.
# SuperFrenchie says:
April 4th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Personal message to racist idiot Erik Svane:
All your posts are automatically moderated and deleted. …
Not only does SuperFrenchie not return the favor (or abide by the most basic rules of common debate), but he relishes the fact that clueless Americans (or their supporters) have not found this out, offering him (and his readers) the opportunity to once again avoid debate while reverting to personal attack ("psychopathy, obsessive behaviour, nervous breakdown, hatred, fascism", etc, etc, etc) or making personal attacks about the people and/or organizations who the person demonized is associated with (directly or otherwise, aka guilt by association), but always — always, always, always — finding an excuse to avoid debate about the facts (beyond the alleged "facts" that those who don't agree with them are retards, racists, fascists, would-be psychopaths, and obsessive to the point of writing a post like this one — which is the way (because it is the only way they know how) that, if they respond at all, they will respond to this post).

SuperFrenchie, incidentally, is someone lucide who believes (should I write, "who knows"?) that Bush is worse than Le Pen, which I suppose is hardly a totally indefensible viewpoint, but shouldn't that be precisely the sort of argument one should allow people with contrary opinions to debate freely (without racist and insulting language, natch)? Then again, I should be writing someone "who knows", someone who knows for a fact, someone who knows beyond the shadow of a doubt, not someone "who believes", n'est-ce pas?

While on the subjects of fascism and mockery and such, it seems hardly inappropriate to quote Jonah Goldberg (emphasis mine) on true fascist society:
contrary voices are regulated, barred, banned when possible, mocked and marginalized when not, Progressive voices are encouraged, lionized, amplified — in the name of "diversity," or "liberation," or "unity," and, most of all, "progress."
Indeed, while bemoaning France's alleged unjust treatment in America, SuperFrenchie relishes the fact that a smart Frenchman like himself has pulled the wool over the eyes of another trusting American — which, as you will remember (in a far more important context than this one), was Bush's original complaint about Chirac; the Bernard Kouchner quote at the end of that New York Times article concerning feelings of having been betrayed by the French government was, incidentally, one SuperFrenchie felt was either: racist; totally unfit for the readers of his blog; had nothing whatsoever (God forbid) to do with wholly-inappropriate (bien sûr!) American anger towards the French (governmental anger or US citizens' anger); or all three. (This from someone who states in the opening paragraphs of his blog (emphasis mine) that "this is also a place to discuss French-American relations, and try to better understand each other’s point of view" and "it’s a blog that … attempts to establish a dialogue about our different perceptions of one another" — see Jonah Goldberg's quote above — while adding that "talking between ourselves [leads] nowhere".)

Well, SuperFrenchie, what is it? Is it about high-falutin' principles to the tune of "the level of discussion [being as] high" as possible and establishing "a dialogue about our different perceptions of one another"; or is it about silencing your supposed adversaries while (justifying this by) mocking them, castigating them, and calling them names? (The answer, if I'm not mistaken, is: it's both, because the French want to have it both ways.)

Needless to say, the very fact that it is hardly a rare occurrence for the French (or for Europeans) to say one thing to Americans' face (reassuring them of their eternal friendship, calling for dialog, or bemoaning alleged American injustices), whether through official channels or in private day-to-day conversations, and then rub their hands together in glee behind Americans' backs in Schadenfreude is one raison d'être for No Pasarán's existence in the first place ("Behind the Façades in France: What expats and the mainstream media (French and American alike) fail to notice (or fail to tell you) about French attitudes, principles, values, and official positions…").

Regarding racism and calls for tolerance and dialog, I would like to quote Jonah Goldberg again (think of adapting the text to replace, say, the word liberals and left-wing with (les) Français or (les) Européen(s), the word race with, say, foreign affairs or French-American relations, conservative with American (conservative or otherwise), and in this country with on this planet):
People have been calling for national dialogues and conversations for decades. It usually works something like this: Liberals say we need a frank discussion about race (or class or gender) in this country, and then they proceed to bludgeon any conservative stupid enough to take them up on their offer.
And I would like to quote John Hawkins:
Everyone always says that they want a national dialogue about race, but what they really seem to want is a national lecture where a liberal mouths politically correct platitudes — and everyone else is welcome to either nod along or shut up out of fear that they'll be called a racist for daring to have an opinion contrary to left-wing doctrine.
In any case, I answered SuperFrenchie's original post (although obviously the answer didn't appear on the page either) as follows (emphasis and a couple of minor changes added):
Personal message (puisque je n'ai pas le choix) to SF from racist idiot Erik Svane:

Most of the comments I have left on your website — I see now that the rather numerous examples were all deleted and that the research, the arguments, and the work was for naught — can hardly be attributed as anything approaching rants (racist or otherwise), but rather as well-thought-out and well-defended arguments such as Mona Charen's, but although this seems to be an example of "the level of discussion [being] very [?] high", these apparently amount to arguments, opinions, and viewpoints which SF and his readers (as well as readers of France's mainstream media) won't be allowed access.

How about Mona Charen [the latest comment automatically censored by SF]? Is she a racist idiot too? (Do you know her at all?) How about Investor's Business Daily?

And are her arguments (in which France is barely mentioned, certainly not in a negative way) nothing but racist?

Is it racist to point out that "North Korea's people suffered a catastrophic famine that took (by the BBC's estimate) one in ten lives in the 1990s and continues to cause desperate suffering to the present day [and that the] state maintains a Stalinist grip at home that forbids even whispering against the "Dear Leader" and has imprisoned and executed countless opponents"?

Is it, in turn, off bounds to point out that concern with alleged injustice in/from America may be exaggerated — and therefore at least somewhat unjust — when twinned with the ignorance of régimes such as North Korea, Iran, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and (Saddam's) Iraq, or the minimizing of the latters' misdeeds and/or crimes?

In that case, oui, SuperFrenchie, you are always right and anybody (French or foreign) who follows the politically-correct opinion is always right (not to mention lucide), while anybody who doesn't agree is not only always wrong but always racist, and we will always be having a great débat like the French always pretend to stand by with great principles and — with all the cards in their hand — it is a debate they will invariably win…

[To quote Jonah Goldberg again:
contrary voices are regulated, barred, banned when possible, mocked and marginalized when not, Progressive voices are encouraged, lionized, amplified — in the name of "diversity," or "liberation," or "unity," and, most of all, "progress."]
In the meantime, SuperFrenchie, rest assured that you — unless it is some of your readers — are always assured of being allowed on NP's comments page and, in the process, making publicity for as many of your SF posts as you/as they want…