Check Out the Election Posters of France's Oddball Candidates, Including a Porn Star, a Creepy Ecologist, and a Hoodie-Wearing Rapper

France 24's Joseph Bamat takes a look at "the oddball candidates trying to spice up the race" for France's parliamentary elections (merci à Hervé), including a lunatic comedian, a James Bond fan, a stripper, a porn star ("Céline Bara, a professional pornography actress … proposes a full-frontal election programme" — "antitheism, communism, [and] libertarianism" along with… "pornocracy"), and a hoodie-wearing rapper, as well as a number of nutty environmentalists, among whom are a creepy ecologist and an Avatar enthusiast posing next to a blue-skinned Na'vi version of himself.

“Management Frowns upon Penis-Whipping”

There was more than just sword play going on at the NYAC Golf Course.

as a tiff over a woman and “escalated into a brawl involving three fighting wolfpacks,” wherein “tables were overturned or moved to the room’s periphery to crate a lion’s pit for the battle,” a “fat pudgy kid came out of nowhere, laid out a larger man with a blow to the head and was tackled by a crowd,” approximately two noses were broken, and the police made three arrests.

It’s a freaky world, my friends.

Black Helicopters and Doomsday Behaviour

It’s something seemingly accepting and forgiving Europeans aren’t bad at, and occasionally prove. To keep the mad mob of zombies they expect to see if the “Euro melts down”, the UK plans on putting up border controls. Austria’s Der Standard warns of a “new iron curtain” or “racist Apatheid wall”, to use the term they prefer to use with Arizona or Israel, walling the rest of the EU off from Greece. After all, the way things are going there, even Albania looks good.

We should first be clear what level of threat is used. In the event of a threat to public order "Neighboring countries" can secure themselves immediately for the first 30 days by sealing their borders and introduce document and physical checks again. This can be extended for another month, and then the EU Council of Ministers would probably decide on how to proceed.

And the stakeholders would probably ignore that the probably deciders probably decide.

So it’s „ Auswies, bitte ! ” and « tes papiers! » all over again, and as if it doesn’t say enough about the much touted accepting and forgiving nature of Europe, humanity’s ray of hope in an ugly paranoid world, it’s raised no hackles even among the terminally loony.

Unlike the much-debated exit from the eurozone [...], closing the borders with Greece wouldn’t be a problem for its partners.

Travelers should make sure they bring their own rubber gloves to offer the Grenztruppen to use on them.

Opposition to (Or the Very Belief in) Eurabia Will Make You a Neo-Con & Turn You Into Anders Breivik

Le Monde devotes an entire full page of its paper edition (its opinion section, to be sure, albeit an opinion that is not balanced by one speaking from the opposing side) to the alleged Manichean World of Eurabia, as Jean-Yves Camus uses it to castigate "far-right parties", describing Anders Behring Breivik as a natural product of "the most radical extreme of the neo-conservative movement."

Follows a lionization of Øyvind Strømmen's La toile brune, followed in turn by broadsides against Richard L. Rubenstein's Jihad and Genocide and David Pryce-Jones's Betrayal (France, the Arabs, and the Jews) — which Camus uses to angrily denounce the Eurabia concept as "anti-French" — along with a litany of expressions, from "problematic", "polemical terms", and "abusive equivalence", to "fear", "plottism", "ethno-differentialism", and "Islamophobic Westernism", through "Western Europe's radical xenophobic right parties", their "obsession", and "their idol, Geert Wilders".

Griping about the terms Islamo-Fascism and Nazislamism, Camus is outraged that no distinction is made between differing totalitarianisms, such as Nazism and Communism — although he is quick to add "even though they might all be morally condemnable" (not "are morally condemnable", "might be").

The best part of the article is when Camus concludes that "this idea demeans the concept of European civilization as a skin-thick backlash at the Other, without proposing a coherent cultural project likely to define the values ​​that Muslims in Europe would be required to integrate." The values that Muslims in Europe would be required to integrate are, simply, to follow the local laws and not try to impose the laws of their societies on us. How complicated is that to understand? How reprehensible, how racist, is that supposed to be?

L'idéologie qui a conduit Anders Behring Breivik à s'attaquer à l'Etat norvégien, puis à des militants du Parti social-démocrate, en juillet 2011, n'est pas que le délire d'un homme seul : c'est une construction intellectuelle qu'il explique dans son manifeste "2083" - une déclaration d'indépendance européenne, qui s'avère être surtout une compilation des écrits d'auteurs anglo-saxons appartenant à la frange la plus radicale du mouvement néoconservateur.

L'enquête du journaliste norvégien Oyvind Strommen, La Toile brune (Actes Sud, 206 p., 21 euros), montre bien l'obsession qui s'est emparée depuis le début des années 2000 d'une partie significative des droites radicales xénophobes en Europe occidentale. Il s'agit de la peur d'Eurabia, néologisme forgé en 2006 par l'essayiste Bat Ye'Or, désignant un continent et une culture européens soumis de leur plein gré à l'islam et à son corpus de lois normatives, la charia, ayant renié leurs racines "judéo-chrétiennes" et de surcroît en voie d'être démographiquement submergés par les musulmans, au point que les Européens "de souche" deviendraient bientôt minoritaires.

Autre néologisme, la "dhimmitude" (le fait d'être soumis au statut de sujet protégé, donc de seconde zone, qu'impose l'islam aux non-musulmans) serait l'inéluctable horizon - et le choix conscient - des peuples de notre continent, si elle n'est déjà notre réalité quotidienne.

… Il a été assez peu souligné qu'il s'agit aussi d'un concept antifrançais, comme le démontre le livre-réquisitoire du journaliste et historien David Pryce-Jones, Un siècle de trahison : la diplomatie française et les juifs, 1894-2007 (Denoël, 2008). Intitulé qui revient à faire porter au Quai d'Orsay et à trois Républiques successives le sceau d'infamie de l'antisémitisme ainsi qu'à présenter la France comme un allié non fiable, voire un adversaire, des Etats-Unis, de la Grande-Bretagne et de l'OTAN.

Dans les milieux qui tiennent Eurabia pour une réalité, c'est la France qui est désignée comme le principal instigateur de la politique de "capitulation" face à l'islam qui aurait débuté après le choc pétrolier de 1973. Ce qui lui est nié est rien moins que le droit d'avoir la politique de sa géographie et de son histoire avec le Maghreb, le Machrek et l'Afrique occidentale, ainsi que de préférer un monde multipolaire à un remake de la guerre froide dans lequel le "monde libre" devrait endiguer les assauts de l'islam.

… La question est de savoir si, comme la théorie d'Eurabia le suggère, on peut y arriver de manière crédible en utilisant un concept marqué par le complotisme, en niant la réalité de l'existence du peuple palestinien et en promouvant une politique de confrontation globale.

Dans le langage des théoriciens d'Eurabia, le concept d'Occident remplace celui d'Europe. Preuve que, pour eux, notre continent ne doit se définir que par le lien transatlantique et non comme une Europe- puissance. L'idée d'Eurabia sert à justifier moralement le leadership mondial incontesté de l'Amérique, à la condition, bien sûr, que la politique étrangère des Etats-Unis ne soit pas celle du président Barack Obama mais de ses adversaires. Notamment de ceux qui accusent le chef de l'Etat américain de brader les intérêts d'Israël et qui veulent, depuis avant même le renforcement des sanctions internationales, en finir avec le régime de Téhéran par une intervention militaire.

Les mêmes polémistes accusent l'Europe d'abandonner ses juifs au nouvel antisémitisme des populations musulmanes issues de l'immigration, d'être hostile à l'existence d'Israël et de promettre les peuples israélien et juif à un nouveau génocide. Cette dernière hypothèse a été esquissée en 2010, dans son ouvrage Jihad and Genocide (Rowman & Littlefield), par le théologien de la Shoah Richard L. Rubenstein pour qui le "potentiel génocidaire" de l'idéologie djihadiste menace l'ensemble des non-musulmans.

Dans le monde manichéen d'Eurabia, le communisme a été remplacé par l'islam comme ennemi civilisationnel. Comme le communisme, il est un adversaire absolu d'autant plus redoutable qu'il est à la fois un ennemi extérieur (la menace Al-Qaida notamment) et un ennemi de l'intérieur. C'est sans doute ce dernier point qui a les conséquences politiques les plus graves pour la cohésion des sociétés européennes.

En effet, les partisans de la théorie d'Eurabia ont bien pour fixation l'islam et non l'islamisme. Ils considèrent que le premier est à la fois une culture et un projet politique, celui du califat mondial, et que le second n'est ni réformable ni susceptible d'être modéré. Cela revient à assigner à résidence les individus originaires du monde arabo-musulman dans une identité dont ils ne peuvent même pas se défaire par l'assimilation.

… On peut en tout cas remarquer que le Parti de la liberté néerlandais, comme naguère Pim Fortuyn et les populismes xénophobes scandinaves, a retourné contre l'islam les idées de la gauche émancipatrice des années 1970 : droits des femmes, des homosexuels, des minorités (les juifs notamment) menacés par la répression de la "déviance" que les islamistes au pouvoir mettent en oeuvre.

Le dernier problème théorique posé par la notion d'Eurabia est l'usage des termes "islamo-fascisme" voire "nazislamisme", le premier ayant été utilisé par George W. Bush lui-même. Il s'agit de termes polémiques, dénués de pertinence scientifique : le fascisme comme le nazisme sont des idéologies de l'homme nouveau et non du retour à un âge d'or ; ils positivent la modernité (les néofascistes italiens de CasaPound se réclament du turbofascisme) et non le fixisme ; ils ont le culte de l'Etat total, là où l'islamisme s'accommode très bien du libéralisme économique et de l'Etat faible voire, dans sa variante radicale, évacue totalement l'impératif de l'Etat.

Cette mise en équivalence abusive, tout comme d'ailleurs celle qui assimile communisme et fascisme, interdit de penser le totalitarisme selon des catégories différentes en nature, quand bien même elles seraient toutes moralement condamnables.

… L'occidentalisme islamophobe des tenants d'Eurabia est une impasse. C'est en premier lieu un mythe incapacitant : si l'islamisation de l'Europe est déjà advenue, si les peuples européens sont minoritaires sur leur continent, s'ils n'ont plus de conscience historique et politique, à quoi sert de lutter pour une civilisation déjà morte ? Penser Eurabia est une posture décliniste et démobilisatrice.

Ensuite, cette idée rabaisse le concept de civilisation européenne au niveau d'une réaction de rejet épidermique de l'Autre, sans proposer de projet culturel cohérent susceptible de définir les valeurs auxquelles les musulmans d'Europe seraient tenus de s'intégrer.

The Causes of Fools

Lefty Britons (and other) who boycott and protest at the drop of a hat are mirroring the Nazis of yore, despite the over-use of the term or accusation of Nazism, especially when it comes to protesting the existence of Israel, the existence of Israelis themselves, and the like.

The weird mix of ignorance, detachment, and not being a real stakeholder in the actual issue of the protest, despite being pathetic, causes some strange behavior:

Corrupting Shakespeare into anti-Israel slogans was bad enough, but one speaker, in an outrageous display of anti-Semitism, wore a grotesque “Jewish nose” mask which he refused to remove when challenged.

The anti-Israel protestors attempted to disrupt the performance within the theatre as well, using tactics that had worked at the Albert Hall against the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra (when the BBC was forced to stop a live broadcast).

Bear in mind that they come and disrupt ANYTHING that elicits their conditioned-response behavior. What makes it especially pathetic are their protests against collaborative “peace-building” efforts:

Shakespeare’s Globe theatre in London invited Habima to perform here in London as part of their “Globe to Globe” festival; 37 plays in 37 languages, including the Palestinian Ashtar company playing Richard II and Habima playing The Merchant of Venice (apposite, we suppose)!

Again, you would think the balance of both companies performing would be good enough, but, again, no.

Once again, it’s loony non-stakeholders acting out their strange, self-important attention seeking behavior unworthy of a heartbroken teenager:

The Globe had the courage to resist boycott calls by David Calder, Trevor Griffiths, Jonathan Miller, Emma Thompson and other British thespians in March this year and Habima has just played to a sell-out house.

Maybe these great acTORs can hold their little Gautag somewhere where people care – say, in Homs where the regime is so kindly and accepting to minority opinions, outsiders, and contrarians.

Calder was born in Portsmouth, Hampshire, England.
Trevor Griffiths was born in Manchester, and raised as a Catholic.
Miller grew up in St John's Wood, London, England, in a well-connected Jewish family.
Emma Thompson was born in Paddington, London, England.

Each of them needs to get a dog to channel some of their emotions, and get used to dealing with living things on real terms instead of playing out this pandering Panto.

Mitt Hitler and Double Standards: Godwin's Law Applies to Thee, But Not to Me

THAT DIDN'T TAKE LONG, writes Damian sardonically as E-nough illustrates a post with a poster of Mitt-Romney-as-Adolf-Hitler that's popped up in California (merci à Carine).

This is as good an opportunity as any to bring up Godwin's Law: I cannot be sure of Mike Godwin's original intentions, but certainly, in the way that Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies is invoked and used, it is a terrible thing that makes no sense and that in no way serves intelligent discourse — why in the course of a (reasonably intelligent) conversation should one not be "allowed" to mention Adolf Hitler — or Stalin — or Che Guevara — or Abraham Lincoln — or Dan Quayle — or Mickey Mouse?! (It makes no sense, that is, except to shut up the other person and make oneself look superior.)

You're having an interesting argument, a good back'n'forth, and you are hearing all the arguments in favor of peace, of non-intervention; at one point you segue into the dangers of a peace candidate becoming, willingly or otherwise, another Chamberlain at Munich, and getting ready to cite arguments brought up at the time (1938), some of them extremely similar as those being brought up now, and the (sneering) leftist you are talking with lets out a shout: Time Out! Ha Ha! Godwin's rule! Conversation over! You nixed it!

Is this reasonable? Does it make sense?
(Is this not, rather, immature?)
Why should references to Nazis not be used?

Worse: it means that, instead of giving free rein to the conversation, and searching for new ideas and novel solutions (on both sides), at least one of the conversationalists is constantly monitoring the conversation, both the other person's (the other persons') and his own, for examples of Godwin's law (in addition to monitoring it for politically incorrect items like racism, sexism, phobias, gay jokes, and "hatred", generally, along with other things "beyond which we have moved" and that are "no longer acceptable").

Indeed, what you get is one party who is — eagerly — looking for traces (conscious or otherwise) of racism, sexism, Godwin's Law, and what have you in the other party's words, while the other party is — anxiously — worrying about traces of the same in his own words. In either case, a discussion that is hardly focused and hardly free and hardly honest.

You can just feel the first party's eagerness when suddenly you are interrupted and the pressure within the leftist is let out: "Hah! GOTCHA! You brought up the Nazis! You made a joke about women! You made a comment that proves you're a racist! Conversation over!"

Wonder why there is no more conversation in the Western world anymore? Really?! Godwin's Law is one additional part, small or large, in the manner in which free speech is being dismantled in the West.

There is a perfectly logical reason that Munich is brought up so often; it is simply the best known example, and by far, of avowed peace-lovers not getting the result they expected. (Au contraire!) Instead, if you wish, we could mention, say, the example of… well, no — there you go — off the top of my head, I cannot think of another example, certainly not one that is so good or so clear-cut or so famous to all.

In any case, Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies only applies to the right!

As is quite clear, leftists are giving free rein in evoking the Third Reich and the Führer, and that, not in regards to reasonable arguments but regarding name-calling and insults: for the left (American or international), Reductio ad Hitlerum is par for the course — describing conservatives (or Americans generally) as fascists and (neo-)Nazis, invoking Greed-Über-Alles and the specter of genocide, and painting square mustaches on the photos of George W Bush, Mitt Romney, etc…

However benevolent its original intention may have been, Godwin's Law as it is used turns out to be nothing but an umpteenth example of leftists' double standards…

Update: Danke schön to Instapundit for the Instalanche.

By the way, we would like to point out that No Pasarán contributed a Brett Kimberlin day post that Michelle Malkin does not seem to have noticed; if anyone can bring our entry to her attention, that would be much appreciated… And please notice that the post in question quotes Jonah Goldberg as saying: "That is how the liberal Gleichschaltung works; contrary voices are [among many other things] mocked"; with that in mind, please turn to update 2…

Update 2: Mike Godwin reacts — saying that "The notion that Godwin's Law, as poorly comprehended by bloggers, inhibits their free speech is laughable." In other words, they are deserving of mockery. That may be the case, but forgive me if I am wont to be skeptical. First of all, the point is not whether I understand, whether bloggers understand, whether conservatives understand Godwin's Law, it is how it is understood, or rather how it is used (or misused?), in the current culture.

Second, there are few arguments in his tweet (as if you hadn't noticed) and it seems like Godwin thinks it is beneath him to provide any. (Quick question: who does that remind you of?) I don't know if Mike Godwin is a leftist (or a leftist-leaning libertarian), but among people and ideas and other things, we are told, that are, or that have been, "laughable" in recent times (and that therefore deserve mockery), so many turn out to be conservative. Among them are:
• the "nutty" candidates for the Republican primary
• Sarah Palin
• George W Bush
• Ronald Reagan
• Lowering taxes
• Spending less money
• Resisting Obama's statist agenda
• Overthrowing Saddam Hussein, the Middle East's Adolf Hit— oops, sorry!
• the notion that you can bring up Munich and the Nazi era in a reasonably intelligent conversation
• (you get the idea…)
And so, it turns out, "Laughable" is equivalent to "sexist", to "racist", to "ridiculous" (such as bringing up the Nazis), to "outrageous". So beyond the pale that no further debate is necessary. And no need to present, and to defend (how convenient), well-constructed arguments.

If you will allow me to go a bit further on this topic: I am doing research for a graphic novel biography of Abraham Lincoln with Dan Greenberg. One of the things many people know was that in his early years Honest Abe was part of a debating club. In politics, Lincoln the Whig would debate (among others) Stephen Douglas the Democrat. What fewer people know is that when the debate was over, it turned out that… the debate was… not over; at that point the debate would start again, but with the debaters "switching sides" and this time having to argue for their opponent's policies — i.e., with Lincoln arguing for the Democrats and with Douglas arguing for the Whigs. (No "Ha ha conversation over.")

You have to wonder to what extent something similar could happen in today's day and age, with a leftist trying, just for the heck of it, to defend, rationally, the viewpoints of a Dubya or trying to see a good, objective side in the positions of a Sarah Palin.

The Pigs Got Him!

Penguin no. 337, a Humbolt (known as Flash to his friends) who busted out of the Zoo in Tokyo 82 days ago by scaling a 13 foot high wall, has been apprehended.

Officials’ greatest fear is that he would turn into Pengzilla out there, and, you know, attack the island or something.

The Guardian reports that video footage has shown the penguin "frolicking," and apparently in good health, in a different part of Tokyo Bay

Despite your eternal optimism, I’m sorry to hear you were finally nailed, little Dude. I hope you can bust out of the crowbar hotel again really soon.