« Critiques d’____ »

More Europeans than anyone else I meet are likely to buy into this kind of self-serving nonsense to the point of having to defend their special kind of crazy, and defend it to the exact same adolescent lecturing that they get to a “point of no return”. At some point later on, there is usually some kind of mass murder and marching, followed by decades of pedantry about “ getting over things”, and all manner of other tortured rationalizations where the haters appeal for the shield of victimhood that characterizes the core of most European “public discourse”.

Et ils ont souillé d’excréments le drapeau français.

And it sounds awfully familiar too.

French Nationalists take this to the level of sneering elitism. To begin with, there is the “defense of freedom of speech” which only seems to real it’s head when it describes a mob’s desire to kick a selected population of civilians in the head, as one finds with a Swedish paper’s repetition of the decades-old self-serving allegation that Jews harvest Arabs’ organs.
No note was made at the uncanny resemblance that this had to the way Goebbels operated. The only difference now is that the press is pliant enough not to require any threats to tow a crypto-fascist’s line.

No matter how implausible, these things are always taken in whole in the fever swamps of the intellectual Wadi known as the EMEA, and it makes no difference that people are already quite certain that their children can’t be made sterilize by chewing gum.

American crazies aren’t that much better, but we have a habit of actually challenging them on their “facts” and evaluate the outcome of their form of moral reasoning, and they don’t appear to be anything like the ubiquitous passive-aggressive majority grumbling to itself in a dingy neighborhood bar in Europastan. To take a cue from the “eminent statesman” Carl Bild, it’s those flippanty accused who are at fault.

In Israel, the reaction was hysterical. The country is in danger of busting its guts in rage. Huge pressure has been exerted upon Swedish authorities to punish the offending author and to beg forgiveness. The Swedish Ambassador in Tel Aviv, a member of the influential Jewish family Bonnier who own the majority of Swedish newspapers, TV networks and cinemas, expressed her ‘shock and disapproval’. However, the Swedish government rejected her interference with the freedom of Press; the editors of Aftonbladet insisted on their right to say what they find fit and called for an international inquiry.

This proud stance lasted but a day or two. Carl Bildt, the Swedish Foreign Minister, was discomfited by Israel’s intention to cancel his scheduled visit and had already written in a blog that “such articles can cause anti-Semitism, and instigation is against the Swedish law.”

Carl will go on one day quite soon to blame his hemorrhoids and seal-bark vocalization on the very existence of some group of people assumed world view some time soon, no doubt.

In other words, Carl “What Despot?” Bild is trying to tell us (again), is that “Daddy drinks because you cry”, as if the roles of adult and child were really the way he thought they are.