Friday, October 09, 2009

Bragging Rites

Frédéric Mitterrand our favorite passive-aggressive crypto-pederast tries to “channel” his way around a controversy that only came to light in view of the cultural elite’s passive defense of Roman Polanski which Erik commented on.

From an interview which appears arranged for the “reconstruction” of his image we find:

“This is in no way condoning sex tourism", said Mr. Mitterrand on the TF1 channel. "There is no apology for pedophilia and relationships with young boys," he added.:

Pleasing himself: from a program named “You can’t please everybody” 20 March 2005
"I condemn sex tourism as a shame, I condemn pedophilia that I have never participated in in any way," he stressed.

It is "probably a mistake, but not a crime, nor even a poor choice," he further added, when asked about the story of episodes of sex tourism in his book.

He said he never had any intention to resign and has the confidence of President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Frédéric Mitterrand, nephew of former Socialist President François Mitterrand, joined the [Sarkozy] government in June, is at the center of a political controversy generated by his book « La Mauvaise vie » ("Bad Life"), published in 2005. n one chapter of this book, the narrator recounts sexual experiences with boy prostitutes in Thailand.
It’s funny how his pride is protected by a “no apologies” air that tries on one level to rationalize the very thing he wants to appear to be criticizing.

As Erik reported, his “hypno-autobiography” is as much an exercise in playing to technicalities as his interview – he wants to brag about violating children without having to bear any of the consequences of it. These children he all-but admits he indulged himself in sexually were sexualized at a pre-natural age for the sole purpose of the pleasure of those who like to have an absolute control over others without risk of their person being rejection in any way that would matter to them. That, and a sexual affection for children, and a thirst for something that is forbidden for the sole purpose of protecting children.
In his book, Mr Mitterrand, the nephew of the late Socialist president François Mitterrand, wrote: “I got into the habit of paying for boys...All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excite me enormously.
“One could judge this abominable spectacle from a moral standpoint but it pleases me beyond the reasonable.”
An odd appeal to pity where even the normative people in a similar place in life reach for empty temporary pleasures.

If the destruction of their good development for the sole purpose of an old man’s pleasure isn’t proof enough to someone of the degeneracy and uncaring of someone, they should probably find a society somewhere where it is accepted – if they can. Ancient Greece, as well as Sparta, destroyed themselves.

Marine Le Pen quoting from Mitterand’s auto-biopic of a “novel” on television outlines the very pathology that causes so much harm:
Miss Le Pen read out a passage in which Mr Mitterrand wrote: “The profusion of very attractive and immediately available young boys puts me in a state of desire that I no longer need to hinder nor I know that I will not be refused.”
Mitterand’s response was to treat the whole thing like it was a minor political scuffle, with the sort of typical bombast of a man trying to shock his way out of a bind. In truth, Marine Le Pen understands where the populism of this position comes from: virtually the entire population, and especially of parents, which unlike the elite of the culture appears profoundly offended by the idea of defending the past actions of Roman Polanski or Frédéric Mitterrand. Especially since the argument was limited to “but they all had such a great time!”

Wanting access to others’ children, what is coveted by these vile adults is the physical, emotional, and mental enslavement of children. Setting his admission aside, even were it an unpracticed amelioration of the idea alone, it should tell you something about this “de facto CEO of Culture” and his world view.

Never mind the fact that people of importance in government or critical media didn’t do a good job of largely blowing off the moral component of a fellow member of their caste back 2005, where all but a few had an equally repugnant disregard of the public interest when « La Mauvaise vie » was published.

No comments: