Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear.
— Ayn Rand
Plus another Ayn Rand quote:
is not an unconditional virtue; its moral character depends on its
object. To laugh at the contemptible, is a virtue; to laugh at the good,
is a hideous vice. Too often, humor is used as the camouflage of moral
Fresh off the presses this week is a book that liberals already hate
Benny Huang, as it emerges that the gay movement's martyr was not killed in a hate crime, for the simple reasons that 1) the Matthew Shepard slaying concerned drug dealing (as conservatives have long been claiming) and (this one's the revelation) that 2) the supposed ' “homophobic” rednecks ' were as gay as Matthew Shepard himself was (having shared his bed).
Shepard was indeed the victim of a very brutal murder but it was
never about gay-bashing. It was about crystal meth. The killer and his
accomplice were not strangers to Shepard, as had been previously
reported. They had known each other prior to that night, done drugs
together, and one of them had even had sexual relations with Shepard.
As expected, the thesis isn’t going over well with the pink triangle
crowd. They will not however, be able to silence Jimenez with
accusations of “homophobia.” He is an openly homosexual journalist.
Jimenez’s journey began in the year 2000 when he travelled to Wyoming
intending to write a screenplay about the murder. The picture he
planned to paint matched the threadbare media narrative exactly because
it was all he knew. He soon discovered that most of what he believed
about case was a fiction.
is nearly impossible to overestimate the importance of Matthew
Shepard’s martyrdom to the homosexual movement. If he hadn’t existed,
they would have had to have invented him. They did invent him, in
a manner of speaking. The story of his life and death bares no
resemblance to what actually happened. The really nice gay kid who was
slain by “homophobic” rednecks for no other reason than his sexual
orientation is a myth. He shares a name with the real Shepard—a troubled
drug-dealer who ran with the wrong crowd—but little else.
The Shepard murder marked the beginning of the end of rational
discussion about homosexuality in this country. Prior to his murder,
people could still voice their objections without losing their jobs and
being publicly shamed. His murder blurred the lines between ideas and
Homophobia killed Matthew Shepard. That was the moral to the
Shepard story. Holding the wrong beliefs about homosexuality was akin to
killing another human being. Belief equals violence.
Time Magazine ran a cover story about the murder depicting the
fenceline upon which Matthew’s tortured body was found. The headline
said it all: “The War Over Gays.” All wars have at least two sides.
Whose side are you on? The side of the redneck cowboy murderers or the
seemingly nice young man whose corpse was found on that fence?
… A mother’s mind can become warped by the trauma of burying her
21-year old son. She has spent the last fifteen years believing a lie.
But in what alternate universe does a person have to live to believe
that a dyed-in-the-wool “homophobe” like me is more guilty of her son’s
murder than Henderson and McKinney?
If Mrs. Shepard wanted some good to come of this she could expend her
energy educating people on the danger of drugs. She has chosen to
defame innocent people instead. “homophobic” rednecks patrols the open
range of America in search of the thought criminals who supposedly
killed her son. She won’t rest until she’s rounded them all up. The
badge she wears is that of a mother’s “absolute moral authority.”
Readers should recall that handy term from the summer of 2005 when
syndicated columnist Maureen Dowd declared that Cindy Sheehan’s antics
were legitimate because she had lost her son in Iraq. Absolute moral
authority means that the rest of us aren’t allowed to argue with her
because her grievance makes her right.
… the mythical version is a sham. Aaron McKinney wasn’t a
“homophobe” but a homosexual. More importantly, he was a methamphetamine
addict who hadn’t slept in days. He killed Judy Shepard’s son so he
could keep his binge going. He then took the victim’s wallet, coat,
shoes, and the key to his apartment so he could burglarize that too.
That’s the true story of Matthew Shepard.
How terrifying the truth must be to people who have believed a lie
for so long. Why must they cling to this fiction like a life raft in the
middle of the wide ocean? The answer is that so much “good” has come
out of his death. Matthew’s murder propelled the movement forward.
Same-sex marriage was just a dream in 1998; today it’s a reality in
eleven states and the District of Columbia. A hate crimes bill that
bears his name is now the law of the land. Schools from coast to coast
now have anti-bullying codes that ban speech homosexuals don’t want to
hear. The Supreme Court has discovered a right to sodomy in the
The Greens were trounced in the latest elections, gathering only half the numbers that the polls had expected them to win, writes Frédéric Lemaître in Le Monde, and a major part of the reason is the recent revelations of their earliest programs, which have come (back) to light, notably the party's 1980 program which wanted to depenalize adult-child sexual relations ("the sexual liberation of children") as well as same-sex relations.
In his 1975 autobiographical book "Der Grosse Basar" (The Great Bazaar),
Green Party politician Daniel Cohn-Bendit describes his experiences as a
teacher in a Kinderladen in Frankfurt. When the children entrusted to
his care opened his fly and began stroking his penis, he writes, "I was
usually quite taken aback. My reactions varied, depending on the
La critique a d'abord touché Daniel Cohn-Bendit. Puis le parti
écologiste dans son ensemble. Puis, par ricochet, le Parti libéral
(FDP). Et maintenant la presse. Et la vague est loin d'être retombée.
Trois ans après les révélations sur les pratiques pédophiles au sein de
l'Eglise catholique, l'Allemagne s'interroge aujourd'hui sur sa
tolérance passée à l'égard des rapports sexuels entre adultes et
… mi-mars, un mois avant la remise du [prestigieux prix Theodor-Heuss] à [Daniel Cohn-Bendit] à Stuttgart, Andreas
Vosskuhle, le président de la Cour constitutionnelle de Karlsruhe, fait
savoir qu'il renonce à prononcer l'éloge de l'ancien leader de Mai 68.
La raison ? Ses écrits, "qui ne sont pas sans poser problème". Le magistrat fait référence au Grand Bazar
(Belfond, 1975), ce livre dans lequel Daniel Cohn-Bendit raconte son
expérience d'éducateur dans un jardin d'enfants autogéré de Francfort.
Il m'était arrivé plusieurs fois que certains gosses ouvrent ma braguette et commencent à me chatouiller, écrit-il. Je
réagissais de manière différente selon les circonstances mais leur
désir me posait un problème. Je leur demandais : "Pourquoi ne jouez-vous
pas ensemble, pourquoi vous m'avez choisi, moi, et pas les autres
gosses ?" Mais s'ils insistaient, je les caressais quand même.
A de nombreuses reprises, le député européen s'est par la suite défendu en expliquant qu'"il
n'y a eu aucun acte de pédophilie. La pédophilie est un des crimes les
plus abjects qui puissent exister. Il n'y a pas eu de ma part non plus
de désir d'enfants. Là où il y a un grand problème, c'est mon désir de
DANS LE PROGRAMME DU PARTI EN 1980
… impossible, à six mois des élections fédérales du 22 septembre, de se
contenter de dénoncer une exploitation de faits anciens à des fins
politiques. Pour éteindre l'incendie, le parti écologiste ouvre ses
archives à Franz Walter, un professeur qui dirige un institut de
recherche en science politique (Göttinger Institut für
Demokratieforschung). Rémunéré 209 000 euros, celui-ci doit remettre son
rapport à la fin de 2014, mais le contrat prévoit qu'à chaque fois que
le chercheur fait une découverte significative il la publie sans
attendre, se contentant de prévenir les Verts douze heures à l'avance.
Auteur de nombreux travaux de sociologie politique, Franz Walter ne
passe pas pour être complaisant avec les Verts. La suite va le
confirmer. Le 12 août puis le 16 septembre, le chercheur publie dans la
presse deux articles retentissants. Dans le premier, il revient en
détail sur le combat mené par les Verts pour dépénaliser les relations
sexuelles entre adultes et mineurs, au même titre que les relations
entre personnes de même sexe. Cette revendication figure explicitement
dans le premier programme du parti, adopté en 1980. Il montre aussi
comment, à la même époque, l'Association allemande d'études et de
travail sur la pédophilie a fait du lobbying en ce sens et pesé sur les
débats d'une autre formation politique, le Parti libéral (centre droit).
"UN FORT HÉDONISME INDIVIDUALISTE"
… Le 22 septembre, les Verts n'attirent que 8,4 % des électeurs. Deux
fois moins que ce que laissaient encore prévoir les sondages un an plus
Pendant la campagne, les choses paraissaient simples : les Verts,
dans leur volonté de subvertir l'ordre établi, avaient, lors de leur
fondation dans les années 1980, plaidé pour une autre sexualité, plus
permissive, allant jusqu'à porter des revendications qui, aujourd'hui,
paraissent déplacées. La Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung a d'ailleurs publié, le 15 septembre, un article en ce sens (refusé par la Tageszeitung) dans lequel l'auteur, Christian Füller, expliquait sur deux pages que les Verts ont "créé une idéologie qui favorise l'abus des enfants".
Le professeur Walter ne partage pas cet avis. "La protection de
la nature et le développement durable ne constituent pas un terreau
propice à la pédophilie et à l'abus d'enfants. Mais les Verts ont un
deuxième créneau qui est curieusement peu compatible avec le premier :
une sorte de libéralisme fondamental associé à un fort hédonisme
individualiste. Dans cet environnement, ont émergé dans les années 1970,
avant la fondation des Verts, des revendications pour la dépénalisation
des délits sexuels et pour une tolérance à l'égard de la sexualité
entre adultes et enfants. Au début des années 1980, une partie de ce
libéralisme radical s'est retrouvée chez les Verts", explique-t-il au Monde.
DANS LES ANNÉES 70, UNE PRESSE PLUTÔT COMPLAISANTE
Certains articles de la presse allemande des années 1970 illustrent cette tendance. D'ailleurs, le Spiegel et Die Zeit ont battu leur coulpe, à la suite des recherches du professeur Walter. "Les principaux médias de la République ont contribué à banaliser la pédophilie dans les années de la révolution sexuelle", reconnaît le Spiegel, qui consacre, le 1er octobre, plus de deux pages à cette "errance morale".
A plusieurs reprises, l'hebdomadaire a publié des articles complaisants à l'égard de la pédophilie, cette "variante plus tendre du travail social". Et que dire de cette "une" de 1977 sur "les enfants et le marché du sexe"
illustrée par la photo d'une fillette de 12 ans simplement vêtue d'une
paire de bas et d'un collier lui descendant jusqu'au nombril ? "Cette publication était problématique et elle le reste aujourd'hui", écrit le journal, qui a d'ailleurs retiré cette couverture et ce dossier de ses archives en ligne.
Les charges contre Die Zeit, l'hebdomadaire de
l'intelligentsia allemande, sont aussi accablantes. Dans une série
d'articles parue en 1969, Rudolf Walter Leonhardt, responsable du
Feuilleton (l'équivalent d'une rubrique Culture et Débats), défend
longuement la pédophilie, "un tabou qu'il faut revoir",
estime-t-il, s'appuyant notamment sur certaines théories d'Adorno, du
sexologue Alfred Kinsey, ou sur les pratiques d'intellectuels comme
Edgar Allan Poe ou Novalis.
… Est-ce un hasard ? Les deux partis qui incarnent ce mouvement, les
Verts et le Parti libéral, ont nettement reculé aux élections.
DES RÉPERCUSSIONS EN FRANCE ?
Les résultats des travaux de Franz Walter pourraient avoir des
répercussions dans d'autres pays européens. Dès son premier article, le
professeur a insisté sur l'influence des défenseurs de la pédophilie aux
Pays-Bas, encore plus grande qu'en Allemagne, selon lui, ainsi que sur
la France, où "il y avait une plus longue tradition et aussi une
plus grande sympathie pour ce courant de pensée chez des intellectuels
de premier plan qu'en Allemagne".
Et le professeur de rappeler que, en janvier 1977, la fine fleur de
l'intelligentsia française, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Louis
Aragon, Catherine Millet, André Glucksmann, Jack Lang et Bernard
Kouchner, avait publié dans Le Monde et Libération une
lettre ouverte dans laquelle elle affichait sa solidarité avec trois
hommes détenus et en attente de procès pour délit sexuel à l'encontre
d'enfants de 13 et 14 ans. La boîte de Pandore ouverte par les Verts
allemands n'est pas près de se refermer...
To that I will add a No Pasarán post from 2004, the blog's first year of operation (yup, this blog is celebrating its 10th anniversary next Spring, how 'bout that?), reproducing what is perhaps the best sketch ever — and certainly the most thought-inspiring — in the history of comedy.
In the scene (video below),
the members of one of the most patriotic, determined, extremist, and
intransigent resistance groups fighting against the Roman occupier have
gathered in a dark room for a secret meeting. All the men of the
People's Front of Judea are masked, except for their leaders, and when
the scene starts, the top honcho is ending a pep talk.
Furious about the Roman Empire's occupation of their land, Reg
spits out: “They bled us white, the bastards! They’ve taken everything
we have.” He continues raving and ranting about how they took everything
from their “fathers” and their “fathers' fathers”, before ending with a
majestic rhetorical question. “And what have they ever given us in
return?!” With that, he stops, and crosses his arms, feeling very
satisfied. He realizes that he has made one of the best speeches of his
Just then, a shy masked commando raises a finger. “The aqueduct…”
“Oh yeah yeah they did give us that, uh-huh that’s true…”
Another commando, as masked as his colleague, chimes in. “And the sanitation…”
Reg's second-in-command sitting next to him, intervenes with naïve
energy: “Oh yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be
Murmurs of agreement rise from the commandos in the room.
The meeting is not at all going in the direction Reg
expected it to, and he's starting to lose patience: “Yeah, all right,
I’ll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things the Romans
Another terrorist interrupts him: “And the roads…”
brusquely: “Oh well obviously the roads, I mean the roads go without
saying, don’t they?! … But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and
Other terrorists, who have definitely not
understood the purpose of their leader’s speech and his rhetorical
question, chime in: “Irrigation” “Medicine” “Education” “Public baths”
“And the wine” while their comrades nod and murmur words of agreement
(“Yuh, yuh that’s something we’d really miss, Reg, if the Romans left”).
Stan adds, innocently: “And it’s safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg”. Reg’s
lips have become ever more pursed and his expression ever darker as he
taps his fingers impatiently, but nobody seems to notice, least of all Francis,
Reg’s other neighbor, who adds with joviality: “Yeah, they certainly
know how to keep order. Let’s face it, they’re the only ones who could
in a place like this!” (general laughter).
Finally, with a sharp voice, Reg
cuts the discussion short: “Alright, but apart from the sanitation, the
medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, the roads, a
fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done
A shy finger goes up…“Brought peace…”
“Oh, peace! SHUT UP!”
There you have it! The only way that the liberals can perpetuate their self-serving self-image (of themselves as valiant resistance fighters arriving to help the people like gallant knights on white horses) is by ignoring facts, inconvenient and otherwise, and getting people, adversaries as well as followers, to keep their mouthes closed about said facts.
[Good intentions such as eliminating hunger and poverty] have been
damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations
really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this
It sounds like government programs in the West:
As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's
problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans
wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is
why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.
Le Monde's headline is called Obama's Revenge, calling him the winner in the budget crisis, while Philippe Bernard demonizes the Koch brothers (Kochtopus) and Plantu has Obamacare saving a debt-covered Uncle Sam while Barack states that "He [the sadistic-looking teapot] is finally putting an end to his tea-based care" (which is doing nothing but burning Unca Sam's feet)…
The long-term goal of the government's social policies are to flatten
society out into one atomized mass. There will be only the state and the
individual, and the individual will have no protection, no mediating
institutions, between itself and the state.
Antipathy towards a wide
variety of actors--the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, "special
interests" of all types, political parties, private universities--can
all be understood in light of this fact.
The government reserves special
hatred for the family, because the family is older than the state and,
unless steps are taken, will outlast it. It gives the individual a locus
of attention besides the state, and therefore, must be crushed. The
ongoing destruction of the concepts of both marriage and family by the
left is intended to remove permanently the transcendent family from the
political sphere, leaving only mere biological relationships, which are
not enough to inspire resistance to the state.
Ted Cruz … est allé remuer quelques barricades près de la Maison Blanche en compagnie de Sarah Palin
That's it. Make it sound as silly and ridiculous as possible.
The fact that the barricades are/were special barricades set up for a specific (and entirely political) purpose is left out; the White House's whole kabuki theater of shutting down (open-air) memorials is omitted; all the veterans and other protesters present are dropped out of the picture (Cruz and Palin seem to be almost alone in Le Monde's one-sentence description of their protest).
That's the mainstream media for ya — in Europe as in America… Serguei is no better, needless to say, with the Le Monde cartoonist showing the Republican Party's elephant
fiercely keeping the American eagle from taking off.
The Shutdown, as Seen from France (1)
Mayor Frank Hague, rabid champion — by his own definition and according
to his own lights — of the doctrine of “America for Americans” … added to his program the proposal of an American “Siberia” in
Alaska, to which Americans at odds with the government would be shipped
posthaste. The Jersey City boss made this expansion to his reiterated
basic program this afternoon in testifying in his own defense in court
here as proceedings were continued in the suit brought by John L.
Lewis’s Committee for Industrial Organization.
Notice how the fact that Frank Hague is a Democrat is never stated (in fact, even the New York Times cannot deny that he was "the … mayor and political boss who set the standard for corruption, even by New Jersey standards").
Having said that, there is something we have no choice but to confess. Alright, full confession: this item appeared in International Herald Tribune's 75 Years Ago section, and is thus from 1938 — and that at a time when Lenin and Stalin's Soviet society (along with its labor camps) was praised all over the West.
Still, why is it that the first thing that comes to mind is: "Plus ça change…"?
One of the publishing events of the season in France is an autobiography by Cécilia AttiasNicolas Sarkozy is back in the news, having successfully fought off at a time when "investigation into charges that [the former President] had
manipulated a fragile heiress into financing his 2007 campaign, removing
a potential obstacle to the political return that Mr. Sarkozy is widely
assumed to be planning."
The wife (his second) who divorced Sarko (her second husband) shortly after he was elected president in 2007 wanted to tell her own truth and has been going around giving interviews.
Among other things in the Elle interview, the former Cécilia Ciganer-Albéniz ex-Martin ex-Sarkozy has something quite good to say and something rather appalling to say.
For instance, she writes that in New York, where she now lives, they would speak of someone like her father (a Jewish immigrant who had to rebuild everything in France) as "a self-made man."
I regret that in France, such a person is called an upstart [a parvenu].
But later, when asked to explain why Nicolas lost in 2012, she suggests that it might be too much transparency, which is
double-edged sword. By showing oneself too close [to the people], one
risks to lose the grandeur of the post. For instance, I don't like the
idea of a "normal president" [as François Hollande styles himself].
When I meet a president, i like to be intimidated. I may be naive but I
claim the right of being impressed. I need to admire. When I met Barack
Obama, I became a little girl!
Perhaps women should become like little girls when meeting people like Obama, Cécilia, but should grown men feel like small boys?!
No man — indeed, no citizen, male or female — should feel like a child before a leader — also known, and better known, as a servant. They are grown-ups, they are citizens, and such they should remain at all times outside the home and with whomever they are dealing.
That may or may not have been the message of the French Revolution, but that was certainly the message of the American Revolution.
That may or may not be the way it's supposed to be in the French Republic, but that is certainly the way it is supposed to be in the American Republic.
(Well, Not Really) Today, the International Herald Tribune is gone:
On Tuesday, The International Herald Tribune, the global edition of The New York Times, becomes The International New York Times.
The paper has changed names a number of times since its founding 126 years ago, but its mission has always remained the same: to provide a global perspective on events and ideas shaping the world. This is a look at its journey so far.
I've been a devoted reader of the
International Herald Tribune since
the tender age of 8.
(Okay, at that time I only read the comics page, but still…)
I had a number of letters to the editor in the paper since then,
although only about boring international happenings
and tedious issues of liberty and freedom
(they never published my missives complaining
every time they got rid of another comic strip
— Buzz Sawyer, Beetle Bailey, Blondie, etc;
I never understood why Dennis the Menace
was less important than Dilbert).
Maybe soon the NYT will take the next logical step,
and follow the NYT's example, getting
rid of if its comics page altogether
(no, seriously, folks, the Big Apple-based editors pride themselves on the NYT being without a comics page)!
Leave the comics page alone, New Yorkahs.
And leave the IHT's name alone, as well!
If you must change anything at all, do as follows:
change the name of the New York Times to
the "New York International Herald Tribune"!
In the leftist paradise that is Barack Obama's America, everyone must know their place.
That goes from common citizens to journalists while including soldiers and
combat veterans who must give up their right to visit war memorials so that the apologizer-in-chief can use them — "my military", remember — for his kabuki theater against Republicans and whoever else his opponents, real or imagined, may be. (Yes, places too must "know their place", in a manner of speaking — for they exist too merely, or mainly, for the benefit of the supreme leader.)
And God forbid (so to speak — it really ought to be "Obama forbid") that a Catholic priest in the military should want to celebrate Mass on an army base. Bringing relief to a given soldier, even with the priest forgoing his payment because of the government shutdown, is not an option if it goes against the Supreme Commander's attempt to utilize said shutdown to his benefit. And so, if he does not know his place, the priest will face arrest. (Sarah Hoyt calls this "a means of “spanking” the American public for not falling into line.")
For in the leftist pantheon, people who took to arms and risked their lives on the battlefield are not heroes. (Well, a bit, but only to a certain extent…)
The only real heroes there are — the only white knights on white horses there are — are the leftist politicians — those people who don't cling to their guns and bibles but who are wise, and tolerant, and generous, and forward-looking, etc etc etc — who come dashingly to the rescue of the poor and defenseless.
The real villains in the world are not the Russians, the Iranians, the Syrians, the communists…
The only true despicable people in the world are red-blood Americans who can't understand, who don't want to understand, that Obama and his government is here to help them, others, everybody.
And they must be punished.
Punished for not knowing their place.
Punished for opposing the leftist agenda.
Punished by the IRS for having the temerity to vote against Barack Obama and Obamacare.
Punished with IRS audits that will put those despicable individuals in their place.
Blacks, Obama is on your side; physicians, Obama is here to help you; black physicians, Obama is here for your sake, and if you don't understand your duty to stand by your savior (ya listenin', Ben Carson?!), then, by golly, you will be punished too!
That is how the liberal Gleichschaltung
works; 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."
Shouldn't we update that for the Obama adminsitration?
That is how the liberal Gleichschaltung
works; contrary voices are regulated [by the IRS], barred [by the IRS], banned [by the IRS] 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."
“This is the people's memorial,” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told a crowd of
several hundred gathered near the WWII Memorial on the closed National
Mall, which has become a national symbol of the shutdown and the
country’s response. “Simple question: Why is the federal government
spending money to keep veterans out of the memorial? Why did they spend
money to keep people out of Mount Vernon, Mount Rushmore? Our veterans
should be above political games.”
… “Today somebody’s wife [or] husband is dead in Afghanistan. Is
somebody going to pay her husband [or] his wife or their children?” one
protester shouted at the White House, referring to the partial shutdown
cutting off benefits for the survivors of military personnel.
Some of the metal barricades were carried the roughly half-mile walk
from the memorial to the White House, where they were left near the
fence in front of Pennsylvania Avenue.
… Protesters shouting “U.S.A.” and “Tear down these walls” put the
blame squarely on President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders.
“In a mean-spirited fit of selfish anger, Barack Obama has shut down our
nation’s war memorials,” march organizers said in a press release. “And
he has declared open war on our honored veterans. The World War II
memorial, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the Korean War Veterans
Memorial, Obama has shut them all down to force his will on the House of
Representatives and, frankly, to get revenge on the American people who
oppose ObamaCare and his other naked power grabs.”
Le Monde's Daniel Psenny presents a report, which shows how much the French television was into censorship. In journalist lingo, the reports that displeased the authorities prior to being broadcast were sent to "hell", hell being the part of the TV headquarters building where undesirable news reports, cultural programs, and others ended up.
L'"enfer" … Pour comprendre dans quelles conditions ces films ont été précipités en
enfer, il faut remonter dans le passé. Plus précisément à la présidence
du général de Gaulle, au début des années 1960. Souhaitant contrôler les
journaux d'informations à la radio et à la télévision - "les voix de la
France" -, le président de la République avait mis en place un système
de censure que les journalistes avaient bien du mal à contourner. A la
tête de ce système, on trouvait Alain Peyrefitte, ministre de
l'information depuis 1962, chargé des basses oeuvres audiovisuelles.
Chaque matin, il réunissait dans son bureau les responsables de la radio
et de la télévision, à qui il dictait le conducteur quotidien de leurs
différents journaux. Ensuite, il les faisait surveiller par quelques
fonctionnaires du service de liaison interministériel pour l'information
(SLII), organisme interne de son ministère chargé, jusqu'en 1969, de
contrôler la "bonne conduite" de la radio et de la télévision.
Rien n'échappait à ces hommes de l'ombre dont le zèle frôlait souvent
l'abus de pouvoir. Ainsi, lorsqu'un reportage traitait d'un sujet
politiquement sensible ou que des images ou des commentaires ne
plaisaient pas, il était immédiatement envoyé en "enfer".
… De leur côté, les moindres gestes du général de Gaulle et de son
gouvernement sont surveillés. Un fonctionnaire du SLII a par exemple
envoyé en "enfer" quelques images du chef de l'Etat qui, lors d'une
visite officielle en Italie, se mouche en se promenant sur la place
Saint-Marc, à Venise ! Enfin, les opposants au Général sont
systématiquement censurés : ce sera le cas, notamment, du fameux appel
des généraux "félons" d'Alger.
… Les événements de Mai 68 ont mis fin aux activités du SLII, qui n'a
pas survécu aux grèves générales des personnels de télévision ni aux
attaques de l'opposition, représentée alors par François Mitterrand.
Cependant, tous les gouvernements qui se sont succédé au pouvoir - y
compris ceux de gauche - ont créé des organes de substitution. En 1976,
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing a créé le Service d'information et de diffusion
(SID), dont le rôle était la coordination et la diffusion de la
communication gouvernementale. En 1996, sous Jacques Chirac, le SID est
devenu le Service d'information du gouvernement (SIG), qui est toujours
en activité et dont les missions, qui ont évolué depuis, sont de
valoriser l'action du gouvernement et de coordonner sa communication
auprès des médias.
Aujourd'hui, le jeu est plus subtil et rien n'est imposé aux
journalistes. Désormais, au lieu de supprimer ou de censurer des
reportages, ce sont les partis politiques eux-mêmes qui produisent et
fournissent gratuitement des images aux chaînes de télévision... Un