Saturday, April 29, 2017

Is it time to say that MLK does not deserve all of the adoration we heap upon him?

Abortionist Willie Parker … cites Christianity in support of his position that taking the lives of unborn children should remain legal. He kills for Jesus, you see, so take your Bible-thumping somewhere else.
Benny Huang, who has written about Martin Luther King Jr a number of times, is not afraid to criticize the civil rights leader as well as fellow conservatives (including those related to MLK) when he deems it necessary.
Parker, who is employed at the only abortuary left in Mississippi, was recently interviewed by Rolling Stone magazine, that known paragon of journalism, about his recent book “Life’s Work: A Moral Argument For Choice.”

“…I decided to exercise Christian compassion not by proxy, but with my own capable hands,” wrote Parker. And by Christian compassion he means tearing human bodies limb from limb. I’m convinced that abortionists write drivel like this just to get under religious people’s skin. This isn’t honest disagreement, he’s just trolling us.

In addition to Jesus Christ, Parker cites both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King as his inspirations … Parker’s words reflect a barely concealed desire to legitimize his own sordid work by projecting it upon our society’s most hallowed figure: Martin Luther King, Jr. He’s taken the mantel of MLK as his own and it’s easy to see why—King is so idolized in our society that it’s nearly impossible to take a position opposite him. Nearly everyone wants to claim that he is on their side, just so they can be on his.

One person who certainly wouldn’t be pleased to hear Willie Parker invoke MLK’s name is King’s own niece, Dr. Alveda King. She’s made something of a name for herself as a pro-life activist, taking advantage of the kinship ties that fell upon her by happenstance in an attempt to claim her fair share of Uncle Martin’s (unearned) moral authority. She would like to believe that her famous relative shared her conviction that abortion is an atrocity. She latches on to some of his more abstract quotes about justice to prove her point. None of these quotes explicitly mention abortion but Alveda King reads into them what she wants to hear. For example, she understands her uncle’s famous words “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” to mean that he opposed abortion which is unjust in her opinion and in mine. According to Alveda King:
“I know in my heart that if Uncle Martin were alive today, he would join with me in the greatest civil rights struggle of this generation – the recognition of the unborn child’s basic right to life.”
Except he probably wouldn’t. On this point, Alveda King is wrong and Willie Parker is right. MLK was the recipient of the 1966 Margaret Sanger Award, named in honor of Planned Parenthood’s founder, a genocidal racist who wanted at very least to reduce the black population, if not eliminate it entirely. Sanger founded her organization for the express purpose of eliminating undesirables from the population, which included the handicapped, Italians, Jews, and of course blacks.  She even chartered a “Negro Project,” which brought “family planning” services right into black ghettos.

She was quoted in a 1923 New York Times article saying:
“[Birth control] means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks— those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”
Does anyone really believe that a white woman speaking in 1923 believed that blacks represented “better racial elements?”

Sanger understood that she would require the black community’s active cooperation if she would succeed in reducing their proportion in society. “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities,” she wrote.
“The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
A ”colored” minister with a social services background and an engaging personality? That description fits Martin Luther King to a “T.” It seems that Planned Parenthood found precisely the pitch man they were looking for to sell extermination to the black community.

Alveda King at CPAC 2012
Sadly, his niece Alveda is in deep denial about this. She claims that MLK’s acceptance speech, which his wife Coretta delivered in his absence, was ghost-written. Her only evidence for this assertion is that it doesn’t sound like his style. That wouldn’t prove much of anything, of course, because plenty of his speeches were written with the “assistance” of other people including the Stalinist-holdover Stanley Levison. But so what if he didn’t write it? King certainly gave the speech his seal of approval, thus allowing himself and his moral authority to be placed in the service of evil.

Alveda King’s other defense of her uncle is that Planned Parenthood was not yet an abortion mill when he accepted their award. They may have been the apparatus by which a genocidal racist carried out her plan to reduce or eliminate the black race, but they did it with other, non-lethal forms of birth control.

 …  In any case, Planned Parenthood’s supposed opposition to abortion, which had always been a farce, was by this time wearing very thin. Yet Alveda King still clings to her belief that Uncle Martin’s acceptance of the award did not amount to an endorsement of abortion.
“So Martin Luther King, believing that he was adding his voice to a helpful cause, accepted the award. He was assassinated in ’68; all during that time, abortion was illegal in every state in America.”
Nope, wrong again. California legalized abortion in 1967 and yet MLK did not rush there to protest the killing of children. He cared more about a garbagemen’s strike in Memphis than he did about ending abortion.

Might King have been callous to the plight of the unborn because he was a philandering womanizer? I’ve known a few of those in my life and they’ve all been “pro-choice.” It’s easy to see how King, an ordained minister, would have perceived abortion as an insurance policy against public exposure as a hypocrite. What if he had impregnated one of his casual sex partners? What if she had been white? His whole world could have come crashing down with the birth of a single “love child.” The fact that no such offspring have ever been found despite King’s voracious sexual appetite suggests that he was quite skilled in the use of birth control, whether abortion or another method.

No amount of evidence seems to persuade Alveda King and many pro-life conservatives that MLK was pro-abortion, likely because the idea makes certain unsettling conclusions unavoidable. If it’s true, and I would say it is, King … cannot be considered non-violent. He refused to fight with policemen of course, but they have guns and batons. He supported violence as long as it was against the most helpless among us—the unborn—and as long as it facilitated his sex life. Furthermore, he wasn’t really a friend of black people. Martin Luther King served an evil organization founded by a woman who wanted to wipe out the black population. Nor was he a devout Christian. He may have read the Bible on occasion but he certainly didn’t believe any of that stuff about “Thou shalt not kill.”

King’s support for abortion doesn’t make abortion right; it makes King wrong. It’s time we had the courage to say that MLK does not deserve all of the adoration we heap upon him.
Related — by Benny Huang: • Today, MLK Jr Would Be Unemployable in America,
Given That He Would Be Anathema to Most Americans… of the Left (!)

• Kim Davis and Martin Luther King both defied the law for the same reason
Both agree that they have an obligation to disobey any law that is unjust

• None Other Than MLK Welcomed Judgment,
So Why the #$#%$@# Should We NOT Judge Wendy Davis?!

Friday, April 28, 2017

French Radio Listeners Curious About Conservative and Republican Viewpoints Are Advised to Tune In to Instapundit and No Pasarán

In response to queries from French radio listeners about which blogs to read to get a conservative viewpoint, No Pasarán was mentioned, as was Le Monde Watch, and of course Instapundit, which was called incontournable, and the best of all.

Specifically, what the listeners skeptical of France's MSM and state media were told — during Évelyne Joslain's Libre Journal du nouveau monde chat (1h28m35) on Radio Courtoisie with Republicans Overseas member Paul Reen, Comité Trump France leader Georges Clément, and blogger/journalist/author Erik Svane (41:27) —was that (42:37)
il y a un site web qui s'appelle Instapundit que tout le monde devrait lire — qui montre ce que disent [et pensent] les conservateurs américains — qui dit "This will bring more Trump" [Ceci va amener plus de Trump] et il dit "Do you want more Trump?" (Est-ce que vous voulez plus de Trump?). Eh bien, ce que vous faites [avec toutes ces marches et toutes ces protestations et toute l'hystérie], ça va donner plus de Trump. Donc, Trump en profite.
Translation: there is a website named Instapundit that everybody should read, which shows what conservative Americans say and think — which has been observing, This will bring more Trump. And it asks leftists, Do you want more Trump? Because, all that you are doing [with all your demented demonstrations and protests], is bring more sympathy for the man you oppose. So, what you are actually doing is work for Trump's benefit.
Towards the end of the show, as the readers' questions were read aloud (1:01:11), one question puzzling Frenchmen that came up concerns which conservative blogs besides (Infowars and ZeroHedge — in one reader's opinion) are the best to consult on American affairs?

Here is Erik Svane's (translated) response, after mentioning his own blogs, No Pasarán and Le Monde Watch — both of which celebrated their 13th anniversaries recently (1:01:55):
But the best one of all — I am not associated with it, unfortunately — if you want non-caricatural views on conservatives or on Republicans, you should read PJ Media's InstapunditInstapundit is spelled I, N, S, T, A, P, U, N, D, I, T — their bloggers are the best, they broach all kind of subjects, they often display humor, and — again — this is where we get the aforementioned sentence addressed to leftists, If you want more Trump, you'll have more Trump, with all your displays of demented hysteria, with the latest hysterical bout concerning the latest decision from The Donald's White House.
This comes after Instapundit was mentioned on French TV a number of times, between 2004 and today.

PS: Click at 17:28 to hear Lee Greenwood sing God Bless the U.S.A. (I'm Proud to Be an American).

Libre Journal du nouveau monde du 15 février 2017 : “Les festivités de la cérémonie d'investiture de Donald Trump ; Les débuts de la nouvelle administration américaine”

Par Évelyne Joslain | 15 février 2017 | Libre Journal du nouveau monde | Mots clés : . . . .
Évelyne Joslain, assistée de Stanislas, recevait Georges Clément, président du Comité Trump France ; Erik Svane et Paul Reen, républicains de base. Thèmes : “Les festivités de la cérémonie d'investiture de Donald Trump ; Les débuts de la nouvelle administration américaine”.
RELATED (to the French presidential election):
The entire machinery of the French state did everything in its power to undermine the competitors of Macron, Hollande's successor
• The Leader of the Front National, Allegedly France's Equivalent of the Tea Party's Extreme Capitalists, Says That “Obama is way to the right of us”
Marine Le Pen sums it up in one sentence when the New York Times's Russell Shorto "pointed out [to her] that in the U.S. she would sound like a left-wing politician". She shot back that “Obama is way to the right of us”!
• Marine Le Pen: France Should Leave NATO, "Turn Its Back" on the American "Hyper-Power", and "Turn Towards Russia"

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

The Allyagottado Folks and the Sleep-Inducing Speed Limits

In the space of five hours, one day in March 2015, one single radar of the Danish police on a tiny part of the Copenhagen highway earned (sic) so much money that it made front-page headlines in the press of Denmark. But what was telling was not that the authorities had earned two million Danish Crowns ($290,000!) in less than a quarter of a day, it was that — although Ekstrabladet was of course oblivious to this — there had not been a single traffic fatality at that point that day, let alone a single accident.

There cannot be 35 different ways of interpreting that piece of news. If it doesn't suggest that speed limits have little to nothing to do with safety and are a scam — or at the very least that they are (far) too low — you can call me King Alfred the Great.

Not only is there a clear racket associated with the radar scheme — if this does not fit the definition of the word extortion, than what meaning does that word have? — but governments of all states and countries and on all territorial levels could be charged with going against their raison d'être (the protection of the populace) and making the road more dangerous for all.

What is the first cause of mortality on highways throughout the world, and certainly throughout the West? Contrary to what Kim du Toit and many of his readers seem to believe, it ain't speed (speed kills, right?).

It is drowsiness.

It is sleepiness.

What causes sleepiness, or drowsiness, if it ain't a sleep-inducing speed limit (or, rather a sleep-inducing slowness limit)?

"Speeding": it sounds like a factual, straightforward word, but think about what the sub-text means. It suggests a bad thing, a reckless attitude, driving fast, too fast. But too fast for what? Too fast for whom? (well, yeah, right: too fast for the State, for the politicians, and for its bureaucrats — but besides that?) As the above example from Denmark points out, thousands upon thousands of Danish drivers had been "speeding," i.e., had been driving "too fast," i.e., had shown themselves to be irresponsible and foolhardy (disgraceful!) — and were duly punished (hooray!) — although the tempo of thousands and thousands of cars caused not a single accident for a single one of them and neither harmed or inconvenienced anybody, inside or outside the vehicle.

How old are these speed limits these slowness limits, anyway? In many parts of the world, they haven't changed, or barely, since their introduction in the early 1970s — almost a half-century ago. Indeed, one can speculate whether the 55-mile-an-hour limit would not have remained the same in America if some states had not led a revolt against the federal limit until it was overturned in 1995. (You don't believe that motor vehicles are much different from 44 years ago? Okay. Do you know what a telephone from the 1970s looks like? Try comparing it — turn that dial! — with the cel phone that you use today and see if you can spot any differences.)

Why were speed limits slowness limits introduced in the first place? For safety reasons? No, they were introduced on purely economic grounds — in response to the OPEC-created oil crisis of 1972 and 1973. Throughout the West, the measure came with promises that it would be dismantled within a year or so — certainly one of the most egregious example of bureaucratic creep in the history of the world. (Why would any people — especially, individualistic Americans — agree to so low, to so ridiculous, a limit as 55 mph unless it was because it was believed to be a temporary measure?).
Update: In some places — mainly Red and/or rural states, I would venture — things have gotten better, a reader writes (thanks to HC), and the speed limits the slowness limits have risen, such as on this Utah highway South of Fillmore
Now, a word for Kim du Toit and all the people who reflexively defend the authorities — I am speaking of those I call the Allyagottado folks — who, normally (apparently, with this one exception), are people on the political left (Allyagottado is respect the speed limit slowness limit, Allyagottado is never pass 55 [or whatever] mph, Allyagottado is spend two to three hours more on the road (while increasing the number of vehicles on said roads and therefore the risks of a bottleneck and therefore those of an accident), Allyagottado is not fall asleep at the wheel, Allyagottado is not be (never be) late, Allyagottado is — humbly — pay your (well-deserved) fines, etc):

The basic thought of the Allyagottado folks, the true wish and desire of the Allyagottado folks — whether they are among our leaders or among the population — is that citizens are, or that they should become, automatons, robots.

With airbags, ABS brakes, and other modernities, shouldn't the speed limit slowness limit be raised (albeit only on highways, of course)? On Germany's Autobahn (no speed limit at all on most of the network), after all, driving up to, and past, 100 mph is a lark, and the Germans have lower death-per-million fatalities than many other neighboring EU countries.

What people do not realize is that the expression "speed limit" is a perfect example of George Orwell's Newspeak. For every person (rightly) ticketed for (truly) speeding, you get 499 people ticketed for not driving slowly enough. Thus, as we have been seeing, a truer expression ought to be "slowness limit."

Another thing that people do not realize is that the vast majority of people who get tickets for "speeding" (sic) don't do so because they have been careless or unconscious or dangerous or scofflaws. On the contrary, most of the time they have been perfectly responsible.

Indeed, the very reason that the vast majority of drivers are ticketed is PRECISELY because they had NOT been "speeding" (as in "acting carelessly"); they had been adopting the speed, or the tempo, of their vehicle to the realities of the road. In other words, they were ticketed for… acting responsibly, perfectly concentrated and conscious of their environment, with their eyes fixed on… the road!

Think about it.

Responsible driving for any person using his brains and common sense, is
1) looking primarily at the road and
2) watching out for moving entities
(other vehicles, pedestrians, animals, etc…) —
which signal the presence of humans or other living beings.

What the Allyagottado folks demand is for us to
1) look primarily at the interior of the vehicle
(the dashboard and its various tachometers) and
2) watch out for fixed objects (traffic signs, etc),
lifeless objects with no soul.

Which way of driving is the most intelligent?

Which of the two drivers is more caring for his fellow beings?

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

A Danish girl who volunteered to fight against Isis terrorists in Syria and Iraq faces prison for violating a travel ban meant to hamstring supporters of Isis terrorists

A Danish woman who volunteered in Syria and Iraq to fight against Isis faces six months in prison for violating a travel ban 
reports the Independent's Lizzie Dearden.
Joanna Palani has been taken into custody while Copenhagen City Court hears her case, which has divided Denmark.

The 23-year-old insists she poses no security risk and had been fighting with Kurdish groups aligned with the US-led coalition, which includes Denmark.

But she has fallen foul of laws allowing the imposition of travel bans and seizing of passports for Danes planning to join foreign conflicts – on whatever side.

Palani’s lawyer, Erbil Kaya, told the Berlingske newspaper his client admitted violating a one-year travel ban imposed by Danish authorities.

 … Palani, whose father and grandfather were Peshmerga fighters, is of Iranian Kurdish ancestry and moved to Copenhagen as a toddler after being born in an UN refugee camp in Ramadi, Iraq, during the Gulf War.

She told Vice she left university in autumn 2014 to join the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) in Syria, wanting to defeat Isis, President Bashar al-Assad and “fight for human rights for all people”.

Palani fought for the YPG for six months before moving to Iraq to fight for the Kurdish Peshmerga. Both groups have been supported by the US and allies in the battle against Isis, being given military and air support as the ground arm of the international coalition’s bombing campaign.

As well as fighting on the front line against Isis militants, she claimed to have been part of a battalion that freed women and children held as sex slaves by the so-called Islamic State near its stronghold of Mosul.

Palani was active on social media and news of her role spread in Denmark. When she was given a fortnight off by the Peshmerga to visit her family in 2015, the Danish authorities cracked down.

A police notice warned Palani her passport had was not valid and would be revoked if she left the country, an offence punishable with a jail sentence.

The former student has criticised the Danish authorities for pursuing her under laws targeting Isis militants and other extremists.

Denmark’s Security and Intelligence Service (PET) said at least 115 Danes have travelled to fight in Syria and Iraq in the past five years, with most believed to have joined Isis.

“How can I pose a threat to Denmark and other countries by being a soldier in an official army that Denmark trains and supports directly in the fight against the Islamic State?” she wrote on Facebook when she lost her passport, according to a translation by The Local.

Monday, April 24, 2017

"The entire machinery of the French state did everything in its power to undermine the competitors of Macron, Hollande's successor"

From Moscow and San Francisco, Isabelle Mandraud and Corine Lesnes have been reporting for Le Monde on the first round of French elections as seen from abroad. If anybody shouldn't be trusted outright, it's the Russians, but here they seem to have nailed it outright:
Dmitri Kissilev, présentateur vedette de la grande émission d’actualité du dimanche soir sur Perviy Kanal, la première chaîne russe, a lancé : « Au cours de la campagne, toute la machine de l’Etat français a fait tout son possible pour compromettre les concurrents de Macron, le successeur de Hollande… » Plus tôt dans la journée, la chaîne de télévision de l’armée, Zvezda, annonçait « Macron et Le Pen en tête » sur la foi d’estimations annoncées depuis la Belgique, avec cet ajout, sans détour et en français dans le texte : #JeVoteMarine.

Cité sur cette même chaîne, le politologue Alexeï Moukhine expliquait : « Marine Le Pen a reçu un soutien évident de la Russie (…) un soutien purement politique, pas technique. En ce qui concerne Macron, c’est l’establishment américain qui le soutient, en partie démocrate. » Une vision binaire partagée. « L’élite », peu importe qu’elle soit française ou américaine, a fait barrage aux yeux de Moscou. Le sénateur Alexeï Pouchkov, parfaitement francophone, résumait ainsi sur Twitter : « L’élite française a tenté d’écarter Fillon de la course (…) et elle y est parvenue. »
According to Perviy Kanal, therefore, "the French élite attempted to derail François Fillon, and it was successful." Indeed, "the entire machinery of the French state did everything in its power to undermine the competitors of Emmanuel Macron, the successor to François Hollande."

While everybody is talking about the demise of the Socialist Party (a dismal 6.3%), it seems quite evident that the Socialists, having no illusions that they would crash, put in a sacrificial candidate (Benoît Hamon, which explains why President Hollande refused to run and why Prime Minister Manuel Valls "lost" the primary), while more or less stealthily supporting a plant in an "independent" party. In this, it was vital that the rightist candidate also be a loser, which was taken care of with the irruption of "scandals" regarding practices that are in fact quite common throughout the French political spectrum.

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Quelle ironie du sort: sur 11 candidats à l'élection présidentielle, 9 affichent clairement leurs penchants léninistes et leurs programmes marxisants. Sommes-nous en 2017 ou en 1917?

Alors qu'en Amérique, le Communist Party USA compte de plus en plus d'adhérents, Bogdan Calinescu (alias l'essayiste Nicolas Lecaussin, merci à Carine) qui a connu la dictature de Ceausescu en Roumanie, met en garde contre les candidats d'extrême gauche avant le premier tour de l'élection présidentielle en France et l'état marxisant qu'ils souhaitent mettre en place.
Quand je suis arrivé en France au début des années 1990, je pensais avoir laissé derrière moi le cauchemar de l'idéologie communiste. Je pensais ne plus revivre l'atmosphère sombre et pesante de l'époque, la tension et la peur permanentes, les files interminables devant les magasins vides et les pénuries - de la boîte d'allumettes jusqu'au papier hygiénique - et cette sensation terrible qu'on ne s'en sortirait jamais. Je croyais que c'en était fini des deux heures de télé par jour sur la seule chaîne, deux heures consacrées en grande partie au «Conducator bien aimé», le dictateur Ceausescu.

Enfant, je voyais mon père, intellectuel, enseignant la littérature française, prendre d'énormes risques en critiquant le régime et je me rappelle très bien comment, lors d'une perquisition de la police politique chez nous, à 6 heures du matin, il avait réussi à glisser dans mon cartable, avant que je ne parte à l'école, quelques documents «compromettants» qui auraient pu lui coûter cher… En les déposant chez un ami de la famille qui les a brûlés tout de suite, j'avais - déjà, à 13 ans - la satisfaction d'avoir accompli l'acte d'un véritable résistant au régime. Malgré l'ubuesque et l'impitoyable dictature de Ceausescu, j'ai eu la chance de grandir dans une atmosphère francophile, j'ai eu la chance de pouvoir déchiffrer le monde libre, sa littérature, son actualité.

Plus de 25 ans après la chute du communisme, je suis en train de vivre une expérience que je n'aurais jamais pensé retrouver: la France, mon pays de cœur et d'adoption, manifeste une sympathie incorrigible pour les idées communistes que je n'ai cessé de combattre depuis mon enfance! Quelle ironie du sort: en 2017, sur onze candidats à l'élection présidentielle, neuf affichent clairement leurs penchants léninistes et leurs programmes marxisants. Sommes-nous en 2017 ou en 1917?

Je me souviens très bien du moment où la France est devenue pour moi l'objectif à atteindre, l'endroit où je devais absolument vivre. Adolescent, je suis tombé sur ce texte de Rudyard Kipling qui, en 1878, à l'âge de 12 ans, visite Paris avec son père. Il a l'occasion de grimper dans la statue de la Liberté qui n'avait pas encore été envoyée à New York. En regardant de l'intérieur à travers ses yeux, il comprend: «C'était par les yeux de la France que je commençais à voir»… Des années plus tard, en 1922, lors d'un discours à la Royal Society of St. George, ce grand amoureux de la France affirmait: «Les Français représentent le seul autre (avec les Anglais) peuple dans le monde qui compte.»

Néanmoins, l'Angleterre devrait suivre l'exemple de la France… Et Kipling d'énumérer les atouts de notre pays: l'éthique du travail, son économie, la simplicité, l'autodiscipline et la discipline extérieure ainsi que «la vie rude qui fortifie l'être moral». «La France est un exemple pour le monde entier»!

Quel décalage avec la France d'aujourd'hui! Un pays qui fait la couverture des magazines pour son taux de chômage qui bat des records ou pour sa bureaucratie sans équivalent dans les grands pays riches et démocratiques. Un pays dont l'économie étouffe sous la pression d'un État omniprésent et qui voit ses jeunes partir en masse à l'étranger. Un pays qui a envoyé aux oubliettes les vraies valeurs de l'école et les a remplacées par le pédagogisme et la sociologie égalitariste de Pierre Bourdieu ; une école phagocytée par les syndicats de gauche qui n'acceptent aucune réforme et par des enseignants complètement éloignés du monde de l'entreprise. Un pays qui chasse les jeunes, les chefs d'entreprise, les riches et qui n'attire plus les élites. Un pays dirigé par une classe politique en très grande partie déconsidérée et biberonnée à l'étatisme. Un pays où un parti dit d'extrême droite puise son programme dans les idées marxistes et obtient des scores électoraux impressionnants, un pays où plusieurs autres partis et candidats, enfin, se déclarent ouvertement communistes.

Quel est ce pays qui renie ses racines chrétiennes et ses valeurs historiques? Qui a transformé l'antilibéralisme et l'antiaméricanisme en repères moraux? Qui passe son temps à insulter l'Europe et les présidents américains, parfaits boucs émissaires, et dresse des lauriers à des criminels comme Mao, Castro ou Che Guevara? Je me souviendrai toujours de ce que m'avait dit l'intellectuel Philippe Sollers lorsque je lui avais demandé pourquoi il avait été maoïste: «C'était de la poésie», m'avait-il répondu en balayant d'un revers de main sa sympathie pour le plus grand criminel de l'Histoire. Alors, les admirateurs d'Hitler, c'était aussi de la poésie? En France, le socialisme a toujours baigné dans la bienveillance, alors que le libéralisme a toujours souffert d'une présomption d'injustice et de culpabilité.

L'étatisme marxisant bénéficie de la clause de l'idéologie la plus favorisée et c'est ce qui tue la France encore aujourd'hui. D'autres pays s'en sont sortis, en saisissant toutes les bouées de sauvetage que nous, nous repoussons. Souffririons-nous du syndrome de Stockholm à l'échelle nationale? D'une inconscience infantile qui pourrait se révéler lourde de conséquences? Où est la France de mon enfance?