Tag Archives: Bastille Day

When Murder is just Tough Love: the Culture and Practical Reason of Terrorism after the Quatorze Juliet

A close friend sent me a cute French electronic card for Bastille Day 2016.   And what a Bastille Day it turned out to be, eh?  Think about it!!! A third massive attack on the French people in about a year… But… Cui Bono? What is an attack but an invitation to a counterattack? So if you’re going to start a war, your attack should always be something that weakens the enemy in some regard, right? But NONE of these stupid Muzzies seem to get that, do they? They always attack innocent civilians—everywhere they go, or at the most they attack government bureaucrats….What kind of logic is that? You attack people to prod them into attacking you, but all of your attacks seem carefully designed to arouse ire and anger among the populace while leaving the infrastructure of war that will be used against you completely intact and untouched. Is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture? It’s almost like the people making the attacks ONLY want to make the people MORE willing to counter-attack them back? How is that logical?

Holidays are very important, especially those with fireworks.  I have never lived in France or Quebec, but by the time I was 18 I had lived in London, Dallas, Los Angeles, New Orleans, and Honduras, and whether it’s New Years’ Eve, Guy Fawkes’ Day, the Fourth of July, the 15th of September, or the Queen’s Birthday, fireworks celebrations are really great.  So I try to imagine what would have happened if there had been a bombing during one of those holidays in any of the places I ever habituated…. and what would have been the purpose.  

And what of the Quatorze Julliet?  My grandmother was a Francophone and Francophile native of Louisiana and my Texas-born grandfather’s life took him from Galveston to “the City” on a regular basis, plus I took French in High School and College, and several of my professors were Francophones and Francophiles at Tulane and during those years—including  Archaeologists Harvey Bricker and Cynthia Irwin-Williams who had both studied under Hallam Movius, and from them all, I obtained a love for and habit of celebrating July 14, Bastille Day.

Terrorism, traditionally understood, is a species of poor-man’s war or revolution.  As such, it is inherently secretive and illegal.  War is open and honest: Austria declared war on Serbia, so Russia declared war on Austria, Germany was required by treaty to go to war with Russia to defend Austria, Britain was required by treaty, etc., and so the Great War of 1914-1918 began.  BUT EVERYBODY KNEW IT.

When terrorist organizations claim responsibility after the fact for their crimes… they are doing just that, they are claiming criminal responsibility… and when criminals claim responsibility for anything, you have to wonder: why?

And so I think to myself, what do the April 1995 Bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, 9/11/01 in New York City and Washington, 7/7/05 in London, Dylan Storm Roof’s murderous assault in Charleston last June 17, Charlie Hebdo in France, and now this latest atrocity in Nice all have in common?  

Well, they neither advance any coherent revolutionary plan, nor weaken the countries they attack.  They all happen either on days with interesting numbers or anniversaries.   But the truck bombing that took out 84 yesterday, including two American tourists apparently, just “takes the cake” on Bastille Day—which now joins Guy Fawkes Day and 9/11, 7/7 and 6/17/15 anniversary of the collapse of Denmark Vesey’s 1822 slave uprising in Charleston as “false flag” or stage events of terrorism.

Bastille Day was already a slightly fictitious holiday because, as Louis XVI wrote in his diary, on 14 July 1789, “Nothing Important Happened.”  A mob knocked down an old prison with one prisoner, but the embattled King with a short life-expectancy didn’t even notice, under his peculiar circumstances.  As my son likes to say—the 14th of July was really a tragedy for the future of French Tourism—the Bastille, Mediaeval relic fortress that it was, would have been a major attraction had it survived…  But the French know how to make a good party out of a bad deal—and very few American Fourth of July Cookouts EVER equal the average 14 July party in France or among Francophile/Francophones worldwide… the comparison of the food and wine alone…. oh well, never mind.

But I keep trying to think to myself: if I were an Islamic Freedom-Fighter or would-be Caliph, would attacking innocent people over and over again at random make any sense?  What would I be hoping to accomplish?  What would be my goals?  What good TO ME AND MY CAUSE could possibly inure from committing such crimes?

A sophisticated and coordinated attack in the United States followed by a similar attack in London, and then a decade later two similarly “low tech” attacks in France, and a bunch of random attacks in the meantime… scattered around the world.  Shootings at Fort Hood in Texas, connected or not?  Who knows?  The Boston Marathon whatever it was, connected or not?  Who knows?  The Chattanooga, TN veteran shooting, connected or not?  Who knows?

What is absolutely certain is that SOMEONE wants to create the image of Islamic terror as a world-wide phenomenon that requires  coordinated security and response.  If I were an Islamic Freedom-Fighter or would-be Caliph, would this kind of premonitory strategy seem like a good idea to me?   The answer is NO.

Revolutionary terrorism needs to be targeted on ONE government, one regime, one power structure—and it needs to be consistent and persistent enough to destabilize a society or at least an elite.  The pattern of Islamic Terror since the original 1993 World Trade Center bombing is NOT THAT.   The movement around the map, the focus on NON-STRATEGIC, NON-MILITARY, NON-INFRASTRUCTURE targets is very consistent.

The murder of innocent people was an integral part of Timothy McVeigh’s and Dylan Storm Roof’s approach in distinctly non-Islamic terrorist events in the United States—and their two attacks had no more coordinated relationship to any ideological goals than the long line of supposed Islamic terrorist events.  Even my dearly departed, mild mannered, deeply religious late mother said, way back in April 1995, “if they call themselves Patriots and wanted to make a meaningful statement, they really should have bombed the IRS.”  And if Dylan Storm Roof were really a racist White Supremacist, the LAST associations he would have wanted to make were the killing of elderly black people during a prayer meeting at a conservative African Methodist Episcopal Church on the 193rd anniversary of the Suppression of one of the most famous Slave Rebellions in U.S. History: this sort of symbolism all plays for the OTHER side—and so does bombing the French Riviera during Bastille Day celebrations.  

IF you want to make sure to build your enemies’  anger and take every step possible to ensure that NOBODY has any sympathy for your cause, (a) make sure nobody knows what your cause is and (b) do things in random places but on important days to make sure people remember the randomness.

In short, to my mind, there is absolutely ZERO chance that the Nice attack on Bastille Day was organized by anyone sincerely to advance the Islamist cause.   You want to bomb a target on a holiday?  If you’re a real revolutionary, you seek a target like an electrical power plant or water pumping station or even a sewerage processing plant where you can disable your opponents entire city and infrastructure in some really inconvenient and expensive way.  Osama bin Laden was a structural engineer and IF he had been in charge of 9-11, as a plot against the United States, I’ve always said his targets of choice would have been the undefended dams along the Colorado River, in order to cutoff the water supply to evil sinful cities like Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and the California “Inland Empire.”

So none of these attacks, my friends, are about an Islamic agenda for World Domination or even in revenge for the (indisputable) wrongs suffered by the Arab and Islamic people generally at British, French, and most recently American Imperialist hands….

WHO WANTS TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER THROUGH TERROR?  The Radical Islamic World?  Or Powers, Princes and Potentates MUCH Closer to Home!

All these attacks, in my opinion, reflect a “tough love” strategy of the United States, French, and British Governments to “soften up” the people and by long-term repetitive pseudo-Pavlovian conditioning make them (i.e. US, the free and responsible people of America and Europe) willing to accept an all-encompassing, eternal “Thousand Year” Police State—exactly what Strom Thurmond predicted was the goal in his “Dixiecrat” Platform of 1948.  They want to impose the police state for our own good and our own protection, don’t you understand?  That’s why modern government false-flag murder is just TOUGH LOVE.  And if you don’t like it, well, tough s__t, you know, my fellow Americans: “We have to break a few eggs here and there to prepare for you our New World Order of Omelette—-they’re all for you, you know!  But we know you’re too stupid to want this wonderful highly organized Police State where we can organize and regulate all of your lives, so we have to scare you into it.”  

In other words: Tales of Terrorism function for the modern media  motivated masses exactly the way Perrault’s or Grimm’s Fairy tales did in days of yore…. scary stories are INSTRUCTIONAL!  You need to scare the children by telling them about the BIG BAD WOLF and what he did to Little Red Riding Hood, or about what the Witch did to Hansel & Gretel with her candy house, so that they will live in constant fear of strangers and of attempting to strike out on their own.  FEAR!  FEAR!  FEAR!  “You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, it’s got to be taught from year-to-year, it’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear, You’ve got to be carefully taught.”

DALLAS WAS JUST PERFECT!

The Dallas Police Murders last week, which suspiciously took place on the now recurring date of 7/7, were not Islamic either, but they served the fear purpose and the “Divide and Conquer” purpose to a degree unmatched in any other attack.  Black people killing black cops—a recipe made by Machiavelli in Hell….

Peaceful black protesters complaining about police brutality were forced to hide behind the police lines when one or more black gunmen murdered 5 and injured 7 more.  DID THIS ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF “BLACK LIVES MATTER”?  No, but it was a boon for American Renaissance (and I write this as a regular reader  of and a subscriber to AmRen).

To feed the ignorant white suburban paranoia of blacks attacking whites was a simple stroke of Genius on the part of the Obama administration—all of a sudden, we have forced a portion of the black population into making a choice: either they act out the worst fears of the white middle class suburbanites or they support the Police.  Obama, as usual, was totally two-faced, but two-faced is how the supporters of the police state need to be: they need to FOMENT inter-racial violence on the one hand and then condemn murder on the other, because THIS STRATEGY SUPPORTS INCREASING THE POWER AND THE EFFICACY OF THE STATE.

The way to satisfy the Black Lives Matter movement is to suppress white-conservative expression and culture and desires to be left alone in an essentially segregated society.  To satisfy the White AND Black Middle and Upper Classes, the government must enlarge (a better word might be to engorge) the police state and enhance the power of the police to protect them from the rising black tide.

Now I read AmRen and similar publications and websites because I support what I perceive as their key long-term goals, namely segregation of the races to maintain cultural continuity.  Strangely enough, many black civil rights advocates share these goals, and I wholeheartedly support those who do.  BUT I HATE INJUSTICE, UNFAIRNESS, and  OPPRESSION and the way the POLICE STATE MAXIMIZES all three.  And the only thing that all the terrorist murders of the past 21 years since Oklahoma really have in common is: they justify oppressive measures and unfair oppression.

I totally disagree, then, with the advocacy of increased police power and authority which the reaction to Dallas has engendered both among the White and Black Middle Class.   Whites may believe that the police are on their side, but my experience in life is quite the opposite.  The calibre and IQ of men (and women) who opt for a career in law enforcement are not the highest, and police ONLY support the “side” that pays them directly (namely the State and City power structures, and the banks and other large institutions who support those) AGAINST ALL THE PEOPLE, REGARDLESS OF RACE CREED, OR COLOR.

One feature of modern society that deeply distresses me is the increasingly lack of respect among people.  The police do not respect anyone’s rights, as can be seen from countless examples in various fields of law enforcement, from domestic relations to enforcement of judicial foreclosures.  But ordinary people, too, do not respect each other’s rights, space or property, and depend for all protection on the police or state power generally as arbiters of everything.  Individuals need to take responsibility for all things, including their own protection and that of their loved ones and property.

Concern over lack of respect is, I think, a unifying theme in both the radical White and radical Black Lives Matter movements.  

Quatorze Juillet  (Edith Piaf)

Il me vient par la fenêtre
Des musiques de la rue.
Chaque estrade a son orchestre.
Chaque bal a sa cohue.
Ces gens-là m’ont pris ma fête.
Je ne la reconnais plus.

Dans ma chambre, je me chante
L’air que nous avons valsé.
Je regarde la toquarde
Où tes doigts se sont posés.

Tu m’as dit : “Tu es si belle.”
Et tu as, l’instant d’après,
Ajouté : “La vie est bête.”.
J’ai compris que tu partais.
Si tu ne reviens jamais,
Il n’y aura plus de quatorze juillet.

Il me vient par la fenêtre
Un murmure qui s’éteint,
Les chansons d’une jeunesse
Attardée dans le matin.
N’allez pas troubler mon rêve.
Allez rire un peu plus loin.

Que m’apporte, que m’apporte
Cette joie de quelques heures ?
Je suis morte, je suis morte
Et je t’ai déjà rejoint
Et mon corps est près du tien
Mais personne n’en sait rien…

The 14th of July

He comes to my window
The music in the street
Each stage has its orchestra
Each dance has its crowd
These people took my celebration
I don’t recognize it anymore

In my room, I sing to myself
The air that we waltzed in
I watch the infatuation
Where your fingers encountered mine

You tell me “you are so beautiful”
And you after a moment
Added “life is stupid”
I understood that you left
If you never come back
There will not be another 14th of July

He came to my window
A murmur that has extinguished
The songs of youth
Lingering in the morning
Don’t go troubling my dream
Laughing one step further away

That brings me, that brings me
The joy of a few hours
I’m dead, I’m dead
And I already reached you
And my body is close to yours
But nobody knows anything…

Sovereign Nation or USA Vassal-State? German Looks to its Future under the Obamanation of Global-Imperialist USA!: More European Commentary on the Free Trade Agreement that NO ONE is Discussing in the USA—Obama Promotes Trayvon Sympathy Race-Riots to Hide the Largest U.S. Imperialist Action in HIstory—the Virtual Annexation of Europe

Last week for Bastille Day, July 14, 2013, I published a quotation from the French Front National’s website concerning the leading French Nationalist Party’s fears of a free trade agreement that, so far, I have seen discussed NOWHERE in the US-Media—someone fill me in if they have seen NYT or WSJ reports on it, because I’ve looked and (if they are there) I’ve somehow missed it.  We obviously can not count, any longer, on these two traditional pillars of US Journalism.  This week, following up on the French Commentary about the “Wildfire of Savage Globalism” with and by which Obama as George Bush’s handpicked successor is attempting effectively to annex Europe, I now quote the German National Democratic Party’s fears of the complete abrogation of National Sovereignty for status as a U.S. Vassal State, a condition not experienced since the dismal days post 1945 when Germany was effectively partitioned four ways between Great Britain in the Northwest (Hamburg, Hannover, Bremen, Schleswig-Holstein, Wesphalia, and most of Rheinland-Phalz, France in the Southwest (Saarland, Baden-Wurtemburg, U. S. Central and Southeast (Bavaria up to and including Frankfurt-am-Main), and of course, the entire eastern half of the Country either annexed to Poland and obliterated from the map or the heartland stub of Berlin, Brandenburg, Thuringia, Saxony, and Mecklenberg-Schwerin as “East Germany” operating under Russian occupation for 45 years as a Soviet Vassal State).  Surely Germany has suffered enough from foreign domination!

My sight-translation from German is not the best of my foreign language skills (German-original text below), but this is the best I can do early on a Sunday morning before Church with no better stimulus than Arizona Southern Style Tea from a page just published on Friday July 19, 2013, on the National Democratic Party websitehttp://www.npd.de/html/1938/artikel/detail/3310/ I WOULD WELCOME ANY CORRECTIONS OR SUGGESTED CLARIFICATIONS OF MY TRANSLATION BELOW, my undergraduate German professors Starke & Gotzkowsky would be so disappointed in my ability 36-35 years later…

Sovereign German Nation State or US-Vassal>
German Future Against the Background of the Prism-Accord Provided by the “Free Trade” Agreement with the United States

One simply has to answer too many questions incompletely and insubstantially, because we simply have no answer from the United States regarding to the extent of the American spying on German citizens and politicians. More than two-thirds of the Germans are dissatisfied and unhappy with the information provided by the (German) federal government, which may have been enough for Angela Merkel on this topic that shows her failings dramatically.
However, the NPD will not allow this affirmation of the comprehensive loss any sovereignty to evaporate into the summer heat.  Because it is not only the privacy of millions of Germans citizens by US-espionage that is in danger, even the protection of German companies is no longer secure.
Given this background, it is important to consider the proposed free trade agreement between the EU and the United States must be reviewed.  A  “free trade agreement” in any case threatens the independent self-management of all member governments and their peoples.  “Free Trade” prohibits ordinary national protection mechanisms, import duties and other effective measures for consumer protection. The “winners” of this free trade area are only the large, internationally active corporations. [Translators note: look at what has happened in Mexico since NAFTA: the Blessings of Walmart have reached into every corner of the land, including World Patrimony sites like the ruins of the greatest pre-Aztec sacred city of Quetzalcoatl at Teotihuacan; yet has Mexico reaped a great harvest of jobs amidst the Yankee invasion?  No, the slave labor of China and sub-human wages of sub-continental India have undercut Mexico’s extremely low wages, meaning that American companies have taken their jobs NOT to Mexico primarily but elsewhere, as Free Trade permits them to do—the net loss of Sovereignty plus Wealth to Mexico has fueled the largest human migration in history across the Rio Grande, Gadsen Purchase line, and boundary of Upper-Lower California to the point where the US is effectively half-Mexican now and large parts of the Mexican population depend on the “foreign aid” provided by its US-resident citizens].  “Losers” are without exception the acquiescing states and their citizens.  The states lose, because for every protective measure they can be dragged into [effectively dominant-State-US controlled] free trade courts, and this means that the states are thereby forced largely to withdraw from economic regulation. The people lose, because consumers suffer from unsafe products [produced in non-consumer countries] and small businesses suffer from the ruinous competition from abroad [which competition] could not be more effectively protected.

So said the US-american political scientist Susan George: “winners are logically the large companies. Small and medium-sized companies obtain much less, if they are already subcontractors of the greater companies and so already exploited, they have no way to regulate their prices, which will fall.”
Horse meat scandals and worse were on the agenda, because the states have no regulatory power anymore. Consumer protection becomes a thing of the past. The GMO Biotech-Concern Monsanto announced just a few days ago, that it will make no further applications for legalisation of genetically modified food in Germany and Europe.  This is no wonder, since Monsanto and similar companies can calmly but soon via free trade agreements will export  their genetically modified products to Germany [against the will and choice of the German people]. Ms. George states, precisely: “In the US, with 80 percent of the maize [American corn] production genetically modified, multinational companies dominate. And in agriculture, then the price on the US market sets the international price. That would be the ruin of the Europeans, except for the large, industrial establishments in Europe.”

The current Prism-Accord, is now revealed in light of the comprehensive espionage of the US secret NSA [National Security Agency] service in Germany, [and] shos the planned free trade agreement in [at the very least] a questionable light. In the future, comprehensive industrial espionage in Germany and Europe would be even easier for the US secret services. Several studies have already shown that Germany would have the least benefit of such a free trade agreement.  The even more comprehensive industrial espionage imposed on Germany, on the other hand would probably bear the brunt. Our already docile and US vassal Politi-Puppets like Chancellor Angela Merkel and Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich provide no expectation of protection for German citizens, consumers or businesses. [Friedrich has shown this by the complete lack of vigor in his investigation of the NSA over the past week or so].
Neither the Prism-Accord nor the planned free trade agreement will disappear in the summer!  They must be an election issue!
The NPD is the only party in Germany for the restoration of the full sovereignty of the German nation-state, the guarantor of the ability of German policies and basic conditions for an effective protection of German citizens and businesses.

[all bracketed content added by yours truly, the shamefully poor-translator CEL III]

(ORIGINAL TEXT IN GERMAN, SAME PAGE NOTED ABOVE: http://www.npd.de/html/1938/artikel/detail/3310/)

19.07.2013

Soveräner deutscher Nationalstaat statt US-Vasall

Vor dem Hintergrund von Prism darf es mit den USA kein Freihandelsabkommen geben 

Viele Fragen musste sie mit völliger Substanzlosigkeit beantworten, weil sie schlicht und ergreifend von den USA bisher keine Antwort zum Ausmaß der Ausspähung deutscher Bürger und Politiker bekommen hat. Mehr als zwei Drittel der Deutschen sind mit der Aufklärungsarbeit der Bundesregierung unzufrieden, Grund genug für Merkel, daß Thema zu entdramatisieren.

Die NPD wird allerdings nicht zulassen, daß dieser Beleg des umfassenden Verlusts jeglicher Souveränität im Sommerloch verschwindet. Denn nicht nur die Privatsphäre von Millionen deutschen Bürgern ist durch die US-Spionage in Gefahr, auch der Schutz deutscher Unternehmen ist nicht mehr gewährleistet.

Vor diesem Hintergrund muß auch das geplante Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der EU und den USA betrachtet werden. Ein Freihandelsabkommen bedroht ohnehin die Handlungsfähigkeit der Staaten und Völker, verbietet es doch nationale Schutzmechanismen, Einfuhrzölle und wirksame Maßnahmen zum Verbraucherschutz. Gewinner einer solchen Freihandelszone wären einzig und allein die großen, international agierenden Konzerne. Verlierer wären die Staaten und deren Bürger. Erstere, weil sie wegen jeder Schutzmaßnahme vor Gericht gezerrt werden könnten, da der Freihandelsvertrag die Staaten zwingen würde, sich aus der Wirtschaftsregulierung weitgehend zurückzuziehen. Letztere, weil Verbraucher vor bedenklichen Produkten und kleine Unternehmen vor der ruinösen Konkurrenz aus dem Ausland nicht mehr wirksam geschützt werden könnten.

So sagte hierzu die US-amerikanische Politikwissenschaftlerin Susan George: „Gewinner sind logischerweise die großen Unternehmen. Kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen würden viel weniger davon haben, wenn sie Subunternehmer sind und bereits von den Großen ausgebeutet werden, die nicht regelmäßig zahlen, die die Preise drücken können.“

Pferdefleischskandale und Schlimmeres wären an der Tagesordnung, weil die Staaten über keinerlei Kontrollbefugnisse mehr verfügen würden. Verbraucherschutz würde der Vergangenheit angehören. Der Gentech-Konzern Monsanto hat erst vor wenigen Tagen bekannt gegeben, keine weiteren Anträge auf Legalisierung von genmanipulierten Lebensmitteln in Deutschland und Europa stellen zu wollen. Dies ist auch kein Wunder, können Monsanto und ähnliche Konzerne doch bald seelenruhig ihren Genmüll via Freihandelsabkommen nach Deutschland exportieren. George hierzu wörtlich: „In den USA macht Genmais 80 Prozent der Produktion aus, hier dominieren multinationale Unternehmen. Und in der Landwirtschaft, wird dann der Preis auf dem US-Markt zum internationalen Preis. Das wäre der Ruin der Europäer, außer für die großen, industriellen Betriebe in Europa.“

Auch die aktuelle Prism-Affäre, die die umfassende Spionage des US-Geheimdienstes NSA in Deutschland offengelegt hat, stellt das geplante Freihandelsabkommen in ein fragwürdiges Licht. Künftig wäre es für die US-Geheimdienste noch einfacher, umfassende Industriespionage in Deutschland und Europa zu betreiben. Mehrere Studien haben bereits ergeben, daß Deutschland von einem solchen Freihandelsabkommen ohnehin am wenigsten profitieren würde. Die noch umfassendere Industriespionage eingerechnet wäre Deutschland hingegen wohl sogar der Hauptleidtragende. Mit willfährigen und US-hörigen Polit-Marionetten wie Merkel und Friedrich ist auch kein Schutz deutscher Bürger, Verbraucher und Unternehmen zu erwarten.

Sowohl die Prism-Affäre als auch das geplante Freihandelsabkommen dürfen nicht im Sommerloch verschwinden! Sie müssen Wahlkampfthema werden!

Die NPD spricht sich als einzige Partei in Deutschland für die Wiederherstellung der umfassenden Souveränität des deutschen Nationalstaats aus, die Garant für die Handlungsfähigkeit der deutschen Politik und Grundbedingung für einen wirksamen Schutz deutscher Bürger und Unternehmen ist.

The Forgotten Murderous History of Communism: Ten Years & Six Months Ago Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Last Book Broke the Last Taboo of the Revolution

On July 11, 2013, we are all getting ready for Bastille Day in New Orleans—224 years since the Great Prison, symbolic of an imprisoned French People, came down.  The French Revolution was unquestionably French—the only “foreign influence” detectable in the events of 1789-1815 was that of English Radicals and American Republican Revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, and Benjamin Franklin.  But was the Russian Revolution genuinely Russian?  Was it really an uprising of the “Bolshevik” of Russians (the word “Bolshevik” means “Majority” in Russian)?  Or was that a lie, among the many lies of Communism?  Is Communism itself one gigantic lie and deception, conceived by a tiny elite to spread its power and enslave the world?  Are Modern America and Europe under the sway of that minority?  Can we call that tiny elite by the names “Bilderbergers”, “Council on Foreign Relations?”, “Trilateral Commission”?, or are there other, more common names?  I do not even pretend to know the answer, but I know that when I was 11-12, reading “the Gulag Archipelago” had a profound impact on my psyche.  I had grown up with my grandparents’ (Texas charter member John Birchers, both of them) conversations about the evils of Communism, and how the Communists of Russia and China had killed many times more people in Peacetime than Adolph Hitler had done during World War II.  But the stark reality of what Solzhenitsyn described was so much worse than mere statistics.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/25/russia.books

Solzhenitsyn breaks last taboo of the revolution

Nobel laureate under fire for new book on the role of Jews in Soviet-era repression

 in Moscow

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who first exposed the horrors of the Stalinist gulag, is now attempting to tackle one of the most sensitive topics of his writing career – the role of the Jews in the Bolshevik revolution and Soviet purges.

In his latest book Solzhenitsyn, 84, deals with one of the last taboos of the communist revolution: that Jews were as much perpetrators of the repression as its victims. Two Hundred Years Together – a reference to the 1772 partial annexation of Poland and Russia which greatly increased the Russian Jewish population – contains three chapters discussing the Jewish role in the revolutionary genocide and secret police purges of Soviet Russia.

But Jewish leaders and some historians have reacted furiously to the book, and questioned Solzhenitsyn’s motives in writing it, accusing him of factual inaccuracies and of fanning the flames of anti-semitism in Russia.

Solzhenitsyn argues that some Jewish satire of the revolutionary period “consciously or unconsciously descends on the Russians” as being behind the genocide. But he states that all the nation’s ethnic groups must share the blame, and that people shy away from speaking the truth about the Jewish experience.

In one remark which infuriated Russian Jews, he wrote: “If I would care to generalise, and to say that the life of the Jews in the camps was especially hard, I could, and would not face reproach for an unjust national generalisation. But in the camps where I was kept, it was different. The Jews whose experience I saw – their life was softer than that of others.”

Yet he added: “But it is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka [secret police] only by the fact that two thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect.”

Solzhenitsyn, awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, spent much of his life in Soviet prison camps, enduring persecution when he wrote about his experiences. He is currently in frail health, but in an interview given last month he said that Russia must come to terms with the Stalinist and revolutionary genocides – and that its Jewish population should be as offended at their own role in the purges as they are at the Soviet power that also persecuted them.

“My book was directed to empathise with the thoughts, feelings and the psychology of the Jews – their spiritual component,” he said. “I have never made general conclusions about a people. I will always differentiate between layers of Jews. One layer rushed headfirst to the revolution. Another, to the contrary, was trying to stand back. The Jewish subject for a long time was considered prohibited. Zhabotinsky [a Jewish writer] once said that the best service our Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us.”

But Solzhenitsyn’s book has caused controversy in Russia, where one Jewish leader said it was “not of any merit”.

“This is a mistake, but even geniuses make mistakes,” said Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the Russian Jewish Congress. “Richard Wagner did not like the Jews, but was a great composer. Dostoyevsky was a great Russian writer, but had a very sceptical attitude towards the Jews.

“This is not a book about how the Jews and Russians lived together for 200 years, but one about how they lived apart after finding themselves on the same territory. This book is a weak one professionally. Factually, it is so bad as to be beyond criticism. As literature, it is not of any merit.”

But DM Thomas, one of Solzhenitsyn’s biographers, said that he did not think the book was fuelled by anti-semitism. “I would not doubt his sincerity. He says that he firmly supports the state of Israel. In his fiction and factual writing there are Jewish characters that he writes about who are bright, decent, anti-Stalinist people.”

Professor Robert Service of Oxford University, an expert on 20th century Russian history, said that from what he had read about the book, Solzhenitsyn was “absolutely right”.

Researching a book on Lenin, Prof Service came across details of how Trotsky, who was of Jewish origin, asked the politburo in 1919 to ensure that Jews were enrolled in the Red army. Trotsky said that Jews were disproportionately represented in the Soviet civil bureaucracy, including the cheka.

“Trotsky’s idea was that the spread of anti-semitism was [partly down to] objections about their entrance into the civil service. There is something in this; that they were not just passive spectators of the revolution. They were part-victims and part-perpetrators.

“It is not a question that anyone can write about without a huge amount of bravery, and [it] needs doing in Russia because the Jews are quite often written about by fanatics. Mr Solzhenitsyn’s book seems much more measured than that.”

Yet others failed to see the need for Solzhenitsyn’s pursuit of this particular subject at present. Vassili Berezhkov, a retired KGB colonel and historian of the secret services and the NKVD (the precursor of the KGB), said: “The question of ethnicity did not have any importance either in the revolution or the story of the NKVD. This was a social revolution and those who served in the NKVD and cheka were serving ideas of social change.

“If Solzhenitsyn writes that there were many Jews in the NKVD, it will increase the passions of anti-semitism, which has deep roots in Russian history. I think it is better not to discuss such a question now.”

Vive Marine Le Pen! Vive Tous La Famille Le Pen! Vive Le Front National! (3 days after Bastille Day—America’s 32 Year Reigning Queen of Pop Music Shoots and Misses)

Why Madonna’s Swastika Swipe May Actually Help Marine Le Pen

Madonna’s concert video featuring Marine Le Pen’s face with a swastika on it has generated a lawsuit from the extreme-right National Front party — and unease that the pop star went too far
By BRUCE CRUMLEY | July 16, 2012 | 16
Getty Images

GETTY IMAGES
Madonna; Marine Le Pen

It’s the Material Girl vs. the “bad girl” of French politics.

On July 15, officials for extreme-right leader Marine Le Pen’s National Front (FN) announced the party has decided to sue Madonna for using an image of Le Pen with a swastika on her forehead during a July 14 Paris concert. The move came after the pop diva’s Paris show beamed a video featuring morphing facial images, including one of Le Pen with a swastika superimposed on it. That then melted into a shot of a Hitler look-alike. The segment also contained imagery of other world leaders the singer presumably has problems with, such as Pope Benedict, Sarah PalinHu Jintao and Hosni Mubarak. Le Pen first caught wind of the morphing video after it was used during a May performance in Israel. “If she tries that in France, we’ll see what happens,” Le Pen said, threatening litigation — then speculating about Madonna’s motives for using her unflatteringly enhanced photo. “It’s understandable … aging singers who need publicity go to such extremes.” (Le Pen, 43, is 10 years younger than Madonna.)

But if the singer gets mostly applause from international audiences who identify Le Pen as Europe’s best-known face of xenophobic right-wing politics, she may find herself with fewer allies in France as a result of associating Le Pen with Nazism. The reason? Though Le Pen presides over a reactionary and Islamophobic party, she’s also clearly not a fascist, not a Nazi and not Hitler. In fact, she’s not even her father Jean-Marie Le Pen — who made revisionist comments and anti-Semitic statements part of his notorious public discourse. Comparisons of Le Pen and her party to her father’s rule over the FN not only leave many people in France feeling Madonna’s jab misunderstands Le Pen’s relatively moderate positioning but even victimizes her with an unfair association with the Nazi symbol.

Indeed, since becoming FN leader in January 2011, the younger Le Pen has angered many party veterans and traditionalists by expelling groups and individuals associated with extremism and neo-Nazi sympathies. According to those detractors, Le Pen is selling out many of the ultra-right tenets and currents that her father built the party with in her quest to make it more respectable.

And that’s what makes her a viable danger to the French political mainstream. With her brand of “reactionary lite,” Le Pen now threatens to reach millions of voters who previously shunned her father’s FN as neofascist. By attacking Marine Le Pen with a powerful but inappropriate symbol, Madonna may have offended more than just the 6.4 million people who cast ballots for Le Pen during France’s first round of presidential polling. “We can’t accept this despicable association,” declared FN vice president Florian Philippot in announcing the decision to file suit. “Marine Le Pen [will] defend her own honor, but also those of [party] members, supporters and millions of National Front voters.”

While no one outside of the FN — pundits, politicians or legal experts — has stepped up to defend France’s iconic reactionary against the pop queen’s swipe, an uneasy ambivalence emerged when Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, spokeswoman of France’s leftist government, said it was “unfortunate” that Le Pen was associated with the Nazi symbol.

What happens now? Should the court case against Madonna be heard and ruled in Le Pen’s favor quickly, the singer could be fined and forced to edit out the offending images from her other French concert in Nice on Aug. 21. More likely, experts say, the suit will take longer to come to trial, and the court is likely to accept Madonna’s anticipated arguments that the video is an artistic expression covered by freedom-of-speech statutes.

Yet even if she loses that case, Le Pen looks likely to come out ahead in terms of French public sympathy. If Madonna’s objective was to discredit Le Pen with the virtual swastika tattoo, the actual result for the FN leader may be a publicity windfall.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/07/16/why-madonnas-swastika-swipe-may-actually-help-marine-le-pen/?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz20rcmox1x

Bastille Day 2012: Civilized Memories of the Moonrise Kingdom in a Savage Land

No day on the calendar more appropriately juxtaposes civilization and savagery than July 14, Bastille Day.  If any nation in the world epitomizes the height of human civilization, well, I suppose that would be England until Tony Blair became PM, but both before the insertion of “Great” in the title of the United Kingdom of England & Scotland was added to “Britain” by the Act of Union in 1707 and since that word is no longer really warranted, especially since the House of Lords no longer has any hereditary peers or judicial functions, there has been and still remains “La France.”  

Much moreso than the American Revolution which preceded it barely by 24 years, hardly a generation, the French Revolution really marked the beginning of the Modern World, of truly modern history in all its blood and gore relating to ideological warfare.   The great ideals of the scientific and philosophical enlightenment coupled with the barbaric rejection of Christianity; the concepts of liberté, egalité, fraternité, however unrealistic they are, coupled with massive official murder and senseless bloodshed—all of those things are commemorated on July 14—the greatest of all the remaining Midsummer Fires that Sir James G. Frazer described as the Aryan heritage of Europe in the Golden Bough (whose brilliant Third and final original Edition Celebrates its centennial this year).

So last weekend and this, I listened to my gendarme and lieutenant (both appropriately Francophone titles) Peyton Yates Freiman, who told me that I had to see Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom with Bill Murray because it was the most “relevant” film of the year.  Last weekend I had the misfortune to see the movie paired with Oliver Stone’s Savages and the contrast was almost too great.

Savages—set in Southern California where I now spend most of my time and in Orange County in particular, which I associate with the Savagery of Orly Taitz and her husband Yosef, not to mention Steven D. Silverstein, among many others—is so “relevant” to the modern world as to be deeply depressing.  Oliver Stone artfully created a dual ending to blunt the nightmarish effect of the plot in its most obvious line—which led directly into bloody death and destruction of all the major characters—into a pro-establishment (if hardly credible) pean to the weak-minded DEA Agent credibly played by John Travolta.  Savages was a “Brave New World” movie, regardless of which ending you choose to believe as the most realistic—it is amoral, devoid of decency of any kind on the part of any person—it does not exactly “glorify” the drug traffic but it doesn’t raise any standards of—anything.  Savages belongs to the “Reign of Terror” aspect of the quatorze juillet.   

Yesterday, I reproduced on these pages Guillaume Faye’s depressing commentary on the role of the sexual revolution in the death and decay of modern Western Civilization.  Savages was an extraordinary movie (in some significant part) about the end product of the sexual revolution: total sexual liberation, specifically a romantic threesome which might pass as “polyamory” in Huxley’s Brave New World and modern 1980s and afterward sense.

By contrast, Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom pledges allegiance to a world that is all but gone, vanished, which has essentially been murdered by the sexual revolution and liberation epitomized in Savages.  The first time I saw Moonrise, last week, was in the company of my rather sentimental and deeply feminine friend Min, who passed out/knocked herself out (intentionally fainted?) during Savages (because it “came to close to home” for her comfort) and she focused on the warming and endearing feel of Moonrise Kingdom.

This week, for a second viewing, I was alone and finally I realized what Peyton meant by “relevance”: Unlike Oliver Stone’s work Moonrise Kingdom is TOTALLY SUBVERSIVE.

Now there was a time when Oliver Stone made people think and challenged the status quo, but I think that phase of his life ended in 1991 with his magnificent JFK.  The transformation of Stone into a supporter of the establishment and status quo was already apparent in the final entry of his Vietnam Trilogy Heaven and Earth (1993) but his W. kowtowed so cravenly to the 43rd President that it made me ill and I had to leave the theatre when I saw it.

No such worry about Moonrise Kingdom—it brilliantly pits the vitality of youth and young love against the wooden and legalistic stupidity of elders.  Yet the young love in this kingdom is as moral and Christian as Romeo and Juliet. Love comes first and foremost and all hints of sexuality are wonderfully awkward and childishly mishandled in very credible, realistic ways.  Min appreciated this innocence the first time round but I didn’t realize just how deeply ethical, romantic, and moral it all was until seeing it alone on Friday the 13th.

I’m just overwhelmed now that I realize how well this movie really did show the brilliance and triumph of true love over law in a manner that Richard Wagner would have appreciated and congratulated.  The marriage ceremony is patently and admittedly ILLEGAL—but the fact that it takes place at all—in front of a cross in a camp chapel no less—for a pre-teen couple who met during a Church production of “Noah’s Flood” is in this day and age counter-revolutionary for sure. (The Church called “St. Jack” is a major setting of critical moments in the movie.  It is operated in part by white-robed nuns who might be Episcopalian [e.g. in the Anglican Order of Saint Helena] or RC, albeit they operate a whitewashed wood-framed “Puritan” Church with a bell tower of the type so typical of the fictionalized New England setting—a mythic Island of “New Penzance” whose map ever so slightly resembles the layout of Nantucket).

One need only compare and contrast this with the apparently, at least architecturally, authentic Gothic Church which played a key part at the beginning and end of Snow White and the Huntsman.  This Church not only lacked even a single cross but did not allow to its (again, classically dressed) Christian Clergy the utterance any prayers which made any mention of the people I admire most (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who had apparently taken the last train to the coast).  I would have to examine the film frame-by-frame but I think there was even something resembling a menorah in the Church—slightly horrifying considering there was no cross.  (In all fairness, Kirsten Stewart is allowed to recite the “short version” of the Lord’s Prayer and Thor, I mean Chris Hemsworth, as the Huntsman all but expressly compares Snow White (while he believes her dead) to the Virgin Mary when he predicts that she will “be a Queen in Heaven and sit among the Angels”—but overall, overt Christianity is shockingly suppressed EVEN in portrayals of obviously Christian Churches!).

But Moonrise Kingdom was all about real moral optimism and virtuous rebellion against stifling legality and convention.  It is a movie which I think could be shown for young teen viewers and discussed for its ethical stance everywhere that White American Christians still live and cherish the values of….well, an America that increasingly seems not to exist anymore.

It remains to be seen whether Moonrise Kingdom is an epitaph on a world that is as “Gone with the Wind” as the Confederate world of the Old South or whether it symbolizes the existence of a real resistance to the Brave New World with a live heartbeat in America.

Either way—directly contrary to Mark Anthony—I stand here to praise the values embodied in Wes Anderson’s film, not to bury them.   The young Kara Hayward actually IS a brilliant new actress, from Massachusetts, and a member of Mensa they say.   The credits also indicate that this is her, and her “Romeo” Jared Gilman’s, first appearance on what they used to call the “celluloid screen” but is now apparently just pixels like everything else.  Even the music of Moonrise Kingdom starting and ending with Henry Purcell, reminds us that “restoration” of a moral and constitutional regime is possible even after the disastrous dislocations of civil war politically motivated ideological  savagery.   Only a very small amount of 1960s music (French at that) insinuates its way into the world of Suzy Bishop and Sam Shakusky—most of it is Classical and reminiscent of everything that I grew up with—a bizarre bipolarity of Restoration Baroque and Hank Williams which I thought was oddly out of place in New England—but then my parents loved the Kingston Trio and brought Northern “Folk” from Massachusetts to New Orleans for their wedding.

The reality of the world on this July 14, 2012, is that it IS a savage place. The English Civil War (prior to the Restoration of Charles II and the “Cavalier” music and poetry of Henry Purcell and those who came with it) was certainly savage, although not as bad as the French Revolution.  The American Revolution was strangely quiet and conservative, certainly there were a few martyrs and senseless killings on both sides, but in a muted way, nothing as extravagantly awful as the Show Trial of Charles I and his execution, nor anything even remotely like the French Revolutionary bloodbath.

 La Marseillaise celebrates both the beauty of the dreams of the French Revolutionary Patriots and the gore of the war and terror of 1789-1799, when Napoleon Bonaparte took charge as First Consul and thus ended both the revolution and the terror.   The pair of movies, Savages and Moonrise Kingdom portrays the same dichotomy in the world—the real world and the ideal world, and their joint appearance in theaters this summer reminds us of the short time from 1965-2012—a mere 47 years, and how much can go wrong in the world in such a short time.

La Marseillaise was composed 218 years ago, first published and sung on April 24, 1792: It remains the greatest and most stirring of all revolutionary songs and the most popular worldwide, so Vive La France! (It is a historical note of no small irony that while there never would have been a July 14 in France without July 4 in the United States, July 4, 1776 probably never would have amounted to a hill of beans without the enthusiastic support of the same King Louis who was overthrown in the Revolution which started on July 14, 1789)

Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle, 1792

Allons enfants de la Patrie
Le jour de gloire est arrivé
Contre nous de la tyrannie
| : L’étendard sanglant est levé : |
Entendez vous dans les campagnes
Mugir ces féroces soldats
Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras,
égorger vos fils, vos compagnes
Aux armes citoyens! Formez vos bataillons!
Marchons, marchons,
Qu’un sang impur abreuve nos sillons.2. Que veut cette horde d’esclaves
De traîtres, de Rois conjurés?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves,
| : Ces fers dès longtemps préparés? : |
Français! pour nous, ah! quel outrage!
Quels transports il doit exciter!
C’est nous qu’on ose méditer
De rendre à I ‘antique esclavage!

3. Quoi! des cohortes étrangères
Feraient la loi dans nos foyers!
Quoi! ces phalanges mercenaires
| : Terrasseraient nos fiers guerriers : |
Grand Dieu! par des mains enchaînées
Nos fronts sous le joug se ploieraient!
De viIs despotes deviendraient
Les maîtres de nos destinées!

4. Tremblez, tyrans! et vous, perfides,
L’opprobe de tous les partis,
Tremblez! vos projets parricides
| : Vont enfin recevoir leur prix.: |
Tout est soldat pour vous combattre,
S’ils tombent, nos jeunes héros,
La terre en produit de nouveaux
Contre vous tout prêts à se battre.5. Français! en guerriers magnanimes
Portez ou retenez vos coups.
Epargnez ces tristes victimes
| : A regret s’armant contre nous. : |
Mais le despote sanguinaire,
Mais les complices de Bouillé,
Tous ces tigres qui sans pitié
Déchirent le sein de leur mère.

6. Nous entrerons dans la carrière,
Quand nos aînés n’y seront plus
Nous y trouverons leur poussière
| : Et les traces de leurs vertus. : |
Bien moins jaloux de leur survivre
Que de partager leur cercueil,
Nous aurons le sublime orgueil
De les venger ou de les suivre.

7. Amour sacré de la Patrie
Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs!
Liberté, Liberté chérie!
| : Combats avec tes défenseurs. : |
Sous nos drapeaux, que la victoire
Accoure à tes mâles accents,
Que tes ennemis expirant
Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire!


It became the great rallying call of the French Revolution and was given its current name after it was sung on the streets of Paris by troops from Marseille. An internationally respected symbol of freedom and human rights, La Marseillaise is musically one of the most sophisticated of the national anthems; it has been quoted and adapted by a number of composers, including Tchaikovsky in his 1812 Overture.