Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Camus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Camus. Show all posts

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Chelsea Clinton--A Spoiled, Entitled Light Weight


PLEASE, GOD, 

STOP CHELSEA

 CLINTON FROM 

WHATEVER SHE

 IS DOING

The last thing the left needs is the third iteration of a failed
 political dynasty.


Chelsea Clinton at the Democratic National Convention in 2016.
By SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images.

Amid investigations into Russian election interference,
perhaps we ought to consider whether the Kremlin, to hurt
 Democrats, helped put Chelsea Clinton on the cover of 
Variety. Or maybe superstition explains it. Like tribesmen
 laying out a sacrifice to placate King Kong, news outlets
 continue to make offerings to the Clinton gods. In The 
New York Times alone, Chelsea has starred in multiple
features over the past few months: for her tweeting (it’s
become “feisty”), for her upcoming book (to be titled She
 Persisted), and her reading habits (she says she has an
 “embarrassingly large” collection of books on her Kindle).
With Chelsea’s 2015 book, It’s Your World, now out in
 paperback, the puff pieces in other outlets—Elle, People,
etc.—are too numerous to count.
One wishes to calm these publications: You can stop this now. 
Haven’t you heard that the great Kong is no more? Nevertheless,
 they’ve persisted. At great cost: increased Chelsea exposure is
 tied closely to political despair and, in especially intense cases,
 the bulk purchasing of MAGA hats. So let’s review: How did
 Chelsea become such a threat?
Perhaps the best way to start is by revisiting some of Chelsea’s
 major post-2008 forays into the public eye. Starting in 2012,
she began to allow glossy magazines to profile her, and she
 picked up speed in the years that followed. The results were
 all friendly in aim, and yet the picture that kept emerging from
 the growing pile of Chelsea quotations was that of a person
accustomed to courtiers nodding their heads raptly. Here are
 Chelsea’s thoughts on returning to red meat in her diet: “I’m
a big believer in listening to my body’s cravings.” On her time
 in the “fiercely meritocratic” workplace of Wall Street: “I wa
s curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental
 level, and I couldn’t.” On her precocity: “They told me that my
 father had learned to read when he was three. So, of course, I
thought I had to too. The first thing I learned to read was the
newspaper.” Take that, Click, Clack, Moo.
Chelsea, people were quietly starting to observe, had a tendency
 to talk a lot, and at length, not least about Chelsea. But you
couldn’t interrupt, not even if you’re on TV at NBC, where she
 was earning $600,000 a year at the time. “When you are with
 Chelsea, you really need to allow her to finish,” Jay Kernis,
 one of Clinton’s segment producers at NBC, toldVogue. “She’s
not used to being interrupted that way.”
Sounds perfect for a dating profile: I speak at length, and
you really need to let me finish. I’m not used to interruptions.
ADVERTISEMENT
What comes across with Chelsea, for lack of a gentler word,
is self-regard of an unusual intensity. And the effect is stronger
on paper. Unkind as it is to say, reading anything by Chelsea
 Clinton—tweets, interviews, books—is best compared to taking
 in spoonfuls of plain oatmeal that, periodically, conceal a
toenail clipping.
Take the introduction to It’s Your World (Get Informed! Get
 Inspired! Get Going!). It’s harmless, you think. “My mom
 wouldn’t let me have sugary cereal growing up (more on
that later),” writes Chelsea, “so I improvised, adding far more
 honey than likely would have been in any honeyed cereals.”
That’s the oatmeal—and then comes the toenail:
I wrote a letter to President Reagan when I was five to voice my

opposition to his visit to the Bitburg cemetery in Germany,

because Nazis were buried there. I didn’t think an American

president should honor a group of soldiers that included Nazis.

President Reagan still went, but at least I had tried in my own

small way.
Ah, yes, that reminds me of when I was four and I wrote to
 Senator John Warner about grain tariffs, arguing that trade
 barriers unfairly decreased consumer choice.
At first glance, of course, Chelsea seems to be boasting that
 at age five she was interpreting the news with the maturity
of an adult. But we should consider whether it’s instead a
 confession that as an adult she still interprets the news
with the maturity of—well, let’s just submit that perhaps
she thinks what other people tell her to think. Which brings
 us to Chelsea’s Twitter feed.
Since Chelsea has 1.6 million followers, we can only conclude
 that some people enjoy ideas like “Yes. Yes. Yes. Closing the
 #wagegap is crucial to a strong economy.” And maybe there’s
 no sin in absorbing and exuding nothing but respectable Blue
 State opinion. But it’s another thing to insist on joining each
day’s designated outrage bandwagon. Did we need to slap
 down a curmudgeonly Charlotte Rampling, age 71, for
 griping about #OscarsSoWhite activists? Yes, and here’s
 Chelsea: “Outrageous, ignorant & offensive comments
 from Rampling.” Is gender identity not going to be included
 on the 2020 census? Here’s Chelsea: “This is outrageous. No
one should be invisible in America.” Not that there aren’t
 breaks for deeper thoughts: “Words without action
 are ... meaningless. Words with inaction are ... just words.
Words with opposite action is ... hypocrisy.”
That is … beautiful.
The crude conventional wisdom is that Bill Clinton craved
adoration and Hillary Clinton craved power. But Chelsea
Clinton seems to have a more crippling want: fashionability—
of the sort embraced by philanthropic high society. So you
tell The New York Times that your dream dinner party
 would include James Baldwin, Shakespeare, Franz Kafka,
 Albert Camus, Jane Jacobs, and Jane Austen, and discussion
 would be about how “people and communities can evolve to
be more inclusive, more kind, have a greater and broader
sense of solidarity, while still respecting individual liberties;
what provokes or blocks those changes; and what stories
might resonate today to encourage us toward kindness,
respect, and mutual dignity.” You almost have to bow down
 before someone who could host Shakespeare for dinner and
make the agenda wind up sounding like a brochure for the
 Altria Group. At least Kafka would be on hand to capture the
 joy of the evening.
To find fault with the former First Daughter is to invite the
 wrath of thousands. Love of Chelsea correlates closely with
 love of Hillary, toward whom her fans have long felt an odd
protectiveness, as if she were a stroke survivor regaining the
 power of speech rather than one of the most influential
 people in the world. That goes even more for Chelsea, who
 is often treated less like an independent 37-year-old multi-
millionaire and more like the 12-year-old who still deserve
s to be left alone.
But let’s have a reality check. No one bothers George W. 
Bush’s daughter, Barbara Bush, who quietly works on
 her nonprofit, Global Health Corps. On the other hand, if
you’re posing for magazine covers, granting interviews, doing
 book tours, placing your name on your parents’ multi-million-
dollar foundation, and tweeting out daily to 1.6 million people,
 then—guess what—you’re a public figure. And if you’ve
openly entertained the possibility of running for office if
“it was something I felt called to do,” then
 assurances to the contrary aren’t quite good enough.
You’re a public hazard.
God has decreed that American political dynasties decline
sharply in suitability for office with each iteration. Call it the
 George H.W.-George W.-Jeb rule. Quit after the first iteration.
Don’t trot out the second one. And, for the love of God, don’t trot
 out the third. Forgetting that rule harmed the Democratic Party
 in 2016 and blew up the Republican Party entirely. The
Democratic Party is surprisingly cohesive these days, thanks
to anti-Trump sentiment, so a Jeb-style destruction is unlikely. But never say never. If anyone could make it happen, Chelsea could.
FULL SCREEN
1/11
Scenes from the Clinton Bubble: Campaign Photos from a Hillary Volunteer

Barack Obama

Photo: Photograph by Alan Mozes.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

France Must Decide On Its Future. Will It Be Chaos, Disaster Or Something Else




  • After two years and 238 deaths at the hands of Islamic terrorism, what did France do to defeat radical Islam? Almost nothing.
  • If Emmanuel Macron wins, France as we have known it can be considered pretty much over. By blaming "colonialism" for French troubles in the Arab world, and calling it "a crime against humanity", he has effectively legitimized Muslim extremist violence against the French Republic.
  • In just two years, Muslim organizations in France have dragged to trial great writers such as Georges Bensoussan, Pascal Bruckner, and Renaud Camus. It is the Islamists' dream coming true: seeing "Islamophobes" on trial to restrict their freedom of expression. Charlie Hebdo's physical massacre was therefore followed by an intellectual one.
It was a sort of farewell to the army. During a brief visit to the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle last December, French President François Hollande honored the French soldiers involved in "Operation Chammal" against the Islamic State. After two years and 238 deaths at the hands of Islamic terrorism, what did France do to defeat radical Islam? Almost nothing.
It is this legacy of indifference that is at stake in the looming French presidential elections. If Marine Le Pen or François Fillon win, it means that France has rejected this autocratic legacy and wants to try a different, braver way. If Emmanuel Macron wins, France as we have known it can be considered pretty much over. Macron is, for example, against taking away French nationality from jihadists. Terrorism, Islam and security are almost absent from Macron's vocabulary and platform, and he is in favor of lowering France's state of emergency. By blaming "colonialism" for French troubles in the Arab world, and calling it "a crime against humanity", he has effectively legitimized Muslim extremist violence against the French Republic.
As General Vincent Desportes wrote in his new book, La dernière Bataille de France ("The Last Battle of France"):
"President Hollande said on November 15 that it would be ruthless, we were at war ... but we do not make war! History shows that in the eternal struggle between the shield and the sword, the sword is still a step forward and winning".
In the past two years, France only used the shield.
France's fake war began in Paris with a massacre at the satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. Twelve cartoonists and policemen were massacred by two brothers who shouted, "We avenged Muhammad, we killed Charlie Hebdo". After a few days of marches, vigils, candles and collective statements such as "Je Suis Charlie", half of the French intelligentsia was ready to go and hide underground, protected by the police. These are academics, intellectuals, novelists, journalists. The most famous is Michel Houellebecq, the author of the book Submission. Then there is Ã‰ric Zemmour, the author of the book, Suicide Française ("The French Suicide"); then the team of Charlie Hebdo, along with its director, Riss (Laurent Sourisseau); Mohammed Sifaoui, a French-Algerian journalist who wrote Combattre le terrorisme islamiste ("Combating Islamist Terrorism"); Frédéric Haziza, radio journalist and author at the journal, Canard Enchaîné; and Philippe Val, the former director of Charlie Hebdo. The latest to run was the Franco-Algerian journalist Zineb Rhazaoui; surrounded by six policemen, she left Charlie Hebdo after saying that her newspaper had capitulated to terror and refused to run more cartoons of Muhammad.
"Charb? Where is Charb?" were the words that echoed in the offices of Charlie Hebdo on January 7, 2015, the day he and his colleagues were murdered. "Charb" was Stéphane Charbonnier, the editor of the magazine that had published cartoons of Muhammad. Charb was working on a short book, On Blasphemy, Islamophobia and the true enemies of free expression, posthumously published. Charb's book attacked self-righteous intellectuals, who for years had been claiming that Charlie Hebdo was responsible for its own troubles, a childlike view, popular throughout Europe. It is based on the notion that if everyone would just keep quiet, these problems would not exist. Presumably, therefore, if no one had pointed out the threats of Nazism or Communism, Nazism and Communism would have quietly have vanished of their own accord. Unfortunately, that approach was tried; it did not work. The book also criticized "sectarian activists", whom he said have been trying "to impose on the judicial authorities the political concept of 'Islamophobia'".
As for "the Left", he wrote: "It is time to end this disgusting paternalism of the intellectual left" -- meaning its moral sanctimony. Charb delivered these pages to his publisher on January 5. Two days later he was murdered.
Now, some of these people he was calling out are trying to hide their cowardice by attacking him. In recent weeks, a number of cultural events in France have tried to "deprogram" the public from paying attention this extremely important book. A theatrical adaptation of it, attended by one of the journalists of Charlie Hebdo, Marika Bret, was scheduled to take place at the University of Lille. However, the president of the University, Xavier Vandendriessche, said he feared "excesses" and the "atmosphere", so he eliminated Charb from the program. Twice. The play's director, Gérald Dumont, sent a letter to the Minister of Culture, Audrey Azoulay, mentioning "censorship".
At the same time, Charb's book also disappeared from two events at a cultural festival in Avignon. "How to reduce the dead to silence", tweeted Raphaël Glucksmann. "Killed in 2015, banned in 2017", Bernard-Henri Lévy summed up.
During the past two years, the publishing industry itself has played a central role in censoring and supporting censorship, by censoring itself. The philosopher Michel Onfray refused to release his book, Thinking Islam, in French and it first came out in Italian. The German writer, Hamed Abdel Samad saw his book Der islamische Faschismus: Eine Analyse ("Islamic Fascism: An Analysis"), a bestseller in Germany, censored in French by the publishing house Piranha.
The French courts, meanwhile, revived le délit d'opinion -- a penal offense for expressing political opinions, now an "intellectual crime". It was explained by Véronique Grousset in Le Figaro:
"Insidiously, the law blurred the distinction between the discussion of ideas and the personal attack. Many organizations are struggling to bring their opponents to justice".
It means that the legal system is hauling writers and journalists to court for expressing specific ideas, in particular criticism of Islam.
In just two years in France, Muslim organizations have dragged to trial great writers such as Georges Bensoussan, Pascal Bruckner, and Renaud Camus. It is the Islamists' dream coming true: seeing "Islamophobes" on trial to punish their freedom of expression.
Charlie Hebdo's physical massacre was therefore followed by an intellectual one: today, Charb's important book cannot find a room in France for a public reading; it should, instead, be protected as a legacy of courage and truth.
Even in French theaters, free speech is being crushed. Films about Islam have been cancelled: "The Apostle" by Carron Director, on Muslim converts to Christianity; "Timbuktu" on the Islamist takeover of Mali, and Nicolas Boukhrief's "Made in France", about a jihadist cell. A poster for "Made in France" -- a Kalashnikov over the Eiffel Tower -- was already in the Paris metro when ISIS went into action on the night of November 13, 2016. Immediately, the film's release was suspended, with the promise that the film would be back in theaters. "Made in France" is now only available "on-demand". Another film, "Les Salafistes", was screened with a notice banning minors. The Interior Ministry called for a total ban.
After the massacre at Charlie Hebdo, the country seemed for a short time to return to normalcy. Meanwhile, thousands of Jews were packing up to leave France. At the request of local Jewish community leaders, the Jewish skullcap disappeared from the streets of Marseille, and in Toulouse, after an Islamic terrorist murdered a Jewish teacher and three children in 2012, 300 Jewish families pack up and left.
In the daily newspaper Le Figaro, Hadrien Desuin, an expert on international relations, compared the last two years to the "phony war" that France did not fight in 1939-40. Paris, while declaring a war against Germany, as it now declares a war against terrorism, simply refused to fight. For a whole year, France, crouching behind a Maginot Line that it foolishly believed was invincible did not fire a single gun against the Germans who were spreading throughout Europe at the time. Similarly, General Vincent Desportes explains in his book The Last Battle of France that Operation Sentinel, in which French soldiers are now deployed in the streets, is a "show", and that "the Islamic State is not afraid of our aircraft. You have to attack by land, terrorizing. We have the means to do it, but it takes political courage". According to Desportes, Operation Sentinel "changes nothing".
France's never-begun war on terror also collapsed around the three most important measures: removing French citizenship from jihadists, "de-radicalizing" them and closing their salafist mosques.
There are at least 20 among 2,500 famous radical mosques that need to close now. The Territorial Information Center (SCRT) recommended that there are 124 salafist mosques in France that should close. Only Marine Le Pen has demanded that.
Three days after the November 13 Paris massacres, President Hollande announced a constitutional reform that would strip French citizenship from Islamic terrorists. Faced with the impossibility of finding a shared text by both Houses, as well as with the resignation of his Justice Minister Christiane Taubira, Hollande was forced to cancel the move. It means that hundreds of French citizens who went to Syria for jihad can now return to their country of origin and murder more innocent people there.
The Bataclan Theater -- the scene of a massacre in which 90 people were murdered and many others wounded on November 13, 2015 -- recently reopened with a concert by the performer Sting. His last song was "Inshallah" (Arabic for "If Allah Wills"). That is the state of France's last two years: starting with "Allahu Akbar" ("Allah is the greatest"), chanted by the jihadists who slaughtered 80 people, and ending with a phony invocation to Allah by a British singer. "Inshallah," said Sting from the stage, "that wonderful word". "Rebirth at the Bataclan," the newspaper Libération wrote as its headline.
The director of the Bataclan told Jesse Hughes, the head of American band Eagles of Death Metal: "There are things you cannot forgive." True. Except that France has forgiven everything. The drawing on the cover of Charlie Hebdo after the massacre -- a weeping Muhammad saying, "All is forgiven" -- was the start of France's psychological surrender.


Left: The cover of Charlie Hebdo after the massacre of its staff -- a weeping Muhammad saying, "All is forgiven" -- was the start of France's psychological surrender. Right: When the Bataclan Theater (where 90 people were murdered in November 2015) recently reopened with a concert by the performer Sting, his last song was "Inshallah" (Arabic for "If Allah Wills").

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.