Apparently, our Babe of the Week is a supporter of the National Front.
Well, goodbye to her.
I understand the temptation to paint Brigitte Bardot as yet another example of the crushing of dissent brought upon the West by the conquering armies of Islam, or in this case their voluntary operatives on the Left and the multicultural fetishists who run most of Europe's social-democracies.
For one thing, because the problem does exist, and its weight on what is left of Europe's freethinking souls is proving lethal. No argument here.
However, when it comes to Brigitte the Uberbabe From the Past, there's a bit more than meets the eyeâ€”and I'm not talking about the lavish display (Now on NSFW-DVD!), of the generous shapes and forms of her youth that did more to establish her reputation than her true acting skills, really.
No, the problem with this chronologically reversed Johan of Arcâ€”and incidentally the reason why you're not about to see me cheer for her anytime soonâ€”is in many ways similar to the one that caused the recent fratricidal and frankly counterproductive row between Little Green Footballs' Charles Johnson and Gates of Vienna1: namely Europe's old Fascists and Neo-Nazis piggybacking a legitimate anti-Islamist cause at their convenience, in a bid to blur the line between our liberal democracies' fight for survival and their own totalitarian agenda. Bardot is but one small crab in that fetid European cesspool of politics, but the interesting point beyond her own person is that in this instance, every party involved is equally deserving of contempt.
I mean, seriously:
1) Brigitte Bardot (eventually) married Bernard d'Ormal, whose ties with the top echelon of Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front apparently helped convert her from an annoying animal rights bully (re The Castrated Sexually Harrassing Donkey Incidentâ€”Don't ask) to an annoying animal rights bully with a neo-Fascist outlook on homosexuals, immigrants and contemporary American foreign policy2â€”as well as Islamic and Jewish3 rites and customs even though, typical of the Muslim Victimization Propaganda Machine, the one point that made the headlines and therefore the Great Google Database in the sky, is her attacking the formers' slaughter-fest of Eid-al-Kabir only.
2) The MRAP, who typically turned a legitimate critic of a religious and political agenda (Islam) into a racist issue again and is pressing charges, is an offshoot of the French Communist Partyâ€”that should be remembered for its record of being the longest lasting Western European Stalinist party on par with the Portuguese one (if memory serves)â€”is a vicious and ugly NGO combining the worse of Islamo-Leftism. The MRAP has been waging a war of terrorisme intellectuel ("intellectual terrorism") with the active support of the French State (yes, up to and including the Sarkozy administration) for years now, and definitely positioned itself at the tip of the "anti-islamophobic"4 spear when its president Mouloud Aounit called for the "penalization of blasphemy" on the state owned TV channel France 3 back in 2005. Think CAIR in bed with the Federal government and a legislative machine all too willing to vote whatever it takes to selectively limit freedom of speech (on top of the drastic limits already in place in the Vth Constitution of the French Republic, of course) and pave the way to Shariah.
3) The French courts, a hive of all shades of Leftist red, from bloody to pink, now increasingly mixing with the Green of "militant" Islam (can you guess the resulting tone of this additive color mix?). For the record, that's the system that gave us Robert "F* the Victims" Badinter and Jacques VergÃ¨s, noted for befriending Pol Pot, defending Klaus Barbie, Carlos the Jackal, as many Palestinian hijackers as possible, offering his help to MiloÅ¡eviÄ‡ and Saddam Hussein, and answering, when asked if he would have defended Hitler "I'd even defend Bush, but only if he agrees to plead guilty." Need I say more?
4) The French state that appoints and revokes judges and prosecutors, and is still playing its dangerous balancing artist game between its dreams of restoring La Grandeur de la France by opposing what every two bit Gallic politico and policy analyst calls "the American hegemony" (yes, up to and including the Sarkozy administration. Wake up fer cryin' out loud) and its delusional hopes to control France's growing and unassimilating5 Muslim populations and outposts by pandering to the increasingly pressing demands of the Islamists while trying to keep its pants as clean as possibleâ€”and not being very good at it, judging by the numerous Car-B-Qs around France's major cities that will take place tonight just like every other night, all year long.
Go read the rest.
The only question that matters is this:
Is Bardot being persecuted for speaking the truth about islam?
All else is irrelevant.
I don't know that that is the only thing that matters.
Think about it, would you stand next to a person who says, "Islam is dangerous. We ought to pull all Muslims out of their mosques and slaughter them like pigs in the street." ???
I wouldn't stand with such a person.
So, I don't think "all that matters" is if she is being persecuted for standing against Islam.
you are absolutely right. We have to remember that evil is evil, regardless of weather or not it has an Islamic face.
You can't forget that the enemy of our enemy is not always our friend. If she supports fascist that not a good thing. So all else is not irrelevant. We don't want the raise of any type of totalitarian state, regardless of its ideology.
I am surprised at Bardot, becoming involved with the Front National. Having said that the situation in france is even more advanced than over here...as you all point out with the Car B Q situation... the Muslims over there are off the hook. A pity she doesn't throw her name and fame behind a more creative anti- Jihad movement than the same old Neo-Nazi rhetoric of Le Pen. By the way ....once again much respect and Kudos for you all recognising the Front national for what they are. Head nods to Pas, Epa and Damien...As my Gallic friend Fabian would say...'Front National..? Non!...Muslim France?...Absolutely..Non!
I just wish Pamela could also see the light....
Fight fire with fire. You may need a vigorous temporary form of Euro- Nationalist fascism to destroy a less well organised but eternalistic Islamofascism.
Better to spend five years as a Nazi than eternity as a Muslim.
Do I know you?
We don't have to give up liberty and democracy to defeat our enemies.
We don't have to embrace fascism to stop Jihad. We may have to make some hard sacrifices to win this war, but we won't have to sacrifice our liberty. We won't have to become a dictatorship to defeat the Islamists.
I agree. However, in any war one has to be brutal to win.
Three times America has absolutely changed a country from being fascist to being a free democracy;
1) the American South
In all three cases we were very brutal, and in the aftermath of the war, we wrote the nations constitutions and laws.
We have not done that in Iraq, and thus, all the Christians have had to flee the country, and Iraq is now being run by an Islamist government.
Islamism is opposed to human rights. It is fascist. At this point, Iraq is a soft fascist government, and they are allied with Iran.
Who knows what will happen when we leave?
Or, will we never be able to leave?
I agree, Iraq is not going to be easy to get out off, and America is going to have to get more ruthless with this vile enemy. But that is the nature of war. I think it was civil war general, William Tecumseh Sherman who said it best "War is Hell!"
Don't get Epaminondas started on Sherman. Next thing you know, he'll be calling for us to burn Mecca to the ground.
Pastorius, I see your point and as usual I agree with much of what you say.
But...what worries me is this: by demanding some level of ideological purity from those who would oppose radical islam, we're doing two things.
Diluting the message of our opposition to it and promoting fractures among groups which we may not find particularly wholesome, but which will be needed for this fight.
The enemy is organised, pervasive, ruthless and cunning and we're not going to beat him by playing nice.
And in case no-one's noticed--our own governments aren't exactly paragons of virtue right now when it comes to respecting the rights of what were once supposed to be free citizens.
Personally, I'd prefer to see civil war and chaos rather than a slow slide into slavery. The days of reasonable men agreeing to disagree over politics may well be over.
My attitude may be different now, if we were in the trenches.
Certainly, you didn't hear complaining out of me that we were hooked up with the Norhtern Alliance during the Iraq War.
However, because we went to all that trouble, only to create an Islamist government, I am very unhappy about the Iraq War, and I am not in sympathetic to compromising American (Western) ideals.
We aren't really even fighting right now anyway.
Our enemy isn't Iraq.
We'll all know when the war starts.
One of the particulars of this discussion/argument within the counter-Jihad circles (and you may not be aware of this) is that those who have gone ahead and attempted to form these alliances with groups like the National Front did it because they believed "our tent has to be large."
Thing is, once people like me objected, suddenly their tent wasn't big enough for us.
So, their tent is big enough for European Ethnic Nationalist groups, but it isn't big enough for people like me.
I know who our enemy is more clearly than the National Front.
The National Front thinks our enemy is people who are "immigrants', people who are not French, people of color.
Bullshit to that. Our enemy is Jihadis in the name of Allah.
'The National Front thinks our enemy is people who are "immigrants', people who are not French, people of color.
Bullshit to that. Our enemy is Jihadis in the name of Allah.'
Thats right, Kg I understand the frustration but if we devolve to the level of the enemy we become no better than the enemy, frustrating as it is. It's really easy to be compromise (our) higher values and culture....and really hard to maintain the integrity of our value systems and culture, especially when fighting a ruthless, conscienceless monster. Allegiances are also central to the fight but an ally who would eventually kill your other ally is not a friend, nor a positive influence on the cause, infact they are simply a divisive element. Besides Islamofacism and Euro Facism are separated only by religion. Both have an agenda of persecution, injustice and genocide...Don't seek a solution from another problem. Ps Happy St Georges day to you all!
I see the enemy as Islam itself, the Jihadis who preach live and die by it. Individual Muslims, like any other person, I take at face value, for what they're worth until they prove me wrong in word or deed. That does not mean I let my guard down, though, but live and let live though I believe their "religion" misguided. The trouble with groups like the National Front is they don't see it that way. Their call to push all Muslims out is no better than the Jihadi's call to push us to oblivion. And by being so hateful about it they do a diservice to the entire counter jihad movement by allowing the Jihadis to paint us all with the same broad hate brush, and thus bring more Muslims around to the hardline philosophy.
Your correct, joining with racists would shrink our tent, because they won't want anyone who isn't of their race inside. We need as many people as possible to be on our side in the fight against Jihad, regardless of race. We have to remember that this conflict has nothing to do with race, it is being fought over ideology. We won't have to abandon Martin Luther King's dream of a color blind world, to win the fight against the Islam-o-Fascists. Plus we have to remember that the enemy of our enemy isn't always our friend. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. Plus to even see this conflict in terms of race is racist.
I think I'd heard that she was involved with Le Pen's creepy bunch a few years ago. It's devastating. And considering that Le Pen sold out to the Muslim community in France 2 years ago, it's also baffling if she's still hanging around with them.
If I may…
YUSUFALI: Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.
If Mohammed is the perfect example of manhood to be followed throughout Islam, and he clearly is, wouldn’t statements like; Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256:
Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:
The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle.",
And Ishaq: 676 “‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said,‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said,‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said.‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’‘No,’ the Prophet answered.‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’”
And Bukhari Volume 1, Book 11, Number 662:
The Prophet said, "Listen and obey (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin were made your chief."
And Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 126:
The Prophet said, "I looked at Paradise and saw that the majority of its residents were the poor; and I looked at the (Hell) Fire and saw that the majority of its residents were women." indicate that the problem is not jihadis, Islamism, Islamists, radical Islam or any of the other pc niceties vomited up by the media and government but rather Islam itself? (The above are just a few examples of Mohammed’s beautiful pattern of conduct.)
Certainly Major Coughlin’s thesis demonstrated the relationship of terrorism to Islamic texts and jurisprudence. As have a number of other experts and scholars.
If one examines the history of Islam one cannot escape the violence and enslavement that accompany it wherever it goes.
Clearly, Islam is Dangerous. Ask the Christians in Egypt, Pakistan and Malaysia how that Islamic tolerance thing is working out for them.
No disrespect Pastorius, but you say “I know who our enemy is more clearly than the National Front” after saying we’ll know when the war starts?
But, the war has started hasn’t it? In fact it started with the hostage crisis (for us) and landed in lower Manhattan on 9/11.
If Islam isn’t the enemy, who is? Bardot?
I have stood the line with good men and women at a number of anti-illegal alien/border security demonstrations and rallies. I have done the same in support of Israel.
In the former case I have seen a violent racism and hatred directed at me because of my white skin and the flag I held. In the latter I witnessed a mindless hatred of all things Israeli espoused by those who support warfare against unarmed men women and children in the finest traditions of Islamic war.
Am I a racist and a fascist Pastorius? Would you stand with such a person as me? And when you say “stand” what exactly do you mean? Is it a symbolic stand whilst tapping at the keyboard? Like I’m doing now? Is it taking it to the streets, or what?
Again, no disrespect, but Islam is dangerous.
Bardot spoke the truth.
The truth stands on its own. Even in the face of pc hysteria.
Only very slightly off topic:
Things seem to be heating up again and timely with the Bardot/National Front post earlier. If you haven't already seen it Dymphna from Gates of Vienna has attacked Robert Spencer in comments to a post at Jihad Watch.
LGF put it up just a little while ago.
I am not someone who thinks Islam is a "religion of peace," but I still think that we have to be careful with who we openly ally ourselves with. Evil, is evil. If an ideology is evil, why should ignore its evil just because it also opposes Islam? Hitler opposed Communism. Nazism as a whole was opposed to Communism. One of the reasons the Nazis rose to power was the fear of Communism in Germany. Does the evil of Communism, make Nazism, any less evil? Of course not.
Post a Comment