The problem with Brigitte Bardot
the dissident frogman, intruding. Bien le bonjour Mesdames et Messieurs, and non I’m not really a mime you know.
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 eye—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 Arc—and incidentally the reason why you’re not about to see me cheer for her anytime soon—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 Incident—Don’t ask) to an annoying animal rights bully with a neo-Fascist outlook on homosexuals, immigrants and contemporary American foreign policy2—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 Party—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)—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 Vergès, noted for befriending Pol Pot, defending Klaus Barbie, Carlos the Jackal, as many Palestinian hijackers as possible, offering his help to Milošević 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 possible—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.
26 And the Lord said, “If I find at
ParisSodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”26.5 And the dissident frogman said, “Fat chance there Oh Lord, so you might as well just go ahead and smite them all.”
Now don’t get me wrong: this whole affair is indeed clearly another case of a Western liberal democracy suicidally turning itself against one of its core value by stifling the critics of Islam. You know, technically. However, the French state has a consistent history of confusing what is legal and what is right and making sure there is no such thing as a civil society to question the former. A raw deal, if there ever was any.
In an ideal world, or simply a decent country (present France excepted) Brigitte Bardot should definitely not be prosecuted, no matter how stupid or pertinent her opinions.
Yet it is happening no matter what, leaving one with the sole consolation to pick a side—if any—and decide how much one is willing to compromise. As far as I am concerned, this particular case is a dogfight between two equally totalitarian factions. I certainly do not recognize myself in the kind of France Brigitte Bardot (and the company she keeps) mourns in the book that sent her clashing with France’s multicultural thugs nor with the "alternative" these thugs have in store. In any case, her getting in trouble for that is not enough of a reason for me to drop my principles and side with one flavor of Fascist just to oppose the other.
I’ll just wait on my side of the line in the sand, to see which one comes on top. Rifle at the ready, if need be.
In addition to that, and having been exposed to the schemes of France’s thought police mobs long enough, I can clearly see the MRAP’s rationale here. They are discriminating against Brigitte Bardot on purpose and targeting her for her bad company; thus giving more weight to the Left’s argument that all critics of Islam are but a bunch of xenophobic, racist Far-right activists—and by extension, so is anybody foolish enough to stand by their side, freedom of speech notwithstanding.
When the critic can’t fit the bill however, the MRAP doesn’t sue: it lets the Umma take over and the fatwas fly. Case in point? Why yes: I’m sure Robert Redeker would have preferred the French courts of Law, but the poor man wasn’t Fascist enough for the MRAP, and therefore had to settle with Muslim death threats and clandestinity. You don’t serve the cause, you die.
Bottom line: Brigitte Bardot is not Oriana Fallaci, and comparing them can only tarnish the reputation and the character of the sorely missed Italian defendress of the West.
- Among quite a few other torches and pitchforks toting eMobs. And yes, before you ask I was/am behind Charles Johnson on this one.
- A May 2003 AFP story that’s become quite hard to find online (after a bit of pinball-type searching, I found a copy here) revealed that in addition to finding Far right leader Jean-Marie le Pen and Trotskyist Arlette Laguiller "sincere and consistent", she "likes President Jacques Chirac as a human and a friend," and "praises his stand on Iraq."—Though admittedly, so did the rest of France at the time, and up to this day.
- A slightly inconvenient fact that some of those currently rushing at her side might want to consider.
- Whatever that means, considering that "Islamophobia" is a phony offense and a weapon handed to the Muhammadans by Western Nihilists—You know, old Vlad’ Lenin on Capitalists selling the ropes to hang themselves, and all that jazz.
- Yes, that’s -ting, and therefore -ted, and not the other way around mind you.
Crossposted at the dissident frogman’s
Topics: France, Islam, free speech
Posted by DissidentFrogman at 6:08 pm on Monday, April 21, 2008
6 Responses to “The problem with Brigitte Bardot”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 am
Charles Johnson lost it over the whole affair. He basically has gone nuclear on Gates of Vienna and any other defender of the Vlaams Belang. I think a lot of Euros want to avoid any groups with unsavory characters. That really isn’t an option here.
We are at war. If we hadn’t helped out the vile monster that was Joseph Stalin, we might have lost the war.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:36 am
Good perspective on Bridgett, DF. Thanks for the write up; I was rather puzzled at how an animal rights activist could be anti-Islamic. Now I see why.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 am
OK, it’s good to get the word out that Bardot and her allies are no angels, but that’s not the real problem here. The real problem is that the only people actually fighting back are the racists and fascists. The law, the courts, the government, they are all on the wrong side - prosecuting for “anti-Islamic” statements, while ignoring the far more blatant offenses from radical Islamists themselves. Meanwhile, the vast majority sit back and watch, and do nothing. That’s what you should really be worried about, not whether or not the wrong people might be perceived as your fellow travellers, in spite of their very different motivations.
Is it not possible to fight for the right of Bardot, not to mention the unsavory people Charles Johnson has railed against, to say what they want, to express their opinions, without fear of prosecution, while at the same time not supporting their beliefs? David Duke is supposedly one of their allies, and while I can’t stand the man and find him reprehensible, nor would I stand for his being prosecuted for anything he said that wasn’t an incitement to violence.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 am
Bardot has acquired over the years a certain penumbra of wackiness.
In contrast to her earlier, almost purely voluptuous image.
The way her current prosecution was presented in “the press” I read, however, it seems a completely outrageous proceeding. One could say, for purposes of cutting to the chase, “Nazi-like”.
And what about the professor in southern France who had to go into hiding for his anti Muslim writings after threats were made against him and against his family ?
Is he next up for prosecution ?
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Bardot is first. You’ll be next Frogman.
It’s true that a lot of people who get targeted for suppression of their speech are noxious, unsavory types. But putting David Irving into jail for his stupid opinions isn’t a very good idea. If we let these jerks go down then we will be next, and who will help us when we did not take a principled stand on the issue?
Free speech is under attack all over the world. Right now at the Durban II Hatefest the fascists want to close down any criticism of Islam at all. What’s more, the Muslim delegates are trying to appropriate the term “antisemitism” so that it refers to “Islamophobia” instead of Jew hatred (which was what the term was coined to mean). Also the le Penistes and other fascists seem to be sucking up to the Muslims now.
Go ahead and defend Bardot. We can always mock her nutty ideas afterward. So long as our free speech rights haven’t been closed down.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Awesome post, Michael, and something we should never, ever forget.
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte