Sarkozy's friends in the media

   

Among the French media, even those who did not think much of Jacques Chirac admired him for the way that he never riposted when journalists gunned for him. Like Queen Elizabeth II of Britain, he kept a regal silence when scurrilous articles, books and TV films came out. Not so his successor as President of France. 

Nicolas Sarkozy is notorious for retaliating against media that displease him, singling out journalists for attack and putting pressure on their bosses.   The new president's power is multiplied by the fact that the owners of some of France's biggest media are his close friends.  Last year he had Alain Genestar, editor of Paris Match, sacked for publishing a front page picture of his wife's lover. Match is owned by Arnaud Lagardère, who calls Sarko his "brother". His multiple media properties include Europe 1 radio and le Journal du Dimanche, the main national Sunday newspaper.  As I have reported before, Match has now become a shop window for Sarkozy, devoting acres of admiring copy to the doings of the president and his household.  [cartoon by Plantu in le Monde shows JDD journalist saying to Sarkozy dressed as King Louis XIV: "I beg of you sire, tell me what I should write." Les Molières are France's theatre awards]

François Bayrou, the centrist politician who is now back in the wildneress after brief glory in the presidential campaign, complained at the weekend that "the election of Nicolas Sarkozy is opening a completedly unprecedented phase in the history of the French Republic. It is the first time that all the power is in the hands of one man with the powerful support of big financial and media interests."   

Fear of the long arm of Sarko is worrying journalists, including quite a few editors. Jean-Francois Kahn, editor of Marianne magazine, is a little anxious after it was reported that Sarko had vowed revenge during the campaign over an issue devoted to "The Real Sarkozy: What the big media do not dare or do not want to reveal." The bosses of France 3, a channel of the state public service network, are also waiting for the axe to fall after Sarkozy blew a fuse on at least two occasions over their campaign coverage. 

There is nothing new with politicians and their friends leaning on news people. It happens everywhere. Someone owns all newspapers, magazines and broadcasting organisations. Some proprietors call the shots directly and many make sure that their managers and staff know what is expected of them. Self-censorship of some kind operates almost everywhere.  Occasionally the staff get away with a little rebellion. We saw this in France at the weekend when Jacques Espérandieu, editor of the JDD (the Sunday paper) allowed his journalists to complain on its centre page about his decision the previous week to censure the news that Cécilia Sarkozy had failed to vote in the election.

The journalists stated that Lagardère had intervened with their editor to kill the story despite the editor's denials. They expressed their indignation over the "interference which seriously damaged the independence and credibility of our newspaper and its journalists."  We do not expect Espérandieu to remain long in the job.

In some ways, France is charmingly untainted by the modern tie between media and politics, as practised in say, Britain and the USA. There has been much concern about Sarko's hiring of two prominent journalists -- Catherine Pégard or Le Point and Myriam Lévy of le Figaro -- to work for him and François Fillon, the Prime Minister. While the practice is routine in London or Washington, in Paris it is still deemed unseemly for journalists to sell their services to politicians.

The problem in France is the concentration of the national media in relatively few outlets. There are really only four generalist national dailies -- Le Figaro, le Monde, Libération and le Parisien/Aujourd'hui. Le Figaro is owned by Serge Dassault, the arms and media tycoon, who is another Sarkozy fan. Le Monde, the most august newspaper, prides itself on its independence and mixed ownership, but Alain Minc, its chairman, is another Sarkozy supporter. The leftwing Libération is a thorn in Sarko's flesh, but its main (37 percent) shareholder, Edouard de Rothschild, is a another Sarkozy friend. Le Parisien/Aujourd'hui, owned by the Amaury family, is not known to be Sarko-influenced.

Sarko's power over television is striking. Martin Bouygues, a big friend, controls TF1, the private TV network which is by far the most powerful, with a third of the national television audience. So it is not surprising that the 8pm "Journal Télévisé"  -- France's most watched news programme -- treats Sarkozy gently. The story of Cécilia's non-vote was dismissed in one incomprehensible sentence by Patrick Poivre d'Arvor, the anchorman. Bouygues' TF1 has just punished journalists from Le Monde for the crime of lèse Sarko. LCI, its cable news subsidiary cancelled a weekly show produced with le Monde because the newspaper called the channel an arm of the the UMP  -- Sarkozy's party. 

There are few counterweights to Sarko-power in the media. Le Canard Enchaîné, the satirical investigative weekly, and Marianne magazine are among them. The most useful watchdogs are on the internet. One site in particular, Rue89.com, is making the running. Founded by former staff from Libération, Rue89 is fast becoming a reference for the trade. It broke the story of the censored Cécilia story.

They are keeping a close eye on Sarkozy's tinkering with the media, which seems likely to increase in coming months.   

   

Comments

[Proteos]

If I remember correctly, Lagardère also owns a 17% share of Le Monde.
The other real problem of the french daily newspapers is that they have only few readers. This is a real problem as they now need to be subsidized by the state (directly through tax breaks for journalists or by subsidizing directly the newspapers).

[Baptiste]

You have forgot some counterweights to Sarko power in media: "Charlie Hebdo" the other very good weekly, and sometimes "France Inter" wich is anti-Sarko by moments.

[zirglob]

Charles,

Since you mention Rue89, they host an english speaking blog about politics in France. Readers of your blog may be interested:

http://www.rue89.com/street_89

[Ros]

Personally ,I think Le Figaro, Le Parisien and Libération are more parisian papers than national ones. Le Monde, as you say, is definitely national as it has subscribers and is in kiosques all over France. I lived in Provence for many years and I assure you there were not many readers of the first three - if you were leftish you read Deferre's "Provençal" (now become Le Provence & read by everyone regardless of politics), rightish "le Meridional" and Communist "La Marseillaise" which believe it or not is still in all the kiosques in Marseille but have no idea of it's circulation.

[Daniel Strohl]

Charles,

The above caricature is very funny. Plantu and Canteloup are a blessing for our zygomatic muscles ...

More seriously, who is financing "rue89.com" ? The site has a quite professional look.

However, some "rue89.com" reader letters are "du même tonneau" (out of the same barrel) as those of Libération, orthography and grammar included. One may infer from this observation that the return on investment of our Education Nationale could have been better, to say it gently.

[christopher muir]

When a political party has a monopoly of influence over the media, it's not only the spin about itself that can be promoted, but adverse gossip about the opposition can also be advanced without challenge. Garry Kasparov has already made a point of this sad fact: "The Kremlin-controlled press never stops short of inventing stories about Putin's political opponents."

[marine]

Charles,
thanks for pointing at what is one of the most worrying aspect of the new presidency. France is very centralised, which means that all powers (political, financial, industrial and the media) are in Paris. Add to that, the "grandes écoles" phenomena entails that these rich and powerful people tend to know each other pretty well.

I am quite disappointed at the quality of the work of French journalists. They don't challenge what politicians say, they basically 'pass the dishes' (I don't know how to translate the french expression).

From what I remember the most sold daily newspaper in France is l'Equipe (sport). The second one is Ouest France, a regional newspaper.

[Christine]

Welcome to Sarkoland, Mr Bremner....

Daniel Strohl
The Website rue89 has been founded by former Libération journalists. As far as I know, they are experimenting this new form of journalism, and do not benefit from any exterior founding.

[Ade]

There is no French Jeremy Paxman. Never has been and certainly never will be now with Sarkozy. I read L'Express sometimes but have given up watching the Tf1 or France2 info - you get more factual news and hard analysis from the Disney channel.

What's worrying with Sarkozy is that he's selling himself as this new wonderful, modernising, transparent, nothing-to-fear french politician, yet at the same time is ruthlessly trying to control journalists in a way we haven't seen since Mitterand. And he's been doing this for sometime. It's contradictory and suggests Sarkozy is not the man he's pretending to be.

History shows us that rulers who have a habit of aggressively controling the media are rarely any good for their country.

Anyway, before I'm accused of french-bashing, I think France is a great country especially for food and other things. Once I read a British journalist (can't remember which paper)sniffily saying that all the French think about is food and sex. ? . Well? What's wrong with that?! That's what I love about them! I mean - what else is there??

[Maggie G]

This topic is kind of scary, isn't it. I'm glad you brought it up, Mr Bremner, because I listen to Europe 1 all the time and I never would have dreamed it was controlled by a guy who is so close to Sarko he calls him his 'brother'. I will keep this in mind in future.

A couple of weeks ago there was an interview with the cartoonist who always draws le Pen with a fly buzzing around his head. He said he drew Sarkozy with a fly buzzing around his head, and Sarkosy wrote a letter complaining about it. So he said the next time he drew Sarkozy with THREE flies buzzing around his head.

This cartoonist didn't say Sarkozy was threatening or anything, he was just really annoyed to be made to look like le Pen -- more like he was complaining about the unfairness of it. The cartoonist was not a fan of Sarkozy -- his opinion of Sarkozy was that he had a habit of being a traitor (going over to Balladurs's camp, and other examples). All the same, this cartoonist said he did not believe for one minute that Sarkozy had got the editor of Match fired; he said he thought it was some of his over-ethusiastic friends that did it.

I am sorry, I am just too naive to be able to judge this. But it was on Europe 1 -- does that mean it was pure propaganda?

And then, speaking of propaganda, I heard another discussion where they were talking about the brouhaha surrounding Sarkozy's three days on the yacht. They said that on the first day of Chirac's presidency, Chirac went to lay a gerbe on the tombeau of de Gaulle, and the first day of Mitterrand's presidency Mitterrand lay a wreath on the tomb of someone else (not Bousquet, I don't think) , and when Pompidou became president, de Gaulle told him, "St Tropez is finished now".

And the day before, I heard them discussing how all the former presidents had photos taken of themselves holidaying with their families in some traditional French resort, before slipping quietly away to Egypt or Morocco or wherever.

And they all thought it was good that Sarkozy was not ashamed to go directly where he wanted and do what he pleased,without trying to create an image presidential 'correct'.

So if Match is gushing over Sarkozy, it isn't actually that different from the way it has treated any other president.

But it is certainly not something that we want to see in the serious press.

[Ros]

ADE: You say "what else is there??"- this is not very flattering to France (the country itself without even mentioning it's culture )- the French people won't be offended anyway) but before that you said " and other things" - I don't follow you - yes, I am a francophile but would like to know what you consider as these "other things" ?

[Stephen Bull]

The subservient press.
One of the unforgettable aspects of the debate between Sarkozy and Mme Royal was the performance of Patrick Poivre d'Arvor, the very famous anchor man of TF1 and friend of Chirac, whom you mention. He and his colleague were there to keep order and correct obvious mis-statements. The colleague was logged awake at 2 minutes intervention time and PPDA bemused the audience with his impression of a drowning goldfish for a calculated 5 minutes, or so I remember.
And LeMonde did advise its readers to vote Royal.

[Gerard Mulholland]

Les dindes venaient de voter pour Noël.

[Pierre Bernardi]

Wouldn't "retaliated" have been a better choice of word than "punished" Charles? Less juvenile, less sensational, in a word less néocon?

Punishment applies to the classroom. The word implies moral culpability. I don't see anything wrong in Le Monde accusing LCI of being an arm of the UMP. Free speech!

[The 3rd column]

Maggie,

I can very well believe what you posted above: "All the same, this cartoonist said he did not believe for one minute that Sarkozy had got the editor of Match fired; he said he thought it was some of his over-ethusiastic friends that did it."

I worked for the international affairs of the the Lagardère Group (before it merged with Airbus and became known as EADS); part of my job was having to deal with the press division of the group.

In some of our international dealings, we used to meet local politicians of a client country who, upon realizing the breadth and depth of the Group in terms of press power, i.e., Elle (across the globe), Paris Match, including George (used to be managed by now deceased JFK Jr), Premiere, and a few other publications around the gblobe, would often try to scurry favours on us 'lil grass root operators' in the hope that they would get published in some of the Group's press brands particularly if some of the group's magazines are already published in partnership with a local publishing group.

There was one politician of a republic (won't mention which one) who was aspiring to contest the UN chief's post against Koffi Annan; to do this, the said politician thought that press write ups in some of the magazines owned by the Lagardère Group would be a good way to lobby for the highly-coveted French language speaking nations bloc votes. Accordingly, I submitted the request to my boss who in turn submitted it to the Group's international affairs big boss who then asked one of the big bosses of the Lagardère press group if that was possible. Understandably, our projects (which were actually projects under another division within the Lagardère Group) stood to gain much needed push in the said client country since the brother of the aspiring candidate for the UN post was still the president of the republic.

The answer of the press division of the Group was a flat NO (we eventually lost our bids in the said country).

Why am I saying this? Like the cartoonist you mentioned, I don't believe the editorial bossess of the press group in Lagardere's corporate world are that susceptible to political pressure. Of course, there's always a give and take but somewhere down the line, we must give these people a little more credit - I do believe it is due them. They may not be as combative as the editors and news men of the Anglo-Saxon press but they are no mice either. We must not forget that at the end of the day, these press groups and journalists thrive on news and scoops. That's where their bread and butter is - news about a politician's or about his entourage - never mind if he's head of state, is still news and to any journalist or press group, that's still bread and butter. We could also take into account that the press in France - remember that unlike in America or in Britain, losing a libel case does not amount to loss of much money. Pecuniary awards in libel cases are so minimal, they are almost laughable.

All in all, who knows? The rumour that Sarkozy had a direct hand in the firing of the Paris Match editor for publishing the picture of his wife with another man could be just that - rumour. I am quite inclined to go your way, "So if Match is gushing over Sarkozy, it isn't actually that different from the way it has treated any other president."

[Daniel Strohl]

ADE,
Unfortunately, I do not know Jeremy Paxman - therefore I am not able to understand fully what you said.

You may not like TF1 and FR2; I don't like FOXNEWS, which reminds me of the Nazi radio Propaganda during WWII (I was a boy at that time, but already able to understand) - they were celebrating with martial tunes great German victories almost up to the end, while dozens and sometimes hundreds of American bombers were passing over our heads at day time and almost every day - at night, the bombers were British (may be they had better navigation techniques than the Americans).

Maggie,
I too am often tuned to Europe 1 and I heard also the interview of the cartoonist you mention.

For the moment being, I am not too scared about the "mainmise" (hands on?) of Sarkozy's crew on the media. For example, at 8.45 AM every weekday, Nicolas Canteloup is making fun at will of Sarkozy and Ms Royal (and others - for ex. our ever-thirsty Southern gaulois Schivardi). Up to now, I did not spot any slow down in tonality regarding Sarkozy. On the contrary, now they play the « Marseillaise » every time Sarkozy-Canteloup enters or leaves the studio. This was not the case prior to the elections.

Last Sunday, at 7.45 PM on TF1 with Michel Drucker, Nicolas Canteloup made his usual fun about Sarkozy and Royal. No change was noticeable either. However, Michel Drucker is also a close pal of Sarkozy.

As long as our « chansonniers » feel free to do what they want, there is no particular reason to worry. Up to now, and I think it will continue in may be a somewhat attenuated matter, most of the journalistic staff of FR3 leaned almost openly to the left, although FR3 belongs to our « service public » and should therefore be neutral – nobody collapsed because of that, and no right-winger was converted to the left ...

In contrast, at Mitterrand's time, I am not able to remember any journalist or chansonnier who dared even per allusion to mention the second life of the monarch with his morganatic spouse and their daughter. This second life was « un secret de polichinelle » (Punch-and-Jody secret) in the media world. May be Dominique will contradict me as usual.

[peter kinsley www.peterkinsley.com]

Perhaps France needs a new newspaper run by real journalists with the guts to take pretentious politicians apart, as France's journalists failed to do with Mitterrand, and the law protecting the private lives of greedy and crooked politicans should be changed so that they can be brought to book. When can we expect to see Chirac in court for spending a million and a half euros in a year on food and drink for his household? The scoffers at American and British journalists should remember that it was two newspapermen who brought down that crook Nixon over Watergate and it was journalists who put Jonathan Aitken and "Lord" Archer in prison. Surely it is not beyond the realms of possibility to have a newspaper called l'Independent?

[Dominique]

Thanks Charles!

Valentin : am i still being paranoïd?

ADE says " trying to control journalists in a way we haven't seen since Mitterand".

Completly false! Mitterand was the man who actually freed french press, television and radio waves! It was all locked in ORTF before him! He did allow "radio libres" don't you remember.

Don't worry, I won't call you a french basher, just a left basher...

[Alain]

Dominique is right about the state of freedom on TVs and radios before Mitterrand was elected.
There was a state monopoly (ORTF indeed) and Mitterrand was "inculpé" (shortly before the 1981 elections) for breaking this monopoly when he supported the creation of a free radio (as it was called then) which dared give another point of view than the Giscard's one. Remember Pompidou (beurk!) and his: "l'ORTF est la voix de la France"?

The "funny" (sort of) thing is that all these rightist politicians and their voters who now have only the word "liberalisation" on their mouth were quite satisfied for years when they held all powers and benefited the State's lion share in economics.
They then certainly didn't want to change anything in the state of affairs they found so much to their taste.

Sarkozy seems to be the great statesman France needed according to many of our Anglo.American friends.
You bet...
Too bad he felt compelled to take with him Alain Juppé, a former high civil servant who never spent one hour in a private company, who went retiree (il a pris sa retraite) as soon as he reached the laudable age of 57. Le même grand homme qui ne jure que par le privé.
Pour les autres bien sûr, pas pour lui qui n'a jamais investi un centime de ses revenus dans une quelconque entreprise privée qu'il aurait créee.
Comme disait R. Barre: "Les chômeurs n'ont qu'à créer leur entreprise..."
Un autre grand serviteur de l'Etat qui n'a jamais créé le moindre emploi ou la moindre entreprise lui-même.
Ils sont tous à peu près de cette farine à droite. De bons conseils pour les autres mais eux ils restent bien au chaud dans le girond de la République...

[Valentin]

"Valentin : am i still being paranoïd?"

I never said you were, because I don't believe that :)

But read again Charles' post above : it is ALL about Cecilia. Cecilia this, Cecilia that. It is ALL in the "people" area. Nothing serious, no State affair, no corruption scandal, nothing involving Sarkozy in something dirty.
Or when it is about his personal life, I fully support him, no matter the means employed.

Mitterand spied on journalists. Mitterand made them all hide his illness, of which they all knew. The same about his extreme right youth, about which he lied shamelessly.
The same deafening silence in the press about his mistress and illegitimate daughter entertained at public's expense.
Not ONE word in the "free" media.

[Ade]

DANIEL:
Jeremy Paxman is my gardener. As for all that Foxnews and Nazi stuff it's gone a bit over my head due to the vast amount of wine I've had tonight which brings me to..:
ROS.
Yes the "other things". French wine. Isn't it the best? I love it. Terrible when I'm back in the UK having a meal with friends and someone pulls out a bottle of Australian or Californian horsep*ss and starts pontificating about how wonderful it is. Rubbish. Tastes like Ribena with some meths chucked in, (Daniel: meths = methylated spirits). French wine is the best in the world. I've just had a great Beaumes de Venise 2005 - very strong 15% and cheap. Superb. Mind you I think Bordeaux can be pricey and dodgy. And as for Bourgogne, let's not go there. Stick to Cotes du Rhone - can't go wrong.
And more "other things": Ok, i grant you the culture and all that. But my feet got bloody tired wandering round the Louvre and that Da Vinci Code pyramid was SO disappointing - had to escape to a nice bistro for some fabulous wine.
DOMINIQUE:
Mitterand was paranoid enough to want to know, by phone tapping, what colour knickers Carole Bouquet was wearing on any particular day. Ok maybe that wasn't paranoir. But you really think he was Mother Theresa for the free press? Think some journalists might not agree. But at least he liked Pink Floyd.

[richard jones]

Aha! That bloody pyramid! Mitterand's
ruination of one of the most wondrously beautiful relationships between space, texture, architecture and land lie in the world.
Wine. French wine is good but slowly La France is being caught up by improved Italian wines, Australian whites and yes even some Californians.
Perhaps with Sarko at the helm or la barre France will be able to move ahead of the competition.
Knocking that bloody culture mix pyramid down would be un bon pas.

[Christine]

Valentin,
You should have a look at the last Arrêts sur image (in which, by the way, Charles Bremner participated). The question is not the private life of Cecilia Sarkozy (about which I personaly don't give a damn), but the fact that this "private life" is exposed at will, but only in Sarkozy's terms.

3rd Column,
The caricaturists are free to make fun of Sarkozy as much as they like, true. Thank god,we are not in the soviet union! But what is also true (and this is actually the core of the problem) is that the press owned by Sarkozy's personal friends represents over 70% of the french medias. And it does give a favourable image of Sarkozy. They are not beeing objective in the sense that they do not (and this was striking during the campaign) question any of Sarkozy's allegations.
I don't care if the Figaro does not criticize Sarkozy, because the Figaro's political affiliation is openly assumed, as is Libération's. And if I want some critic information about the socialists, I read the Figaro, not Libération.
But pretending that TV Channels's like TF1 or LCI, or to some extent, France 2) are objective is a hypocrite fiction. And this is a problem.

Maggie
About Europe 1. You should maybe take the time sometimes to read the Canard Enchaîné. They reported about the last interview of Sarkozy by Jean-Pierre Elkkabach, and how the whole interview was prepared with Sarkozy, Elkkabach and Lagardère, discussing what questions should be asked (and not asked).
Elkkabach has also been "caught", during an interview with a socialist personnality (if I recall correctly), interrupting him, as this man was criticizing Sarkozy's programm, by saying "no, this is not what we (i.e. Sarkozy's party) want!".

Just saying.

[Valentin]

Christine,
J'ai bien regardé Arrêt sur images. Ce que je veux dire, c'est qu'il ne me fait ni chaud, ni froid que les journalistes se plaignent d'être mis sur pression, si le sujet ne concerne pas les affaires publiques mais la vie privée de quelqu'un.
Je dirais la même chose s'il s'agissait de Bouygues, ou de n'importe qui d'autre d'ailleurs.

S'il veulent faire de la presse people, qu'il ne étonnent pas après des réactions des gens concernés. Cela n'a rien à voir avec l'intérêt ou la morale publique.

[Dominique]

Hello Charles,

Guess what happened this morning? Laurent Sollé, campaign director(directeur de campagne) of Sarkozy becomes deputy CEO (directeur general adjoint) of TF1! what a surprise!

And some still believe Sarko is not acting like dear old Louis XIV...

Valentin,

I completly disagree with you about Mitterand. He was protecting his daughter and was therefore a good father. Not like those (guess who) who are using their children for political reasons.

He was hidding Mazarine? i prefere that to being manipulated everyday with the story of Louis le dauphin!

(i did not even notice it before, for the prénoms of these children are unbelievable!)

you say : "It is ALL in the "people" area. Nothing serious, no State affair, no corruption scandal, nothing involving Sarkozy in something dirty"

And that is exactly the point! while the entire press (TF1 first) is busy talking about cecilia's dress, then it is not busy doing it's job : serching for state affairs, corruption, what did boilloré get in return, what did Bouygues get in return for hiring Laurent Sollé etc... TF1 is now clearly within the system "cour de Versailles"!

This is so obvious that i just do not anderstand why people just do not see it. Probably because they do not want to.

At least, Mitterand was not spoiling french polital life with trash as Sarko is doing. What Sarko is doing is worse : for instance, he manipulates images so every one believes he has 5 children eventhough he has only 3! isn't that manipulation? isn't that worse than being modest?

I will also defend Chirac who managed to protect his own handicaped daughter from the press during his entire political life. Of course, some of the today's "tartuffes" now say that he was "hidding" his disabled daughter. What a shame really. He protected her, and that was good. I wonder how Sarko's boy will end, as this child is obviously overexposed.

More, Mitterand did have a extramarital child, so what? more of 50% of the french children are now born outside marriage. He was very modern indeed.

ADE says "Mitterand was paranoid enough to want to know, by phone tapping, what colour knickers Carole Bouquet was wearing on any particular day"

Because you think that Sarko is not being paranoid enough to use his own familly for his own good? Don't worry, he will do exactly the same when he'll need it!

2 incompatible system of values here : "modesty and family protection" versus "hysteria, family instrumentalisation and manipulation of the public"

Napoleon is back!

[christopher muir]

Christine,

Have a look at Rue 89 (internet only). Charles has mentioned it. As far as I'm concerned, it presages a striking evolutionary trend in the presentation of news web sites. There must surely be some big money behind the project. I can't think of a similar independent Anglo-Saxon news web site.

[Robert Marchenoir]

About French journalists' willingness to displease the powers that be, or lack thereof: maybe the situation would be different if it had not been standard practice for quite a while (maybe it still is) for members of this righteous profession to be granted a nice, publicly-owned Parisian flat, with a rent wildly lower than market levels, just for the asking.

Naturally, in order to put an end to such well-known but little-discussed dirty little habits, it would be necessary to correct the huge imbalance between supply and demand on the French housing market.

And the only way to do that would be, for the state, to massively disengage from public housing, and allow property developers to build houses anywhere, unless explicitely prevented to do so by planning restrictions.

Whereas for the time being, the opposite prevails: you are not allowed to build a house anywhere, unless you have explicit permission.

If I remember correctly, roughly 40% of French tenants rent from the state. And despite close to half of this market being already nationalized, it is still not uncommon for lower-income families to wait for ten years or more before being granted a public flat with the regulated, much-lower-than-market rent that comes with it.

While tens of thousands sleep rough.

Of course, if the French wanted to correct this trend, they would have to embrace truly liberal policies.

For the time being, the right and the left agree that in order to solve the housing problem, the state has to do more.

Actually, it should do much less. It should let builders build homes, developers sell them and owners let them.

Alas, it is unlikely that common sense will prevail in a foreseeable future. France is addicted to state intervention. This is a very potent -- and legal -- drug.

Truly independent journalism is but one of the victims of this vicious addiction.

And that has little to do with whom Sarkozy befriends.

[Dominique]

As always, robert Marchenoir's message fits in one sentence :

"people break the rules, we should therefore get rid of the rules!"

Thank God, allowing property developers to build houses anywhere is not scheduled yet! For example, I am glad to live in a country that protects it's coasts against them. See what happened in Spain and you'll get an idea of what happens when the property developers are allowed to go wild!

[Pierre Bernardi]

France has 31 or so million homes. 40% are rented (12m). The state owns nearly 4,2m homes - approx 35% of 12m. So Robert M's figures look about right. Who'd a thunk it? Still, it's only about 1/8 of the number of homes in France. Plenty more gites and cottages to get your teeth into!

[The 3rd column]

Christopher Muir,

Check out www.thefirstpost.co.uk

[Daniel Strohl]

Alain,
"Ils sont tous à peu près de cette farine à droite" - et à gauche itou.

The problem is that almost all our high level politicians are "anciens élèves de nos Grandes Ecoles" - and especially Ecole Nationale d'Administration. Most of their parents and sometimes grand'parents had also the same elitist curriculum, which does not prepare them to take any risks outside the highly secure Haute Administration.

Please have a look at the following quote of Pr. de Gennes, Nobel prize in Physics (he passed away a few days ago, aged 74):
"Globalement, ce que je déteste le plus dans les Ecoles, c'est l'auto-satisfaction des maîtres,
des élèves et des anciens élèves. D'elle vient le conservatisme, et cette notion absurde des "droits à vie". (Les Objets fragiles - Wikipedia). On ne peut pas mieux dire en si peu de mots ...

Furthermore, If I believe and remember well a may be two years old interview (or an article ?) of Jean-Robert Pitte, recteur de l'université de la Sorbonne, ALL our Nobel prize laureates studied in our universities, NONE of them in our Grandes Ecoles. There is possibly a problem somewhere ....

[Christine]

Christopher Muir
Concerning rue89, as I said, as far as I know, they do not benefit from any financial outside support. I talked to a journalist who knows the founders of rue89, and he told me they were working on this experimental project on a voluntary basis. Of course I don't know it for sure. But their site, honestly, looks really cheap!

Valentin
J'en ai rien à cirer des histoires privées des politiques. Ce qui me gêne d'une part est que Sarkozy se la joue pipole quand ça l'arrange, et utilise ses liens avec les patrons de presse pour "respecter la vie privée"... quand ça l'arrange. Tu dénonçais les pressions exercées par Mitterrand sur la presse. Pourquoi ne faudrait-il pas dénoncer la même chose pour Sarkozy?
D'autre part, ce qu'a montré l'affaire du JDD, c'est que Sarkozy (ou ses amis) ont la capacité d'exercer des pressions. Aujourd'hui, cela concerne la vie privé. Et hier, pendant la campagne? Et demain? Est-ce que tu peux, en toute sincérité, me dire que ce n'est pas dérangeant qu'une grande majorité des medias français soient concentrés dans les mains d'amis personnels de Nicolas Sarkozy? Tu trouves normal qu'un directeur adjoint de campagne de Sarkozy soit nommé (annonce faite par l'Elysée!) à TF1? Et tu trouves normal que les directeurs des journaux, chaînes télévision et radios détenus par Lagardère et cie affirment tous la bouche en coeur que leur dépendance financière n'a aucune influence sur leur indépendance journalistique?

Su tu trouves tout cela profondément normal, pose-toi la question de comment tu réagirais si c'était Royal qui était aux manettes et que les patrons des medias concernés la considéreraient publiquement "comme une soeur" (dixit Bouygues à propos de Sarko).

[Alain]

Daniel Strohl.
I agree with you, whether on the left or on the right side of the politicum spectrum, French politicians are very much averse to any personal risk taking trajectories.
But at least this is something which is to be expected from the "leftists" (rightly or wrongly, this isn't the point here) whereas you would expect the "rightists" to put their act together on this matter and be coherent with their tenets.
Some are hypocritical, others aren't.

Regarding les "Grandes Ecoles" conservatim, corporatism and reluctance to change, it is alas a defining trait of the human nature.
Ce qui est intéressant c'est que précisément les grandes écoles qui veulent se distinguer de l'Université par leur capacité à l'évolution et au changement sont en fait atteintes des mêmes syndrômes mais sous une autre forme. Ever heard of "la mafia des grandes écoles"? Is it much different in England when it comes to Oxford, Cambridge or Eton, to name a few?

Que les Grandes Ecoles n'aient jamais produit de Prix Nobel n'est guère étonnant (on n'en a pas eu tant que ça depuis bien des décennnies maintenant et l'Académie suédoise est de toute façon clairement politique dans ses choix, mais c'est un autre sujet) il y a x fois moins d'élèves dans lesdites Grandes Ecoles que dans les Universités.

Mais nous sommes bien d'accord au fond.

[Valentin]

Christine,
D'évidence, cette discussion n'apporte plus grand'chose. A tout ce que tu viens de dire, je ne peux que répéter mes messages antérieurs :
- dans *tous* (Charles, we want BOLD please!) les cas que j'avais cité, les pressions de François Mitterand sur les médias ont concerné le public, d'une façon ou autre; ce n'est pas *du tout* le cas des 3 affaires du Président Sarkozy;
- cela fait des années que les médias ont des grands actionnaires privés, grands patrons ou financiers; ce qui m'inquiète,moi, c'est l'incroyable persistance des idées farouchement de gauche - si ne serait ce que la manière dont ils ont presque tous dénoncé le "danger" Sarkozy entre les 2 tours des élections; rien que cela devrait te rassurer !

Non, ils sont bien indépendants, fiers de l'être et souvent de bons professionnels (à part le penchant rouge).
C'est juste que Sarkozy, ça se vent très bien en ce moment, c'est tout.

[peter kinsley www.peterkinsley.com]

The intrepid Dominique says (23/5/07 above) Sarkozy "manipulates images so everyone thinks he has five children even though he only has three"! Is it possible that he is following in the fingerprints of Mitterrand and Chirac, both adept at using French taxpayers' money to feather their own nests, in order to falsely claim child allowance?

[Christine]

Valentin,
Effectivement, cette discussion ne sert à rien, tant que tu n'auras pas répondu à ma dernière question. Les seuls qui dans la presse ont dénoncé le "danger Sarkozy" sont Libération et Marianne, deux organes de presse qui revendiquent ouvertement leur statut de presse de gauche engagée. TF1, pour reprendre cet exemple, n'assume pas son statut de chaîne engagée politiquement. Pourtant, elle l'est.
C'est cette hypocrisie que je dénonce (et ça n'a rien à voir avec le fait d'être de gauche ou de droite, je la dénoncerais exactement de la même manière si cette chaîne avait été pro-Royal).

[christopher muir]

3rd Column,

Have checked out First Post. Thanks. Seems to be on a par with Rue 89. I'll keep an eye in it.

[Daniel Strohl]

Alain,

Effectivement, nous sommes bien d'accord sur le fond. Cependant, il est grand temps (d'essayer) de dépoussiérer tout cela, notamment en diversifiant le recrutement des ministres. La concurrence force à devenir actif et entreprenant.

Mais bien sûr, on n'arrivera pas à changer la nature humaine.

[Little Big Horn]

Good job Charles.

I would have add as Sarkozy's close friend Bernard Arnault, France’s first fortune (La Tribune, Investir, Radio classique, the only radio that gives the stock exchange trend between Donizetti and Mozart) who was bestman at his marriage with Martin Bouygues (godfather of Sarko' son). There is also Nicolas de Tavernost (M6's chairman) who created with him and many others Neuilly Communication, Jérôme Jaffré who is the Sofres polls institute president, Michel Denisot (canal +), Jean-Pierre Elkabbach (Europe 1) and Michel Drucker. Sarkozy "tutoie" among others Laurent Joffrin (Le Nouvel Observateur) and Jean-Marie Colombani (le Monde), which is just symptomatic of corruption.

This is a little world at the service of a few industrial barons, which have no interests in democracy (will you write something about "Le Siècle" Charles?). Francis Bouygues explained it simply. Before TF1, he had to submit to the political class, but after the purchase of TF1, and LCI, the political class had to submit to him. Ravens take slowly possession of the country. This oligarchy controls the politics because they format the opinion (polls institutes never use the word “people”) and they submit the State to the empire of merchants, and France to the market (which has no values). To kill citizenship and make the cattle sleep, and rotten the country. Sarkozy has been sold by the media just like a barril of soap powder, by his mediatic omnipresence (remember Forza Italia), the illusion that he's everywhere, facing the problems, and outspoken (simply because he talks with 1500 words and repeat the same 2 or 3 slogans).

Sarkozy is the perfect champion for the few billionaires who contempt the people and want to possess the country (their American dream). He is a little genius (an expert) of political marketing, and everything in his conception of power is linked with the treatment of his publicity, an image. Because Sarkozy is ONLY an image. A police, a form, a shape, to police the country. Why are we discovering the “peopolisation” and “glamour” at the Elysée for instance. Is he sexy, is he cool? No, his job (and the job of today’s media) is to hide reality, to turn it into dream and virtuality (propaganda, ideology, and what possesses the media: commercials). A sexy cover has a fonction: hide misery, the condition of capitalism. Sarkozy’s fonction is to sell the country to the golden calf ideology: capitalism (misery and corruption). He is a salesman, not a stateman.

The media tried at the unisson to sell the neo-liberal European treaty to the French, by a pure and aggressive propaganda. However, the opponents, the People, said NO. What happened next? France Inter for example (an "independant" media), still bark with the others that the People was stupid (without any shame), did not understand what intelligent elite knows. And now, against democracy, President Iago is going to adopt “en force” a simplified treaty. Money rules, money only. Scoundrels too.

[Daniel Strohl]

Little Big Horn,

"The opponents, the People said NO". Yes, but the same People (and its "thinking élites") were not able to unite to enforce their "democracy".

It is quite easy to demolish, but quite difficult to build viable entities, even (of course) imperfect ones, such as a simplified treaty.

Generous utopies which you have probably in mind work only in theory, as experience has unfortunately shown.

[Little Big Horn]

Mr Strohl you are wrong,

The People is not an entity you can play with functions of your private interests (private=corrupt). In a democracy, the People is The Legitimity, not the elite. The People makes a choice (it can be a wrong choice, such as Sarko election), and the power elite implements its will. That is all. In other case, if N. Sarkozy makes apply a bastard treaty, against the People's will (who elected him AND refused the constitutional treaty), he has no legitimacy as President, he is a "bastard President". It's logical. But the People remains far too vulgar for some refined... people, and the French elite would like too often to destitute the People and elected another. The elite can corrupt the People, with media for example, but you only enforce the democracy by obeying its Will (corrupt or not). The "NO" to the constitutional treaty, against the mediatic virulence, was a true democratic act, the popular conscience against the ideology (corrupt elite).

And it's interesting to note that democracy did not want EU this time, "le machin", if I can quote a President who had "une certaine idée de la France", soveraign, not submissive. About “demolition”, I suggest you “Les chênes qu’on abat”. “Une culture ne meurt que de sa propre faiblesse”. A. Malraux. But culture was not your point I guess, only circultion of money and things. Chaos.

“Generous utopies which you have probably in mind work only in theory, as experience has unfortunately shown.”

Generosity has always been the finality of a civilization Mr Strohl, from the homeric poetry, to the peasants sacrifices, and a resistance against the natural. It is called: a culture. On the contrary, greed has always been the end of civilizations, its negation, by the end of values (the adoration of money or fascination for power) and the acceptence of death, the natural.

Experience has shown that against what is natural for the majority, the trend or your reality, some people restored a living order, by resistance, and faith (true values). It’s difficult to understand why some men prefer life to death, from a collaborationist point of view. In 1939, Hitler was reality. De Gaulle among others (Churchill) said NO to enslavement. It’s not easy to choose honor against comfort and mental lazyness, to be a man, with a (independant) spirit, not a sheep bleating with multitude. To collaborate is natural, you don’t need any mind, just to be an “automate spirituel” (Deleuze). Capitalism, as hitlerism, is not only an ideology, but an utopia. It is Death at work.

If you think you live in “reality”, you are a dreaming child and totally conditioned by the powers. You live in a mental environment, a virtual reality show indeed, from the virtuality of money and work by stock exchange, to the falsification of reality by the media and digital technologies,... This childish world refuses, is a denial of reality. In your abstract world, the only presence of reality is terrorism (terra=earth). Because reality (that is suffering and dying millions of people + destruction of Nature and Culture by capitalism) is an horror and a terror for the power you venerate. The richiest "democracy" in the world strikes a poor country, to be richier. This is your reality: violence, an act of pure terrorism, to preserve the ideology (god/money). Why do you think your media present Nature as tomorrow’s danger? It’s pure propaganda. Capitalism (your mental environment, your utopia, your belief, your god) is the problem, the cause, the danger, death and always will be. And bash the resistance (reality) is useless (childish): it has all the time, such as Nature, the Earth and Peoples who live on it.

[Daniel Strohl]

Little Big Horn,

"(who elected him AND refused the constitutional treaty)" : yes, but my math teacher would have said :
"Strohl, VOUS inversez l'ordre des facteurs !" And he probably would have added, as he often did : "VOUS êtes sur la pente glissante et savonneuse !" (You are on a slippery and soapy slope). Of course, I am not implying that you are on « la pente glissante et savonneuse » ...

Seriously now : the voters were aware what Sarkozy had in mind regarding the treaty - he was quite clear about that : the new treaty, whatever its name, should be voted by the "Parlement" and not by referendum. This means that the electors not "d'accord" with the idea of the treaty had clearly the choice to vote for the extreme left (where they had a rather rich choice of options) or at least to abstain. This did not happen. The electors have made a free and unambiguous choice (please forget the fuss about the « manipulation par les médias ») - this is called democracy in any good manual.

May be one of the reasons why they have voted for Sarkozy – I mean the part of the voters which initially had rejected the treaty – is that since 2005, it has become obvious for them too that we are not in a position to impose to our partners the hypothetic « plan B » promoted by Mr. Mélenchon and Mr. Fabius and that both gentlemen may possibly have had at that time other ideas in mind than the sole « volet social du traité ». This plan (C?) was ruthlessly ruined by Ms Royal, who brutally executed (the ambitions) of Mr. Fabius and his followers.

One should not underestimate the voters – they are intelligent enough to understand that a treaty is necessary because it is impossible to make work properly together 27 countries with « un vote à l'unanimité » as it is still the case right now due to the existing treaties.

You have made an interesting philosophical development – it may be summarized saying that you abhor capitalism, to which, as we say in the Alsatian dialect, « you do not let any good hair ».

I will not make a counter-development, since I have not got your talent and besides that, may be this would be somewhat boring for the blog readers.

PS: If some foreign blog readers are interested, hereafter some details about Alsace, which is a French province since 1648 (Treaties of Westfalia – Münster&Osnabrück - which were signed after the 30 years war 1618-1648)
Location : Eastern France, between the Vosges mountains and the river Rhine
Population : about 2 millions
Languages : French, Alsatian (Alemanic dialect – the Alemannen were a German tribe living on both sides of the river Rhine and in Switzerland)
Capital : Strasbourg – other cities : Colmar – Mulhouse

Alsace has a somewhat complex history, to say the least. Only a part of Alsace was incorporated to France following the Treaties of Westphalia – other parts came later on.

There were many wars after the 30 years war in which various armies crossed Alsace and/or made battles there. It would be too long to detail this here. However, three of them should be mentioned :
1870-1871 : French-Prussian (German) war, won by the Germans. Alsace and a part of Lorraine (Moselle) were incorporated in the « Deutsche Reich ».
1914-1918 : Alsace/Moselle was reincorporated in France after 1918
1939-1945 : from 1940 to 1944/45, Alsace/Moselle was incorporated again into the Reich.
1945 : Alsace/Moselle back to France

As an Alsatian, it is unnecessary to say, but I say it nevertheless, I appreciate the peace we have since 1945. Peace is not granted, as young and idealistic people may believe. I has to be defended be alliances and military power – si vis pacem para bellum.

Therefore, it is important that France has « une force de dissuasion » with bombers (and nuclear bombs) and also 4 nuclear missiles launching submarines, and not only 1 as Ms Royal believed naively. This haughty ignorance, from a future Head of State, Head of the Armed Forces and ultimate initiator of the nuclear fire was (for me at least) shocking.

In your address, you spoke of « collaborationist point of view » and used some other « qualificatifs » which were, to say the least, somewhat off the topic. Therefore, let me also proceed in a similar way, regarding the defeat of the French army in 1940.

Our politicians of that time had devised a purely defensive strategy based on the Maginot line which, in their minds, should have been attacked frontally by the Germans in case of a war. Furthermore, France was « protected » by the Ardennes mountains, which were deemed impossible to be crossed by Panzers.
The Germans crossed the Ardennes and outflanked the heavily fortified and armed Maginot line which was almost useless. The French army had only a few organized armoured units, although Général de Gaulle had before the war asked for powerful armoured units. So the defeat was ineluctable.

But there was also an other reason which is not very often mentioned : when the war started between France and Germany, Hitler had already made an alliance with Staline – this alliance lasted up to May 1941, when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union by surprise. But meanwhile, the Soviets were busy sending trainloads of raw materials to Germany which needed them badly. And in France, the « Parti Communiste » and its « bras armé », the CGT union (also totally communist at that time) leaned forcefully towards Soviet interests, and not French ones. They organized strikes against the war effort (this had not a positive impact on the morale of the army) and their boss, Maurice Thorez, deserted his unit and crossed over to Moscow, where he organized « résistance », as his hagiography goes. But at that time, the Soviet Union and Germany lived still in peace, as mentioned above. There was another famous « déserteur », de Gaulle, who crossed the Channel to join the British - but as everybody knows, the UK was at that time in full war with the Reich.

That is to say that simplifications about capitalism and socialism may be misleading.

[Little Big Horn]

Mr Strohl,

Some people are old, realist, collabo, rightist, Alsacian, sold to capitalism, and europeist. Good for you. But some other people are just French. C’est la vie.

What you were implying, before an interesting digression about alsatian history, is that the Presidential election was at the same time a new referendum on the Constitutional Treaty. I deeply regret to wake you up (from narcotic capitalism?), but although I enjoy myself a little daydream (aren’t I a “young idealist”), I’ve got to give you a lesson of history in my turn, and bring you back to tough reality, far away from your believes, and for your own sake. The Constitutional Treaty is dead.

France, contrary to the EU, exists, has a constitution. It has been given to France by “un déserteur”, as you called Charles De Gaulle (with the point of view of another great europeist, le maréchal Pétain), who also gave to the French people, for the first time in its history, the sovereign power of directly electing his representative, a strong Executive for action. It’s a pure democracy: “Gouvernement du peuple, par le peuple, pour le peuple”. The Constitution “constitute” the people as the only legitimacy to give France a destiny. It means that the sovereignty belong to a living and real entity (not to a god, a concept, an ideal, an ideology), that this People is no more subject to any will, but free (responsible), that France has, is a destiny, and can act. Not so bad for “un déserteur”.

For some.. people, democracy is no longer relevant (competitive) in a globalization where capitalism represents the true reality, and money the real sovereignty. Contrary to the People, who is just the economic machine lubricant, Money is life, wealth and legitimacy, because it gives power to an elite that protect itself from the weakness, the vulgarity, and the corruption of the plebs. And for the same.. weak, vile and corrupt elite, power is security, whereas free or sovereign people is a living threat to privileges and private interests. Capitalism can’t touch to the French regime, but it has the power to transfer the European’s sovereignties to the EU, and neutralize any legitimacy. The last time France had to give up its sovereignty was in 1940 at Rethondes, between 2 europeists, Pétain and Hitler, who wanted the Europe you’re dreaming mr Strohl, united, peaceful, and capitalist. Hitler had a huge portrait of Henry Ford in his office (“my inspiration”, Hitler said to an american journalist).

“It is quite easy to demolish, did you write, but quite difficult to build viable entities”. Isn’t the French democratic Republic a viable entity? Of course not for you. You need a powerful machine to apply your ideology, secure your buying power, and play the little capitalist monopoly game, between giants this time, to be richier (to create more misery, suffering, therefore wars). No matter if it will turn your country, a living democracy into a puppet regime, and a sovereign people into subjects, to the market, since this is the destiny you want for France, against France’s destiny (the People). What is the EU thing anyway, face to France, a real and old nation. What is this imposture? An alibi for tomorrow’s economic (and military) wars? It’s nothing, a way to control European Peoples and memories. Europe is not a post-WW2 creation, if you remember well, but an old civilization, before it twice collapsed under the capitalists’ hands, in 14, in 40. Is it a kind of revenge against the country that liberated your dear Alsace (thanks to a few generals under the orders of “un déserteur”), and gave you the opportunity to learn the difference between a man that stand and says No and “un vendu” that lay down and profits?
The Lorraine Cross is still a present reality for aware people:

“ Appel à la commémoration du 60ème anniversaire du Conseil National de la Résistance. Au moment où nous voyons remis en cause le socle des conquêtes sociales de la libération, nous, vétérans des mouvements de Résistance des forces combattantes de la France Libre, 1940-1945, appelons les jeunes générations à faire vivre et retransmettre l’héritage de la résistance, et ses idéaux toujours actuels de démocratie économique, sociale, culturelle.

Soixante ans plus tard, le nazisme est vaincu, grâce au sacrifice de nos frères et sœurs de la Résistance et des nations unies, contre la barbarie fasciste. Mais cette menace n’a pas disparu, et notre colère contre l’injustice est toujours intacte.

Nous appelons en conscience à célébrer l’actualité de la Résistance, non pas au profit de causes partisanes ou instrumentalisée par un quelconque enjeu de pouvoir, mais pour proposer aux générations qui nous succèderont trois gestes humanistes et profondément politiques au sens vrai du terme pour que la flamme de la résistance ne s’éteigne jamais.

Nous appelons d’abord les éducateurs, les mouvements sociaux, les collectivités publiques, les créateurs, les citoyens, les exploités, les humiliés, à célébrer ensemble l’anniversaire du Conseil National de la Résistance adopté dans la clandestinités le 15 mars 1944 : sécurité sociale et retraite généralisée, contrôle des féodalités économiques, droit à la culture et à l’éducation pour tous, une presse délivrée de l’argent et de la corruption, loi sociales ouvrières et agricoles...

Comment peut-il manquer aujourd’hui de l’argent pour maintenir et prolonger ces conquêtes sociales, alors que la production de richesses a considérablement augmenté depuis la libération, période où l’Europe était ruinée. Les responsables politiques, économiques, intellectuels, et l’ensemble de la société, ne doivent pas démissionner, ni se laisser impressionner par l’actuelle dictature internationale des marchés financiers qui menacent la démocratie et la paix.
Nous appelons ensuite les mouvements, partis, associations, institutions et syndicats héritiers de la Résistance à dépasser les enjeux sectoriels, et à se consacrer en priorités aux causes politiques des injustices et des conflits sociaux, et non plus seulement à leurs conséquences, à définir ensemble un nouveau « programme de résistance » pour notre siècle, sachant que le fascisme se nourrit toujours du racisme, de l’intolérance et de la guerre, qui eux-mêmes se nourrissent des injustices sociales.

Nous appelons enfin les enfants, les jeunes, les parents, les anciens, et les grands parents, les éducateurs, les autorités publiques, à une véritable insurrection pacifique, contre les moyens de communication de masse, qui ne proposent comme horizon pour notre jeunesse, que la consommation marchande, le mépris des plus faibles et de la culture, l’amnésie généralisée et la compétition à outrance de tous contre tous. Nous n’acceptons pas que les principaux médias soient désormais contrôlés par des intérêts privés, contrairement au programme du Conseil National de la Résistance et aux ordonnances sur la presse de 1944. Plus que jamais à celles et ceux qui feront le siècle qui commence, nous voulons dire avec notre affection : créer c’est résister, résister c’est créer. »

The only destiny for France belongs to France. Without the nation that you’re betraying to this “machin” (to quote “un déserteur”), for your personnal comfort, be sure you’ll finish ruined.

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both”. Benjamin Franklin

(Historical recall: the communists that you would like to show for ideological reasons, as Hitler’s allies (truth doesn’t bother you so much Mr Strohl), are not responsible of the “inevitable defeat” in 1939, first because there is no defeat (“defeat” is a collaborationist concept, and the Reich is dead), second because the communists were the worst nighmare of the nazis during the 30s, the occupation in France, and until Berlin’s take.) You will not make lie history. Truth always reappears.

[Daniel Strohl]

LITTLE BIG HORN,

"Some people are old, realist, collabo, rightist, Alsacian, sold to capitalism, and europeist" - je me suis fait habiller de première !

But I appreciate caustic humour, even if it is "à mes dépens" ...

I appreciate also your style and your culture (this is a sincere compliment, not "une mise en boîte"). But, of course, our political opinions are different, to say the least.

The French text you have quoted is well written - I am a little bit "vexé" because I was not able to find any error either in spelling or in grammar - this is not very common nowadays.

About history : as you have brilliantly demonstrated (you quote "un déserteur" but forget to mention the second one), when one looks at history using marxist dialectics, one will not get the same conclusions as if one uses "normal" arguments. Dear old Georges Marchais would have appreciated ... "Truth always reappears" - yes, but with various colours!

But I will stop right now, otherwise Charles may throw both of us out of his blog, since we squat most of the disk space sparingly alloted to him by the greedy Anglo-Saxon newspaper called The Times.