As of June 2007, I have redesigned and relaunched the site at
This page won’t be updated anymore, and remains here for archiving purposes. After all, that’s a piece of my history.

I’m just next door, really. I have consolidated all the content of the site since 2002, and I’m running on a much improved software.

Please update bookmarks and blogrolls: (preferred)

See you there.

A compter de juin 2007, j'ai redesigné et relancé le site en
Cette page ne sera plus mise à jour, et demeure à titre d'archive. Après tout, c'est un morceau de mon histoire.

Je ne suis pas loin, vraiment. J'ai consolidé tout le contenu depuis 2002, et je tourne sur un logiciel bien plus amélioré.

Merci de mettre à jour bookmarks et blogrolls: (de préférence)

Rendez-vous là-bas.

Previous: Redundancy @ the BBC • Redondance @ la BBC
Next: One Volk, One Vote • Un Peuple, Un Vote

May 24, 2004

Stop Them. Now. • Stoppez Les. Maintenant.

Fired from France by the dissident frogman

I sincerely hope that somebody, somewhere is watching them and is ready to take action:

(Original declaration in French.)
Plenary sessions, verbatim report of proceedings/Debates:
« Debates of the European Parliament


Situation in the Middle East

Coûteaux (EDD). – (FR) Madam President, the most surprising thing about our debate is our surprise, for Israel's expansionist policy is the inevitable and predictable result of the growing imbalance in the region, the stability for which we bear much of the responsibility. Firstly that is because since 1967 most of our states, with the notable exception of France, have continued to give the State of Israel – a state that is growing increasingly self-assured and domineering – the impression that it can violate international law and UN resolutions with impunity.

In reality, here as elsewhere we have followed Washington and persist in closing our eyes to the theocratic excesses of this religious state whose governments are under the thumb of fanatical parties and minorities that are just as bad as the other groups of religious fanatics in the region. That is why we should envisage imposing sanctions on Israel.

There is, however, another serious imbalance for which we are in part responsible, namely the imbalance of forces. I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot simply do whatever it wants. That is the policy my country (DF: i.e. France) pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force. We have now destroyed it. So we will carry on with our policy of imbalance and what is happening today is merely the annoying but inevitable result of our collective blindness and cowardice. »
No matter the "we", I'll set aside the fact that this degenerate EUrocrat is openly deploring that Saddam Hussein's regime was destroyed. He can only cry a river and wet his diapers out of frustration here, thank to the Coalition.

Yet the worse is of course that he is advocating "balancing" the force by handing in nuclear weapons (again) to the remaining tyrants in the Middle East.

He is advocating that idea today, [UPDATE: Well, not really, or at least, not as voicely. See the update #2 at the end of this post. Yeah, yeah, bad Frogman] in the current wartime context, while we know exactly what Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia are up to. And while we're closing to the 60th anniversary of D-Day... and the third of 9/11.

If that doesn't make him a declared enemy of the free world, I wonder what will.

Besides, he is doing it in a public debate at the European Parliament, no less. He's a French "sovereignist", which is to say a right wing Socialist, however you should make no mistake: if most of the others, whatever their side, may not be at the point where they would say that as clearly - not yet -, you'll be hard pressed to hear them disagree anyway. He is simply expressing what they more or less secretly think, hope or even work to.

France, her "sovereignists" and just about all her different kind of Socialists is at war too. Against America and the ideals she stands for.

What is America waiting for to fight back?

(Thank to E.B. for the information)
That bloke has a website.
All right: too much work, not enough wine (or could it be the opposite?) and I simply missed it:

First, my remark about the timing of the sovereignist sordidness is wrong indeed, as some more alert commentators noticed. The transcript is pre-9/11, not post. Yet does it make less sense? I'm afraid I don't think so.

For more recent "material", visit his website where you will find other transcripts of his intervention at the European Parliament (and enjoy his rhetoric, notably on Iraq, in the line of "the goal is to massively destroy Iraq to achieve the ideological industrial meccano of the little gang of wallet holding zealots that reign in Washington"). I couldn't find any "let's give 'em nukes again", but many that would really be over the top in our day and age - which is actually the reason why I've been so outraged when I received the link.

Profuse apologies, I'll have more wine next time.

Having said that:

BJL from Revue Politique writes to tell me that they are the busy bees who found the information on the European Parliament site and wrote an extensive article on the inspired right wing socialist, on May the 19 (yeah, this year): "When villiéristes want nuclear weapons for the Arab countries" ("villiéristes" being one of the flavor of the sovereignist's... let's "gang" shall we? You know, the Grandeur de la France® and all that). Many thanks to Revue Politique for that.

Somebody asked if, considering that this declaration was indeed preceding 9/11, the position of this Equitable European MP could have changed. Revue Politique thinks that it's very unlikely, and I'm inclined to agree with them:
« Not only is there no reason to believe that September 11 changed anything, but looking at the slip in the French political debate, it is certain that this kind of stance came out bolstered by the rampant anti-Zionism and ant-Americanism »
So there you go. Make up your own mind, at the light of, say, France's fervid activity in the Iraqi crisis.
Okay, I'm way behind the curve on this one: Merde in France had the Sinister Sovereignists exposed a few days ago. From a different source though.
In the comments, Harald remarks:
« Now, what really scares me is that there were enough morons in the electoral districts to elect such a bloke »
Indeed, contrarily to the members of the European Commission, the members of the Parliament are elected.
Having said that, and when it comes to that EUropean monstrosity, I can't make any distinction between co-opted autocrats and mediocrats elected by abstention, really.

Yet the real question now is: will the sinister Coûteaux run again in the upcoming 13 June elections? And in the affirmative, will he be reelected despite - or thank to - his genocidal proposals?
He is running for the elections. See the next post.
J'espère sincèrement que quelqu'un, quelque part est en train de les surveiller tout en étant prêt à passer à l'action :

Séances plénières, Compte rendu in extenso des séances/Débats :
« Débats du Parlement européen


Situation au Moyen-Orient

Coûteaux (EDD). - Madame la Présidente, le plus étonnant dans notre débat, c'est notre étonnement, car la politique expansionniste d'Israël est le résultat inévitable et prévisible du déséquilibre croissant dans la région, équilibre dans lequel nous portons une très grande part de responsabilité. D'abord parce que la plupart de nos États - à l'exception notable de la France -n'ont pas cessé, depuis 1967, de donner l'impression à l'État d'Israël - un État de plus en plus sûr de lui et dominateur - qu'il pouvait impunément violer la loi internationale et les résolutions de l'ONU.

En réalité, nous avons suivi, là comme ailleurs, Washington et nous persistons à fermer les yeux sur la dérive théocratique de cet état religieux dont les gouvernements se trouvent placés sous la coupe de partis et de minorités fanatiques qui n'ont rien à envier aux autres fanatismes religieux de la région. Pour ces raisons, nous devrions envisager des sanctions à l'encontre d'Israël.

Mais il y a un autre déséquilibre grave où notre responsabilité est engagée, c'est le déséquilibre des forces. Il faut que nous envisagions - je n'hésite pas à le dire - à doter la partie arabe d'une force suffisante, y compris d'une force nucléaire suffisante, pour qu'Israël ne se croit pas tout permis. C'était la politique qu'avait engagée mon pays (DF : c.a.d. la France) dans les années 70 en dotant l'Irak de l'arme nucléaire. Nous l'avons détruite. Nous allons donc persister dans notre politique de déséquilibre et ce qui arrive aujourd'hui n'est que le résultat fâcheux, mais inévitable, de notre aveuglement et de notre lâcheté collective. »
Qu'importe le "nous", je laisserai de côté le fait que cet EUrocrate dégénéré déplore ouvertement la destruction du régime de Saddam Hussein. Il ne peut que pleurer sa mère et mouiller ses couches de frustration sur ce point, grâce à la Coalition.

Cependant, le pire est qu'il défend "l'équilibre" des forces en fournissant (à nouveau) des armes nucléaires au reste des tyrans du Moyen Orient.

Il défend cette idée aujourd'hui [MISE A JOUR: Eh bien, pas vraiment en fait, en tout cas, pas à voix aussi haute. Voyez la mise à jour n°2 à la fin de ce post. Ouais, ouais, vilain Frogman] dans le contexte de guerre actuel, alors que nous savons exactement ce qu'il en est de la Syrie, de l'Iran ou de l'Arabie Saoudite. Alors que nous approchons du 60eme anniversaire du Jour-J... et du troisième du 11 Septembre.

Si cela n'en fait pas un ennemi déclaré du monde libre, j'ai peine à concevoir ce qu'il y faudrait.

De plus, il s'y livre au sein d'un débat public au Parlement Européen, pas moins. C'est un "souverainiste" français, en d'autres termes un socialiste de droite, mais vous ne devriez cependant pas vous y tromper : si la plupart des autres, quel que soit leur camp, n'en sont peut être pas - encore - au point de faire ce genre de proposition aussi ouvertement, vous seriez bien en peine de les entendre différer quoi qu'il en soit. Il exprime simplement ce qu'ils pensent, souhaitent ou même mettent en oeuvre, plus ou moins secrètement.

La France, ses "souverainistes" et toute la gamme de ses socialistes est en guerre elle aussi. Contre l'Amérique et les idéaux qu'elle représente.

Qu'attends l'Amérique pour riposter ?

(Merci à E.B. pour l'info)
Ce type a un site web.
D'accord: trop de travail, pas assez de vin (ou l'inverse ?) et je l'ai tout simplement manqué :

Tout d'abord, ma remarque sur le timing de la sordidité souverainiste est incorrecte en effet, ainsi que de plus alertes commentateurs l'ont remarqué. La transcription est antérieure au 11 Septembre et non pas postérieure. Cela est il pourtant moins pertinent ? J'ai bien peur que non.

Pour de plus récents "matériaux", visitez son site web où vous trouverez d'autres transcriptions de ses interventions au Parlement Européen (et où vous apprécierez sa rhétorique, notablement sur l'Irak, dans la ligne de "le but poursuivi est de détruire massivement l'Irak pour satisfaire au meccano idéologico-industriel de la petite bande d'illuminés à portefeuille qui règnent à Washington."). Je n'ai pas trouvé mention de "refilons leur encore du nucléaire", mais peut être cela serait il vraiment trop dans le contexte actuel - raison de mon outrage lorsque j'ai reçu le lien.

Profondes excuses, je me servirai plus de vin la prochaine fois.

Cela dit:

BJL de Revue Politique écrit pour m'informer qu'ils sont les vaillants chercheurs derrière l'exhumation de cette transcription sur le site du Parlement Européen et qu'ils ont écrit un long article sur le socialiste de droite inspiré, le 19 mai (ouais, de cette année): "Quand des villiéristes veulent l'arme nucléaire pour les pays arabes " (Les "villiéristes" étant l'un des parfums du... disons, "gang" des souverainistes. Vous savez, la Grandeur de la France® et tout). Tous mes remerciements à Revue Politique pour cela.

Quelqu'un s'interrogeait sur la possibilité que, considérant que cette déclaration a précédé le 11 Septembre, la position de cet Equitable MP Européen ait pu changer. Revue Politique pense que c'est peu probable, et je suis incliné à partager ce point de vue :
« Il n'ait non seulement aucune raison que le 11 septembre y ait changé quelque chose, mais au vue même du glissement du débat politique en France, il est certain que ce genre de positionnement s'est trouvé renforcé par l'antisionisme et l'anti-américanisme ambiant. »
Et voilà. Faites vous votre propre idée, à la lumière de, disons, l'activité fébrile de la France dans la crise irakienne.
Ok, je suis loin derrière sur ce coup là: Merde in France a exposé le Sinistre Souverainiste il y a quelques jours déjà. Avec une source différente cela dit.
Dans les commentaires, Harald remarque:
« ce qui me fiche vraiment la trouille, c'est qu'il y ait, dans des circonscriptions électorales, assez de neuneus pour voter pour des types pareils. »
Effectivement, contrairement à la Commission, les membres du Parlement européen sont élus. Cela dit, en ce qui concerne cette monstruosité EUropéenne, entre autocrates cooptés et médiocrates élus à l'abstention, je ne saurais franchement faire de distinction.

La question maintenant est: le sinistre Coûteaux est il sur les rangs pour les élections du 13 juin prochain. Et dans l'affirmative, sera-t-il réélu, en dépit de - ou grâce à - ses propos génocidaires ?
Il se présente aux élections. Voyez le post suivant


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stop Them. Now. • Stoppez Les. Maintenant.:

» France wants to give the Arabs nukes? from democrats give conservatives indigestion
I originally saw this linked on the Instapundit. If true, it's frightening news. Here's the original post from the dissident frogman. And somehow, it doesn't surprise me.... [Read More]

Tracked on May 25, 2004 02:37 AM

» Mad French Delegate Wants Arabs to Have Nukes from Josh Harvey's Middle East
This guy is just too much. Paul-Marie Coûteaux, a French delegate to the EU Parliament, loves Arab despots even more than he hates the US and Israel. The Dissident Frogman "brings our attention": to h... [Read More]

Tracked on May 25, 2004 04:09 AM

» Coûteaux: "Give French nukes to Arabs." from Brain Shavings
A translation by The Dissident Frogman reveals that Paul Marie Coûteaux (a French politician in the European Parliament) has gone on the record and urged France to give nuclear weapons to Arab regimes: "I have no hesitation in saying that... [Read More]

Tracked on May 25, 2004 05:04 AM

» the dissident frogman | Stop Them. Now. ? Stoppez Les. Maintenant. from The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill
Uh Oh not sure but this cannot be a good thing....I guess we should have paused in WW2 and rearmed Germany since the balance got out of whack at one point. These are the people that John Kerry wants to be allies with? [Read More]

Tracked on May 25, 2004 05:57 AM

» Imagine That from Random Nuclear Strikes
A Crazy, Anti-Semetic Frenchman. Paul-Marie Coûteaux, French Deputy to the EU Parliament. There is, however, another serious imbalance for which we are in part responsible, namely the imbalance of forces. I have no hesitation in saying that we must con... [Read More]

Tracked on May 25, 2004 06:36 AM

» France Wants To Arm Arabs? from Spacecraft
Dissident Frogman found this in Debates of the European Parliament:There is, however, another serious imbalance for which we are in part responsible, namely the imbalance of forces. I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab... [Read More]

Tracked on May 25, 2004 04:47 PM

» Confessions of a cluttered blogmind.... from Babalu Blog
The Swan more important than the President's speech? Perhaps GW should have had breast implants and word lingerie and pumps to do his speech. The French arming the Pallies? Nah. Heresy, n'est pas? Naked, green and wandering through the neighborhood... [Read More]

Tracked on May 25, 2004 08:16 PM

» Un monde multipolaire from Free Goat
Pour mon compte-rendu de l'infrarouge sur Schengen, j'ai failli oublier un sacré gros morceau, une phrase sortie par Jean Studer, comme quoi "l'Europe", comprenez, un Super-Etat européen, serait nécessaire pour assurer "un monde multipolaire". Un monde... [Read More]

Tracked on May 26, 2004 08:23 PM


Appeasement is one thing, but this sounds more like a strangelove version of the worlds biggest sucide bomber. What a dumb ass.

Posted by: Tom | May 25, 2004 02:29 AM

This idiot can't be serious. He may think that'll show the cowboy Americans and the Joos, but does he honesly think France will somehow be immune to blackmail by a nuclear-bomb-wielding latter-day Saladin? Or doesn't he even care?

Posted by: RebeccaH | May 25, 2004 02:36 AM

The French (along with the Vatican) have long supported Arab Nationalism and have been fundamentally hostile to Zionism to the point of being willing to see the Jewish state be overcome by the Arabs and the Jews either driven into the sea or returned to their traditional position of dhimmitude and nonperson status under Islam.

The pope doesn't have nukes, but the French do, and they've been happy to share. "Chiraq" is a crony of Saddam and was instrumental in supporting Iraqi nuclear weapons programs. The perfidiousness of the French knows virtually no bounds.

Posted by: Rob | May 25, 2004 02:49 AM

"right wing Socialist"

That sounds like "fascist" to me. How accurate is that perception?

Posted by: Paul Stinchfield | May 25, 2004 03:09 AM

Time to add france to the list of countries we should nuke if we are ever nuked. Stupid little bitches.

Posted by: Derek | May 25, 2004 03:13 AM

The French have never had to learn the lesson we Americans call "blowback."

We supported the mujahedin in Afghanistan... and twenty years later they attacked us. We support Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, even going so far as to look the other way as they both developed and used weapons we had committed to destroying, and twenty years later we fought a war to deprive them of those weapons.

If the French give (say) Syria nuclear weapons, how many decades will it be before a Syrian nuclear weapon explodes on French soil?

Giving the enemies of Israel nuclear weapons is not only immoral, it's profoundly stupid.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell | May 25, 2004 03:28 AM

This transcript is dated 16 May, 2001. Not that that excuses the fascist nut job, but it isn't brand new atrocious comments. Just the same old stuff. I wonder if he thought the PA should have French nukes, and if so, would he make delivery in Paris?

Posted by: TTB | May 25, 2004 03:40 AM

Isn't this from 2001, and his comments on what's been "destroyed" refer to the Osirik site? Not that it makes this view defensible, but unless I read the date wrong or that's a typo, it's not as if this is a post-9/11 statement.

Posted by: Crank | May 25, 2004 03:41 AM

France has introduced nuclear weapons into the Middle East, yes. Apart from Iraq, French aid was crucial in the Israeli nuclear program. Absent help under de Gaulle, Dimona might still be a civilian nuclear reactor.

Posted by: Randy McDonald | May 25, 2004 04:30 AM

I agree with the previous two posters: this is an old article, is it not? Finding out his present views would be the fair thing to do.

Posted by: The Sanity Inspector | May 25, 2004 04:32 AM

Immorality and stupidity go hand-and-hand. In a perverse way I'd like to see France give Palestinians nuclear weapons. It would leave Israel no choice but to strike first thus ridding the world of a troublesome religion. But... that's just me.

Posted by: Kevin D. | May 25, 2004 04:37 AM

Non mais il est malade c'te gars-là! C'est ça qui arrive quand on fume ses chaussettes.

Posted by: Avary | May 25, 2004 04:56 AM

Well, that explains france's equipping Saddam with a nuclear weapons factory.

By crikey, is the French socialisto govt. perniscious to say the least. Equipping Arab countries with nuclear weapons let alone a fully worked up adavnced programme as the French propose would be to unleash hell on earth.

In what sense can diplomacy be conducted with a counrty which is hell bent on things which pose a threat to not simply the west but civilsation full stop. It is difficult to comprehend what is passed as analysis and policy formulation within the French govt: one day it is, we must stop international commerce, then it's how to bring McDonald's down, and then how to equip some very bad regimest of countries harbouring some of the nastiest outfits in the world with nucleear weapons and for what: to attack the only civilised country in the mid East, Israel.
And I believed the perfidy of the French govt. had bottomed.

Posted by: d | May 25, 2004 05:07 AM

But what about the Non-proliferation Treaty? No Frenchman would unilaterally break such a well respected international agreement, would they?

Posted by: blaster | May 25, 2004 05:23 AM

I am French and I today I can tell that I am ashamed. May the Lord have mercy on us all...

Posted by: Greg | May 25, 2004 05:38 AM

Il est fou. Il est fou. Il est fou. Au secouuuuuuuuurs!

He's mad. He's mad. He's mad. Helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllp!

Posted by: French Libertarian | May 25, 2004 07:17 AM

Can anyone tell me how important this guy is? Is he in the ruling party? How big is his party? is he a senior member?
More improtantly have any major politicians came out and told him to shut up? Has Chiraq said anything? did most people just ignore this becaus it happens everyday?

Posted by: Troy | May 25, 2004 07:44 AM

this guy is born under vichy, he lived under vichy, he is vichy.

Posted by: jean aymare | May 25, 2004 08:04 AM

Here is the Vichyguy's profile on the Parlement site:

Posted by: loeil | May 25, 2004 08:15 AM "members" and Paul Couteaux

Posted by: loeil | May 25, 2004 08:16 AM

You realise these are fighting words, right? Lets be very clear about this. If he is a lone nutter from some predominately ultra-lib district, who is re elected sans opposition due to demographics, we can over look it . After all Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the house.

From all appearances we have to conclude that this wasn't a concern at the time of utterance. Maybe we need more context. A transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the other ministers responces?

DF, You might want to take that trip you have been thinking about. Not just yet, but I would keep the bags packed.

Posted by: Papertiger | May 25, 2004 09:27 AM

Cela fait froid dans le dos !

Posted by: Maryse | May 25, 2004 09:43 AM

Why is anyone surprised that someone would support giving nuclear weapons to a dictator?

There are imbecils who still believe that giving nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union was a good thing, "balancing" power between the United States and another comparable "pole." The trouble is, because the Soviet pole was trying to establish permanent police states in its totalitarian image all over the world, its possession of nuclear weapons effectively stymied, for four decades, America's 20th-Century push for global freedom and democracy.

To counter the Soviet pathology, the United States itself had to make temporary deals with autocratic dictatorships.

However, since the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States has been able to press on for democracy. Every nation in the Western Hemisphere, except Cuba, has held elections (yes, some were freer than others), with U.S. support. And even in Iraq, where the Soviet threat once suffocated democratic aspirations, liberation finally is possible.

The point is this: For freedom, the worst thiing in the world is dictatorships with nuclear weapons. Free nations have an obligation to help the oppressed, but they cannot be expected to commit suicide to liberate an imprisoned nation.

Nuclear dictatorships are especially dangerous because of their secret decision-making, their unpredictability, and the lack of accountability of dictators to the press, to opposition political parties, to courts or to voters.

Russia today has about the same number of nuclear weapons that it had before the Soviet Union died, but because Russia has established rudimentary democratic institutions, its decision-making is open just enough to remove the unpredictability that made the Soviet Union so dangerous. (Let's urge the Russians to make their democracy even stronger.)

Openness and accountability are the reasons that no two democracies went to war with each other in the entire 20th Century. Secrecy and unaccountability are the reasons that dictators killed more of their own people in those 100 years than all the world's wars combined. That record is proof that democracies must replace every dictatorship in the Middle East.

We should not be making dictators more powerful. We should be helping the people in every dictatorship to claim their human right to democratic power. When the Middle East is free, it finally will see peace.

Frank Warner

Posted by: Frank Warner | May 25, 2004 10:04 AM

"right wing Socialist"
That sounds like "fascist" to me. How accurate is that perception?

Very accurate indeed. I could be nitpicking as to define fascism strictly as right-wing, but that’s a minor issue really. The “sovereignists” are a part of the larger nationalist swamp, among which you’ll find for instance, Mr Le Pen. They are not lepenists, at least not technically, but they do share a great deal of views with them.

Can anyone tell me how important this guy is? Is he in the ruling party? (…)

Not exactly. Well… no, not really, even though they are closer to Chirac’s ruling party than, say, the Green. To put it very briefly, Chirac’s party is a spawn of Gaullism, that emanated from de Gaulle, while the “sovereignists” are the kind of blokes that don’t really believe de Gaulle is dead (as well as Napoleon and Jehan of Arc actually).
As to know if Mr. Chirac had anything to say about that, well, I can’t tell really. But then, bear in mind what this guy recalls: ” That is the policy my country pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force. “, and that is to say… Mr Chirac precisely, who was France’s Prime Minister at the time (I imagine everybody saw that picture of young Chirac and Hussein having fun in white casaque).

I agree that more contexts could be interesting (mind you: the bloke is an MP, not a minister) but then, the simple idea that elected members of the European Parliament can even think about such policy is way off limits. This is, to put it bluntly, an open call for genocide.

As for the trip, I can tell you that I’m closer to it than I’ve never been so far. I still have a long way to America, but I should be definitely and permanently entering the Anglosphere (at least) pretty soon. That’s a start, and I’m so sick with France that I just can’t stand it anymore, anyway.

Thanks for that extensive comment. Take a seat, be my guest in the dacha. And welcome to my blogroll.

Posted by: the dissident frogman | May 25, 2004 11:45 AM

"I have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel that it cannot..."

That's really scary. Sounds like a stupid dumbass paying for his own death. Thanks for the bullet, here's the tip, mr.Ossama.
It's really ashaming to read how our takes are used. paying those Eurocrappers his bullshit.
Before i used to think France was the only one country stupid enough to act this way, after the elections in my country i realized i was wrong.
Yes, i'm from Surrenderstan.

Posted by: Victor Bueno | May 25, 2004 12:09 PM

I have just returned to the UK after a week in Normandie, the majority of the population seem to have a real sense of gratitude for the sacrifices of D Day, intrestingly the Germans have 40 thousand buerried there, america 30 thou, England 20 thou and French civillian losses 20 thou and French army seventeen (not thousand just seventeen!) I think the French are great, but we need to remember that France is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship, it adds up if you look at it like that.

Posted by: Chris Edwards | May 25, 2004 01:41 PM

we need to remember that France is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship

Technically no, and practically... Well, sort of indeed. I believe that we should use such terms (dictatorship) carefully - France is not Cuba to that respect - but I certainly understand what you mean. I would agree that there is a de facto ruling class that gets going almost for life, with a few polls in between that happen to be nothing but a simulacrum of people's choice. Face it, most if not all, of the mainstream French politicians have been running the show for the last 10, 20 or even 30 years, which is one of the reasons why they're so utterly corrupted: it's just too easy to help yourself (and "friends") in that context. And I won't mention nepotism as a general rule.

Besides, electoral regulations protect the said nomenklatura by making it outstandingly difficult for any new alternative to arise with any significant chance in the ballots. I'm not even sure they was more than a couple of genuinely new alternatives able to balance the corrupted old order in that country for the last 60 years - the endless row of mix-ups, splits and (re)united fronts of all kind doesn't count of course.

It's just there to help the money laundring.

Posted by: the dissident frogman | May 25, 2004 02:12 PM

Ce qui est inquiétant en premier lieu, c'est que notre système de santé que la terre entière nous envie n'ait pas détecté ce dangereux malade pour l'interner dans un asile.
Maintenant ce qui me fiche vraiment la trouille, c'est qu'il y ait, dans des circonscriptions électorales, assez de neuneus pour voter pour des types pareils.
La France est vraiment un pays foutu.

Posted by: Harald | May 25, 2004 03:38 PM

France , véritable "état voyou " ...!

Posted by: isa | May 25, 2004 05:19 PM

By the time my kids are my age, there will be a French President named Mohammed

Posted by: Evan | May 25, 2004 05:31 PM

Evan - if by "President" you mean in the Husseinian sense, then yes, you're probably running even money at this point.

As for the comments being from May 2001 - eh. Subsequent events have proven that this "idea" is willfully suicidal. I worry a bit more about the Spanish capitulation and what may thus happen in my own country come October or November; I worry about putting out "Nothing Accomplished" bumper stickers (as obvious a lie as one is likely to see in just two words) - and having people believe it; I worry about defeatists in the governments in the West surrendering a fight which is, all told, going remarkably well.

MDF, nothing can replace your homeland, of course, but make yourself free of ours - you are welcome for as long as you please.

Posted by: Nightfly | May 25, 2004 07:06 PM

To those who suggest that because the remarks were made in 2001, they do not relfect M. Couteaux's current thinking, I suggest you look at his website. The remarks are listed there, suggesting he still endorses them.

As someone else wrote, French perfidiousness knows no bounds. We really should have let the Germans keep France back in 1871.

Posted by: Rob | May 25, 2004 08:08 PM

Nightfly, Ditto. 'Nuf said.

Posted by: Mike H. | May 26, 2004 04:14 AM

Your correspondents reveal their own racist fascist tendencies when they talk about the desire to nuke the Palestinians. The hatred for Arabs fostered by the US media has obviously brainwashed all your common sense away. Israel and the US are the largest terrorists in the world today and are killing Arabs and occupying their lands, stealing their oil. Wake up and smell the coffee. The torture, rape and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was not a few bad apples but is a deliberate criminal policy of the west. We the West are the terrorists. Not the french, not the Iraqi's and not the palestinians.

Posted by: Rolon Kelnius | May 26, 2004 02:32 PM

Hmmm... Rolon my boy(?) any other day, I would simply have dismissed your preposterous clichés (we occupy, we steal oil, we this, we that, and some of us have big noses) -- considering how out of phase they are with that annoying thing that's called "Reality" -- and your sorry screed would already be part of the Great Oblivion, thank to my "delete" key, but I'm in a playful mood today and it's such a joy to see that you did your homework like a nice boy and can recite "Down with US imperialist!" without errors that I'm going to let it be here for others to enjoy. Good boy(?) Rolon.

Now, I won't blame you for excluding France from the West - I'm pretty much inclined to believe the same - but then, I assume that you are part of "the West" (you wrote "We" didn't you?) and therefore I wonder where that self-hatred can possibly come from? No girlfriend lately? A boring job? Or worse, a job (Oh the horror)?

Anyway, I guess the more important is: how are you going to cope with the fact that you are, self- allegedly, a larger deliberate brainwashed Western criminal terrorist racist fascist hater, killing, occupying, raping, abusing and stealing oil, while asleep and until you wake up and smell the coffee? What are you going to do about that Dude?

I can suggest, say, a protest. Maybe you could design one of those big signs that people would carry.
It could read: "Down with larger deliberate brainwashed Western criminal terrorist racist fascist hater, killing, occupying, raping, abusing and stealing oil, while asleep and until they wake up and smell the coffee!!"

And then after that you'll have a die-in or something. Gonna be fun.

Posted by: the dissident frogman | May 26, 2004 02:54 PM

No sooner do I worry about self-loathers than one shows up, as if summoned. But thank you, Rolon - because your words are so absurd, they reassure me. No way I can worry while laughing so hard. I suspect you're inhaling something much stronger than coffee.

Looking back now, I don't see a single person who said we ought to nuke Palestine. One guy wanted to add France to the list of countries to nuke IF - wait for it - "IF we are ever nuked." That's not really the same thing. If Saddam had nukes, would he have shown even 60 days of restraint? We've had The Bomb for sixty YEARS, and haven't used it since WW2.

Your post is a fine example of that curious malady which inverts all character flaws - it is actually the PLO and its soulmates that are vicious and embittered, and who as official policy: 1. make no distinctions between civilian and military targets; 2. intentionally maximize collateral damage; 3. refuse to follow the conventions of war (wearing uniforms and such); 4. speak of their enemies as subhuman (pigs and dogs and such); 5. torture prisoners. It's all there on for the reading, so by all means don't take my word for it. Meanwhile, we broke the Abu Ghraib story ourselves, not Ibn el-Woodward of Al Ghazeera. The Army was investigating these allegations two months before the public found out, and they've already started to stick folks in the pokey for it. And our media is far tougher on us than it is on Muslims or Arabs - remember that Reuters refused even to use the word "terrorists" in connection to the 19 hijackers.

Posted by: Nightfly | May 26, 2004 05:05 PM

France has no monopoly on idiots for politicians, simply read the news and you will find the inept, ideological bloodsuckers in every country. Although the quote is "old", the thoughts behind it are alive and well today as they were when first uttered.
The world seems to have turned upside down. Europeans had no problems killing each other in the millions until after WWII. Now there seems to be resentment for countries like Israel and the U.S. who have tired of bleeding because their neighbors or ideological enemies insist on trying to eliminate them and their way of life. The U.S. has given aid and shed blood for almost every country in the world and Israel simply wants to exist, yet the howls for their demise come from those who would benefit the most from simpy discarding their status as "victims" and work to come into the 21st Century.
The Palestinians have managed to make almost every nation in which they resided cast them out and they insist on continuing to live in poverty instead of ridding themselves of the idea of destroying the jews and instead educate their children while making true peace with the Israelis. Eventually, the rest of the world is going to decide that socialism and despotism are the true threats to peace and will no longer tolerate them. China and Russia will come to the point where ideology is trumped by the knowledge that cooperation will further their comforts they have become used to than by trying to take it by force which means that N. Korea will be forced to give up it's nuclear blackmail because China has too much to lose in supporting a lunatic that may cause their destruction by default. One can only pray that these things come to pass before some fool decides to martyr themself and in turn cause the nuclear holocaust we so feared in the last century!

Posted by: Ded | May 26, 2004 11:43 PM


Israel and the US are not terrorists. We win, but no other nations so contrain themselves to fight by the agreed laws of war. Certainly France does not.

Why do we win? Because we fight on the side of freedom, law, goodness and right, and hence we are able to find allies. France fights for its bureaucracy, and hence its most effective fighting unit consists of soldiers not from France (La Legion Etrangere).

The Jews are fighting for survival, to stop fiends who would murder them all, and thinks that beginning with a few women and children is appropriate. Such people are terrorists.

Israel did not steal land, but rather won it in a war started by the Arabs. The US continues to relinquish land whenever and wherever we conquer, as we did in 1944-1945. The land we have gained since then joined the US by vote.

By comparison, France was evil in Morocco, odius in Algeria, and disgusting in the Ivory Coast.

Posted by: Don M | June 1, 2004 03:27 AM

For those who think that the Jews won their land honestly I can say that they have a hole in their head. The land was usurped or taken by stealth under the pretence that it was given to them by God. What a ridiculous idea!. If God wanted them to have this land they wouldn't have to go and kill people from the Helicopters against human beings unarmed. Why then God led the Jews go in circle for forty long years without telling them where they should be. Gaza was never a Jewish land from the beginning of the world's existence, and yet they claim that it is. Babylon was never a Jewish land. Isarael as we know it now was nothing more than a few tribes. Wake up people of the world the Jews wants it all exactly like the Muslims, by force helped by the damn Americans.

Posted by: Mr. James Simon | September 16, 2004 12:54 AM

A Jewish homeland is all that the Israelis want, not conversion of the entire world like the extremist Muslims. Why Israel was created and how is rather between the extremes, in my take from the History section of the following site: .

It is apparently very easy to become Islamic: all one has to say is that "I am a Muslim" to a witness. Once so identified, it becomes fatal, again in the Extremists' eyes, to fail that religious doctrine. Reading the Koran (in English, another blashphemy aparently) shows it regards compassion toward the less advantaged as one of the pillars, in giving alms to the poor. But criticize Islam, either from within or without, and it appears that Islam contains the ability to issue death threats that are grabbed up by a wide ranging population... see Salman Rushdie, for instance.

Islam as a whole for years didn't SEEM to have a problem with Judaism. It's the Zionists and their imperative to have the land once occupied by their ancestors that clogs the throats of Islam, especially at the cost of their brethren in Palestine/Israel. Objectively looked at, on the site listed above, the creation of Israel wasn't so black and white, but was deemed by many to be called for in light of widespread anti-Semitism over the years. When Israel finally did become a reality, there were shops, businesses, families existing next to each other that were both Jewish and Muslim, and they existed in a sort of dark harmony, but not overall in conflict. But it has been the governments of the Arab countries all around Israel, and others in the MIddle East and North Africa, that have several times tried to extinguish Israel. Never mind that the Arabic peoples have themselves been at odds with each other for centuries, even before definitive nations evolved. It leads one to see it all as: We are a family (Arabic peoples), and can fight and insult each other, but anyone outside pays dearly for that act. Distantly related, in my view, to some Blacks in the U.S. calling each other N****r, but having that derogatory epithet spouted by someone not within that racial definition considered (rightly so) heinous.

Islam already has a nuclear-capable entity: Pakistan. It is currently balanced, in no small part, by their neighbor and antipathetic power, India. And in Pakistan exists a great conundrum to the world that wants to see a democratic tide free numerous peoples: it is run by a military dictator. That he has worked with the forces attempting to quell the extremes of Islam in that corner of the world, has been friendly toward the U.S. and allies in a war on terror, doesn't negate the fact that he took power from the parliamentary process. The majority of people in Pakistan, I'm not sure what their stance would be on the world's troubles there. That the Pakistani bomb would be used if in the hands of the representatives of the majority there would be more likely. Where it would be used: local region, most likely. Would it be used against Israel? A greater liklihood if the powerfully opinionated in Pakistan had the power. A mirror, of sorts, of other Islamic powers' intents? Not out of the question. That is why allowing any other Islamic nation to possess nuclear weapons would ignite a conflagration that those of us old enough to remember was feared through the middle and late decades of the 20th century.

Posted by: Rich L. | September 19, 2004 03:49 PM

"Right-wing socialist/sovereignist" sounds a lot like "national socialist" to me. Sorry for the fulfillment of Godwin's law, but in context it seems appropriate.

Posted by: thoughtomator | February 17, 2005 11:39 PM