We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Head of IMF arrested: France in ‘disarray’ perhaps but why ‘disbelief’?

The arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the IMF and a member of the Socialist Party in France, on sexual assault charges in the USA has triggered a stream of bizarre collectivist wailing.

Arrest Throws France Into Disarray and Disbelief” says the New York Times…

But why ‘disbelief’? Now I have no idea as to the merits of this particular case and thus no position on this statist bastard’s guilt in this matter, but socialists are people with a profound sense of entitlement to what other people have but are not freely willing to give up without threats of violence.

So is it hard to believe that someone whose entire world view is based on using force to take what is private without prior consent might have used force to take what they wanted from a woman? It is not really so different.

73 comments to Head of IMF arrested: France in ‘disarray’ perhaps but why ‘disbelief’?

  • Ian

    I’m no friend of socialism, but it seems a bit harsh to conflate being a socialist with and being a sexual predator.

    I’ve heard that they eat babies though…

  • “A bit harsh” is not a real argument, Ian.

  • llamas

    IIRC, doesn’t he have ‘form’ for this sort of thing?

    Oh, the French, they’re so much more urbane and worldy and sophisticated about this sort of thing. These are the folks who have willingly harbored Roman Polanski for more than 30 years. Cue the bored-but-superior denunciations of those un-nuanced and primitive Americans in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

    llater,

    llamas

  • Brian

    The IMF has been responsible for more privatization of public property in the history of the world. Seriously, I would like to see one concrete example, with links of the IMF ever taking anything “private” and making it “public”. Also, the French Socialist party is essentially keynsian capitalist, which is why one of the world’s largest pro-capitalist privatization cheerleading organzations chose him to lead it…

  • I am sure people of any political persuasion can turn out to be sexual predators but to be a socialist is to place taking by force at the very centre of your world view… so I have the pre-supposition that such a person will be more likely to have no coherent moral views.

    It does not necessarily follow of course that a socialist will be a sexual predator and given the levels of contradictory incoherence people talk to carry around, I am sure many socialists who would think nothing of using the violence of the state to take everything a person owns, including the self ownership to enter into free exchange and contract, might therefore be less inclined to see another person’s right to self ownership has mattering rather less that people who actually value severalty and autonomy over utilitarian collectivism.

  • “keynsian capitalist,” is an oxymoron.

  • Laird

    The Associates Press is suggesting that this might be “part of a smear campaign by the unpopular President Nicolas Sarkozy”.

    How delicious.

  • This comes just as the French left has been celebrating the anniversary of Mitterand’s 1981 electoral triumph. The first thing they did was to nationalize the banks.

    I’ve always found that the French Socialists are closer in spirit to Mussolini’s corporatism or to Friderich List’s economic militarism than to Keynes. They use Keynes ; who deserves almost all the crap that he gets, if only for the fact that Nixon believed in him, to camouflage the origins of their philosophy.

    This opens the way for the French election next year to be fought between a Socialist Fascist (Hollande or Aubry ) and a real Fascist (Marine LePen) . Poor Sarko is becoming the French equivalent of Poor John Major, but with a better looking spouse.

  • I was struck by the way the BBC reported this. They seemed to be clutching at any straw to avoid the unpalatable truth that he might be guilty. This included “some sort of mix-up” (?) and that the maid might be “unstable” (!). Indeed that track almost had the BBC wallah suggest “hysteria” which made me feel I’d slipped through a time-vortex into about 1850.

    Now as to Perry’s theory on socialists and sex-offences – I don’t know. But I saw and heard myself this morning the BBC wriggle for him. Something I doubt they’d do if it had been a right-wing (or perceived right-wing) groper.

    New head of the IMF needed. I may apply. All I will say in the application is, “Greece can go fuck itself”. Job done. Well, it’s me or Gordon Brown. I dunno. Maybe Brown deserves the larger canvas. So far he’s been limited to being a mere economic Pol-Pot. This could elevate him to Mao status.

  • John K

    Silly M Strauss-Kahn, he should have waited till he got back to France to rape the maid, nothing could have happened to him there. The fact that he couldn’t wait a few hours to attempt a bit of rape tells me he really was getting too big for his boots.

  • Novus

    To be sure, “a bit harsh” is not an argument. But the equivalence Perry draws in the OP seems somewhat fatuous, if only because it overlooks the difference between collectivists acting together trying to take property by force and an individual, who happens to be a collectivist, acting alone trying to separate a chambermaid from her virtue.

    Hayek’s quoting of Niebuhr seems instructive here:

    There is a profound truth expressed in the title of Reinhold Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society — however little we can follow him in the conclusions he draws from his thesis. There is, indeed, as he says elsewhere, “an increasing tendency among modern men to imagine themselves ethical because they have delegated their vices to larger and larger groups.” To act on behalf of a group seems to free people of many of the moral restraints which control their behavior as individuals within the group.

    A man who in a political context is a collectivist with no respect for property is still, I think, capable as an individual, in a non-political context, of respecting women’s self-ownership. I’m not saying S-K is or isn’t capable of such a thing. I’m just saying that the fact that he is a collectivist doesn’t make him more likely to be a rapist. And it seems to me that in other contexts Perry would be the first to denounce the inferrence of personality traits from political views. Because isn’t that essentially the Gramscian nonsense of “the personal is political”?

  • Peter Whale

    Having lived in France for the past six years I am not surprised by this event. My kids told me that last night in the Euro-vision song contest only the French did not speak English. They have this mindset and petulance that goes with self righteousness and entitlement..Their politicians are imbued with it, local. area and national. On saying this they are exquisitely polite and charming as they fuck you, metaphorically speaking. They need a rampant Sarkosy with a second mandate to take them into a new found state of participation in this new world.
    Bring it on I love France.

  • A man who in a political context is a collectivist with no respect for property is still, I think, capable as an individual, in a non-political context, of respecting women’s self-ownership.

    A socialist might well not follow the logic of their position into their personal interactions (i.e. they are thankfully inconsistent). All I am saying it is hardly surprised me (hence no ‘disbelief’ on my part) when a statist… a socialist no less… turns out to have a more ‘joined up’ world view and use violence personally within civil society much as he advocates it collectively.

    When you say “in a non-political context, of respecting women’s self-ownership”… all that really means is he may not be willing to do face to face (personally remove the woman’s ability to exercise her self-ownership) what he is very willing to do via a third party and collectively (i.e. “politics”).

  • John K

    Peter:

    Not quite right, the Belgians spoke in French too.

  • Novus

    A socialist might well not follow the logic of their position into their personal interactions

    I think we’re coming at this from opposite directions. You seem to be saying that people derive the method and the morality of their personal interactions from their politics. I’m saying that even socialists were people before they were socialists, most of them with the ordinary range of human morals and inhibitions, and even though they “delegate their vices” to larger groups, they are still capable of acting honourably as individuals. I know, and am good friends with, plenty of people so virulently socialist that we never talk about politics at all, because neither of us can disguise his contempt for the other’s views, but it would surprise the hell out of me if any of them tried to rape a hotel maid. And even though they think I’m selfish and out to get what I can and screw everyone else, and even though it would, analogously, be very easy for them to say, “not surprised he raped someone, look at how selfish and greedy he is,” I would like to think that it would surprise the hell out of them if I were accused of rape.

    And I believe that to think otherwise, to allow yourself to be unsurprised by such an act merely because he’s a collectivist, is to draw precisely that noxious equivalence of the personal and the political.

  • And I believe that to think otherwise, to allow yourself to be unsurprised by such an act merely because he’s a collectivist, is to draw precisely that noxious equivalence of the personal and the political.

    But that “noxious equivalence of the personal and the political” describes my views quite fairly. To illustrate an extreme example, I do not care if Pol Pot was a perfect gentleman, witty raconteur and was kind to kittens…

    … just because someone is willing to deputise others to commit his crimes for him, I am not prepared to view his ‘personal’ interactions as somehow being in a different moral sphere of existence. I too know some very charming socialists and I too would be surprised if they raped someone…. but… you knew there was a but coming, I am less surprised when a collectivist of any stripe turns out to be a vile so-and-so as I do think it is actually the logical conclusion of their world view… but as people are not entirely logical, we end up with some socialists who would not dream of forcing themselves on a woman and no doubt the occasional incoherent libertarian rapist.

    But the later surprises me more when they do personally when their politics should indicate they should not. With a profound collectivist of any kind, doing something appalling is rather less of a surprise for obvious reasons.

  • RRS

    Most of this commentary seems to have gotten things a bit backward – that political leanings (or use of those routes to “status”) are what lead to certain express “deviations” (?) in personal behavior.

    It is more likely that persons of a tendency toward what remains of “deviant” behavior tend to select participation in particular forms of political participation.

    We should remember that this is not S-K’s first example of “indiscretion” (I think the French “elite” would call it).

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Well, since what he is alleged to have demanded is oral sex, which isn’t sex-sex according to President Clinton, it may not be rape-rape either. It could still be kidnapping-kidnapping, though.

    The nomenclature of the nomenklatura can be tricky.

  • John K

    Perry:

    I don’t entirely agree. I can’t imagine Clement Attlee forcing himself on a woman (even Mrs Attlee) even whilst he was busy nationalising the commanding heights of the economy. Equally, I am sure many a filthy capitalist exploiter may not have a squeaky clean sexual history. My point is that as an Enarque and French Master of the Universe, Strauss-Kahn could have gotten away with virtually anything he liked, if only he did it in France. The fact, or should I say allegation, that he couldn’t wait a few hours to try it on with with a servant means he really did think he was above the law. I’m only surprised he didn’t have a diplomatic passport.

  • but as people are not entirely logical

    This is a crucial point in all of this: not only that people are ‘not entirely logical’, most people most of the time are logically inconsistent with their moral convictions and principles. I think that this observation equally applies to both “good” and “bad” convictions and principles. To that extent, people who were surprised at Strauss-Kahn’s transgression seem to have expected him to be inconsistent – just like many, if not most of them, are. Which, in and of itself, is hardly surprising at all.

  • Mr Ecks

    [ comment somewhat edited by the management to make it readable... blockoftextcommentsareveryhardtoread ]

    There is of course another possibility here.

    However obnoxious a Socialist this fellow may be he was alone in a room with a woman. Thanks to changes in the laws of pretty much the entire Anglo-sphere(and beyond–ironically brought about by socialist evil) a woman can make whatever unsupported accusations she cares to and unless the man has proof positive (ie witnesses, film, DNA etc) that what the woman says is a lie then the man is guilty.

    The idea that there are no women who would lie about being raped or sexually asaulted is one of the most wicked deceits peddled by socialism. I do not know what the system is in the US but in the UK compensation would be paid to the women if he is found guilty and innocent or guilty there is at least the chance that her lawyers can re-stage any trial in a civil court (with even less need for objective evidence under looser civil rules) and try to get compensation from a very wealthy man. If he is found guilty in a criminal court the civil court would almost certainly find for her and award compensation.

    Street punk rapists have been ordered by US courts to pay millions to their victims (which of course they can’t making the whole thing a farce) but a rich man like this fellow….

    The alleged victim’s identity will remain anonymous regardless unless she is found to be a false accuser(if Sarkozy’s men are behind this that would be an extra attraction–journo’s will not know who the woman is so ferreting out any intell connection would be v diff). The fact that these events could certainly put more money in the alleged victims pockets than she has any chance of earning thro’ her present employment is something that must not be forgotten.

    However reprehensible this man’s politics may be there are too many white knights and manginas out there spewing hatred for any man accused of anything by a woman. Think carefully because, thanks to poisonous laws brought in by feminazi’s, ANY one of you could fall foul of the wrong woman (or just be a convienient mug in the wrong place/time) and find yourself in jail while a howling mob, metaphorical and sometimes literal (generally mostly composed of deluded males) bellows for your blood.

  • Kevin B

    Laban(Link) has an interesting take on this, including an extract from a Radio France comedy show detailing the precautions they took when Strauss-Kahn visited the building. Extract

    Here are the measures, as detailed by the trade unions. I quote: ‘In order to guarantee the safety of the personnel, female workers are asked to wear long, unrevealing and anti-sex clothes. High heels, leather pants and chic lingerie are banned. The head of information, who will greet DSK, will wear a burqa.

    It’s worth reading the whole post to get a flavour of his form, especially a feminist author’s justification for voting for him despite his obvious male chauvinist piggishness.

  • Nick and Laird:

    I find your comments about the AP and BBC interesting considering how all the so-called “polite” society in Europe have been rushing to convict Silvio Berlusconi in the court of public opinion for his sexual peccadilloes. But Berlusconi engages in wrongthought….

  • Think carefully because, thanks to poisonous laws brought in by feminazi’s, ANY one of you could fall foul of the wrong woman (or just be a convienient mug in the wrong place/time) and find yourself in jail while a howling mob, metaphorical and sometimes literal (generally mostly composed of deluded males) bellows for your blood.

    I draw my esteemed colleague’s attention to this section of my article:

    Now I have no idea as to the merits of this particular case and thus no position on this statist bastard’s guilt in this matter…

    I am not saying he is guilty as charged and I agree that many a man has been subject to baseless accusation in which there is a supposition of guilty until proven innocent (which as it happens is a rather French legal concept if ever there was). No… I have no idea if he did what the woman alleges. I have no opinion on that score.

    All I am saying is that when someone’s politics are centred around world view of force based collectivism, ‘disbelief’ at the prospect of wicked behaviour in the private realm is not something I am inclined to share. I am not saying socialist = rapist (at least in the literal sense), just that I expect the worst of such people.

  • leperigourdin

    You had to know that is not the first affair, up to now he win to stop justice. Read this :

  • leperigourdin

    In my head this is different a man who pay a call girl (Berlusconi) and a man who use of violence to abuse.

    Sorry for my english,

  • Absolutely, leperigourdin.

  • Dishman

    I find it interesting and instructive that socialists will protect one of their own who becomes powerful.

    American conservatives would eat one of their own who ‘misbehaved’, as would libertarians (though for a much narrower range of offenses).

  • I note that in the Figaro one of Sarkozy’s supporters claims that compared to DSK, Sarko is a “Methodist Pastor”.

    Where is Mel Brooks when you need him ?

  • Verity

    If there were an “Approve” button to click on this site, I would have clicked it for Perry’s post.

  • Jacob

    Is there any sin which is unrelated to socialism ?

  • Is there any sin which is unrelated to socialism ?

    is there any relevance to your comment?

  • Sunfish

    Mr. Ecks-

    The right to bail hasn’t gone anywhere[1] on this side of the pond. Not the right to trial by jury. Nor the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction. Nor the requirement for probable cause to sustain an arrest.

    And I’m on deck with Perry. People who feel entitled to take what they want from other people are more likely than the average to do exactly that.

    [1] Often misunderstood. The court has the obligation to set it at a level that will secure a defendant’s appearance at trial. The fact that, in this case, the defendant has no real ties to the local community and is citizen and resident of a country that has a history of sheltering US violent crime suspects will do him few favors, but I doubt that he’ll be kept on a no-bond hold.

  • RW

    As PfP pointed out, Strauss-Kahn allegedly tried to force the woman to give him a blow job.

    Irrespective of all other arguments, what sort of moron is going to “rape” a woman by sticking his dick between her teeth? Short of inflicting gross terror, that is, which hasn’t been alleged?

    OK, I can buy the idea that she ran into him in the nude in his room and he made crass-ish advances to her. Attempted rape? No.

  • Paul Marks

    Ian, the trouble with a joke is that it can backfire on you.

    There are in fact many cases of Marxists eating human flesh (including the flesh of babies) – sometimes because of starvation (sincere socialism includes the collective control of farming – and that must lead, eventually, to starvation), but also as a political act.

    For example I have read of former Red Guards (Mao’s creatures – now middle aged men) talking about how they ripped out the hearts of “class enemies” (and of their families – who were also considered “class enemies”) from the still living bodies of these human beings and ate them – NOT out of hunger, but as a political act.

    “But this man is not a Marxist” – remember what I said about “sincere” socialism. Either he believes that the collective trumps individual rights or he does not.

    If he does not he is not a socialist – he is just a corrupt cynical politician willing to rally under any banner that promises him power. That puts him lower than even most politicians (who, contrary to what is often said, at least care a little bit about what banner they stand under).

    So if he is a sincere socialist he will have no problem with violating an individual, and if he just a corriupt pol he will also have no problem with doing so.

    After all (in either case) he can argue to himself that his action is for “the greater good” – “I must be in a relaxed state of mind to consider these complex problems – so I must be relaxed, this female will serve the purpose, and this will be for the good of the general population”.

    Am I being too harsh?

    Not at all – remember that the main figures of NONMarxist socialist culture in Britain, George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells (and the other Fabians) turned out to be supporters of the murder of millions (indeed tens of millions, hundreds of millions) of human beings (their support is clearly documented – both in writings and in recordings) – their being cultured and witty did not alter the fact that they were utterly evil.

    And the main cultural. institutions (the schools the universities, the media) do not hold their evil against them – on the contrary they hold them up as moral examples (examples to be followed – not avoided).

    I have no doubt that this French socialist party man is cultured and witty. No doubt he knows what wine to select with what food (and so on). But I also have no doubt that he regards individual human beings as simply raw material for his plans. In France this “expert administrator” type is well known.

    After all Karl Marx did not invent this attitude – it is clear in other collectivist writers such as Francis Bacon, going all the way back to Plato.

  • RW: you can’t be serious?

  • Jacob

    “So if he is a sincere socialist he will have no problem with violating an individual”
    Yes, but only for the “common good” or for the welfare of the proletariat.
    Gratifying personal desires is considered selfish by the socialist ideology. (Though not by their practice).

    I find this alleged connection between DSK’s party affiliation and his sex crimes unconvincing. Or, rather, ridiculous. You project your daemons on everything. As David Hume said, man’s passions usually are stronger than his reason. DSk is a case in point.

  • Gratifying personal desires is considered selfish by the socialist ideology.

    Which in no way makes its followers any less selfish than any other human. As Paul has pointed out, all this ideology does is provide a fig leaf of “the greater good” for their selfishness and for their “unreasonable” passions.

  • Well I explain why I think what I think… i.e. that since a man advocates a violence based ordering of society for the benefit of those deemed ‘deserving’ that it should not be surprising that such a person may be prone to violence.

    Jacob on the other hand just rolls his eyes and leave us guessing why he finds it ridiculous that I am unsurprised when a man who supports a political system of violence imposed collective ownership may well not respect a woman’s self-ownership given the very concept of several self-ownership is precluded by the political system he claims to advocate.

  • llamas

    leperigourdin wrote:

    ‘In my head this is different a man who pay a call girl (Berlusconi) and a man who use of violence to abuse.

    Sorry for my english,’

    Funnily enough, your English strikes at the exact heart of the matter, so no need to apologize.

    After reviewing this morning’s coverage of the case, I see where Mr D S-K is strenously denying the charges and has already voluntarily submitted to a forensic examination.

    What this strongly suggests to me (and this is entirely my personal speculation) is that he earnestly believes that he did nothing either criminal or immoral.

    But there seems to be no doubt that he is a serial adulterer with an eye for the ladies. And so it seems at least possible that he did, what he has apparently done many times before – proposition a woman. Only this time, he did it in New York, where the rules that are normal for him do not apply, and where his suggestion to some anonymous maid or housekeeper that she might care to pump the chapel organ was not received in the cosmopolitan, worldy, French manner in which it was made.

    In other words, his accustomed sense of entitlement in these matters ran crosswise with NY criminal law.

    Oops.

    Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

    On a side note, I am awfully amused by the fine dissection of just excatly how more Socialist D S-K would be than Nicolas Sarkozy as a French presidential candidate. Both of them – indeed, anyone running for that office, even Marine LePen – are dyed-in-the-wool soclaists, way off to the Left of anyone in mainstream US politics. In these arenas, parsing the exact degrees of Soclialism is like arguing about whether the Titanic sank because it failed at Frame 36 or Frame 37. It’s still sunk.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Only this time, he did it in New York, where the rules that are normal for him do not apply, and where his suggestion to some anonymous maid or housekeeper that she might care to pump the chapel organ was not received in the cosmopolitan, worldy, French manner in which it was made.

    Suggesting is quite different in my mind from actually forcing said instrument on the woman in question. As offensive as the former may be, it calls for nothing more than a FOAD shrug, while the latter certainly merits a criminal complaint. Also, I know that the French culture is, er, different, but I doubt that even there the latter would be taken with the same kind of shrug as the former. I could be wrong.

  • Jacob

    “why he finds it ridiculous …”
    Okam’s razor.
    It is not difficult to understand DSK, there are lots of such cases. No need for elaborate, philosophycal explanations.
    Next thing, you’ll claim Bill Clinton was a socialist too…

  • Suggesting is quite different in my mind from actually forcing said instrument on the woman in question.

    Or on any other person, for that matter (duh).

  • Seriously Jacob, don’t you have anything better to do?

  • Jacob

    But, Alisa, somebody on the web is wrong!

  • llamas

    Alia wrote:

    ‘Also, I know that the French culture is, er, different, but I doubt that even there the latter would be taken with the same kind of shrug as the former. I could be wrong.’

    Well, reports are now coming out of France that another young woman is claiming an assault by D S-K that sounds (on its face) to be just-about as bad as what he stands accused of in NY. But, it appears, she shrugged it off after deciding that blowing the whistle on him (to the police, not the other . . . well. never mind) would be harmful to her career as a journalist and novelist.

    In France, things are different, on both sides of this calculus. When I was posted there (admittedly, some years ago now) I saw this different approach to these matters on more than one occasion.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Jacob: and it’s you!:-)

  • Thanks Llamas – quite depressing. On the bright side, everyone says that he can now forget about running for president – which before this scandal everyone thought would be a walk in the park for him. This suggest to me that the French attitudes on these matters are changing, which would be a good thing.

  • Next thing, you’ll claim Bill Clinton was a socialist too…

    No but as he is part of the power structure that does not bat an eyelid at a socialist running the IMF, I am not sure it matters… plus if you actually read my comments after the article…

    I am less surprised when a collectivist of any stripe turns out to be a vile so-and-so as I do think it is actually the logical conclusion of their world view… but as people are not entirely logical, we end up with some socialists who would not dream of forcing themselves on a woman and no doubt the occasional incoherent libertarian rapist.

    But the later surprises me more when they do personally when their politics should indicate they should not. With a profound collectivist of any kind, doing something appalling is rather less of a surprise for obvious reasons.

    …this git is a member of the French socialist party and runs the IMF. Bill Clinton is a Democrat and was Prez of the USA. Both are collectivists of differing flavours so when they misbehave in their personal lives, that is hardly surprising to me (not that I have any reason to think Clinton did the Wild Thing with anyone who was unwilling, other than metaphorically fucking the whole country that is).

  • Laird

    Don’t be so quick to exculpate Clinton, Perry. Google Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones. It’s the arrogance of power.

  • Steven Rockwell

    It’s the arrogance of power.

    I think Laird is right. I don’t think there’s a chapter in the Leftist handbook that says “we believe in taking all of a man’s goods for public use at the point of a gun. Therefore we think rape is just as justified because on some level it’s pretty much the same thing.” You can have someone who thinks socialism is a-ok and someone who is a conservative that thinks women should be barefoot and pregnant because they’re just women and someone who is a libertarian and who rapes on the weekends. One’s political outlook doesn’t always extend to one’s personal actions.

    But add in the power aspect and things start to make sense. There’s all kinds of people that do horrible things they otherwise wouldn’t because they have the power to get away with it. It’s almost like when they get in charge they lose their self-control. “I’ve gotten away with X for so long, maybe I’ll try a little bit of Y. I’ve always wanted to. So what if he/she/it said no. I’m untouchable.”

  • Steve

    The ‘disbelief’ felt in France, as elsewhere, might bear more on the miscalculation of a man who, whatever his politics, has hitherto been adept and skilful at negotiating public life within and beyond the borders of France.
    On that basis I was open to the idea that he might have been set up, as many French leftists are alleging. As other commenters have pointed out, allegations of rape are easily made and mud sticks. But the news that he left precipitately, even leaving behind belongings including his mobile, seems to all but close that door.
    With a bit of luck the next incumbent at the IMF will tell Greece to get real and stop thinking the world owes it a living.
    Yeah, ok, haha. Only joking…

  • Jacob

    “Superficial, like the sociological explanation of any behavior.”
    Don Colacho #2966(Link)

  • Steven Rockwell: socialism (it’s various supporters’ and ideologues’ and writers’ claims notwithstanding) is just another form of collectivism, and collectivism is all about power over others (or about power of other over oneself – but that variation does not apply to the case in point).

  • A bit like your comments then Jacob.

  • Steven Rockwell

    I hate the leftists (in all of their varied and spenldored disguises) as much as the next guy, but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to go from socialist to rapist as though they’re just points on a spectrum. It’s all about power to be sure, but somehow I don’t think the rank-and-file socialist that wants to bring down the rich is okay with taking a girl in an alley. The leader of the socialists might be okay with using rape as a political tool, but I seriously doubt many of today’s Reds would be quite so cool on it.

    If you went to the local university, union meeting, or CPUSA rally and asked the people if they thought it was okay to take my money by force, they’d be fine with that. Ask the same people if it’s okay to drag a girl by her hair into a bedroom, without her consent, and 9 out of 10 will say no. You can have perverts and freaks of all political stripes. You can have libertarian pedophiles, conservative beastiality enthusiests, and communist who are asexual.

  • but somehow I don’t think the rank-and-file socialist that wants to bring down the rich is okay with taking a girl in an alley

    No one is claiming that, Steven – you and others would do well by refraining from reading things into posts and comments that are just not there.

    If you went to the local university, union meeting, or CPUSA rally and asked the people if they thought it was okay to take my money by force, they’d be fine with that. Ask the same people if it’s okay to drag a girl by her hair into a bedroom, without her consent, and 9 out of 10 will say no.

    And this proves what exactly?

    You can have libertarian pedophiles, conservative beastiality enthusiests, and communist who are asexual.

    It’s not about sexual deviations, it’s about acting on them (or an any other impulse, sexual or not) against the will of others. How complicated is that, especially for libertarians?

  • Jacob

    “It’s not about sexual deviations, it’s about acting on them”

    Of course. If you don’t act on your impulses, if you control yourself, you’re not deviant…

    against the will of others
    Tautology: If it’s not against the will of others it’s not deviant…

    Here is a task for an aspiring sociolog: go to the jails and investigate the ideological orientation of sex offenders. (Once they did statistics about their race, but that’s no longer permisible).

  • Paul,
    For me the epitome of the “working class hating socialist” is DH Lawrence. I am sure I read a quote from him somewhere of arranging something like a circus big-top with a band plying popular tunes outside to lure the ungrateful proles in to be liquidated.

    Ungrateful for Lawrence’s tireless efforts on their behalf which essentially (as far as I can tell) amounted to buggering the wife of the professor of German in a quixotic quest for “sex without friction”. I am not making this up. Nottingham is my alma mater as much as it is Lawrence’s. He hated it. He hated most things. He especially despised the miners and lace-makers and such of Nottinghamshire – his own people.

    Unsurprisingly there is a statue of him on campus despite his numerous tirades against the college (as then was). Typical.

    And he couldn’t write for toffee. It is such a shame “Lady Chatterley”was banned because if it hadn’t been he would have been rumbled as the pathetic, embittered jotter he truly was by now. The ban gave him a glamour he scarcely deserved.

    BTW. I would love it if anyone could locate that quote.

  • Steven said:

    You can have perverts and freaks of all political stripes. You can have libertarian pedophiles, conservative beastiality enthusiests, and communist who are asexual.

    Absolutely. However when I hear of a person whose world view is based on self-ownership and severalty sexually assaulting someone, I am shocked as it does not fit that person’s expressed broader world view… but as I said earlier, people tend to not be consistent or logical all the time. But when I hear of a collectivist not respecting some person’s self-ownership in his ‘private’ life as well as via their politics (and is a collectivist even entitled to a ‘private’ life?) , I am rather less shocked as it fits their broader world view just fine.

  • Jacob, while you obviously have no better things to do, I do – even when you are wrong on the internet.

  • Laird

    FYI (and a propos of Sunfish’s earlier comment), I see that DS-K has been denied bail and continues to languish in a NYC jail.

  • jdm

    man’s passions usually are stronger than his reason.

    So, as used in this context, socialism is, apparently, reasonable. Huh.

  • Sunfish

    Laird-

    I sit, er, recline corrected. I’d have thought they’d open the jail door for him.

    RW-

    That’s not an uncommon MO for rape.

    Idle speculation follows:
    NYC has had a problem, for decades, of diplomats attached to the UN acting as though the law did not apply to them. In theory, the country that sends a diplomat can waive his immunity. In practice, The People’s Republic of Trashcanistan throws a fit and acts insulted at the mere suggestion that their public face should answer for raping his secretary, and the US DoS doesn’t force the issue nearly as hard as imho they should.

    Which makes me wonder if the prosecutor was thinking, “Finally, a case with one of these arrogant diplomats that I can make stick.”

  • Terry

    Just to clear up (or maybe muddle as the case may be) something: DSK belongs to the socialist party in France but is not (like most memebers of that party) a socialist.

    You see when someone like DSK comes out of the ENA (National School of Administration) and goes directly to his government job, he often chooses a party association with a view to how it can best serve him. The socialist party hasn’t been socialist in decades, it’s just the party of government. DSK looked around and decided that the socialist party would be the best one for his career.

    There is no ideology there except statism, which comes in different flavors. Actually one could say that France, at its cultural core, doesn’t understand the concept of free markets at all; all of France’s political parties are statist.

    Folks like DSK just believe themselves entitled because they have power.

  • brian

    The correlation is wrong and silly. Socialism equals forcibly taking private property which, more or less, equals forcibly engaging in sexual encounters with a non-consensual person. This is balmy talk. It’s balmy because you, Perry, live in a country where most politicians believe it alright to distribute wealth (this is what you’d describe as “using force to take what is private”) and, ergo, a country where all politicians are on the cusp of being raucous sexual fiends.

  • This is balmy talk. It’s balmy because you, Perry, live in a country where most politicians believe it alright to distribute wealth

    No, as I have said in the comments repeatedly, collectivist does not equal rapist… but when I hear of a collectivist following their views to their logical ends, I am not really all that shocked.

  • Paul Marks

    It should be remembered that another lady has accused “DSK” of attempted rape.

    A French lady – from a socialist family, so this “New York factor” thing is only relevant in the sense that this time it was harder to hush everything up.

    Political ideology not relevant.

    I am still waiting for the main stream socialist culture (which is, basically, the mainstream culture – including in the United States) to condemn such people as H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw.

    I repeat this men supported the murder of tens (indeed hundreds) of millions of human beings – there is no doubt about it.

    Yet they are treated as cultural icons – examples of people to be followed, not as the monsters they were.

    So this is NOT a problem with a few bad apples – this is the mainstream of collectivism (of the establishment) that is rotten to the core.

    By the way I have done more than “read” of former Red Guards talking of the eating of human flesh (as a political “eat the rich” act – not out of starvation) I have seen recordings of such discussions.

    And, no, they were not out of context remarks.

    The enemy are evil – evil in their foundation of their ideology, but I seem unable to convince people.

    Very well – I have failed. But it remains the tuth.

    As for Davy Hume = vomit.

  • Jacob

    So this is NOT a problem with a few bad apples – this is the mainstream of collectivism (of the establishment) that is rotten to the core.

    That might be so, still it doesn’t mean they are also sex deviants. They are rotten in other ways.

    As for Davy Hume = vomit.
    Fine, I tend to agree. I always though he couldn’t sincerly believe some of the things he wrote, so he was a sensationalist and a charlatan. (Though my knowledge of Hume is quite shallow).

    Still the remark I mentioned seems true to me. With most people, passion is a far stronger power than reason. We wish it weren’t so, but it is.

  • Richard Thomas

    This site needs a poll ;)

    i am with Alisa et al on this. I find that his political persuasion is less likely an indicator of his (alleged) inclination to take liberties with people than the fact that he is a politician in the first place. The kind of mentality required to be a politician is (typically) one of feeling entitled and empowered to control the lives and wills of others. Not only that but if one is a successful politician, power is an aphrodisiac on both sides which may lead to expectations of an interest which are not always the case.

  • i am with Alisa et al on this. I find that his political persuasion is less likely an indicator of his (alleged) inclination to take liberties with people than the fact that he is a politician in the first place.

    Actually I agree as most politicians have a world view based on civil coercion but the fact he is a socialist politician just makes it… more so :-)

  • Paul Marks

    Actually I was being unfair to Hume, Jacob.

    I am looking at him with the “benefit” of two centuries of hidesight.

    I agree with you that he did not believe a lot of things he wrote – he did not even say that he believed it.

    When claimed that the British Constitution was no better than Royal domination in France (indeed that the there should be a “euthanasia” of the constitution) he was really saying “you think this is wrong – but PROVE it is wrong”.

    Ditto when he denied that there was any such thing as objective good and evil – he was NOT saying “rape is good” (or anything like that) he was saying “prove me wrong – if you can”.

    And when he claimed (absurdly) that a thought does not mean a thinker – he was not saying “I do not exist” he was (again) saying “prove me wrong”.

    Ditto with the denial of the external world – the claim that it was all an illusion (an illusion in the mind he had just claimed did not exist).

    David Hume was an 18th century gentleman – a sceptic playing games to annoy (no more than that) stuffed shirts – over serious and hot tempered people (like errr me).

    He had no idea that various other people would take his word games and claim them to great truths – and base “modern philosophy” upon them.

    It is them (not the playful Hume) who are the real bad guys.

  • Jacob

    Thanks Paul.