Liberté, égalité, fraternité, stupidité

France usually shrugs at sex scandals but not this one.


Paris
: A sex scandal brought an end to the campaign of a Paris mayoral candidate on Friday, an unusual episode in a country with a reputation for shrugging over extramarital affairs and the private lives of its politicians.

Benjamin Griveaux announced he was ending his campaign after the circulation of an undated video apparently depicting him masturbating – footage the politician allegedly recorded on his phone and sent to a woman who was not his wife.

His departure shakes up the Paris mayor’s race. With only a month to go before the vote, President Emmanuel Macron’s party now does not have a candidate – though Griveaux had already been trailing in the polls.

But the bigger question on people’s minds was why he bowed out and why he did it so quickly.

 
Some might say the bigger question was why he filmed the act and sent video to a woman not his wife. Anyway, all of Griveaux’s opponents have come to his defence – which was nice of them. As strangely indifferent as the French are about sexual peccadilloes (notwithstanding that it’s a form of nihilist braggadocio), I can’t help but admire their attitude. The Anglophone alternative – exemplified by the Lewinsky affair and even the Barnaby Joyce baby scandal – is more strange in one sense: it is prosecuted by a journalist-commentary class that likes to scoff at traditional morality. They’re the hypocrites. Piously condemnatory of religion but nympho/priapic about embarrassing certain flawed public figures – usually non-leftists – they dislike.

This entry was posted in Ethics and morality, International, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Liberté, égalité, fraternité, stupidité

  1. notafan

    So true.

    When it suits them they heartily congratulate adulterers and home wreckers and fall over themselves to provide details and photos, lots of photos, of the new hot couple.

    And when it’s one of the wrong sort of people the fingers can’t stop wagging.

  2. BorisG

    Regarding hypocrisy of allegations of sexual impropriety, both sides of politics are equally guilty. juts think of UK Tories in the early 1990s, who campaigned on family values, only to be embroiled in all sorts of scandals. Perhaps the culmination was the death of a junior minister in a masochistic session gone wrong. And of course Jeffrey Archer.

  3. BorisG

    There is also an interesting question about this Russian guy who exposed the video. Apparently he is a so called artist who commits public criminal acts such as setting fire to a bank door as art. He received a political asylum in France after allegations in Russia of a sexual assault (which he claims are politically motivated).

    Last month he was sentenced in France to 3 years jail for setting fire to a bank. I have a question: should criminals have their political asylum revoked?

  4. Tom

    Regarding hypocrisy of allegations of sexual impropriety, both sides of politics are equally guilty.

    Hahaha: a pox on both their houses! Like all the Cat’s virtue-signalling trolls, (Numbers, IamGoebbels, Googleory, etc), Boris confesses he votes for the Greenfilth. LookAtMe, LookAtMe, LookAtMe!

  5. Bruce of Newcastle

    What is French for “Carlos Danger”?

  6. Catfeesh?

    As strangely indifferent as the French are about sexual peccadilloes (notwithstanding that it’s a form of nihilist braggadocio)

    Well, quite.

  7. Crossie

    Why would he resign? Could it be due to voters of a certain religion who are not as amused by public immorality as the sophisticates?

  8. Me thinks the percentage of mu slims has reached the level where it’s difficult to ignore these types of scandals.

  9. Notafan:

    When it suits them they heartily congratulate adulterers and home wreckers and fall over themselves to provide details and photos, lots of photos, of the new hot couple.
    And when it’s one of the wrong sort of people the fingers can’t stop wagging.

    My opinion is that the ‘certain religion’ have just exercised more control over the citizens of the Host country.
    Their own holy books tell them that rape of peoples not of their religion is OK, they can abuse, flog, beat their wives to death, deflower 8 year old children, root their donkeys, slaughter PoWs/infidels/gays and lesbians, and generally behave like barbarians.
    But send a video of a bloke fertilising a potplant? merde!
    No. This was a blatant exercise of power and it worked. It’s how they roll.

  10. Iampeter

    “Traditional morality” is the source of modern nihilistic view of sex. It also says a lot about those advocating traditional morality that they only bring it up when sex is concerned. Almost like they don’t really know what morality is even about.
    In any case, mindless abstinence because of a religious hatred for life on this earth is no different to mindless promiscuity for the same reason.
    And I wouldn’t compare the Lewinsky scandal to the Joyce affair. Again this demonstrates a lack of any objective standards by which to even approach the subject.
    The only reason journalists report this stuff is because they don’t know anything about politics and neither do their readers, so they can all pretend to be political obsessives but really they’re just gossiping nitwits.

  11. max

    Ayn Rand’s “For the New Intellectual”

    BRUCE GOLDBERG*

    SURELY ONE OF the singularly most exciting intellectual occurrences of the last few years is that libertarianism has found a dynamic spokesman, a philosopher who seeks to discover the key to man’s survival in the undeniable truth that A is A, an economist who seeks to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism by deducing it from that same truth, a moralist who defines the path to virtue as following from a single axiom—existence exists, and, in addition to all this, a novelist who makes the best-seller list of the New York Times. Her influence, especially on the college campus, cannot be denied, even by those who, whether on the left or the right, regard her as a knot on the tree of knowledge.

    …it is the paucity of rational arguments, the frequency with which nonsense is offered as self-evident truth, the hysterical ranting against opponents who have had their views distorted beyond recognition, the amateurish psychologizing—in a word, the sloppiness of the whole thing, which forces me to regard it as a paradigm of philosophical incompetence. The temptation is to see it as a huge joke, a farce by means of which its creator can laugh at the gullible.

    The root of Ayn Rand’s moral code is to be found on p. 152. It is “the axiom that existence exists.” How a moral code can rest on this “axiom” must surely be one of the sublimer truths of nature. This statement, unlike most of the others in the book, does not even have the merit of being false for, like “The Nothing noughts” of Heidegger fame, it is a patent piece of nonsense. Tables exist, people exist, but what sense does it make to say that existence exists? Is existence another thing, like tables and people which exists in its own right in addition to them? To say that existence exists is like saying that length is long or that circularity is round or that the truth is true.

    The expression “existence exists” is a meaningless piece of verbiage which cannot be the root of anything. Yet this is what we are offered as the foundation of a moral code, this is what justified the spiteful insults hurled at Hume and Kant…

    when Miss Rand sets up a straw-man and then, by her ignorance of the most elementary logical principles, fails even to damage the caricature she has constructed.

    Miss Rand has transformed the principle “The good of others” which is itself hardly an accurate rendering of the utilitarian principle, into the non-good for me. These two expressions are not at all synonymous nor are they logically equivalent. “X is good for non-me” does not mean the same as “X is non-good for me.” The first doesn’t even imply the second. Isn’t it obvious that something can be both good for non-me and good for me—a free enterprise economy for example. The rest of these hundred pages contains more of the same. I say in all honesty that I have never read a book (and I am not excluding The Affluent Society) which contained more contradictions and misstatements than this one. “Accept the fact that you are not omniscient . . . that your mind is fallible . . .” “Discard that unlimited license to evil which consists of claiming that man is imperfect.”17 Here I need only assure the doubters that Ayn Rand does indeed recommend both of these courses of action.

    For the New Intellectual is an intolerably bad book. More than that it is a silly book; street corner rabble rousing can affect only the vulgar.

    She appears, I suppose, to be the spokesman for freedom, for self-esteem, and other equally noble ideals. However, patient examination reveals her pronouncements to be but a shroud beneath which lies the corpse of illogic.

    The ludicrously mistitled “philosophy of Ayn Rand” is a sham. To those who are travelling her road I can only suggest its abandonment—for that way madness lies.

  12. max

    Objectivism, like many other philosophies that are quasi-religious and dogmatic, doesn’t have any answers. Sometimes, as in the case of egoism vs. altruism, or determinism vs. indeterminism, this is done by defining away the opponent’s view or totally misconceiving it.

  13. max

    “Plus the idea of “life” as the ultimate value to the animal or plant kingdom is scientifically untenable. The natural world is full of organisms that give up their lives willingly (as much as any non-human can be said to have a will), usually in the pursuit of mating, such as salmon or various forms of mate-eating insects.

    Not only that, if life itself were the goal of life, evolution would have selected for it. There are creatures that can have far longer lifespans than man. There’s even a type of flatworm that is so efficient at regenerating and maintaining its cells and their genetic code that they don’t age at all, and simply won’t ever die, given enough food/water and safety. Since such biological immortality, and even longer-than-human lifespans are possible, why didn’t humans (or many more organisms) develop it in nature?

    The answer seems to be that, in the scope of nature, “being alive” is not the primary goal of most organisms. Maintaining one’s life is only a means to the greater goal of reproduction. Life exists to make more life, to spread new life.

    Of course, I doubt Rand would have ever acknowledged any scientific findings that indicated that her biological imperative was to have kids. But in any case, her contention that organisms are most motivated to preserve their own lives is at least poorly founded if not completely wrong.”

    “Yes, survival in the natural world means not survival of the individual (after all, all of them will die no matter what they do), but rather survival of the species.

    This doesn’t sit very well with Objectivists of course – because this would mean that the highest value is the survival of societies, not individuals. But it’s pretty good at explaining all the aspects of human behaviour that Objectivists have trouble giving a sensible explanation for – such as having children or dying for one’s country.

  14. max

    David Kelley…wrote about altruism and welfare state in the 1998 article “State of the Culture”: “The primary political expression of sacrificial altruism today is the welfare state. And one of the primary foundations of the welfare state is the idea: ‘We’re all in this together. We should sacrifice to each other and help out those who are in need.’”

    Is it really true that the “primary political expression of sacrificial altruism” is the welfare state? Do we have a welfare state primarily because people have bought into altruistic rationalizations?

    No, of course they wouldn’t, because the primary motivation for the welfare state is self-interest. The welfare state provides: (1) social security to supplement one’s retirement income; (2) supplemental income to cover medical costs for the aged; (3) income for disabled persons; (4) unemployment insurance to help those who have lost their jobs. All these provisions appeal to the self-interest of middle-class individuals. Indeed, the American welfare state is largely orientated towards the needs of the middle class. It is, hence, a middle-class welfare state appealing to the self-interest of the broad electorate.

    Rand’s claim, that from America’s start, she “was torn by the clash of her political system with the altruist morality,” is clearly a gross exaggeration. Generally speaking, in politics, altruistic motivations are dwarfed by self-interest motivations.

  15. Roger

    They’re the hypocrites.

    ‘Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.’

    La Rochefoucauld

    Particularly apt in the instance of politically motivated media criticism of Joyce.

    Destroyers of marriage taking perverse delight in and seeking advantage from the failure of his marriage while pretending to hold the high moral ground.

  16. Old School Conservative

    The 2019 film “Long Shot” was full of lefty memes and was a homage to Hillary Clinton.
    A key aspect of the plot was Seth Rogan masturbating over himself while watching a video of his girlfriend, Secretary of State Charlize Theron. The “bad guys” threaten to use the video against her.
    So far, same as Benjamin Griveaux.
    But brave Charlize breaks the news herself, makes her romance public, and goes on to win the Presidency.
    Benjamin Griveaux should have imitated “art”.

  17. max

    Epstein’s Lolita Express and similar perversity are consequences of completely abandonment of christian teaching in early 20 century.
    We are back to greek and roman sexual perversities.

    The Marquis de Sade (1740–1814), libertine, pervert, and pornographer, was also a pivotal figure in Western thought. His novels Justine (1791), Philosophy in the Bedroom (1795), The New Justine and Juliette (1797) presented, for the first time, a philosophy of nihilism, and illustrated all its evil consequences and implications.

    Sade’s philosophy flowed from his radical egotism, which led him to propound militant antitheism. God’s nonexistence reduces the universe to a purely materialist Nature, a self-running mechanism; “the perpetual motion of matter explains everything.” People are determinist machines, which annuls moral responsibility. You cannot help it, then, if you are sexually perverse or depraved. There is no afterlife, so your conduct does not matter. Merely the child of local custom, morality is relative to culture and geography, and therefore fictive. Nature is our only ethical guide; humans are no more significant to Nature than insects. And since Nature uses matter from dead life forms to create new ones, crime, destruction, and death are necessary and pleasing to her. Therefore murder is good, and the mass murderer is the highest human type.
    Born isolated, the individual is solely important, with obligations to nobody and only selfish motivations. Each individual is pitted against all others. His only maxim is to “Enjoy myself, at no matter whose expense.” Man tends naturally to dominate others and inflict pain, which he enjoys. Ordinary people are utilitarian objects, the playthings of the wealthy, powerful and godlike libertines, who are utterly unloving. Beauty and innocence inspire only diabolical cruelty. Since materialism makes pleasure proportional to stimulus, the greater your cruelty, the greater your pleasure. Maximum selfishness and cruelty are therefore the proper course.
    If there is no God, no hell, no right and wrong, no moral responsibility, no meaning or significance beyond your pleasure, then existence is meaningless. Nothing you do matters, others do not matter, and what you do with them—and to them—does not matter. Nihilism liberates. For the Sadean egotist, then, everything is permitted. Sade incessantly rationalized the most depraved and libertine sexuality, and every crime including cannibalism and murder.
    Insatiable appetite and boredom goad Sade’s libertines to ever-worsening crimes, culminating in mass murder. They become so steeped in evil that repentance and righteousness become impossible. Frustrated and enraged at reality’s inability to satisfy their unlimited desires, they repudiate their own determinism and crave universal destruction.
    As this dynamic of wickedness and Sade’s value-inverting views of cruelty and murder indicate, nihilism is ultimately Satanic. Rabid denunciations of God and Christianity, obscene sacrileges, and Satanic practices including the Black Mass pervade Sade’s novels. The central fact of the Sadean universe is not matter in motion but rebellious egoism’s demonic impiety, seeking transcendence through evil.
    Sade greatly influenced Romantic and Decadent authors, such as Charles-Pierre Baudelaire, Gustave Flaubert, Algernon Swinburne, and Rachilde. He told them what they wanted to hear, his example and rationalizing philosophy liberating them to indulge and to express their obsessions with cruelty and perverse sex. Sade thus contributed to the growing pathology and nihilism in Western thought and culture.

  18. Old Lefty

    Interesting times – even the French indulgence of Roman Polanski is now contested. Mind you, our own elites in the Yartz and media are little netter: witness Donald Friend, Richards Neville and his mates from Lateline, Bill Henson, Dorothy Hewitt (of progressiv, socially and politically aware, s3xually liberated parenting fame), etc etc. These things are only to be condemned when it can be used to damage people or institutions hated by the left.

  19. notafan

    de Sade justifying his own depravity,

    Quelled surprise

    And I suppose he was an enthusiastic participant in meetings at those

    Salle de raison
    and

    Salle de verité

    the French turned Catholic churches and cathedrals into ( the one third they didn’t spitefully pull to the ground)

    Always remember that Victor Hugo saved Notre Dame.

    The French didn’t give a rat’s having mostly destroyed the interior of Notre Dame using it for fodder storage, as well as murdering many clergy, they were all set to pull it down before Hugo’s campaign.

    I wonder what is behind the newfound morality?

  20. notafan

    Tell us more about this ‘mindless abstinence’

    Iampeter

    I’ve never heard of anyone practising such a lifestyle.

  21. notafan

    I don’t know about the religious of pieces argument.

  22. Roger

    These things are only to be condemned when it can be used to damage people or institutions hated by the left.

    Not widely known in the anglophone world that French ‘intellectuals’ Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Foucault, Barthes, Robbe-Grillet, Lyotard, Derridda and many lesser names all supported sex between adults and minors and agitated for the removal of the age of consent in the 1970s. Sartre and the ‘feminist’ de Beauvoir reportedly groomed and shared several of her high school students.

  23. Iampeter

    Epstein’s Lolita Express and similar perversity are consequences of completely abandonment of christian teaching in early 20 century.
    We are back to greek and roman sexual perversities.

    What are you talking about? The Lolita Express is pretty small time compared to the scale of the problem engulfing Christian churches and that’s just from what’s been made public.
    Not to mention the appalling levels of this stuff throughout the bible.

    Tell us more about this ‘mindless abstinence’

    You’ve never heard of anyone who doesn’t engage in sex until some arbitrary criteria, like marriage, is met?
    Probably not ready for these discussions then.

  24. Fisky

    In any case, mindless abstinence because of a religious hatred for life on this earth is no different to mindless promiscuity for the same reason.

    Yeah, that’s not at all why nearly every major religion advocates abstinence before marriage, you weirdo Randroid.

  25. Iampeter

    Yeah, that’s not at all why nearly every major religion advocates abstinence before marriage, you weirdo Randroid.

    Then I’m sure you would’ve mentioned what the actual reason is.
    But you couldn’t even write a sentence without contradicting yourself so I’m not advising anyone hold their breaths.

Comments are closed.