Posted on 01/11/2015 4:36:11 PM PST by annalex
On his personal Facebook page, the Prince Charles-Philippe d'Orléans, Duc d'Anjou explained himself following the attacks in Paris. No, the prince is not a part of this vast movement "I'm Charlie" although obviously he condemns these acts that have so shaken France and worldwide.
Here is his statement:
"I will go against the tide of emotional propriety by separating me from the movement "I'm Charlie." No, I'm not Charlie because I never liked that Manichean newspaper. Charlie Hebdo is a vulgar paper, despising all opinions except its own, which, under the guise of freedom of expression, will allow provocative behavior to all. Charlie Hebdo is an aggressive newspaper that produces hatred of religions through its, supposedly, humor. Charlie Hebdo is the very image of the European atheist society which creates enmity and distress instead of respect and brotherhood among peoples and men, regardless of their differences, race, color, religion.
So I refuse to take part in a "republican sacred covenant" to defend Charlie because, simply, I do not understand what I have to defend.
I am neither disrespectful nor indecent and do not want to offend the memory of the killed cartoonists. Words fail to tell the horror of the attack that hit the newspaper. I condemn this barbaric act and present to families and relatives of the deceased my deepest condolences.
I denounce justly this sterile attempt to bring about national unity and I denounce the hypocrisy of the citizens who have never read this humor publication and who have always criticized the weekly. To honor the victims, yes. Honour Charlie Hebdo, no."
Classy
But it was not an all-hands-on-deck moment for this “prince”. A good amount of his message was spent denigrating the paper. This is simply not the time for that!!!
Imagine if Churchill had said this right after Pearl Harbor: The attack by the Japanese was dastardly, and must be condemned. But the US has done things that have angered the Japanese, the oil embargo for one.
Churchill never would have said that! But this “prince” evidently would have.
“Bingo. This is one of my pet peeves. This gent is no more a prince (of anything) than I am.”
No, by lineage he is a Prince, you are not. There are still a lot of monarchies in this world, most, like in England and France have little to no power any more, yet their blood lines don’t go away, whether they would want them to or not. So most maintain the titles, but that is all they are, titles. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is.
From a traditionalist’s point of view (I consider myself a traditionalist and a follower of history that I love) I like to follow what the various royals are up to, and frankly, anyone of our version of royalty here intrigues me also. An example, Barbara Bush is a descendant of our 14th President, Franklin Pierce. I eat this history stuff up like candy.
I wouldn’t worry about many Americans being royalists to the detriment of our country. We already won our revolution, lol, and I don’t see anyone rushing around trying to bring back a monarchy. I’d worry much more about a dictatorship that can be instituted by anyone in power, such as our current President Barak Hussein Obama, our very own Manchurian candidate who came out of nowhere to jeopardize our traditions and way of life. That’s what should be worried about.
Are you sure you meant to say that? Prince Charles of England really is a prince. This Charles-Philippe d'Orleans is related to a person who was once a prince, but he is not a prince.
“Paine, unfortunately, assumed that people would or could order their opinions through reason (”common sense”).”
Common sense is what is missing in over one third of our population these days, names the leftists, communists, socialists, and the Party they hide within, the Dems.
“Think about it for a minute. This attack on the Charlie Hebdo is a real turning point, an all-hands-on-deck moment.”
Nope. Was 9-11 a “real turning point, an all-hands-on-deck moment”? I thought it was. Apparently it wasn’t. Within a short time the left in this country was openly subverting the war effort and clearly hoping we would lose! The same thing will happen in France. In a sense, they already lost because they have almost 6 million Muslims in France already. I watched CNN this morning right before the march began. The camera focused on a monument crawling with marchers waving flags. Guess whose flags? French flags? Well, sure there were some, plenty in fact, but those young men on the monument had dark skin and were waving flags from Algeria, Turkey, and other Muslim countries. France is doomed. They slit their own throat a long time ago.
“But it was not an all-hands-on-deck moment for this “prince”.”
Because he understands what a charade this is. Remember, he outright condemns the murders. He just doesn’t think making this about the vulgar newspaper rather than the people who worked there makes much sense. He has a point. Would it really be any different if the 12 murdered people worked at a grocery store that sold pork (banned by Islam)? Or a bar that served alcohol (banned by Islam)?
“A good amount of his message was spent denigrating the paper.”
No. Read it again. He CORRECTLY described the newspaper. It is an atheist, vulgar rag. It just is. You would think so too if you read it. You go ahead and look at this and tell me it isn’t vulgar: http://suffragio.org/2015/01/07/in-charlie-hebdo-massacre-french-values-find-a-rallying-point/attachment/93042404/
“This is simply not the time for that!!!”
Oh, REALLY????? You feel perfectly safe telling this guy what he can say or when he can say it but would you dare say, “In the middle of a war on Islamic terrorists and with a rising tide of Islamic terror in France, this is not the time for Charlie Hebdo to publish anti-Muhammad satirical cartoons”? Now you’re just being a hypocrite. D’Orleans has as much right to be a jerk as Charlie Hebdo. How can you deny him what you want to extend to a vulgar leftwing rag???
“Imagine if Churchill had said this right after Pearl Harbor: The attack by the Japanese was dastardly, and must be condemned. But the US has done things that have angered the Japanese, the oil embargo for one.”
But that’s what you’re doing. This guy has at least as much right to (uncomfortably) denounce this leftwing magazine’s vulgarity as the magazine had to be vulgar. You CANNOT say that he has no right to speak out just because you don’t like what he says or when he says it - if you’re not going to apply the same standard to the magazine itself. I bet you don’t even realize you’re contradicting yourself.
“Churchill never would have said that! But this “prince” evidently would have.”
Churchill did a number of things that you might not appreciate. This “prince” might turn out to be a better man than Churchill ever was. By the way, when D’Orleans ran for the French parliament he ran as a center-right independent which means he was more righwing than anyone at Charlie Hebdo. Even Churchill supported the socialistic NHS system in Britain!
I actually agree with most of your post #67. I’m not saying that what Charles-Philippe said was wrong. You can denigrate something, and yet be correct in your denigration.
I do not question his remarks, or his right to say those remarks. What I do question is the timing of those remarks. There is a narrow window here to unite the West. Charles-Philippe’s remarks do not advance that cause.
“What I do question is the timing of those remarks.”
I understand.
“There is a narrow window here to unite the West.”
That won’t happen.
“Charles-Philippe’s remarks do not advance that cause.”
They don’t hurt it either. The simple fact is that those who agree with D’Orleans are the ones who most likely understand true western unity more than those who championing Charlie Hebdo. True western unity is based on the real religion and culture of the west - not a vulgar, leftwing French rag.
You’ve never heard him speak in person - quit digging.
Interesting discussion.
After consideration, I would have to say that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is actually a stronger and more moral statement than “identifying” with “Charlie”, when one actually does not, in many ways. Perhaps the Frenchman, Charles-Philippe, should have used the Englishwoman’s words!
On the other hand, I don’t know that we’ll ever get “True western unity based on the real religion and culture of the west”. The culture within so much of the Western population has decayed so far, that, that sort of true unity is probably long gone. Likely, the best we’ll get is a shaky coalition based on fear and anger. Those may be legit emotions, but if not “channeled” adroitly by capable leaders (eg., WW2), such coalitions tend to get a lot of their own blood spilled, unnecessarily.
As an aside, IMO, the idea that the US angered the Japanese into attacking is a less than straw, strawman. The Japanese at the time deserved an all out attack by the Allies, not just an oil embargo…! But pacifism was still strong in the US, Hitler was a greater danger in Europe, and we were not ready… If anything, the Japanese probably saw weakness in our response (embargo), even though it would have hampered them, with time.
Oops, sorry, L.R., I meant to include you in the prev. post.
We had our own mini-Charlie Hebdo incident in California, where the Santa Barbara News-Press was vandalized for using the legal term "illegal immigrants".
The La Raza gang just hasn't gotten to the mass murder stage yet, but there on their way. They're already taken their totalitarian demands with their brown shirts to the streets.
“The culture within so much of the Western population has decayed so far, that, that sort of true unity is probably long gone. Likely, the best we’ll get is a shaky coalition based on fear and anger.”
I agree. Those 3.7 million who showed up were not there to oppose Islam. They were there to show they were upset, but not upset at Islam. Many Muslims were in the crowd. There is no REAL unity there.
That being said, let's not fall into the trap of assuming that Islamic terrorists, Communists, or thuggish dictators hating something makes it good. There was a thread a while back (you were participating on it, I think) where some idiots called the sleazy vulgarian harpies of Russia's "Pussy Riot" modern-day martyrs like Solzhenitsyn. As far as I can tell, "Pussy Riot" is Russia's answer to Sarah Silverman - as low and vulgar trash as they come. Again, this doesn't mean that I support authoritarian governments throwing vulgarians into Gulags for years, but the fact that authoritarian thugs throws them into a Gulag doesn't in itself make them praiseworthy.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Do you say this as a Charlie Hebdo or a South Park fan? To me, both are juvenile trash. But as I said before, I can live with juvenile trash because nobody forces me to read or watch it. I can’t live with people who like to blow things up and shoot people in the name of a religion that was created as a “how to live” manual for 7th century tribal warlords and goatherds.
If you ever really watched South Park, you’d realize that it is brilliant satire, that has tended to ridicule liberalism.
Howard Stern was Republican-leaning as well. That doesn’t mean that I had the slightest interest in his juvenile toilet humor.
To each, his own....That’s the beautiful thing about freedom (while we still have it).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.