Major political faceplant for French Resistance leader Alain Soral

Dear friends,

Just a few days after I posted a report about the French Resistance to the Empire, a really sad news came out of France: Alain Soral, the leader of the movement "Equality and Reconciliation" (E&R) was involved in a disgusting and, frankly, pathetic scandal mixing race, ideology and sex.  The story just broke in the French media, the parties disagree on a number of things and Soral is threatening to sue, but between the reports published by the Zionist press in France (JssNews; Elfassiscoopblog) and what was published by the official E&R site, there are a few more or less established facts: for a while Alain Soral had a, quote, "virtual affair", unquote, with an African model called Binti.  This "virtual affair" involved sending each other nude "selife" photos.  Then things went south, they began insulting each other by text messages. Soral's insults included racial ones.  Now, the photos and the insults have become public.  Frankly, I don't feel any inclinations to describe or analyze this psycho-sexual sewer, but those of you interested in the ugly details just need to click on the links above.

Soral is now threatening several lawsuits and he promises to release a video where he explains it all.  Maybe.  But unless he tells us that the photos and text messages are all fake, there is nothing he can tell me which would make me change the conclusion to which I have already come: Soral has serious sexual problems.

This is hardly surprising, to be honest.  Soral has always said that he was a "dragueur" which in modern politically-correct French refers to somebody who likes to pick up girls.  In plain English this simply means that Soral was sexually promiscuous.  The poor man even wrote a book about that.  Apparently Soral married a lady named "Maylis Bourdenx" (or "Maylis Bonnet") in 1996.  Whatever may be the case, married or nor, Soral is yet another example of the fact that the West is, truly, the most sexually dysfunctional society on the planet and that western hetero-sex is every bit as dysfunctional as its homo-sex.

The number of people involved in some kind of sexual scandals simply blows my mind.  From Anthony Weiner to Bill Clinton to the innumerable Latin priests in involved in high profile sex scandals, it seems that this phenomenon is just an integral part of our daily lives.  Because it is, of course.

First, let's get one basic myth out of the way.  Sexual promiscuity is not a sign of success" but a sign of frustration.  Why do I say so?  Simple!  Think about it yourself: would you change cars or houses or jobs or places of residence if you were happy where you are?  Of course not.  Folks who constantly have different sexual partners are just seeking to attain a satisfaction which inevitably eludes them.  If they had a truly sexually satisfying partner - why would they ever bother looking for more?!

This is why sexual promiscuity is to sex what alcoholism is to wine: not an enjoyment of, or appreciation for, but an addiction which, as any other addiction, is fueled by internal emptiness.  Roger Water perfectly described this feeling in his song "Empty Spaces":

What shall we use to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger roar?
Shall we set out across this sea of faces
In search of more and more applause?
Shall we buy a new guitar?
Shall we drive a more powerful car?
Shall we work straight through the night?
Shall we get into fights,
Leave the lights on,
Drop bombs,
Do tours of the East,
Contract diseases,
Bury bones,
Break up homes,
Send flowers by phone,
Take to drink,
Go to shrinks,
Give up meat,
Rarely sleep,
Keep people as pets,
Train dogs,
Raise rats,
Fill the attic with cash,
Bury treasure,
Store up leisure,
But never relax at all
With our backs to the Wall?

Here is a fantastic live version of this song by Roger Waters and Bryan Adams (at his very best):

These "empty spaces"did not come out of nowhere.  They are the direct result of a lifestyle which completely ignores the basic needs of our body, mind and soul.  This is true for the food we eat, the air we breath, the exercise we don't get, the human feelings we don't get to show, the human relations we don't get to experience and, of course, from a completely mistaken notion of what "good and satisfying sex" truly is.  There is so much ego, and pseudo-science, invested in this that I suspect that the true consequences of our sexual inanity will be the last we will look at.  We will stop polluting our planet long before we stop polluting our bodies, minds and souls (and God knows I don't think we will stop polluting our planet anytime soon).

To be honest, I feel sorry for Soral. I know that he had a terrible childhood and that his youth was spent with the most degenerate social groups possible.  And I cannot blame him for his "empty spaces" and his desire to fill them with something, even if this something is as pathetic and sterile as a "virtual relationship" via phone and text messages.  But where Soral is a total idiot is that he should have know that this kind of "lifestyle" would blow up in his face.  Did he really think that he could send picture of him nude to a young and poor African immigrant before they would end up in hands ready to pay top dollar for it?  The scary thing is that Soral is very far from being stupid, and that tells you how compulsive and totally out of control his sexual frustrations are.

He reminds me of Scott Ritter, another clearly very intelligent man, who also was caught in acts of such an extreme stupidity as to appear completely impossible.  And yet that solid and highly principled Marine specialized in, of all things, intelligence (!) was caught exposing his genitals via webcam to a police officer impersonating a 15 year old child.  Again, besides being a clear sign of sexual frustration and pathology, how utterly stupid is that?

The very first rule for anybody involved in any public affairs nowadays is to live a squeaky clean live, especially in sex related matters.  The second rule should be, and if you really cannot engage in "normal" (i.e. socially approved) sex, then don't do that anywhere near any electronic device.  Soral and Ritter both knew that.  And yet they did it.  Does that really tell us anything about them?  Are we better?  Stronger?  Smarter?  Healthier?

I don't think so.

Soral and Ritter are not "perverts" - that explanation is just too easy and really it explains nothing.  I submit a very different explanation: like all of us, Soral and Ritter have a specific human nature which is highly susceptible to its social environment and when that environment fosters dysfunction most humans will end up displaying pathological and compulsive behavior.  Being an Orthodox Christian, I also believe that our current human nature is a "fallen" one, and that our real/original human nature was lost as a result of Adam's sin and that, in turn, tells me that asceticism and resulting self-control are not "luxuries for monastics", but a vital necessity for every single human being.  But even if we set asides religious arguments, I think that there is absolutely overwhelming evidence of the fact that most, the vast majority really, of people in the West are sexually frustrated and miserable.  Our "modern" and "progressive" society has completely failed to yield its promise of sexual satisfaction.  Oh sure, it does serve us cheap and readily available "fast sex" just as it serves us "fast food", but just as fast food is garbage for our bodies, fast sex is garbage to our bodies, minds and souls.

Look at Soral's body: the guy is 56 years old, yet he is "healthy as an ox" as the Russian expression goes, clearly in a fantastic shape.  But psychologically decades of "fast sex" have made him "psychologically morbidly obese".  If anything, the Soral fiasco proves, yet again, that in a health-obsessed society we ignore the needs of our mind and soul only at great peril to ourselves.

What will happen next?

In theory the sexual problems of Alain Soral say nothing about his views or about the Resistance to Empire he embodies today.  That is in theory.  In reality, this is a massive political faceplant which Soral's enemies will use and exploit to the maximum.  After all, for them it is much more fun to focus on Soral's sexual problems than to focus on his ideas.  Sure, his hardcore supporters will probably forgive him for letting his frustration endanger the future of the Resistance to Empire in France, and it's not like Francois Hollande or Nicholas Sarkozy are any less sexually dysfunctional. 

The one issue which nobody will look into is why is it that men who apparently have it all are clearly so out of whack sexually?  Feminists will tell us that men think with their genitals and not their brains, progressives will condemn a repressive moral order, conservatives will deplore the lack of "Christian morals" and nobody will ever dare ask whether a satisfying and fulfilling sexual life is possible and, if yes, in what circumstances?

In conclusion, and just for the record, I want to say this.  I have been accused by some of being "anti-gay" for my clearly stated belief that homosexuality is a personality disorder, a psycho-sexual pathology.  I hope that the above will convince everybody that I make no inherent difference between modern homo-sex and hetero-sex: to me their are all equally pathological and contrary to our human nature.  When I look in the world I live I conclude that the Church is correct in saying that there is only one form of sex which is "right": sex in the context of a heterosexual marriage of adults.  This form of sex does not guarantee sexual satisfaction, but at least it makes it possible.  Sexual promiscuity - whether hetero or homo - makes it impossible not because some bishops decided that, but because they correctly identified the needs and characteristics of our human nature.

By the way, in Greek the word "sin" (ἁμαρτία) means "missing the target" or a "failure to reach the goal".  Sin is not pissing off some morally rigid god sitting on a cloud who spends his time monitoring our sexual lives.  "Sin" is simply not realizing our true nature and our true potential. Sin is inducing misery in ourselves, whether we realize it or not.  Sin is ignoring our nature and mistreating ourselves.

Oh, and one more thing: I hear the voices saying "this blog should be about the Ukraine or politics - not Christian fundamentalist propaganda!!".  Well, for one thing, it's my blog and I do with it whatever the hell I please.  Second, there is a direct connection here.  Russian society is in many ways at least as sexually dysfunctional as the western one.  It has promiscuity, prostitution, marital violence, pornography, mass abortions and even homosexuality.  But there comes the huge difference: in Russia most of the political and intellectual elites deplore that and openly advocate a return to a very different social order.  In the West the political and intellectual elites not only do not denounce these phenomena, they declare them as fully normal.  True, in the USA there is a seizable "Christian" minority which opposes the social consequences of the western "slouching to Gomorrah" but it is deeply reactionary and never looks at the true causes of what it denounces.   So while Russia is post-Communist, she is not, like the West, post-Christian and while the Russian people have yet to decide what their culture should stand for, they at least have decided that the Western model does not inspire them any more.  So if today Russia draws the line at "gay pride" parades in Moscow, this is only a beginning, an obvious point of consensus.  But unless the Empire is successful in its goal of "regime change in Russia", this timid first step will be followed by many more.

I did not write all of the above to convince anybody that Russia is right.  After all, I personally don't accept the notion of universal values and to each his/her own and "live and let live" also applies to societies.  If the folks in the West are happy, fine - let them enjoy themselves and who cares that to me the look miserable and frustrated?  My main goal is to bring to your attention the very deep social, cultural, religious and civilizational tensions between the post-Christian capitalist West and post-Communist Russia and to illustrate why the West has so little appeal to Russians.  What you make of my diagnosis is up to you.

Kind regards,

The Saker

PS: for those of you interested by a truly traditional Russian Orthodox view of the the West, please read the transcript of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's 1983 Templeton Address, one of the most important, and therefore most ignored, speeches he ever made.

One last mention of an incredibly boring topic (or how to deal with obnoxious single-issue insecure narcissistic minorities)

I have finally found the time to sit down and reply to a question asked by Carrie under my recent post about Obama's choices.  Carrie asked:

Could we have another less 'sexist', less 'macho' term than "sissy", do you think? For the female readers that contribute to your page view stats, the term smacks of 'boys with toys (sigh)'. For me, term detracts from the mostly excellent content. 

As soon as I  read that question I had a flashback to my student years when I was working towards my Master's Degree in Strategic Studies in Washington DC.  One evening, we were sitting with a group of students and discussing various Russian study programs when I mentioned that one of the very best one I have ever seen was the Russian studies program at Bryn Mawr College.  I then mentioned that it was too bad that it was a "ladies-only college" (that was in 1990 or 1991 - not sure if they are now coed or not).  One American woman (you will see why I use this term in a few seconds) got very upset and told me the following: "To use the word "lady" is sexist and offensive because under a thin semblance of respect it really implies that woman are weak and need male protection".  I asked her what the appropriate term would be and she said "women" (she left it unclear whether she would spell that "women" or "womyn").  At this point she and I reached a full agreement and I promised her that I would never speak of her again as a "lady" but only as a "woman".  Needless to say, I continued to refer to other adult females as "ladies".  Still do.

That was the first time in my life that I was told that the word "lady" was offensive, but that sure was not the last time as I came to realize that the "feminist vocabulary police" was busy shaping many languages in the West.  Jumping ahead of myself I would add that this "feminist vocabulary police" has now been joined by a no less aggressive "homosexual vocabulary police" so from now on I will be referring to this as "sexual vocabulary police" (the "West's finest"?).

Now turning to my use of the word "sissy".  Let's begin by a definition, this time taken from Wikipedia:

Sissy (derived from sister; also sissy baby, sissy boy, sissy man, etc.) is a pejorative term for a boy or man who violates or does not meet the standard male gender role. Generally, sissy implies a lack of courage, strength, coordination, testosterone, male libido, and stoicism, which have traditionally been important to the male role. A man might also be considered a sissy for being interested in traditionally feminine hobbies or employment (e.g., being fond of fashion), displaying effeminate behavior (e.g. using hair products or displaying limp wrists), being unathletic, or being homosexual.  Sissy is, approximately, the male converse of tomboy (a girl with masculine traits or interests), but has none of the latter's positive connotations. Even amongst gay men, behavior thought of as sissy or camp produces mixed reactions. Some men reclaim the term for themselves.  The term sissyphobia denotes a negative cultural reaction against "sissy boys" thought prevalent in 1974. Sissyphobia has more recently been used in some queer studies; other authors in this latter area have proposed effeminiphobia as an alternative term.

 Awesome, no?!

First, the blue part very accurately expresses my beef with Obama, Kerry, Hagel and all the other mediocrities sitting in the White House and Congress.  So my short reply to Carrie would be: if the word "sissy' exactly conveys the meaning I was trying to get across, why should I not use it?

The rest of the definition is the typical cocktail of idiotic issues which seem to preoccupy the insecure and narcissistic segment of our society which I call the "sexual vocabulary police".  Think about it: however wrote the 2nd part of this definition is clearly a "me, myself and I" kind of person who strongly feels that his/her sensitivities must be important to the rest of the population (hence the absolutely serious discussion about comparative merits of the terms "sissyphobia" versus "effeminiphobia" in the context of, I kid you not,  "queer studies"!).

Fair enough - to each his own - but why would I care?!

Well, it get's better.  Check out the rest of this Wikipedia entry:

Term of affection toward women
Sissy (or sis) can also be a relationship nickname formed from sister, given to girls to indicate their role in the family, especially the oldest female sibling. It can also be applied to girls as a term of affection from friends who are not family members. (See Sissy Spacek.)

In gender and queer studies
Gregory M. Herek wrote that sissyphobia arises as combination of misogyny and homophobia. Communication scholar Shinsuke Eguchi (2011) stated:

The discourse of straight-acting produces and reproduces anti-femininity and homophobia(Clarkson. 2006). For example, feminine gay men are often labeled "fem," "bitchy," "pissy," "sissy," or "queen" (e.g., Christian, 2005; Clarkson, 2006; Payne,2007). They are perceived as if they perform like "women," spurring straight-acting gay men to have negative attitudes toward gay feminine men (Clarkson, 2006; Payne, 2007;Ward, 2000). This is called sissyphobia (Bergling, 2001). Kimmel (1996) supports that "masculinity has been (historically) defined as the flight from women and the repudiation of femininity" (p. 123). Thus, sissyphobia plays as the communication strategy for straight-acting gay men to justify and empower their masculinity. (p. 38).

Eguchi added, "I wonder how 'sissyphobia' particularly plays into the dynamic of domestic violence processes in the straight-acting and effeminate-acting male same-sex coupling pattern." (p. 53).

In sexual subcultures
In the BDSM practice of forced feminization, the male bottom undergoing cross-dressing may be called a sissy as a form of erotic humiliation, which may elicit guilt or sexual arousal, or possibly both, depending on the individual.  In (paraphilic) infantilism, a sissy baby is a man who likes to play the role of a baby girl.

What in God's name are they talking about?!  What is this cornucopia of sexual pathologies supposed to tell us?  That the only proper way to use the word sissy is when trying to elicit sexual arousal in a man playing the role of a baby?!

Puhleeeeeze!!!!

Let's try to limit this discussion within the assumption that all the parties involved are basically balanced, mature and sane.

I notice that Carrie find my use of the word "sissy" objectionable even though she is a woman.  Maybe, but I was not referring to a woman, I was referring to Obama or, even more accurately, to his *attack options* (which is a logical category, not even something alive or material).  Besides, Wikipedia clearly says that when applied to women the terms "sissy" is a term of endearment.  So what is the problem here?

I will wholeheartedly admit that women are treated terribly in the Western world.  From the appalling rape statistics, to poverty, to the misery of single mother homes, to widespread domestic violence, to the denial of any social recognition of the hard work of the  "stay at home mom" - there is much to be offended by in our society.  So why this obsession with words? Is it simply because it is easier to obtain a change in the use of  a word then to change the reality we live in?

My personal conclusion is the following one: we are living in a society were any forms of sexual differentiation are being ostracized.  God forbid you use a word which might be "female-specific" or "too feminine" because the simple of that word reaffirms and reinforces the differences between genders and that, in turn, is offensive to those who find the very notion of differences in genders offensive.  What this "sexual vocabulary police" really wants is to turn our daily use of words into a "linguistic Michael Jackson" who was neither White nor Black, to really male or female, not quite an adult or a kid. Jackson was the ultimate non-identity acceptable to all because of the inherent (and, in reality, carefully constructed) vapidity of his stage persona.

Do you still remember what happened to Obama when he said about California Attorney General Kamala Harris:"She's brilliant and she's dedicated, she's tough, she also happens to be, by far, the best-looking attorney general in the country".  He got attacked for being sexist! Nevermind that Mrs Harris goes out of her way to look good (check her photos for makeup, lipstick, jewelry, expensive dresses, etc.) - a President cannot acknowledge that because that is a gender-specific comment which, in turn, implies that women should/could be judged by their looks, which is, by logical implication, not something which would happen to a man.

And here the feminists and the homo-lobbyists meet each other: both a dead set into literally train us not to discriminate between genders or sexual behaviors.  Thus even the word "discriminate" which really means being able to identify differences has now become associated with racism and injustice.  How totally stupid can a society become?!

Speaking for myself, not only do I discriminate, I go out of my way to teach that skill to my kids.  In fact, the more people get brainwashed into not discriminating, the more effort I put into teaching my kids how crucial discrimination is not only for biological life (that is what our immune system does 24/7 - it discriminates), but also for our psychological and spiritual lives (which both feature the psychological and spiritual equivalents of our physiological  immune systems).  In fact, I am so sick and tired of the insecure narcissistic types and their constant demand that we all comply with their latest demands that I make it a point to not let this kind of wholly illegitimate behavior go unchallenged.  Any my reply to the sexual vocabulary police" is this:

Live and let live.  You like the infinite grayness of non-gender differentiated people - please, be my guest and enjoy.  But let me enjoy and cherish masculinity in men and femininity in women.  To me, every single difference between the character of man and woman is beautiful and deeply enjoyable - for both parties - and they are the basis of the wonderful complementarity of genders. I have been privileged to meet many truly intelligent, courageous, strong and otherwise "tough" women in my life, and yet all of them also remained truly feminine which only added to their other qualities.  I find it very sad when a woman turns away from her femininity and tries to look like a man, because most of the time they succeed.  This is just as sad as an Asian or African person trying to look White.

Socially, I come from a culture and a religion which energetically fosters and promotes gender differentiation and I like to think of our families as "gender differentiated families".  When I see the modern kids who are left with two "Michael Jacksons" as "parents" I feel heartbroken for them because I know for a fact that it is impossible to raise a healthy child and balanced without a real father and real mother at home (I was raised by my mother with no father, so I speak of personal experience).  Thanks to the "sexual vocabulary police" and the rest of the "sexual lobbies" out there our society is turning into a society of orphans, who have neither father nor mother and who are now even denied their gender.  If that is what you like - fine. But you have no right to impose your preferences on the rest of us.  You don't like discrimination?  Please, poke out your own eyes and enjoy the discrimination-free darkness, but don't start coming after my eyes as I cherish them very much.

In conclusion I will say that I am really getting sick and tired of constantly discussing sexual issues. When Putin was in Holland he was amazed that this was the only topic of interest to the press corps.  Well, he is a political figure and so he has to deal with this nonsense.  I don't.  I have made my views on homosexuality quite clear (here and here) and I have made my point of view about the "sexual vocabulary police" quite clear today.  I think that anybody who has read these posts will be able to easily guess my opinion on feminism.  As Michael Parenti recently put it, it is waste of time to discuss sexual orientation issues when most people come home from work too exhausted to have sex.

So now let's return to the truly important issues of our times and stop paying attention to the narrow agenda for a small part of our society which is  insecure, narcissistic and yet very obnoxious.  Let the corporate press deal with that topic.  As for me, I am done with this incredibly boring topic.

The Saker

PS: just when I wrote the last sentence above a friend of mine drew my attention to the following article in Salon:

Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm” 

Yeah!  There we go.  Another "luminary" of the modern world has the courage to take it to the next level!!

Amazing...