An event has just occurred that should be marked with a black spot in the history of the society of spectacle.
It happened Friday morning, when virtually all the radio stations and news networks, most of the printed press (not only French, but worldwide), the most reputable news sites, the most respected columnists of America, Germany, New Zealand and Singapore, those with the widest audience, all announced, in concert, the separation of Anne Sinclair and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, citing as their sole source an article published by... the Parisian tabloid magazine Closer!
I shall not comment on the violence of this intrusion into the lives of a man and woman who are entitled, as we all are, to respect for their privacy.
And -- must I make it clear? -- I have no idea as to the accuracy of information in which, by the same token, I have the right to take no interest, and which I regret that my favorite news sites saw fit to inflict upon me, thereby violating my no less inalienable right to choose not to enter the bedrooms of others.
What I find interesting in this affair is, once again, its symptomatic aspect.
What is fascinating about the Times, Toronto Sun, Hindustan News, Irish Examiner, Chicago Tribune, Malaysian Insider and others announcing in unison, without bothering to check, let alone confirm, the facts of this supposed "divorce," promoted to the status of a "worldwide" event, "earlier reported by the weekly magazine Closer," is the compulsive and less unconscious desire concerning a man whom they have managed to portray, worldwide, as a monster or a demon, one whose every movement (attending a birthday party, missing a film premier, traveling) is scrutinized, over-analyzed, demonized.
This is not a desire to seek the truth: Since Dominique Strauss-Kahn is no longer a candidate for anything, nor the director of any organization whatsoever, this feigned "enlightening" of the "citizens" adds to the violence of this action an alibi of utterly pathetic hypocrisy.
It is not a desire for justice: Lawsuits are conducted in the courts, not in editorial offices, and moreover, since keeping company with prostitutes is not yet a criminal offense in France, no one can adequately say what is really involved in the incrimination we have been unwillingly compelled to witness.
It is not even the possible concern for the moral edification of his contemporaries: Morality is not moral order! The ideal of transparency, the injunction to tell all, show all, to reveal everything in detail -- this is immorality itself!
Nor is it the legitimate intention to further the cause of women. What feminist worthy of the name would find her thoughts expressed by these leagues of virtue or, better put, killers by virtue, applauding as a victory the fact that a prostitute goes to the police to denounce the sexual "harassment" to which she has been subject?
No.
The desire one senses behind this next-to-the-last phase of the interminable and nauseating Strauss-Kahn soap opera is, like it or not, a desire for a symbolic murder.
I am looking at the photos of the man in question that accompany most of these articles.
I imagine the predominating choice, the crafted photo cropping, the layout artist asked to chose an appropriately pathetic shot, where Strauss-Kahn is seen with five-o'clock shadow, alone at the terrace of a café, carrying his poor little grocery bag.
I imagine the jubilation behind the narration of the "descent into hell" [sic] of this "living dead man" [re-sic] who would have once become, to hear the modern clerks of the citizens' and social vice squad tell it, the master of the world.
And I see how the same individuals are finally thrilled at the idea of watching the severing of the last bond, thanks to a possible divorce, that, in their idiotic vision of the world, ties this phantom to life.
You can look at it any way you like.
The truth is that they want Strauss-Kahn not only down, but on the ground.
Not only on the ground, but, in the words of a commentator I will be charitable enough not to name, lower than the ground.
They want him dead.
They don't want to miss out on any part of the killing.
There is nothing else in this universal coverage that targets "the Strauss-Kahns" than the archaic desire to see one of our kind up against the wall, humiliated, executed on the public square, annihilated.
And this, added to the fact that the American courts already granted him a first acquittal in August, 2011, added to the possibility, by no means excluded, that French justice will find the former IMF director innocent of the crimes he is charged with (for which the Court of Public Opinion has already judged him) and pronounce a second acquittal, is the other reason I continue to defend him, as a matter of principle.
Baying for blood, going in for the kill disgusts me.
The pack is the expression of the human grimace.
When all join together against one, it is not rare that, one day or another and regardless of the faults he may have committed, justice is granted the individual.
Actually, most feminists, I would hope. And dear M. HBL, why don't you find something more important to write about than your outrage at the DSK drama. Such as the sex slave trade. Which is very profitable. The vast majority of these prositutes (which are condemened to illegal acts they neither want nor enjoy while the Johns get off scott free, and have complete freedom of choice) have been ripped from their families and face ruined lives. That, my poor outraged HBL, disgusts me.
And by the way, I thought the USA were a democracy with a legal system, laws, courts etc ...
Innocent until proven guilty does not seem to be in the built-in options some of you have in the brain.
It is necessary to clearly and concisely express our desire to comment on specific topics, Mr.Levy has trouble with metaphors, perhaps he could try to use sensible (ie.bloodless) language. I guess my point is that he should spend more than3 minutes writting articles. It is not only his credibility but the credibility of his host. It would also be nice to introduce the concept of readers that are capable of analyzing news and not needing the literary Quentin Tarrentino to guide us through it all.
Anyways cudos.
our kind?
your kind... not mine...
I keep *hearing* Bernard-Henri Lévy described as a "French philosopher", but I can't actually recall any philosophic muttering eminating from either end of the little Frenchman.
Plenty of "politics", sure, from the hairy-chested one.
And - Mon Dieu! - how he can mutter the word "anti-semitic".
Certainly he is loud when it comes time to beat up Yet Another Easy Beat Country.
But philosophy?
Where and when, exactly?
And the exclamation points! (O, mon Dieu!)
And the blood-dripping metaphors! (Shielding a tasteful and oh-zo-French image of DSK "with five-o'clock shadow, alone at the terrace of a café, carrying his poor little grocery bag"* -- do you feel the angst? Or is it just well-heeled and custom-made ennui? Where's Sartre when you need him?! )
And the moral outrage! (Incoherent and overblown as it is).
As my no-longer-teenage son used to say,
Dude, seriously.
*The poor little grocery bag is the most sympathetic character in this debacle.
you. all of you
who once again see fit, to print, not print, what suits you --all 3 of my latest posts immaterialized-- in protecting yourselves
.
who knew even the otherwise enlightened levy needs the likes of you-- chutzpooh --to squat, block and run interference for yet another of your own halfbacked halfwits to run anywhere but at the mouth
BHL, you have no credibility. None at all. You should stop writing and making a fool of yourself.