In following what is turning out to be a fairly remarkable Strauss-Kahn affaire there appears to be a strong contrast between stated ideological goals and actual practices.
While one can’t trust any details that have been reported one thing is clear: the maid, whose name and picture are withheld, formerly reported to be a hardworking single African mom from the poorest village in the poorest country in the world, Guinea. Herself being so poor as to be almost unbelievable and therefore, one presumes incapable of being guilty of even a traffic infraction although having been new to New York from the jungles of Guinea. As we now learn she was not only not that poor but actually well off by Guinean standards which are the only standards that apply while admittingly being the very lowest standards in the world. Still she was apparently well off, having status, by Guinea’s admittedly deplorable level that she is now being accused of lying to the US Immigration authorities and hence subject to removal to, one assumes, any country that will take her.
In addition she is now accused of ‘asylum fraud.’ Surely one of the most common offenses ever committed and not worthy of more than a tut tut. She, we are now told fraudulently claimed that:
Among other things, the complaint stated that the house she shared with her husband was destroyed by the police and soldiers acting on the behalf of the regime, and that she and her husband were beaten by them.
In her statement, she attributed the beatings to the couple’s opposition to the regime. She stated that during her husband’s incarceration, he was tortured, deprived of medical treatment and eventually died of maltreatment. Following his death, according to her, she began to denounce the regime and finally fled the country in fear for her life.
Well, all right. Apparently the powers that be find such conduct by the Guinean ‘regime’ reprehensible while believing that regime changes are in order such as in Liberia, Libya, Egypt and other places, but not China and, say, France, the US, GB and places like that.
While espousing the highest ideals for the poorest of the poor our own governments (I’m US) deprive us of all rights to determine out own future. They sent all our jobs to China, Mexico and elsewhere. We are compelled against our wills to accept the foulest sexual practices as normal and have them taught to our children. We are compelled against our wills to accept dissimilar immigration and what not. We do object. If we object we can, like Edgar J. Steele, be thrown into prison not unlike this poorest of the poor women of Guinea. Steele is not poor and he lives in one of the richest countries where he enjoys all White Skin Privileges. That alone surely makes him a bastard although not necessarily a criminal.
Our own President, Barry Obama, has labeled his own dissenters to his regime Domestic Terrorists not too unlike the regime of Guinea. Ask Edgar J. Steele. We are commanded to express certain opinions while at the same time denied the use of certain strictly censored words. If we violate those commands we are subject to fines and/or imprisonment. Witness poor John Galliano in France. He was essentially fined several tens of millions of dollars and faces a prison sentence for merely having exchanged words with a certain privileged class of people.
Strauss Kahn is apparently able to pull strings very effectively thus being able to weasel his way out of his situation even though his accuser has suffered discrimination, so-called, they were accepted customs in Guinea, all her very poor life. I mean, my god, she was a woman, and you know what that means. Edgar J. Steele, who committed no crime at all, whiles his life away in prison.
So, tell me, what is the difference between Mubarak and Obama and the rest of them? With these new stringent ideological standards aren’t they guilty of crimes against their dissident minorities? Don’t they deny us our human rights to self-determination? Or are certain regimes exempt from the rules they are imposing on others? China, the US, Canada, GB, France etc. etc. etc.
The question is, can the rule makers live up to their own ideals? How do we think of Libya for instance? Do the supposed crimes of one regime dealing with their dissident minorities cancel out the real crimes of the other?
You tell me.