September 29, 2009

Mud Men: Polanski & Le Miserable Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times

0r - The Not-So-Pretty Perversions of Patrick Goldstein and Friends

Patrick Goldstein, Testing Pos for Perversion

The arrest of Roman Polanski for his repulsive crime has caused an eruption of foul-smelling gas bubbles in the media slime ponds where many of what passes for America’s public “intellectuals” wallow.

Foremost among these sources of stench is the chancrous Patrick Goldstein who, like many others who are “intellectually insane” sucks his pay-check out of the fetid swamp of the Los Angeles Times. Like many ill-educated and under-read third-rate scribblers, Goldstein thinks it’s the mark of a “writer” to throw a “lit’ry” reference into his prose slop from time to time. That he either has not read or comprehended the work he cites escapes his notice as he hopes it will escape his readers.

In this particular instance, Goldstein cloyingly cites Victor Hugo, a Parisian author of the 19th century, as he whips out his crying towel for convicted child molester Roman Polanski.

“We live in an age that is so thoroughly post-modern that you can find an obvious literary antecedent for nearly every seamy media storyline. The same goes for the Polanski case, which is full of echoes of "Les Miserables," the classic Victor Hugo novel about Jean Valjean, an ex-con trying to turn his life around who is being obsessively tracked and hunted down by the Parisian police inspector Javert.” -- Roman Polanski still being hounded by L.A. County prosecutors

Oh? Really? Like Les Miserables is it? Oh Richard, you pumped-up puff adder, you blotched buffoon, you puling putz. Are you perhaps remembering a lovely date at a performance of the musical Les Miz and not the book? Let’s review, shall we?

Les Miserables
The story starts in 1815, in Toulon. The peasant Jean Valjean has just been released from imprisonment in the Bagne of Toulon after nineteen years: five for stealing bread for his starving sister and his family, and fourteen more for numerous escape attempts. Upon being released, he is required to carry a yellow passport that marks him as a convict, despite having already paid his debt to society by serving his time in jail. Rejected by innkeepers, who do not want to take in a convict, Valjean sleeps on the street

To my mind, stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving sister and your family doesn’t quite track with drugging and anally raping a minor. Perhaps it does to Goldstein who may well cherish an incident of being anally raped by an unbuttered baguette during an unforgettable weekend in Malibu.

Perhaps Goldstein equates “fourteen escape attempts” with one quick first-class flight to Paris decades ago. After all, being forced to live in luxury in Paris where children of both sexes can be rented for an evening’s hobby time (“O those Arab waifs from the 18th!) may well be the modern equivalent for Polanski of "imprisonment in the Bagne of Toulon." I imagine that’s what Goldstein is thinking when he finds in Polanski’s life not a history of duplicity, perversion, privilege, and rape, but “a tragedy.”

Hugo's story is a tragedy, as is the life story of Polanski, who was a fugitive as a boy and is now a fugitive as an old man. Whether the L.A. County district attorney office has its way or not, it is not a story that can have a happy ending. I think Polanski has already paid a horrible, soul-wrenching price for the infamy surrounding his actions. The real tragedy is that he will always, till his death, be snubbed and stalked and confronted by people who think the price he has already paid isn't enough.

Humm, “snubbed….” What a disaster! Quel horror! And “confronted,” as in... what? Given a stern talking to? “Stalked?” A problem only if the raped girl had a stand-up father and he stalked Polanski with an axe. But wait, that didn’t happen, did it?

But Goldstein, from deep inside his own perverse slop-pit of a soul, has yet another objection… the cost!

You see, according to Goldstein it’s foolish to spend the money when so many of les pauvres are in need:

"But at a time when California is shredding the safety net that protects the poor and the unemployed, not to mention the budget of the public school system, you'd hope that L.A. County prosecutors had better things to do than cause an international furor by hounding a film director for a 32-year-old sex crime, especially one that Polanski's victim wants to put behind her."

It might be better for Goldstein if he can recall, just for a moment, what Polanski put in the victim’s behind when she was a child. Indeed, he probably has but would decline to write about the pleasure it gave him to contemplate. The problem with the dark and secret wells of the human soul in Goldstein's cultural mileau is that they are not repressed but celebrated and often acted out with impunity. Which is what Polanski's escape from punishment and high-life in Europe represents to Goldstein and his set -- depraved actions performed at will with utter impunity.

Why the poor, unemployed, and public schools enter into Goldstein’s “argument” is unfathomable until you recall that for the dead souls of Goldstein’s ilk, these classes are always invoked not to argue anything in particular, but to underscore in the arguer’s mind what a good person he is. The poor are always the plum pulled out on the thumb to say, “What a good boy am I!”

The eternally destitute state of our over-funded and under-performing public schools is plunked in almost as an after-thought so that Goldstein can preen some more as if saying, “Don’t prosecute the child molester for the good of the children!”

Finally, what "the victim" wants at this point is irrelevant to the crime and the question at hand. It seems that Mr. Goldstein and his cohort have forgotten what the real question is at this time. If they would like to be reminded, all they need to do is take a tour of Washington DC and walk past the Supreme Court building and look up. There, carved into the stone of the façade is:


Four words that, when you erase them for a “special case” as Mr. Goldstein wishes, invariably cause the collapse of the social contract. This is not speculation but history and it happens like the force of gravity.

Neoneocon has a fine summary of the intellectual slop being spewed in the Polanski case in her essay today, The Rape of Innocence:

(1) moral relativism run amok. There are no objective standards of behavior. Who are we to judge, anyway?
(2) worship of the elite by the elite, or the would-be elite
(3) the sexualization of children. You can see it everywhere: fashion, entertainment, and in any school in town. And yes, it's a very slippery slope.
4) the desire to be seen as a spiritually evolved human being, a forgiving sort who is far above the primitive desire of others for revenge and retribution rather than peace and love (it’s so Old Testament, you know)
(5) the end of the idea that society is a player in the game, an entity with an interest in setting standards for human behavior

For me, however, the current Polanski defenses go beyond all that. They reveal a state of being that celebrates, even as it wallows in, the most perverse conditions of the human soul. In this wise we can see creatures such as Goldstein, not as the shining intellectuals of our age, but as the slime peddlers in the sewers of our culture; as people of the mud.

I’ve remarked on this before in Yearning for the Mud and it fits Richard Goldstein like his favorite latex catsuit.

The French have an idiomatic phrase nostalgie pour la boue that means, roughly, "yearning for the mud." "Yearning for the mud" in America is a compulsion that comes over people when they have, for complex reasons, a need to immerse themselves in self-degradation. It's usually a mix of drink, drugs, and weird sex until the soul is obliterated by the abused flesh. The obliteration of the soul and the abuse of the flesh is one of the central tenets in many of our post-modern, secular lifestyle religions.

Most people try this sort of thing a time in their youth, but soon grow out of it when time and experience get the upper hand. Others grow out of it via deep psychoanalysis and a few trips to the rehab clinic. Still others are simply killed by it, their lives bracketed by dates that are far too close together.

Many, however, never kick it and were, in the past, thought of as "perverts" but are now more kindly seen as "differently minded." They live in those urban cores of the soul we now esteem as "Alternative Lifestyles." Once there they busy themselves in making bad design, bad decisions, bad art and bad politics. We are rich and kindly as a culture so we generally let them be. Once comfortable in their redoubts they think it their duty to sally forth from time to time and infest the rest of the nation.

A minority of the last group make a career of nostalgie pour la boue and are generally known as "pundits," "media personalities, or "celebrities."

There's a lot of cross-over of all kinds between celebrity culture and media culture. Indeed, at a lot of levels, it is becoming hard to tell them apart. Both live, for the most part, in an insulated bubble that is impervious to personal moral, psychological, or political change and ruthlessly exacts the penalty of expulsion from the bubble in the event of such change.

I'd like to suggest that there's another kind nostalgie going around in this hybrid culture that glories in the mud: Nostalgie pour la defaite -- "yearning for defeat."

Nostalgie pour la defaite is that state of the soul when an American, who either came of age in the Vietnam era, or who was taught and mentored by many leftists or liberals of that vintage, yearns for the defeat of America, and acts accordingly in word and deed. This compulsion is not only required to keep their residency in their subcultures, but to keep their status as well. The more virulent their articulations of hate, the higher their regard by their peers. Neither children nor even infants are safe from their depravities.

It is a perverted form of "confirmation bias." In a way, joining this group is like joining a gang -- once you're in, getting out is not an option unless you seek social and political death. Once articulated, this state is then seen as confirmation that his or her world view and social milieu is the correct view and correct milieu. To operate otherwise would throw not only all the professional views and actions of the last thirty years into question, but the entire structure of the afflicted personality as well.

An America that is ascendant rather than retiring, an America whose policies are aggressive and not apologetic, is an America the People of the Lie are simply unequipped to inhabit or report on. They have, quite frankly, an empty tool box when it comes to this task and no raw materials with which to build. The only America they can support is one that supports them without question. They want one thing and one thing only -- a blank check for money, means, unceasing regard and opportunity.

Our current infestation of American media personalities and American celebrities with nostalgie pour la defaite rises from decades of beliefs in an America that is best as a "pitiful, helpless Giant;" a kind of "nostalgie pour la jeunesse perdue" -- nostalgia for lost youth. It is literally the only America they know and their entire professional and personal lives, from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times, from the Hamptons to Beverly Hills are based on this grand assumption. They've had Presidents and Presidential candidates that, commuting to and from these locales, have confirmed it to them. Their coworkers in their jobs confirm it to them. Their significant others, drawn from the same ranks, confirm it to them. The parties they attend, the empty and numberless awards they give and receive, the places they vacation, the books they half-read and the films they make and see, all confirm it to them over and over again. It is not only the only America they know, it is the only America they can know.

Anything that confirms the nostalgie pour la defaite is news they can use. Anything that confirms American exceptionalism is not, by definition, news at all. Anything that actually represents American exceptionalism is bad news and must be crushed by any means necessary.

These afflicted Americans are raised and trained to desire that, in all things, America should always lose and become less of an important force in the world. The catastrophic results of a weaker America do not concern them. It is only important that America become and remain weak and hamstrung. Only then will Europeans and others say nice things about them as they flit about the world.

If America is to become weak, what do they propose in its place? The short form for their vision of the future is "an empowered United Nations."

At which point they step from their nostalgie pour la defaite back into nostalgie pour la boue -- the yearning for the mud. In the final analysis, it isn't that big a step. The mud is where they feel most at home.

Posted by Vanderleun at September 29, 2009 11:28 AM
Bookmark and Share



"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

The real tragedy is that he will always, till his death, be snubbed

Hmmm, I didn't realize that part of snubbing was to be nominated for and/or win Academy Awards.

Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) at September 29, 2009 3:04 PM

In the Seattle Times today there is an article on this sordid episode written by a couple of celebrity-toadies at the LAT, that refers to Polanksi's "alleged assault" on the 13-year-old.

To those who will dissemble about a horrible crime as if it were an indescretion, just because it was committed by a celebrity, I can onlt say that the words to describe your state of degeneracy elude me. You are not my watchdogs, and not my deciders of what is the truth. I question whether you are fit to live among decent men and women.

Posted by: sherlock at September 29, 2009 4:10 PM

Is it Richard or Patrick?
Either way, dude is an ass...

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at September 29, 2009 5:42 PM

Many movies were ruined forever for me when I saw Harrison Ford deliver Polanski's Academy Award to him in person in France, I assume. Ford was so obviously thrilled to have the "honor". Blech!

My kids attend a performing arts program. I know - I know - what am I thinking as a God-fearing conservative? It is a great program with very Christian overtones (although, this is probably an attempt by the libs running the show to further co-opt "compassion"). Earlier this year, they performed a Minotti opera in which the moral is to "not conform". I tell my kids, "Don't conform. Be a conservative artist!" The irony of the lock-step uniformity of the "art" community's politics is completely lost on them.

Posted by: Western Chauvinist at September 29, 2009 5:52 PM

"Conservative artist".
No such creature.
Arthurstone at September 29, 2009 7:58 PM

Go to 'Big Hollywood'.
They're coming out of the liberal closet.
Or is your definition of 'artist' so narrow as to exclude musicians, directors, actors, writers, etc...
I'm sure the "'artist' formerly known as 'Prince'" would beg to differ...

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at September 29, 2009 8:20 PM

"Conservative artist". No such creature.

That's not true at all! I'm conservative and I just painted Arthurstone getting humped like a 13 year old by Roman Polanski. With my own poop.

It'll hang in The Met between the corpses shagging and the rotting shark.

Posted by: Gray at September 29, 2009 9:17 PM

Dearest Gray, your first name wouldn't perchance be Dorian, would it?

Posted by: Jewel at September 29, 2009 11:51 PM

Wonderful piece, Gerard. Nostalgie pour le mort may be even more apropos -- since these people look at life through twisted, dead eyes.

Posted by: LT at September 30, 2009 5:42 AM

Ce n'est qu'une pure formalité, alors, n'est-ce pas?

Posted by: Jewel at September 30, 2009 7:45 AM

Mr. Polanski is a pedophile. He stacked and feed drugs and booze to a thirteen year old girl and then raped her. He plead guilty to these charges and then realized that the punishment maybe more the standard Hollywood “community service” and ran away. He lived well in France and continued making money at his chosen career, showing no remorse or sorrow. He has been caught again and should be punished. I think he should be locked away, preferably with a very large, very aggressive, very violent homosexual so that he can enjoy the anal rape he performed on a thirteen year old girl.

Posted by: John at September 30, 2009 7:51 AM

You really have a knack for selecting photos Gerard. One look at this guy's face tells you everything you need to know about him. The smug satisfaction in his face is so clear. It's amazing how as we age our physical being reflects the soul inside ever more clearly. Now that I think about it, I have seen this smug look way too often whenever I turn on the news and see our great leader.

Posted by: Peter at September 30, 2009 8:48 AM

Your opening line was one of the best hooks I have read in a while. Great analysis as well :)

Posted by: PeggyU at September 30, 2009 10:01 AM

I see the inimitable Whoopi weighed in. She said, for one, that it's not a "rape rape," as in it was 'consensual.' Amazing, the clueless depravity of these people. In addition to consensuality being irrelevant in statutory rape, it can be argued legally that it was NOT consensual because of the girl being drugged and intoxicated, and therefore incapacitated.

To compound her obscene ignorance, she stated that we had to be tolerant of 'other cultures' where 'sex with a 13-year-old is accepted.'

WTF? Where does she think Polanski is from, a goat pasture in Baluchistan? Oh, and apparently the "not rape rape" must have happened in Baluchistan, rather than L.A.

Please Gerard, I urge you to do a follow-up on Whoopi Goldberg's contribution to this discussion. The more we pile on to the steady drip-drip of the true nature of the leftist/progressive rot and the degeneracy of so much of our 'elite,' the more people will make connections across the spectrum of our idiot 'ruling class.'

Posted by: Roderick Reilly at September 30, 2009 11:26 AM

Oh, I see Whoopi's in the sidebar. Good.

Posted by: Roderick Reilly at September 30, 2009 11:30 AM

Not deeply.

Posted by: vanderleun at September 30, 2009 12:08 PM

"Conservative Artists" do exist, they just have to keep their mouths shut and their opinions to themselves in order to be employable. Most artistic endeavors do NOT involve getting a steady job somewhere with a firm and staying there for years/decades, the artsy world is a free-lance world and being known as a "conservative" means you will not work. Period. Hard to know how many of those who keep their mouths shut are really conservatives or just uninterested. You need to get to a certain point in your career, like Roger Simon, or Dennis Miller, or our host Gerard, if you want to out yourself.

Which leads to my second point, I caught some of Michael Medved's radio show yesterday, he who touts his expertise on pop culture and politics from a supposed conservative viewpoint. He made the same argument as this Goldstein creep, that the money spent chasing Polanski after all these years is wasted. I guess he's spent a little too much time with those Hollywood types, the pedophile cooties have rubbed off on him. Or else he's afraid they won't take his calls anymore.

Posted by: Boots at September 30, 2009 1:11 PM

seconded Gerard.

Posted by: Thud at September 30, 2009 1:40 PM

Sherlock notes: "In the Seattle Times today there is an article on this sordid episode written by a couple of celebrity-toadies at the LAT, that refers to Polanksi's "alleged assault" on the 13-year-old."

In fact, it was not an "alleged assault". Polanski plead GUILTY. It was an ADMITTED assault.

Posted by: Hangtown at September 30, 2009 3:06 PM

Nice crowd you draw here Gerard.

It was until you arrived.

Arthurstoned, do you have a point-- besides the top of your head-- to your contrary need for negative attention? If you're defending Polanski, let's hear it. Let's hear all of it. All of your raging hatred, cool agnosticism, foolish relativism.

But, if you're hoping to preach your one-dimensional religion of "the hypocrisy of the religious," then blog-flog the Hell out of it and see who comes to read it on your own site.

Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at September 30, 2009 4:34 PM

We have to be gentle with Arthur. We're training him for the Special Commenting Olympics and the stick in his forehead keeps popping out of it's socket.

Posted by: vanderleun at September 30, 2009 9:35 PM

"We have to be gentle with Arthur"

I'm afraid it's the stake in his heart that keeps popping out.

Meanwhile, we are witnessing the historical spector of the rape of American liberty by the revelant socialist do-gooders. Poor Arthur.

Posted by: Denny at October 1, 2009 8:32 AM

Gray, I just destroyed my keyboard!

Boots, exactly! Principle is priceless.

Gerard, the best commentary on this sordid affair that I have read.

Posted by: Bill at October 1, 2009 5:06 PM

As yellow as Goldstein's sclerae are, he may not be long for this world.

He has a very dissipated look about him.
I guess that goes along with the territory.

Posted by: teresa at October 1, 2009 5:15 PM