To all Anders Behring Breivik wannabes

If Anders Behring Breivik is your hero, I've got some news for you :

- Anders Behring Breivik is not insane, granted - even if his lawyer is unsurprisingly walking that perennial defense line. But Anders Behring Breivik is a dangerous psychopath, and he must face justice.

- I've met you before. Of course, not likely face to face (who knows ?), but one of your likes, on some internet forum. You've been promoting the same kind of hate speeches : Islam is at war with Western Civilization, we must eradicate it from Europe, take the arms, clean the place... the usual clash of civilization imposture.

- Anders Behring Breivik is not a hero, but a loser who cornered himself in that deadend for fear of facing his own identity crisis, a fool feeding on hate diatribes cooked by the same kind of impostors who turn weak minds into terrorists in the Muslim world. You think people like Geert Wilders defend the Western World against the Muslim World but you don't realize that YOU are his real target, not the Muslims. How can you trust a man who doesn't even trust the color of his own hair ?

- Just ask yourself why you admire Breivik, and you'll probably find the same anger, despair, unsureness inside yourself. You're bragging about being a 'pure blood', but are you that comfortable with your own identity ?

- By the way : did you know that your parents were Africans ? Yes, we humans come all from Africa. Even I, a blondish, blue-eyed Caucasian, Western European to the nth generation, am a proud African. And did you know that civilizations bloomed first in the Middle East, that big chunks of the antique European heritage were saved by Muslim scientists ?

- Make no mistake : Islam is not the menace, but another victim of fundamentalism, the mother of all impostures*. Remember : the main enemy always come from within. So don't get fooled by XXIst century crusaders. Don't be your own worst enemy.

blogules 2011 (also in French : "Message personnel aux fans d'Anders Behring Breivik")

* see also "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism"

---
UPDATE 201108 : "Andreas" actual ID recovered, link to the French version

France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one

As soon as Nicolas Sarkozy said that Burqas were "not welcome" in France, the debate rippled across the World.

I mean THE debate. Not about the burqa, but about France itself : the country would be intolerant and undermining freedom of religion.

I faced the same misunderstanding from Muslims, Jews, Christians, and even atheists following my blogule "No to Burqa = No to Fundamentalism... Christian Fundamentalism included" ("Non à la Burqa = Non au fondamentalisme... Chrétien y compris").

I should say the same double misunderstanding :

• classic misunderstanding : fundamentalism is about politics, not religion. Claiming independence from fundamentalism is about saving democracy, but also about saving freedom of religion... see my usual pitch about the fundamentalist imposture ("Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").
  
• cultural misunderstanding : France's very specific flavor of secularism, and the cultural exception (particularly compared to the US) regarding religion in general

Thus the key point in that blogule : in France more than anywhere else, wearing a burqa is a political statement. France should deal with the issue peacefully, on the grounds of the republican law. It is not and should not become a debate about religion.

So I fully agree with Sarkozy when he says that "Burqa is not a problem of religion" and "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic".

But I have a slightly different position when I consider his full sentences :

=> "Burqa is not a problem of religion, but a problem of dignity of women / Burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement" : yes and yes, human rights are definitely involved, but the cause of enslaved women will be even better defended if we act simultaneously at the political level.

Typically, some woman do wear the burqa of their own free will, and fundamentalists do claim that burqas defend the dignity of women because they are protected from the gaze of men.
We must naturally stand strong in the women's rights and freedom of religion debates, but we must also position ourselves on different planes to embrace the true nature of the subject and the true nature of fundamentalism.
Because burqa is not "a problem of religion", but a problem of politics. And a Burqa doesn't protect a woman from male gaze : integral coverings in general (burqa, niqab, masks hiding the face) withdraw people (male or female, of their own free will or not, those are yet other stories) from the watch of the Republic. Accepting this would mean accepting the most essential claim of fundamentalists : their strict set of principles supercedes the laws of the Republic. And in France, what burqas do is to put people beyond the reach of law in a secular Republic, which makes it even more offensive*.
Actually, Sarkozy didn't raise the burqa issue in Versailles out of the blue (chadri ?) : he merely reacted to many complaints by mayors and representatives of the Republic who noticed the incompatibility of such garments with the exercise of law (not to mention, of course, complaints of human right activists, women, moderate Muslims...).

=> Burqa "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic. We must not be afraid of our values, nor of defending them" : yes and yes, it is a matter of values. But let's be very careful not to fuel mutual hatred within the Republic and beyond.

Sarkozy is talking about a garment, but certain people can interpret his words a very different way : "territory" and "our values" resonate very well in extreme right circles, where xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia... and the ultimate theocon-neocon myth of the "Clash of Civilizations" rule*. Typically, radicals like peroxyde-blond Geerd Wilders, who enjoys full support from Israeli Jewish fundamentalists as well as from European Christian fundamentalists, wants to ban the burqa... but as a part of a more general ban on Islam !
Such hatemongers complain about "the Islamization of Europe" and the threats to "Western values", but Islam belongs to the West as well as to the East, North, South and Center. Besides, European culture owes a lot of its richness and diversity to Islam, Europe wouldn't be Europe without its citizens who happen to be Muslims, and France wouldn't be France without its citizens who happen to be Muslims.
Furthermore, let us not stress obsolete geographical divisions as moderates from all confessions and from over the world are reaching out to each other.
The second key point in my blogule was precisely that a ban on burqa, provided it were carefully and soundly planned and implemented, would undermine fundamentalism well beyond Muslim communities, and particularily Christian fundamentalism, also on the rise in Europe.

French Muslims overwhelmingly reject fundamentalism, and feel ostracized each time a few extremists deliberately provoque intra- and inter-religious tensions, or openly reject State laws.

Dalil Boubakeur, Rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, denounced the rise of communautarism, radicalization, and fundamentalism in France. But as the President of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, he must also respect all the sensibilities represented in this institution. That's the reason why his critic of the burqa per se sounds rather weak : "wearing the burqa is not a formal answer to a prescription of Islam", and is "foreign to our traditions".

And when he praises Sarkozy, Boubakeur smartly manages to point an accusatory finger at the French Islamist minority : "this well balanced position, exposing a great secular conscience from the President of the Republic, can only fortify the recommandations issued by the Great Mosque of Paris and encourage French citizen of Muslim faith to integrate harmoniously republican values". In other words : if the vast majority of French Muslims applauds, a minority of fundamentalists does refuse the Republic - those are the enemies of both Islam and France.

Boubakeur also issued a clear warning to the President after his speech : "but you have to hope, Insha'Allah, that there won't be any ill-feeling, controversies, nor incidents".

The third key point I raised (the logical counterpoint of the second), was more direct : I really don't trust Nicolas Sarkozy on that one. He is the kind of man to fuel tensions instead of removing them, particularily when he has an opportunity to help fundamentalists and undermine the French secular system. The 2004 ban on religious signs for civil servants or in public schools passed well and calmed things down as expected because it was implemented under Jacques Chirac's watch, a man who, as Bush well knows, makes no compromise with fundamentalist imposteurs.

In France, everybody is fully aware of Sarkozy's reputation as a troublemaker, and his more or less direct promotion of fundamentalism is becoming a less and less hidden agenda.

He was the one who created the Council, thus offering an official tribune to Islamists... and putting outspoken moderates like Boubakeur under constraints. He was the one who, as tensions around the 2004 ban on religious signs were receding, and right before US Elections, dared publish "La Republique, les religions, l'esperance", a provocative essay recommanding the revision of the 1905 law, cornerstone of secularism in France. He was the one who pleased Benedict XVI and other Christian fundamentalists with his "laicite positive" concept (see "N'ayez pas peur"). He was the one who almost condemned French secularism in highly controversial speeches delivered in Latran or Riyadh. He was the one who seeked favors from then Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, palled around with Tom Cruise and tried to remove Scientology from the lists of cults under watch in France...

Yet, if Nicolas Sarkozy obviously pledged allegiance to US theocons a few years ago and has ever since repeatedly attempted to undermine secularism, I don't think he is himself a theocon. More prosaically : hardcore fundamentalists aside, there's a lot of money to make for megachurches willing to open franchises in France... Besides, Sarko's ego is more complex than it seems : this man really loves to please powerful or famous people, wants to be recognized as an equal. He is surrounded by theocons, but also by celebs acting as entry points for theocons.

Now let's put aside this big question mark, and consider French secularism as it is or rather, as it was before Sarkozy. That would be the fourth point missing in my blogule, which was written in French and for a mostly French audience, very much aware of this oddity.

As others may not know, French secularism has proven an efficient yet fragile shield for both democracy and religions against fundamentalism.

People ask "What's wrong with France ?"

Is France intolerant ?
I'd rather say "intolerant to intolerance".

Is France extremist ?
I'd rather say "extremely moderate".

Is France persecuting Muslims ?
I'd rather say "preventing persecution of Muslims, victims of a few fundamentalists who want to cut them from their own country and from their own sound religion".

Regarding religion, the cultural gap couldn't be wider between France and the US : there's a religious persecution syndrom in the US and a religious neutrality syndrom in France, and that explains the way each democracy chooses to defend freedom of religion. Both systems have their pros and cons.

Freedom of belief and religion does mean something in the US. Many founders escaped religious persecutions. On the other hand, fundamentalism is very popular, creationism commonly accepted, and extremist cults are highly visible... In fact, many among the worst enemies of US democracy are US citizens who are tolerated in their own country but would be considered as dangerous extremists anywhere else, and not only in France.

In France, many US preachers would be charged for incitation to hatred, many US cults seriously restricted if not forbidden... and the Creation Museum closed for bold revisionism. Of course, people proudly parading in Nazi uniforms would go straigth to jail. And such ayatollahs as Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh would have to tone down a few notches or face the consequences.

Both the US and France have cornerstones for religious neutrality and for separation of church and state, with a common ground dating from the late XVIIIth century, thanks to people like the very francophile Thomas Jefferson :
- the 1789 US Bill of Rights. In particular Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")
- the 1789 Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In particular : "No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order", "The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it", and "Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law". One could also mention the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights : "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".
- the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
- ..

Separation of church and state is still a raging debate in the US, and fundamentalists are fighting every jurisprudence that secures it. Religion in general is a very big business and partisans of genuine secularism (ie no mention of "God" during inauguration speeches) are a minority.

By contrast, most French are ardent defensors of secularism, and most churches, temples and mosques are poor. Which by the way makes it easier for rich fundamentalist sponsors from overseas.

France put an end to a heated debate on secularism thanks to the December 9, 1905 law on the Separation of the Churches and State, which goes beyond the sentence "the Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion". The Republic's unity was clearly under threat, and mutual hatred bloomed everywhere, with a peak of anti-semitism during the Dreyfus Affair (settled - and in the right direction - soon afterwards, in 1906).

But as History cruelly reminds us, anti-semitism survived in France, and World War II atrocities led to another set of reforms. If French census bureau doesn't collect any data about race, and if French laws strictly forbids databases based on religious beliefs or race***, it's because all humans are considered as one race, but also because the French police collaborated with Nazi occupants and kept files on many citizens, leading to their most tragic fate.

In 1958, France entered its Vth Republic. And the Article 1 of the Preamble of the 1958 Constitution clearly stipulates : "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs" ("It shall be organised on a decentralised basis" being added much later). "Secular" goes with "indivisible", and freedom of religion should not lead to any division.

There is also a cultural issue : in France, religion is considered as something personal, proselytizing as an aggression, and categorizing people as rude. Most French Muslims or French Jews don't want to be singled out as Muslims or Jews. They are true believers, but they want to be simply considered as French citizens. The first thing fundamentalist imams do is to negate Republican laws as a preamble to their own political constitution.

For decades, France enjoyed a relative peace without significant intra- nor inter-religious tensions, fundamentalism remaining well below the radar. But obviously, change has come :

- The first rifts within the Jewish community appeared as a minority took sides in favor of Israeli Jewish fundamentalists or at least in favor of conservative hardliners. The majority of French Jews distance themselves from Israel, and are as sick and tired of the confusion Jew = Tel Aviv Hawks bombing Gaza as Muslims are tired of the confusion Islam = al Qaeda. Yet, there is a French equivalent to an edulcorated AIPAC, but not to J Street. Yet. Regarding the conflict, a majority of French people, beyond Muslims, supports the Palestinian cause, particularily after Arafat gave up terror.

- If wahhabism had a tough time trying to buy its way into France (where moderate Islam has traditionally been sponsored by countries like Morocco), more recent and radical movements leverage on Islamist movements fighting against dictatorship in former French colonies, most notably Algeria. al Qaeda smartly outsourced part of its French operations to GSPC (Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat), now known as "al Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Magreb". Clearly, George W. Bush's crusade in Iraq helped the most radical Islamists gain ground, particularily among the younger generation of Muslims, many of North African origins and living in derelict suburbs, where integration failed most spectacularly. Fundamentalists did their "best" to cut those from their parents, who embraced the Republic and integration.

- Christian fundamentalism had been pretty much silenced since Vatican II, until George W. Bush and Benedict XVI revived it. Recently, the latter even lifted the excommunication of four bishops ordained in 1988 by then Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the French leader of the very fundamentalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Among them, Richard Williamson, an outspoken Holocaust negationist.

- Over the past few years, hatemongers of all kinds have been multiplying provocations, including profanations of Jewish or Muslim tombs...

Fundamentalists are clearly waging a war on secular exceptions like Turkey and France. Both countries stand at key cultural crossroads, and see their institutional shields against fundamentalism repeatedly tested. Sunni fundamentalists are methodically working on the destruction of secular Turkey (and European Christian Fundamentalists applauding their efforts), but France sits at the top of the agenda for all breeds of radicals : the "Eldest daughter of The Church" lies at the heart of the EU, and boasts its biggest Muslim and Jewish communities.

Fundamentalists mean to destroy France's very foundations : liberty, equality, and fraternity within the "indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic". And if they don't succeed in amending laws, they try to play "religious freedom" against systems precisely meant to protect, fueling communautarism against integration, forcing people to take sides following their own agenda, to the point that even moderates can sound radical when they talk about them.

Even if French laws and Constitution were clear enough to avoid it, France had to pass a law to specifically ban religious signs in public schools and for civil servants. Islamic headscarves had almost become an obligation in certain areas, where young Muslim women couldn't (and still now can't) go out anymore without a headdress for fear of being violented, and not only verbally. A 2005 poll showed that 77% of French Muslim women wearing headscarf (we're talking the lightest form of garment) don't do it from their own will and wouldn't wear it if given the choice. A Muslim woman founded the association "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" (Neither Whores Nor Slaves) to defend women and particularily Muslim women. This fierce advocate for secularism is now Minister for Urban Policies.

Likewise, these days, France is compelled to position itself for or against burqa. The vast majority of French Muslims are against this import from Islamists, and a bill will probably be needed to specify a ban for burqa and niqab. Even if, unlike headscarves, there are only a few hundred cases in the whole country.

I know that, from a US perspective, such a ban can sound extreme, particularily after Obama's speech in Cairo (see "State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine")****.

But you have to understand how the vital battle under way within the Muslim world impacts this very special country, where fundamentalism is spreading like fire at the expense of the silent moderate minority (particularily young women). Except for a few Islamist radicals, Muslim organizations are in favor of these laws because they are precisely seeking from the state protection from fundamentalism.

Of course, producing the law remains tricky and legislators have to be very careful : it's about bringing everybody together and certainly not antagonizing. And of course, France must do better at the root of extremism, which thrives on poverty and unfairness. The self proclaimed "country of human rights" does support dictatures overseas and tolerate inequalities and discriminations at home.

As you see, France is a strange country... but its laws are not meant against religion but in favor of a clear separation between politics and religion, to better defend democracy and religion from those who want to destroy both.

stephane mot - blogules 2009


* elsewhere, wearing the burqa can be about both religion and politics (fundamentalism rules), or simply about tradition. But even in the case of tradition, the same political statement exists.

** I know that's unfair because positive meanings have been twisted. Some expressions can be most unfortunate, maybe not as criminal as the "crusade" mentioned by W. after 9/11, but "Western values" has unfortunately become almost a moto for the "Clash of Civilization" imposture.

*** Furthermore, every database featuring individuals should be declared to a specific commission, and every individual has the right to have his record deleted if he or she stops subscribing to a service.

**** On the other hand, what sounds extreme to French people is a democracy where the President swears in on a Bible, finishing by the words "so help me God". It's OK when Obama's speaking, but when Fundamentalist in Chief Dubya speaks, the words resonated very differently. I know that JFK said ("considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension"), but I had a dream : Barack Obama has a "Zapatero moment" for his second inauguration (see "So help me Rick Warren").

So help me Rick Warren

The key question is not "Does it matter that Rick Warren will give the inaugural invocation ?"¹ but "Does it matter that a supposedly model democracy performs inaugurations with invocations, swearings on the Bible, and the final words 'so help me God' ?"

I don't consider myself an atheist and I understand the value of traditions, but these symbols are a clear statement against the separation of church and state at the most critical moment : when the power is handed to the very person who will defend the U.S. Constitution.

I know I'm repeating myself ("Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism"), but even religious Spain understood that this century and moreover this post-9/11 World demanded clear messages from democracies. Zapatero swore with his right hand on the Spanish Constitution.

Barack Obama can't afford this now, and his poor choice of Rick Warren proves to those who doubted that he won't ignite any divisive war during his mandate.

But I have this dream : President Obama casually swearing on the U.S. Constitution for his second term.

In doing so, Barack Hussein Obama will also defuse many mines for successors who are bound to break, sooner or later, that other glass ceiling.

1 - see today's Politico Arena.

Between reforms and indulgences - Blair and Sarkozy

I'd like to point out two key moves made by Tony Blair during his life. Two decisive acts of allegiance that may well explain a third one ; the most famous - allegiance to Bush and his suicidal crusade in Iraq. These two events didn't happen during his PM mandates but set a perfect frame around them :

- the first act of allegiance ? before taking power, and actually in order to take it : Blair made a pact with a curious devil named Ruppert Murdoch

- the second act of allegiance ? not long after leaving power : Blair clinched a deal with the most controversial Pope since WWII, to embrace the ultraconservative Roman Catholicism Benedict XVI dreams of restoring fundamentalism

As far as economy is concerned, Blair and Murdoch symbolise reforms and conservatism, but what strikes me most about Blair is the gap between his very pragmatic sense of reform and his very utopic mysticism... and Murdoch is not only obsessed by money but by the success of candidates with a messianic touch. This Citizen Kane didn't succeed with Pat Robertson in the late 80s, but earned his reputation of serial kingmaker with Tony and Dubya.

You want to keep an eye on Nicolas Sarkozy, a great admirer of Tony Blair the Reformer and Murdoch the Entrepreneur, a great friend of George W. Bush the Leader, a great echo to Ratzinger's theories about genetic determination or Europe's Christian heritage...

Benedict XVI's "coming out"

To those who doubted, the Pope gave the ultimate proof.

I'm not talking about the existence of God but about the nature of John Paul II's successor : a Christian fundamentalist who after attacking science and education* decided to bulldoze democracy and justice.

Benedict XVI wants "natural law" to rule where "civil law" does : about abortion, euthanasia, ethics, moral, and other issues that have no clear frontiers and can ultimately claim all human activities. Actually, the aim is to leave no room for civil law. Or else, the whole society collapses - call it Judgment Day, Armageddon or moneytime, you get the general idea. "No man-made law can subvert the norms written by the creator in human hearts without society itself being dramatically attacked in what constitutes its necessary basis". Some can translate "in human hearts" by "in the Bible" or in whatever opus they want.

Trim off the "feel good" verbiage and what do you get ? This man is once again talking about the substitution of the law of man by the law of God. This man is once again trying to put religion at the core of the society and at the core of politics. This man is once again crossing the line and opening the gates to fundamentalism.


* see "Red blogule to Benedict XVI - fundamentally wrong" (20060921) and other blogules related to Benito the 16th.

Dismission Accomplished - Red blogule to the other peanut president

LBJ's quagmire, Nixon's scandals, Carter's hostages, not to mention Dubya's own trophies (lies, propaganda, fundamentalism, revisionism, torture...)... This President seems ripe for impeachment, and it's up to the Republicans to get rid of this bunch of Hall of Shamers (Cheney, Rove, Wolfie...). For good, and for the good of this country.
Besides, it would be the only way out of Iraq. And in the 2008 race. The Dems will keep shooting till someone waves a white flag : "why should I catch a bullet ? I should be shooting the darn lame duck along with you instead".
It would be an act of repentance from America too. I made a mistake in 2003, and then I made an even bigger mistake in November 2004. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Here's his head, shall I wrap it up ?
Here is the man. Ecce homo. George Walker Bush eventually meeting the same fate as his favorite philosopher. Atoning not for the sins of mankind but for the sins of one unkind man.

"Kurdistan, the other Iraq"... or "Kurdistan, the other other Vietnam" ?

Iraq's Kurdistan region opened, through the Kurdistan Development Corporation, a lobbying office in Washington, DC*. Headed by Qubad al-Talabani, son of Jalal Talabani, the President of Iraq as a whole (a black hole some may say), this unit officially promotes investments and tourism in the region. Autonomy and independance could be part of the discussions.

I do feel some sympathy for Kurds in general and I do wish them a peaceful future. Yet, I'm not so sure this is the way everybody wants it and even if Talabani were honest, other players would join the lobbying frenzy.

I remember the intense Iraqi lobbying between the two wars. Who could forget Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress ? Among the different approaches for the liberation of Iraq, US theocons deliberately favored the factions that were bound to cause maximum damage. The parting of Iraq and the strengthening of fundamentalists across the region (especially and Iran and Israel) was not only expected but planned from the start.

If I were a US fundamentalist, I surely wouldn't want a democratic and peaceful Kurdistan to emerge in the dead middle of my playground.

A failed proof of concept Kurdistan could not only strengthen radicals in Iran but also infuriate and exacerbate fundamentalists in Turkey. To the contrary, I would seize the opportunity to bring chaos in this relatively protected part of the country, and to exacerbate radicalism everywhere. I would especially infuriate Turkish nationalists and fundamentalists, because as anybody can see these days, the radicalization of Turkey is key to the revival of Christian fundamentalism in Europe.

Don't mistake this initiative as an attempt to put a lock on Kirkuk oil fields : the aim of the game is to get rid of secularism in Turkey.


* see CMD's "The "Other Iraq" Opens a DC Lobbying Office" (20070302)

Red blogule to Benedict XVI - fundamentally wrong

Following Jon Meacham's article about "The Pope's Holy War'" (Newsweek 20060925) and the controversial Regensburg speech, I think it would be interesting to distinguish what was said from how it was said.
The HOW first : the Church's most eminent theologian and the man who knows best the value of the Word delivers a speech to experts, reading from notes he wrote by his own hand, and knowing perfectly all the world's theologians will fully understand the message. He mentions a text which may be obscure but clearly refers to the darkest period of Christianity (the Middle Age, Inquisition, the Crusades, religious hatred), a period which on the other hand can be considered as the Golden Age of Christian fundamentalism.
Moving on to the WHAT, now : beyond the critic of Islam through this highly controversial quote, the core of the message is about the reconciliation of reason and religion. In other words : under my rule, the Church will certainly not protect Darwinism and other sciences from the attacks of such revisionist theories as creationism or intelligent design.
Overall, the Pope delivered a crystal clear message to all religious scholars : I decided to redirect this Church away from moderation and back on its darkest tracks. I also send the following message to Muslim fundamentalists : let's help each other fulfill the main goals we share since we both want fundamentalism to become mainstream again across our respective flocks.
Pope Benedict XVI perfectly mirrors President Bush ; both the Church and the United States of America are led by fundamentalists, and both men share an almost similar hidden agenda. I would like the American people as well as the Christians to ask their leaders : are you really doing what is best for us or for fundamentalism ? how far will you go in the destruction of the values that made ourselves respected across the world ?

Red blogule to Europe's Genetically Modified candidates

While Dominique de Villepin exposed his ego to the UN spotlights among actual world leaders, Nicolas Sarkozy paid a visit to a fellow White House nominee for the Supreme Court of New Europe Courtisans, Poland's Donald Tusk.
Tusk had already met with yet another neocon favorite, Angela Merkel, and received the support of a longtime US Christian Fundamentalists' icon, Lech Walesa. Sarkozy also shook the hand of this great servant of Mother Amerika.
Merkel is suffering a tough campaign but Tusk is left with no opponent since Wlodziemierz Cimoszewicz, the man who weeks ago was supposed to win the elections, gave up after a smear campaign so perfectly led it could have been directed by The Great Architect himself (a walk in the park considering the quality of the building material : oil scandal).
Now that W.C. has been flushed down the toilets of History, press group from all across the world rejoice : they won't have to invest massively in Scrabble boxes and can save time each time they write about both Tusk and the ennemy of "Old Europe", Donald Rumsfeld.

Red blogule to quagmires and bayous

To those who doubted Bush was a fake, Cindy and Katrina exposed the truth : a quagmire abroad and a bayou at home, that's how deep the US have sunk. "Our Dear Compassionate Leader", a born again Christian with a well trained Texan accent, turns out to be a selfish and amoral stubborn New England brat, enjoying two more days off in his own ranch when real people from the South die in their own feces.
Time to rehearse the National Anthem's lyrics, folks :
Q :
Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
A :
Err... no, actually I can't see. I did see quite a few rockets and bombs but the banner people tend to follow is that of the Red Cross.
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
A :
Lemme get you some glasses. The reflection on the stream is a dead body.
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
A :
"That band" is still at large at the White House. "The hireling and slave" happen to be US citizens. Some were ordered to bring "the havoc of war and the battle's confusion" overseas, others found no refuge and ended in "the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave".
Q :
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
A :
"Rescued land"? "Victory" ? "Peace" ? That remains to be seen. Blame the power that hath made the US a despised nation : Lord Dubya, King of the Banana Republic of the Divided States of America.

Red blogule to Ayatollah Pat Robertson

Tell me the difference between Christian fundamentalists and Islamist fundamentalists now that both are issuing fatwahs. According to Ayatollah Pat Robertson, killing Chavez wouldn't cost $200 bns and killing Chavez is "a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop".
I don't think any craziness will stop soon either.
I'm just amazes me how Bu(ll)shites manage to make the weaker minds feel even more sympathy for such madhatters as Osama Bin Laden or Hugo Chavez.

Red blogule to the Red Army - I smell a Ratz

Astonishing ! Opus Dei defeated Orbis Tertius and George Louis II has eventually been overthrowned by Benoit XVI, a young ayatollah who may well rule till he turns 120 : smart Kardinal Ratzinger pretended to be sick a couple of years ago but you just have to see him radiate power over Saint Peter's Square to know he's here to stay. Besides, don't expect this florentine shadow to exhaust himself giving rockstar concerts all over the world or playing tennis at Castel Gandolfo with Wojtek Fibak (Boris Becker ?).
So what's the score lads ? The Church decided to protect his king with a tower and a dark horse, prefering a stalemate with fundamentalists instead of moving one step ahead in a world where Bush got reelected and Al Qaeda are experiencing new playgrounds (Mexico, South America, Central Asia...).
So "be not affraid", remain in the dark and keep faith in Benito XIV - oops put that back in Order before somebody notice, quick.

Red blogule to the Dear Compassionate Leader

This man has been humiliated by John Paul II when he decided to launch his illegal war. But just because the Pope accepted to meet the Stubborn Again Christian before last year's elections, just because both were on Terry Schiavo's parents side last week, George Walker Bush wants to attend the funerals of this great defensor of "liberty". A small man trying to get a sun tan from a great man's radiance. Over his dead body. Because he couldn't stand the stare of a moral and mortal watcher. Pitiful.
Karol Wojtyla could be stubborn too, but at times only, and this man was truly compassionate. He established interesting ties with other religions but in order to preserve the Church he didn't allow any evolution to alter the dogma at a time when it was badly needed. His successor should leverage on this more stable ground to make the necessary moves into the XXIst century.

Red blogule to Prince Harry - When Harry met nazis

First time I saw the picture of Di's kid with that swastika armband I thought it was a fake (sweet Harry turning into "brown sugar" ?). About the same day Di Canio performed a "perfect" fascist salute to the Lazio fans. And then came Jean-Marie Le Pen's latest provocation. Already controversial public figures in unison. A pattern. Extremes on the rise across Europe and the World. Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims competing in a sick draft over Aceh's ruins. Wrong start for 2005. No wonder : last year ended with a wrong message from the US. Stephane MOT

White blogule to The Economist - Big bother is waiting for you

I fully agree with the last words of The Economist's article on France's strategy against Islamists : "Mr de Villepin's approach will be studied with interest - even, perhaps, in America" (December 18th 2004). "Big Dominique"'s rival, Nicolas Sarkozy, may well already receive some support from the US in his own "fight against Islamists"... as well as in his other fight for France's presidency in 2007.
Mr Sarkozy published his very controversial book (calling for a change in the French law which could mean the end of the separation of religion and the State) just a few days before the American elections. This could be interpreted as a signal to the Bush Administration which welcomed him as a friendly statesman a few monthes earlier. If I were an American Christian fundamentalist or a Saudi Muslim fundamentalist, I guess I wouldn't hesitate when it comes to picking a successor to Jacques Chirac. Stephane MOT