Europe hastily awarded some jailed Chinese dissident with some prestigious human rights prize before embarking on a plane for Beijing.
There, Jose Manuel Barroso, Nicolas Sarkozy et al went down on their knees and begged the Great Socialist Empire to let some of its wealthy reserves trickle down over the bankrupt Capitalist rest of the World.
From DC, Hank Paulson also asked the IIIrd Millenium's Hyperpower to consider some kind of a Marshall plan ("could you please bail out the US of A ? you know, we don't hate socialists that badly, after all - according to John McCain we're even about to elect one as our President").
In other words, capitalism defies socialist China : "Show me the money".
Wen Jiabao is all ears. And smiles*. "Yes, we can".
Yes, Wen can provide some kind of relief to his new admirers, but he has some fish to fry at home as well. Will he chose to secure China's business model and one fifth of the World's population, to help the richest fifth, or to give a hand to the forgotten rest ? Probably a little bit of each : China will durably strengthen its positions in Asia, Africa, Europe and America, but the trickiest part will be China itself (see "Pervasive China's CIA (Central Investment Agency)").
New series of models will emerge. Not this week-end. Nor November the 15th, when the World Egghead Forum takes place. Nor even during the couple of years to come. But timely (at a geologic time scale at least).
They will differ from XXth century socialism or capitalism (see "This is not a financial crisis"), and China is no exception.
* Actually, I'm wondering how badly Wen's jaws hurt - he was already jubilating during his interview with Zakaria a couple of weeks ago (GPS @ CNN / Newsweek). But not as much as I did, listening to Alan Greenspan swallow just a tiny little bit of his titanic pride.
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
20081008
Is Iceland really melting ?
Strange.
The first ally Iceland turns to turns to be Russia.
Not Europe, not the IMF. Russia. Without any warming.
Medvedev-Putin happily oblige.
Maybe Iceland's financial system is melting. But Russia seems to be building a stronger front around the North Pole.
Keep your eye on the ball, Europe. Not Georgia, not Ukraine. The ball at the top of the Kremlin.
20080319
Iraq - 5 years of success for fundamentalists
"Mission Accomplished" : five years later, Iraq is dead. Around one million Iraqis are dead. Around four million Iraqis have been displaced by the war. Collateral damage : moderates from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, USA, and the rest of the World are, more or less literally, either already dead or on their way.
Five years later and as expected and announced in these virtual pages*, fundamentalism is blooming because from the start this war was meant by fundamentalists in favor of fundamentalisms (of all shapes and sizes - Islamists, Christian, Jewish... you name it).
The war in Iraq ? Five years of total success for George W. Bush.
I'm talking about the fundamentalist, not the POTUS. His Mission is Accomplished indeed : he served a second term and further destroyed the US democracy from the inside, he boosted the influence of Christian fundamentalism across the US and made possible its revival across Europe, he put creationism and theocracy back on the national and international maps... His one last task to perform ? The most important and beautiful to his own eyes : to ignite the mother of all wars between Israel and Iran in order to provoque the return of the Christ**.
Just to remind you things can go even worse than the combination of a military defeat, a moral collapse, and a massive recession.
If you happen to be a US citizen, you have the power to stop this. Unite and lobby your representatives, and vote wisely.
And remember this : of the 3 remaining major candidates for Bush's job (as a POTUS), only one had from day one a sound vision of what's happening in Iraq and the World beyond. And still now, only Barack Obama condemns this war as a wrong answer to terror and as a gift to the ennemies of democracy.
* and beyond, thanks to wonderful readers from America, France, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and so many other wonderful places where such blogules as the "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism" (20070809) have been quite popular.
** see "Iran : who wants war and why" (20070925)
Five years later and as expected and announced in these virtual pages*, fundamentalism is blooming because from the start this war was meant by fundamentalists in favor of fundamentalisms (of all shapes and sizes - Islamists, Christian, Jewish... you name it).
The war in Iraq ? Five years of total success for George W. Bush.
I'm talking about the fundamentalist, not the POTUS. His Mission is Accomplished indeed : he served a second term and further destroyed the US democracy from the inside, he boosted the influence of Christian fundamentalism across the US and made possible its revival across Europe, he put creationism and theocracy back on the national and international maps... His one last task to perform ? The most important and beautiful to his own eyes : to ignite the mother of all wars between Israel and Iran in order to provoque the return of the Christ**.
Just to remind you things can go even worse than the combination of a military defeat, a moral collapse, and a massive recession.
If you happen to be a US citizen, you have the power to stop this. Unite and lobby your representatives, and vote wisely.
And remember this : of the 3 remaining major candidates for Bush's job (as a POTUS), only one had from day one a sound vision of what's happening in Iraq and the World beyond. And still now, only Barack Obama condemns this war as a wrong answer to terror and as a gift to the ennemies of democracy.
* and beyond, thanks to wonderful readers from America, France, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and so many other wonderful places where such blogules as the "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism" (20070809) have been quite popular.
** see "Iran : who wants war and why" (20070925)
20070809
Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism
1 - What is fundamentalism ?
At the beginning, the word used to designate a deviant Protestant movement but now, it can be applied to trends found in all major religions.
Fundamentalism means the total submission of a people to a strict set of principles.
Fundamentalism is not about religion (the pretext behind the means), but about politics (the actual aim of the game) ; ultimately, fundamentalism is about the total control of society in a caricature of theocracy.
Fundamentalists are humans who build the set of strict rules and define what is true and what isn't, generally developing a simplistic doctrine based on their own biased interpretation of ancient religious scriptures that can be interpreted in as many ways as there are human beings. Since fundamentalists consider their doctrine as absolute, perfect, good and unfailable, anything growing out of it is necessarily wrong, corrupt and evil, and thus has to be eradicated in order to purify the world. Beyond what people do or say, fundamentalists intend to control and judge what people think.
Fundamentalism is totalitarian because all human activities should abid to the rules, starting with the pilars of democracy : political debate, science, education, justice, information... any field where intelligence can bloom and expose the limits of a basic propaganda.
The same logic can be found in the Discovery Institute’s Wedge strategy : the ultimate goal of Intelligent Design is to undermine science and education, key entry points for fundamentalists. ID has nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics, starting with the artificial legitimation of religion at the root of the social system, and ultimately the restoration of theocracy.
The worst enemy of a fundamentalist is a person from the same religion who preaches tolerance, reason, and respect of the differences between individuals and cultures. Charismatic pro-peace leaders who happen to be people of faith, sometimes even former respected warriors : Yitzhak Rabin, Ahmad Shah Massoud…
The most embarrassing enemy of a fundamentalist is a "competing" fundamentalist from the same religion. The sales pitches are basically similar, but it brings the notion that there is not only one good answer to the question. At least one is necessarily wrong, it is more difficult to claim the true version. The best way is to either destroy this enemy or find a way to merge both franchises into a more powerful band.
The best ally of a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist from a "competing" religion. Each one becomes the "evil" of the other one, feeding him with new arguments. The more radical the opponent, the better : fear makes propaganda sound more credible and moderates less audible.
2 - Why did fundamentalisms gain momentum recently ?
Fundamentalist movements have always existed in most religions, but were traditionally limited to small circles around isolated radical doomsayers. They tend to blossom in periods of materialist decadence and crises because they leverage on basic fears : fear for one's own life and future, fear for the loss of identity and values of a whole society... In times of uncertainties, fundamentalists offer simple answers, clear visions of a brighter afterlife… and order. With a full set of golden rules.
Like fascism, fundamentalism feeds from the failures of democracy, from the intolerable gaps between peoples kept in poverty and underdevelopment on one hand, and rich corrupt regimes on the other. "Ideally", people must be fed up with their rulers, and not believe anymore in the rules supposed to hold the society altogether. An ailing dictatorship will provide a perfect background, but the fundamentalists' best moments come when self-proclaimed model democracies give the worst examples to the world. Most islamist fundamentalisms find their roots in the abuses of colonization, the failures of decolonization (not to mention the disastrous management of the creation of Israel or India / Pakistan), and many were infuriated by the aberrations of the Cold War. They usually reach power when Western democracies start sending the wrong signals at the wrong moment.
For fundamentalists from all religions, George W. Bush turned out to be the best person at the best place at the best moment.
His strategy should look like a total failure to whoever considers the Iraq quagmire, the Palestinian fiasco, or the worldwide surge in terror. But to the contrary, Bush's strategy proved a complete success.
Because George W. Bush didn't act as a President of The United States of America in the interest of his country.
And George W. Bush didn't even act as a Republican in the interest of his party.
George W. Bush acted as a fundamentalist in the interest of fundamentalism.
Right after 9/11, the whole world was behind him and the USA, but this man refused to lead the world towards peace and mutual respect. Instead, he decided to send the worst signals to the worst people, deliberately triggering a sick race between fundamentalisms. Bush's first speech after 9/11 was meant to clarify the framework for his fellow fundamentalists thanks to one single word : "crusade". In other words : let's go back to the good old times when people fought for religion, we fundamentalists are ruling the show, and I will play on the very ground Bin Laden hoped I would.
Because "the Sheik" new perfectly what kind of leader he was facing : a (stub)born again Christian fan of fundamentalist Billy Graham, a man who set from the start his mandate in a theocratic frame by saying some Higher Being was in charge and driving his decisions. Dubya not only made Bin Laden the official "evil" figure of his crusade, but he happily obliged by becoming the official "evil" figure for Islamists. Everything he did was meant to fuel hatred, sideline the moderates (ie those coward weasels in the West, promoters of the Israeli-Palestinian peace agenda in the Middle East...), and sabotage all attempts of peace or reconciliation. Where multilateralism and pragmatism was the answer, he avoided all forms of debates and sticked to his radical black vs white, us vs them, good vs evil rhetoric.
During the 2004 US presidential campaign, I raised a few eyebrows a couple of years ago by dubbing Bush a fascist, pointing out the disturbingly accurate echoes of Benito Mussolini’s definition of fascism in BC00’s Amerika. The propaganda reacted with a karlrovishy counterattack on the weak point : all of a sudden, Bush was facing “Islamofascists”. The actual fascists were at the other end of the spectrum… but that other end is a mirror, and fundamentalism fueling fundamentalism, propaganda feeding counter-propaganda, extremists ideas became mainstream. Beyond fundamentalism, other forms of radicalism could gain momentum across the world. In Far-East Asia, ultra-nationalists took over Japan, and state revisionism became common in the Archipelago as well as in China.
Bush did not wage a war on terror but in favor of it : instead of focusing on terrorist networks and reducing their ground (ie by fighting injustice and poverty, promoting peace in the region and especially between Israel and Palestine), he deliberately infuriated the muslim world and helped fundamentalists recruit new flocks of followers. And he targeted a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 but everything to do with peace in the region. A new playground for international terrorism, the end of Iraq as a united country, civil war here, the rise of a new form of fundamentalism in Iran when reformers were "threatening" the Khomeini generation, the failure of Fatah and the victory of Hamas... all this was not collateral damage but the very aim of his sick game.
The war in Iraq has been misunderstood as a war for oil led by neocons. The fact is theocons used neocons because they could sell the war to SIGs and thus to Congress. The hidden agenda was not about securing energy sources but about spreading fundamentalism, and if hardcore neocons truly believed in the democracy spreading agenda, theocons knew perfectly the outcome of this madness.
Paleocons followed because money flew from the budget surplus to the hands of greedy SIGs, with significant crumbs ending up on their own laps. Paleocons followed because the official propaganda combined with Karl Rove’s witchcraft made sure 2004 elections would be a landslide victory for Bush. Paleocons were fooled because they thought it would be a victory for the GOP.
I warned Republican voters before November 2004 : if Bush wins, the Republican party loses its soul and is bound to implode. Letting this man invade Iraq was criminal negligence, (re)electing him a strict liability crime by the American people against American values.
The 2004 elections celebrated the rise of Christian fundamentalism across the US at a level never reached before. If not mainstream at this stage, it gained significant social and political power in areas where demographic tides are changing the very shape of the country. Whatever the outcome of the 2008 elections, the USA are shifting towards more internal and self-centered dynamics, and theocons are more likely to bloom in such an environment.
Bush has been isolating the US from external influences, refusing any kind of accountability for his acts but for the dialogs he pretends to hold permanently with The Lord Almighty. At home, he shunted the Congress and his not so fellow Republicans. Away, he switched off the Kyoto protocol, unplugged the Geneva Convention (with the benediction of his Chief Torture Officer Alberto Gonzales), and tried to destroy the UN from the inside (with the help of Bolton the UN bomber). He even bypassed the WTO with series of bilateral FTAs or rather unilateral PTAs (Protectionist Trade Agreements).
A dedicated fundamentalist, Bush has been methodically destroying America from the inside, corrupting justice, science and education with a caricature of religion and paving the way for theocracy. This man is a total fake : a New England brat pretending to be a Texas hunk, a coward pretending to be a soldier, an amoral fundamentalist pretending to be a compassionate saint, a theocrat pretending to spread democracy, a weak wannabe who should never have been the most powerful man on Earth.
If you think the worst happened in Iraq, consider this : this man is planning an even craziest sequel in Iran.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to George W. Bush he shared the same approach of religion. The fact is both are fanatics who expect important visits in a near future ; respectively the return of the Mahdi and the second coming of the Christ. And along with by a bunch of fundamentalists from all confessions (Christian, Muslim and Jewish), they share a more than weird doomsday scenario: the final clash between Iran and Israel will lead to those much awaited visits.
This Commander in Thief only has a few months before giving up power. He is working on peace all right, but rather of the eternal kind.
Compared to such madhatters, Islamist fundamentalists who kicked the Shah out of Iran back in 1979 look like moderates. No wonder Bush does his best to help Ahmadinejad stay in power.
3 - What can be done to undermine fundamentalism ?
Like fascism, fundamentalism needs a permanent state of fear, war and propaganda to survive, and is defeated by democracy at its best : exemplary, fair, just and respectful.
America cannot be respected if it doesn’t respect its own values ; those of a model democracy.
The war on terror should be waged at its roots : helping Afghanistan out of despair and out of the reach of Talibans, converging towards a fair resolution of the Israel / Palestine crisis, focusing on poverty and injustice across the World.
The only way out of Iraq is to fire those who deliberately misfired. Bush and Cheney should be prevented from spreading more chaos and impeached… Easier said than done, but removing Gonzales would be a significant first step forward.
Moderates should speak up across the political spectrum : Dems or Reps, we share certain values and think our leaders betrayed them. We may not overpower them as quickly as we’d like to, but we want to tell the world that we want America back on track, we are not going to let that happen again, and we will do our best to get rid of fundamentalists among us.
Humility will make America stronger : it takes courage to give up arrogance. Besides, there is no other way to get out of what is basically a moral collapse (not to mention to claim any kind of leadership back in the future).
The aim is not to please atheists and condemn believers but to expose fundamentalists, especially among those who are supposed to defend justice, education or democracy. You don’t want to ignite a witch hunt the McCarthy way (are you or have you ever been a fundamentalist ?), but rather to promote transparency over the hypocrisy and confusion fundamentalists are feeding upon.
I’m asking for a much needed reverse burden of proof : nowadays, lawmakers are terrorized by fundamentalists and it should be the other way round. Instead of harassing the bulk of the candidates with questions regarding their private life, we should be forcing fundamentalists to come out in the open, give democracy the lead over the theocratic agenda. Lawmakers shouldn’t be compelled to demonstrate confusingly why they are good believers, they just should clearly tell that they don’t support fundamentalism and that, whatever they believe in, religion should not mix with politics in this country. Ultimately, if some people want religion to rule politics, let them found their own party like they do in other countries.
Once again, I’m not promoting atheism, but defending democracy. And in the US, a cultural change is needed. The fact is America has always allowed too much confusion between the religious and political spheres ; been too tolerant with sects and fanatics that are not compatible with democracy (partly because it was built by people who sometimes fled Europe for religious reasons - ie the Mayflower pilgrims). For a European such as me, it can be upsetting to hear the leader of a supposedly model democracy finish his acceptance speech with “so help me God”. And it is upsetting to see secular democracies under the pervasive threat of fundamentalists in the EU as well (lobbying for the mention of the Christian heritage in the Constitution, for the promotion of creationism and ID… with the benediction of a rather ambiguous Pope ; Benedict XVI).
Beyond the US and EU political microcosms, all moderates should voice their hope for a sounder and more transparent system. This new “we the people” should reach across the world, wherever moderates are threatened by fundamentalists, and not only in the usual hot spots : the race for juicy market shares is raging all over Asia.
Why not A Universal Declaration of Independence from fundamentalism, that perennial enemy of peace, freedom and democracy ?
blogules 2007
---
ADDENDUM 20090117
"What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives -- from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry" - Barack Hussein Obama (Baltimore, January 17, 2009).
Change has come to America.
---
digg this
At the beginning, the word used to designate a deviant Protestant movement but now, it can be applied to trends found in all major religions.
Fundamentalism means the total submission of a people to a strict set of principles.
Fundamentalism is not about religion (the pretext behind the means), but about politics (the actual aim of the game) ; ultimately, fundamentalism is about the total control of society in a caricature of theocracy.
Fundamentalists are humans who build the set of strict rules and define what is true and what isn't, generally developing a simplistic doctrine based on their own biased interpretation of ancient religious scriptures that can be interpreted in as many ways as there are human beings. Since fundamentalists consider their doctrine as absolute, perfect, good and unfailable, anything growing out of it is necessarily wrong, corrupt and evil, and thus has to be eradicated in order to purify the world. Beyond what people do or say, fundamentalists intend to control and judge what people think.
Fundamentalism is totalitarian because all human activities should abid to the rules, starting with the pilars of democracy : political debate, science, education, justice, information... any field where intelligence can bloom and expose the limits of a basic propaganda.
The same logic can be found in the Discovery Institute’s Wedge strategy : the ultimate goal of Intelligent Design is to undermine science and education, key entry points for fundamentalists. ID has nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics, starting with the artificial legitimation of religion at the root of the social system, and ultimately the restoration of theocracy.
The worst enemy of a fundamentalist is a person from the same religion who preaches tolerance, reason, and respect of the differences between individuals and cultures. Charismatic pro-peace leaders who happen to be people of faith, sometimes even former respected warriors : Yitzhak Rabin, Ahmad Shah Massoud…
The most embarrassing enemy of a fundamentalist is a "competing" fundamentalist from the same religion. The sales pitches are basically similar, but it brings the notion that there is not only one good answer to the question. At least one is necessarily wrong, it is more difficult to claim the true version. The best way is to either destroy this enemy or find a way to merge both franchises into a more powerful band.
The best ally of a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist from a "competing" religion. Each one becomes the "evil" of the other one, feeding him with new arguments. The more radical the opponent, the better : fear makes propaganda sound more credible and moderates less audible.
2 - Why did fundamentalisms gain momentum recently ?
Fundamentalist movements have always existed in most religions, but were traditionally limited to small circles around isolated radical doomsayers. They tend to blossom in periods of materialist decadence and crises because they leverage on basic fears : fear for one's own life and future, fear for the loss of identity and values of a whole society... In times of uncertainties, fundamentalists offer simple answers, clear visions of a brighter afterlife… and order. With a full set of golden rules.
Like fascism, fundamentalism feeds from the failures of democracy, from the intolerable gaps between peoples kept in poverty and underdevelopment on one hand, and rich corrupt regimes on the other. "Ideally", people must be fed up with their rulers, and not believe anymore in the rules supposed to hold the society altogether. An ailing dictatorship will provide a perfect background, but the fundamentalists' best moments come when self-proclaimed model democracies give the worst examples to the world. Most islamist fundamentalisms find their roots in the abuses of colonization, the failures of decolonization (not to mention the disastrous management of the creation of Israel or India / Pakistan), and many were infuriated by the aberrations of the Cold War. They usually reach power when Western democracies start sending the wrong signals at the wrong moment.
For fundamentalists from all religions, George W. Bush turned out to be the best person at the best place at the best moment.
His strategy should look like a total failure to whoever considers the Iraq quagmire, the Palestinian fiasco, or the worldwide surge in terror. But to the contrary, Bush's strategy proved a complete success.
Because George W. Bush didn't act as a President of The United States of America in the interest of his country.
And George W. Bush didn't even act as a Republican in the interest of his party.
George W. Bush acted as a fundamentalist in the interest of fundamentalism.
Right after 9/11, the whole world was behind him and the USA, but this man refused to lead the world towards peace and mutual respect. Instead, he decided to send the worst signals to the worst people, deliberately triggering a sick race between fundamentalisms. Bush's first speech after 9/11 was meant to clarify the framework for his fellow fundamentalists thanks to one single word : "crusade". In other words : let's go back to the good old times when people fought for religion, we fundamentalists are ruling the show, and I will play on the very ground Bin Laden hoped I would.
Because "the Sheik" new perfectly what kind of leader he was facing : a (stub)born again Christian fan of fundamentalist Billy Graham, a man who set from the start his mandate in a theocratic frame by saying some Higher Being was in charge and driving his decisions. Dubya not only made Bin Laden the official "evil" figure of his crusade, but he happily obliged by becoming the official "evil" figure for Islamists. Everything he did was meant to fuel hatred, sideline the moderates (ie those coward weasels in the West, promoters of the Israeli-Palestinian peace agenda in the Middle East...), and sabotage all attempts of peace or reconciliation. Where multilateralism and pragmatism was the answer, he avoided all forms of debates and sticked to his radical black vs white, us vs them, good vs evil rhetoric.
During the 2004 US presidential campaign, I raised a few eyebrows a couple of years ago by dubbing Bush a fascist, pointing out the disturbingly accurate echoes of Benito Mussolini’s definition of fascism in BC00’s Amerika. The propaganda reacted with a karlrovishy counterattack on the weak point : all of a sudden, Bush was facing “Islamofascists”. The actual fascists were at the other end of the spectrum… but that other end is a mirror, and fundamentalism fueling fundamentalism, propaganda feeding counter-propaganda, extremists ideas became mainstream. Beyond fundamentalism, other forms of radicalism could gain momentum across the world. In Far-East Asia, ultra-nationalists took over Japan, and state revisionism became common in the Archipelago as well as in China.
Bush did not wage a war on terror but in favor of it : instead of focusing on terrorist networks and reducing their ground (ie by fighting injustice and poverty, promoting peace in the region and especially between Israel and Palestine), he deliberately infuriated the muslim world and helped fundamentalists recruit new flocks of followers. And he targeted a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 but everything to do with peace in the region. A new playground for international terrorism, the end of Iraq as a united country, civil war here, the rise of a new form of fundamentalism in Iran when reformers were "threatening" the Khomeini generation, the failure of Fatah and the victory of Hamas... all this was not collateral damage but the very aim of his sick game.
The war in Iraq has been misunderstood as a war for oil led by neocons. The fact is theocons used neocons because they could sell the war to SIGs and thus to Congress. The hidden agenda was not about securing energy sources but about spreading fundamentalism, and if hardcore neocons truly believed in the democracy spreading agenda, theocons knew perfectly the outcome of this madness.
Paleocons followed because money flew from the budget surplus to the hands of greedy SIGs, with significant crumbs ending up on their own laps. Paleocons followed because the official propaganda combined with Karl Rove’s witchcraft made sure 2004 elections would be a landslide victory for Bush. Paleocons were fooled because they thought it would be a victory for the GOP.
I warned Republican voters before November 2004 : if Bush wins, the Republican party loses its soul and is bound to implode. Letting this man invade Iraq was criminal negligence, (re)electing him a strict liability crime by the American people against American values.
The 2004 elections celebrated the rise of Christian fundamentalism across the US at a level never reached before. If not mainstream at this stage, it gained significant social and political power in areas where demographic tides are changing the very shape of the country. Whatever the outcome of the 2008 elections, the USA are shifting towards more internal and self-centered dynamics, and theocons are more likely to bloom in such an environment.
Bush has been isolating the US from external influences, refusing any kind of accountability for his acts but for the dialogs he pretends to hold permanently with The Lord Almighty. At home, he shunted the Congress and his not so fellow Republicans. Away, he switched off the Kyoto protocol, unplugged the Geneva Convention (with the benediction of his Chief Torture Officer Alberto Gonzales), and tried to destroy the UN from the inside (with the help of Bolton the UN bomber). He even bypassed the WTO with series of bilateral FTAs or rather unilateral PTAs (Protectionist Trade Agreements).
A dedicated fundamentalist, Bush has been methodically destroying America from the inside, corrupting justice, science and education with a caricature of religion and paving the way for theocracy. This man is a total fake : a New England brat pretending to be a Texas hunk, a coward pretending to be a soldier, an amoral fundamentalist pretending to be a compassionate saint, a theocrat pretending to spread democracy, a weak wannabe who should never have been the most powerful man on Earth.
If you think the worst happened in Iraq, consider this : this man is planning an even craziest sequel in Iran.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote to George W. Bush he shared the same approach of religion. The fact is both are fanatics who expect important visits in a near future ; respectively the return of the Mahdi and the second coming of the Christ. And along with by a bunch of fundamentalists from all confessions (Christian, Muslim and Jewish), they share a more than weird doomsday scenario: the final clash between Iran and Israel will lead to those much awaited visits.
This Commander in Thief only has a few months before giving up power. He is working on peace all right, but rather of the eternal kind.
Compared to such madhatters, Islamist fundamentalists who kicked the Shah out of Iran back in 1979 look like moderates. No wonder Bush does his best to help Ahmadinejad stay in power.
3 - What can be done to undermine fundamentalism ?
Like fascism, fundamentalism needs a permanent state of fear, war and propaganda to survive, and is defeated by democracy at its best : exemplary, fair, just and respectful.
America cannot be respected if it doesn’t respect its own values ; those of a model democracy.
The war on terror should be waged at its roots : helping Afghanistan out of despair and out of the reach of Talibans, converging towards a fair resolution of the Israel / Palestine crisis, focusing on poverty and injustice across the World.
The only way out of Iraq is to fire those who deliberately misfired. Bush and Cheney should be prevented from spreading more chaos and impeached… Easier said than done, but removing Gonzales would be a significant first step forward.
Moderates should speak up across the political spectrum : Dems or Reps, we share certain values and think our leaders betrayed them. We may not overpower them as quickly as we’d like to, but we want to tell the world that we want America back on track, we are not going to let that happen again, and we will do our best to get rid of fundamentalists among us.
Humility will make America stronger : it takes courage to give up arrogance. Besides, there is no other way to get out of what is basically a moral collapse (not to mention to claim any kind of leadership back in the future).
The aim is not to please atheists and condemn believers but to expose fundamentalists, especially among those who are supposed to defend justice, education or democracy. You don’t want to ignite a witch hunt the McCarthy way (are you or have you ever been a fundamentalist ?), but rather to promote transparency over the hypocrisy and confusion fundamentalists are feeding upon.
I’m asking for a much needed reverse burden of proof : nowadays, lawmakers are terrorized by fundamentalists and it should be the other way round. Instead of harassing the bulk of the candidates with questions regarding their private life, we should be forcing fundamentalists to come out in the open, give democracy the lead over the theocratic agenda. Lawmakers shouldn’t be compelled to demonstrate confusingly why they are good believers, they just should clearly tell that they don’t support fundamentalism and that, whatever they believe in, religion should not mix with politics in this country. Ultimately, if some people want religion to rule politics, let them found their own party like they do in other countries.
Once again, I’m not promoting atheism, but defending democracy. And in the US, a cultural change is needed. The fact is America has always allowed too much confusion between the religious and political spheres ; been too tolerant with sects and fanatics that are not compatible with democracy (partly because it was built by people who sometimes fled Europe for religious reasons - ie the Mayflower pilgrims). For a European such as me, it can be upsetting to hear the leader of a supposedly model democracy finish his acceptance speech with “so help me God”. And it is upsetting to see secular democracies under the pervasive threat of fundamentalists in the EU as well (lobbying for the mention of the Christian heritage in the Constitution, for the promotion of creationism and ID… with the benediction of a rather ambiguous Pope ; Benedict XVI).
Beyond the US and EU political microcosms, all moderates should voice their hope for a sounder and more transparent system. This new “we the people” should reach across the world, wherever moderates are threatened by fundamentalists, and not only in the usual hot spots : the race for juicy market shares is raging all over Asia.
Why not A Universal Declaration of Independence from fundamentalism, that perennial enemy of peace, freedom and democracy ?
blogules 2007
---
ADDENDUM 20090117
"What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives -- from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry" - Barack Hussein Obama (Baltimore, January 17, 2009).
Change has come to America.
---
digg this
20070627
Red blogule to Luc van den Brande
Guy Lengagne's report on the dangers of Creationism and Intelligent Design for democracy in Europe was withdrawn from the agenda of the European Council assembly at the last moment.
The successful defensor of obscurantism is a member of the Christian Democratic and Flemish party named Luc van den Brande. He claimed the issue was about science, not politics.
But Creationism has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics and the restoration of theocracy.
Shame on Europe for allowing such people as van den Brande to set its agenda.
The successful defensor of obscurantism is a member of the Christian Democratic and Flemish party named Luc van den Brande. He claimed the issue was about science, not politics.
But Creationism has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics and the restoration of theocracy.
Shame on Europe for allowing such people as van den Brande to set its agenda.
20070507
Sarko wins - White blogule to reforms
France eventually said yes to something. After saying no to extreme right in 2002 and no to Europe in 2005, the country decided to embrace reforms. In order to implement his ambitious program, Nicolas Sarkozy must now get a clear majority at the National Assembly. And these legislative elections will be a very interesting moment in French politics.
As early as next thursday, Francois Bayrou will know whether his new Democratic Movement can keep the bulk of today's UDF MPs, who supported Sarkozy and refused to join the opposition.
As early as yesterday night, a surrealistic replay of the PS primaries started. Segolene Royal, as expected, refused to admit her own failure and the failure of ideological indecisiveness, claimed the leadership of the "anything but Sarko" movement. Laurent Fabius, as expected, denounced her solo campaign and called for unity with the left of the left. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, as expected, denounced the candidate's hollowness and the party's refusal to reform itself, to clarify its vision and ideology, calling for a reform towards a modern social democracy.
As early as yesterday night too, extreme left revolutionary groups tested the authorities, provoking minor episodes of violence in some major cities. Olivier Besancenot intends to take the street and bar all reforms.
As early as yesterday afternoon, Jean-Marie Le Pen died politically. Sarkozy shot him badly before the first round, leading a great chunk of his voters back to the republic, and the old extremist leader shot himself before the second round, calling his voters for a massive abstention but witnessing the highest turnout in recent history.
Meanwhile, Sarko rises above the snake nest and takes a few days off to abandon his candidate's skin. He already switched to a presidential posture in a rather brilliant speech. He talked to the world (to the notable exceptions of the Middle East and Asia) and mentioned respect. I'll keep an eye on his way of respecting the separation of powers (executive-legislative, executive-judicial, executive-media, temporal-intemporal...).
As early as next thursday, Francois Bayrou will know whether his new Democratic Movement can keep the bulk of today's UDF MPs, who supported Sarkozy and refused to join the opposition.
As early as yesterday night, a surrealistic replay of the PS primaries started. Segolene Royal, as expected, refused to admit her own failure and the failure of ideological indecisiveness, claimed the leadership of the "anything but Sarko" movement. Laurent Fabius, as expected, denounced her solo campaign and called for unity with the left of the left. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, as expected, denounced the candidate's hollowness and the party's refusal to reform itself, to clarify its vision and ideology, calling for a reform towards a modern social democracy.
As early as yesterday night too, extreme left revolutionary groups tested the authorities, provoking minor episodes of violence in some major cities. Olivier Besancenot intends to take the street and bar all reforms.
As early as yesterday afternoon, Jean-Marie Le Pen died politically. Sarkozy shot him badly before the first round, leading a great chunk of his voters back to the republic, and the old extremist leader shot himself before the second round, calling his voters for a massive abstention but witnessing the highest turnout in recent history.
Meanwhile, Sarko rises above the snake nest and takes a few days off to abandon his candidate's skin. He already switched to a presidential posture in a rather brilliant speech. He talked to the world (to the notable exceptions of the Middle East and Asia) and mentioned respect. I'll keep an eye on his way of respecting the separation of powers (executive-legislative, executive-judicial, executive-media, temporal-intemporal...).
20070420
Le vote futile - why French socialists shouldn't vote for Royal
Before the 2004 elections, I would advise Republicans who loved their party and who truly respected republican values not to vote for Bush. I'm not sure the GOP will recover from the 2006 fiasco on time for 2008...
I'm telling the same thing to French socialists right now : if you believe in a modern form of socialism and compassionate politics, do not vote for Segolene Royal this Sunday. France cannot afford to be ruled by the Socialist Party as it is right now, and certainly not by a candidate who proved unable to federate her own family, unable to give a clear vision, unable to rise above a swamp of demagogy.
Royal never ventured beyond areas where debate could rage. Europe ? 35-hour week ? the national debt ? Well below the radar of touchy issues and just above the minefield of personal attacks on her rivals, Sego decided to focus on the consensual issue of the budget devoted to the French President for her last week of campaigning. Pathetic.
Socialists reformers want the French PS to implode. This party died two years ago after the Referendum on Europe, and the worst thing that could happen now would be a socialist majority composed of conflicting minorities. Ruling over such a mess would be much tougher than achieving Bayrou's dream of a balanced government positioned at the center.
Reformers should not accept Sego's conservative agenda, and conservative leftists would better vote for one of the small candidates "to the left of the left". At least, Mrs Buffet believes in what she says and respects the political debate.
But both reformers and hardliners are hesitating : Le Pen could reach the second round again.
But since this man cannot be elected (unless France turns into Florida), even that would be better than electing Royal : the socialists, who did not move one inch since April 21, 2002 despite the humiliation, would then be forced to evolve and split. Let the primates go their way and the moderates pave a new one.
If Royal were to win, France would lose immediately, and the Parti Socialist not long after. The only winner would be the Royal - Hollande couple.
I hope socialists won't subscribe to this hollow program.
Unless they enjoy being dubbed Europe's stupidest left.
I'm telling the same thing to French socialists right now : if you believe in a modern form of socialism and compassionate politics, do not vote for Segolene Royal this Sunday. France cannot afford to be ruled by the Socialist Party as it is right now, and certainly not by a candidate who proved unable to federate her own family, unable to give a clear vision, unable to rise above a swamp of demagogy.
Royal never ventured beyond areas where debate could rage. Europe ? 35-hour week ? the national debt ? Well below the radar of touchy issues and just above the minefield of personal attacks on her rivals, Sego decided to focus on the consensual issue of the budget devoted to the French President for her last week of campaigning. Pathetic.
Socialists reformers want the French PS to implode. This party died two years ago after the Referendum on Europe, and the worst thing that could happen now would be a socialist majority composed of conflicting minorities. Ruling over such a mess would be much tougher than achieving Bayrou's dream of a balanced government positioned at the center.
Reformers should not accept Sego's conservative agenda, and conservative leftists would better vote for one of the small candidates "to the left of the left". At least, Mrs Buffet believes in what she says and respects the political debate.
But both reformers and hardliners are hesitating : Le Pen could reach the second round again.
But since this man cannot be elected (unless France turns into Florida), even that would be better than electing Royal : the socialists, who did not move one inch since April 21, 2002 despite the humiliation, would then be forced to evolve and split. Let the primates go their way and the moderates pave a new one.
If Royal were to win, France would lose immediately, and the Parti Socialist not long after. The only winner would be the Royal - Hollande couple.
I hope socialists won't subscribe to this hollow program.
Unless they enjoy being dubbed Europe's stupidest left.
20070315
"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)
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)
20061230
Smokescreened him out - Saddam 1-1 Slobodan - Red blogule to justice in 2006
Red blogule to justice in 2006. Slobodan Milosevic died unconvinced and Saddam Hussein unconvincingly. The former in the middle of a fair trial that took too long, the latter after the caricature of a trial that took too much away from the relevant issues.
At least historians will be able to browse through the unedited tapes of Solbo's show on ICTY TV (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia). Less frustrating than the almost comical tragedy narrowcasted by Baghdad TV, not to mention the lousy tapes of Nicolae Ceaucescu's execution.
By the way : Romania is joining the European Union. Along with Bulgaria.
And oh : 2006 is about to be executed soon, too. Quite a serial killer of bad guys*, this one.
Happy new year folks.
* Let's not forget Augusto Pinochet, Pieter Wilhem Botha, Kenneth Lay, James Brown (who used to beat his wife - wives ?), Paik Nam-june (who used to short circuit our brainwaves), or Gerald Ford (for not publishing his critical views on war in Iraq beyond the ears of Bob "The Vault" Woodward). My ennemies could add both my grandmothers, also claimed by this nasty serial killer : DNA tests proved their responsibility for my birth.
At least historians will be able to browse through the unedited tapes of Solbo's show on ICTY TV (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia). Less frustrating than the almost comical tragedy narrowcasted by Baghdad TV, not to mention the lousy tapes of Nicolae Ceaucescu's execution.
By the way : Romania is joining the European Union. Along with Bulgaria.
And oh : 2006 is about to be executed soon, too. Quite a serial killer of bad guys*, this one.
Happy new year folks.
* Let's not forget Augusto Pinochet, Pieter Wilhem Botha, Kenneth Lay, James Brown (who used to beat his wife - wives ?), Paik Nam-june (who used to short circuit our brainwaves), or Gerald Ford (for not publishing his critical views on war in Iraq beyond the ears of Bob "The Vault" Woodward). My ennemies could add both my grandmothers, also claimed by this nasty serial killer : DNA tests proved their responsibility for my birth.
20061130
White blogule to the EU's carbon cuts and the new ECSC
European Trading Scheme phase II (ETS 2) has cut member states' carbon permits by an average 7% for the years to come. If not disruptive, this is a first step beyond Kyoto.
A small step for environment but a giant leap for Europe : this international nobody had been asked for years to work on global warming, a much easier and popular task than political union.
Considering the EU was founded on the CECA (Communaute Europeenne du Charbon et de l'Acier) / ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community), we actually need less European Coal but an actual Steel Community as far as will is considered.
A small step for environment but a giant leap for Europe : this international nobody had been asked for years to work on global warming, a much easier and popular task than political union.
Considering the EU was founded on the CECA (Communaute Europeenne du Charbon et de l'Acier) / ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community), we actually need less European Coal but an actual Steel Community as far as will is considered.
20060825
White blogule to UNIFIL v 2.0 - Touche, Mr Bolton
As expected, France will contribute with about 2,000 soldiers to the new UNIFIL. The Quai d'Orsay managed to get what it wanted : a stronger force, a stronger UN, a stronger Europe and above all (let's hope) a stronger Lebanon. Not a remake of the 1995 fiasco in Bosnia. Not the dirty quick fix the US diplomacy dreamt of.
Bush dared criticize France for doing nothing but there is a big difference between doing nothing during the bombing of Lebanon (follow my stare) and putting a positive pressure on peacemakers during the ceasefire. I tend to believe the second option to be more efficient for a durable peace in the region. Besides, I prefer the French position (send 200 troops first, add 2,000 once the conditions are confirmed) to the Italian (promise 3,000 troops first, send 2,000 once the frame is set).
As expected, some Israelis are starting to wonder what went wrong. Many do ask the right questions : did we have to wage this war in the first place ? why did we use forbidden US weapons against civilians ? can we trust our leaders ? what's wrong with our country at the national and the international level ?... Unfortunately, others speak louder with the wrong answers : victory was at hand but politicians failed the military and didn't go all the way, Israel needs a tougher regime.
Bush dared criticize France for doing nothing but there is a big difference between doing nothing during the bombing of Lebanon (follow my stare) and putting a positive pressure on peacemakers during the ceasefire. I tend to believe the second option to be more efficient for a durable peace in the region. Besides, I prefer the French position (send 200 troops first, add 2,000 once the conditions are confirmed) to the Italian (promise 3,000 troops first, send 2,000 once the frame is set).
As expected, some Israelis are starting to wonder what went wrong. Many do ask the right questions : did we have to wage this war in the first place ? why did we use forbidden US weapons against civilians ? can we trust our leaders ? what's wrong with our country at the national and the international level ?... Unfortunately, others speak louder with the wrong answers : victory was at hand but politicians failed the military and didn't go all the way, Israel needs a tougher regime.
20060718
White blogule to Lebanon - please do survive
Israel fuels terrorism as efficiently as the Bush administration : instead of acting carefuly and with the help of the international community after outspoken terror attacks (9/11, Hezbollah raid), they attack blindly and unilaterally, appear as the aggressors and bring chaos where it definitely wasn't needed (Iraq, Lebanon). Only military action is considered, all political options and all legal frameworks being nixed.
I wonder if Lebanon can survive now. People came back once but this looks even worse than civil war. The country is politically, economically and socially devastated. A week after the first Israeli riposts, half a million people have been moved and more than 200 civilians killed, half of them kids. Who cares ? There's nothing but culture to be saved over there.
Bush applauds, Europe remains silent, Arab countries fear for their own stability, the UN is as dead as John Bolton wants it. Welcome to Diplomacy's Ground Zero.
I wonder if Lebanon can survive now. People came back once but this looks even worse than civil war. The country is politically, economically and socially devastated. A week after the first Israeli riposts, half a million people have been moved and more than 200 civilians killed, half of them kids. Who cares ? There's nothing but culture to be saved over there.
Bush applauds, Europe remains silent, Arab countries fear for their own stability, the UN is as dead as John Bolton wants it. Welcome to Diplomacy's Ground Zero.
20051208
White blogule to the Law Lords - find another al-Libi, Dubya
Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the Lybian detainee who confessed in 2002 a link between al Qaeda and Iraq, did it under torture but in an Egyptian jail (back then, the C.I.A. would still outsource this nasty business).
In London, the Law Lords just ruled that evidence obtained under torture (even on a foreign soil) could not be used in British courts.
The US have used the "foreign soil" loophole since the Cold War and torture has been banned since 1640 in England.
Talking about cold wars and smoking guns... Amerika's Real Estate Agent Condi Rice just clinched a deal with Romania where 4 US military bases will be installed. This former Soviet satellite enjoys a view on the European Gulf (the Black Sea ? an epitome of the Bush doctrine : a major oil and gas hub and an environmental nightmare), locates in Europe but not yet in the EU (perfect timing as far as the European agenda is concerned), and happens to be neither too close from the Middle East (the Gaza Tigers can draft Roger Clemens, their stones will never reach the Constanta shores), nor too far (when the boys are withdrawn, their toys will remain nearby). Of course, today's EU members won't budge and The Company Airlines gets all the time slots they need.
In London, the Law Lords just ruled that evidence obtained under torture (even on a foreign soil) could not be used in British courts.
The US have used the "foreign soil" loophole since the Cold War and torture has been banned since 1640 in England.
Talking about cold wars and smoking guns... Amerika's Real Estate Agent Condi Rice just clinched a deal with Romania where 4 US military bases will be installed. This former Soviet satellite enjoys a view on the European Gulf (the Black Sea ? an epitome of the Bush doctrine : a major oil and gas hub and an environmental nightmare), locates in Europe but not yet in the EU (perfect timing as far as the European agenda is concerned), and happens to be neither too close from the Middle East (the Gaza Tigers can draft Roger Clemens, their stones will never reach the Constanta shores), nor too far (when the boys are withdrawn, their toys will remain nearby). Of course, today's EU members won't budge and The Company Airlines gets all the time slots they need.
20050916
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.
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.
20050901
White blogule to Orhan Pamuk
So mentioning the genocide of the Armenians and the killings of Kurds is an insult to the Turkish nation and Orhan Pamuk should be jailed for telling the truth. The poor man was already cruising dangerous waters in his beautiful book "Snow", exposing fundamentalists and radical politicians from all sides in the same crude light, now Pamuk may turn out to be yet another victim of France's no to the EU constitution.
Because this nationalistic bravado represents the stupidest answer to the recent attacks from Erdogan's former friends. All charges should be dropped and if a trial were to take place, it should be about Turkey's troubled past.
And as far as the French are concerned, they can frown and denounce such a medieval censorship, but still have to answer for their own History.
Because this nationalistic bravado represents the stupidest answer to the recent attacks from Erdogan's former friends. All charges should be dropped and if a trial were to take place, it should be about Turkey's troubled past.
And as far as the French are concerned, they can frown and denounce such a medieval censorship, but still have to answer for their own History.
20050805
Red blogule to neolibs
(...) A radical counterforce to neocons is gaining momentum across the world, leveraging on Bush's extreme stance and on the popularity of "alternative" themes (no to total deregulation / free market, no to war, no to polluters, no to neocons...) to recruit beyond the traditional extreme left side of the spectrum. Among them, (not always former) Troskyists have a knack for infiltrating the administrations and the youth.
The French press is noticing an infiltration of education by radical "altermondialists" (in today's Le Figaro "Enquête : comment ATTAC infiltre l'école" ). ATTAC are known for supporting the so called "Tobin tax", riots during G8 summits, or the NO vote to the European constitution. There is a fierce debate within the movement : we are acting like a political party, shall we turn into one and nominate a candidate for the 2007 presidential elections ? This could mean the implosion of the socialist party.
An interesting phenomenon is the way these radicals deal with the "weaker" ones, very similar to the high pressure / terror put by hawks on potential doves : if you don't agree with us you are with them, and thus you are a fascist.
What I feared is happening : the extremes feeding each other, the moderates crushed in between, and radicalism getting overall mainstream.
As I see it, Howard Dean seems to extend towards the center right instead of locking the far left (see Newsweek Intl's article on abortion : "A Case of Roh vs. Reality" ). I don't know how long it will take for the two-party system to implode, but it seems to be well protected by the shortness of mandates (4 years).
SM on disinfopedia
The French press is noticing an infiltration of education by radical "altermondialists" (in today's Le Figaro "Enquête : comment ATTAC infiltre l'école" ). ATTAC are known for supporting the so called "Tobin tax", riots during G8 summits, or the NO vote to the European constitution. There is a fierce debate within the movement : we are acting like a political party, shall we turn into one and nominate a candidate for the 2007 presidential elections ? This could mean the implosion of the socialist party.
An interesting phenomenon is the way these radicals deal with the "weaker" ones, very similar to the high pressure / terror put by hawks on potential doves : if you don't agree with us you are with them, and thus you are a fascist.
What I feared is happening : the extremes feeding each other, the moderates crushed in between, and radicalism getting overall mainstream.
As I see it, Howard Dean seems to extend towards the center right instead of locking the far left (see Newsweek Intl's article on abortion : "A Case of Roh vs. Reality" ). I don't know how long it will take for the two-party system to implode, but it seems to be well protected by the shortness of mandates (4 years).
SM on disinfopedia
20050706
White blogule to "Paris 2020"
The year of the Trafalgar bicentennial, the year when Saint Tony reached the European throne, the year France said merde to Europe, how could Paris win over London for the 2012 Olympics ?
Paris has to wait at least after New York 2016 : (ex-) Europe can't possibly get two Olympic Games in a row and the Lords of the Rings cannot offer more than three consecutive gifts to non-US televorus popcornicum vulgaris. Dubya's successor is a sure winner in 2009, but he'll also need a second mandate to fully enjoy the show... and if Hillary is not that one, she can always claim part of the success (exhibit A : a token for attending Singapore 2005 board meeting).
If Paris were eventually awarded the 2032 Games, Chirac could be celebrated for the centennial of his birth as a turn of the millenium Coubertin breathing to his last gasp the spirit of Olympism : "the important thing in the Baghdad 2028 Olympic Games is not to win, but to participate", citius, altius, fortius, fabius...
Paris has to wait at least after New York 2016 : (ex-) Europe can't possibly get two Olympic Games in a row and the Lords of the Rings cannot offer more than three consecutive gifts to non-US televorus popcornicum vulgaris. Dubya's successor is a sure winner in 2009, but he'll also need a second mandate to fully enjoy the show... and if Hillary is not that one, she can always claim part of the success (exhibit A : a token for attending Singapore 2005 board meeting).
If Paris were eventually awarded the 2032 Games, Chirac could be celebrated for the centennial of his birth as a turn of the millenium Coubertin breathing to his last gasp the spirit of Olympism : "the important thing in the Baghdad 2028 Olympic Games is not to win, but to participate", citius, altius, fortius, fabius...
20050531
Red blogules to veto abuses
NON it is, then. At least, not the vicious knuckleball kind of nay : a straight to strikezone fastball backing a solid .700 batting average for a nice 55 to 45 lead.Yet, France lost for walking first. Not to first base but outta the ballpark : Europe may not be lost but the country's out
of the game for the World Series and the UN reshuffle. This misuse of the veto right at the EU level brings the spotlight on the mid-XXth-century-but-so-XIXth-century heritage of the French veto right at the UNO. Can the country which tore apart the European constitution written by one of his own citizens decently play any role in the building of the new UN ?
This time, and even without his Troyan horse Bolton on board, President Bush won't have much to fear from the Gallic diplomacy.
of the game for the World Series and the UN reshuffle. This misuse of the veto right at the EU level brings the spotlight on the mid-XXth-century-but-so-XIXth-century heritage of the French veto right at the UNO. Can the country which tore apart the European constitution written by one of his own citizens decently play any role in the building of the new UN ?
This time, and even without his Troyan horse Bolton on board, President Bush won't have much to fear from the Gallic diplomacy.
20050104
Red blogule to France - Papy blues
France, Europe and the World - papy blues ?
France will hold a referendum on the EU constitution this year. A "no" sure would make the news, but is there any way the country could get an identity back ?
Jacques Chirac has a knack for finding ways of putting his country back on the map, and the resistance to the American domination seems an inspirational source - from nuclear explosions in the Pacific Ocean (the rationale : some coral crushing is the price to pay in order not to depend on the US for some sensitive data crunching) to more glamourous fights (in favor of the "cultural diversity", against the Bush mob about Iraq).
Now it's time to define France and Europe a more subtle way. Both shouldn't exist simply as a negative or counterbalancing force to such superpowers as the US or China.
Up to now, the French have somehow succeeded in being instrumental in the creation and development of the European Union. This influence is now over, even if former president Giscard d'Estaing led the EU Constitution project in 2004. Even the golden seat at the UN (veto power can deter as efficiently as nukes) may soon become history.
So France welcomes this referendum as the main event of the year to come. A proof of its very existence. Discovering with stupor what it means to become Europe's "Belle Province" - a proud, scenic and original spot without much influence on its environment nor its own destiny.
France will hold a referendum on the EU constitution this year. A "no" sure would make the news, but is there any way the country could get an identity back ?
Jacques Chirac has a knack for finding ways of putting his country back on the map, and the resistance to the American domination seems an inspirational source - from nuclear explosions in the Pacific Ocean (the rationale : some coral crushing is the price to pay in order not to depend on the US for some sensitive data crunching) to more glamourous fights (in favor of the "cultural diversity", against the Bush mob about Iraq).
Now it's time to define France and Europe a more subtle way. Both shouldn't exist simply as a negative or counterbalancing force to such superpowers as the US or China.
Up to now, the French have somehow succeeded in being instrumental in the creation and development of the European Union. This influence is now over, even if former president Giscard d'Estaing led the EU Constitution project in 2004. Even the golden seat at the UN (veto power can deter as efficiently as nukes) may soon become history.
So France welcomes this referendum as the main event of the year to come. A proof of its very existence. Discovering with stupor what it means to become Europe's "Belle Province" - a proud, scenic and original spot without much influence on its environment nor its own destiny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search my personal portal :
