Cenotaphs, shrines, and an obituary of Japan democracy

History will remember the first time a POTUS and a Japanese PM stood together in Hiroshima more than their empty words.

Hiroshima mon amour

As expected, Shinzo Abe delivered one of his trademark, crocodile-tearful, "History is harsh" speeches*, sparing us his usual fake excuses, because this time, he was not required to provide any. Today, Barack Obama chimed in by using similar smoke screens. And of course, without apologizing.

Yes, 'we have a shared responsibility to look directly in the eye of history', but don't count on us for saying that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong, or that Imperial Japan committed war crimes that also need to be remembered.

The choice of a G7 host city is a fantastic opportunity to push a political agenda, and Hiroshima was a finalist for Shinzo Abe, who wants everybody to remember Japan as a pure victim, and to forget that it committed atrocities under the fascist regime he has, along with fellow members of Nippon Kaigi, pledged to restore ("Imperial Japan v. Japan"). Sorry, Mr Abe, but "No, you can't honor A-Bomb victims in Hiroshima AND War Criminals in Yasukuni".

In his wildest dreams, this incurable provocateur would have selected Yasukuni, but the international community would have condemned him vehemently. He settled for another controversial Shinto shrine he loves to visit as frequently as possible: Ise Grand Shrine doesn't honor war criminals, but it is also led by a eminent member of Nippon Kaigi. And a Japanese government is supposed to respect the separation of State and religion...

Don't forget that as far as extremist lobbies go, Abe follows Shinto Seiji Renmei as well as Nippon Kaigi, and that as a fundamentalist, he wants the restoration of State Shinto, and of the Emperor as the supreme religious and political leader. 

A few Japanese voices raised objections regarding the choice of Ise, but who's listening to the dwindling resistance of the local democracy?

blogules 2016
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

* for last year's two masterpieces, see ""History is harsh" and other sick jokes" and "Decoding the Abe Statement: "why apologize for crimes Japan never committed?""

#JeSuisCharlie

Je Suis Charlie.

Well. Actually, I'm rather Canard Enchaîné than Charlie Hebdo (I only purchased once a copy of the latter, about thirty years ago), but that doesn't matter.

They assassinated our Grand Duduche.

Cabu's Le Grand Duduche - twitter.com/theseoulvillage/status/552810111194783744

They murdered journalists, satirists, officers of the Republic in charge of their protection. 

But you can't kill Charlie Hebdo (for that matter, that rag is perfectly able to commit "Hara Kiri" by itself).

And by shooting on anticlerical anarchists, they shot on the Republic and on Islam. 

And post-1/7 France is not post-9/11 USA: unlike George W. Bush, François Hollande won't start a pseudo-war on terror that actually fueled worldwide terror and fundamentalism.

Ces connards ont réussi à nous réunir:

"Ces connards ont réussi... ... à nous réunir"

blogules 2015
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

ISIS the end of Iraq?

Again, the end of Iraq was sealed in 2003 with the invasion led by the Theocon-Neocon duet Bush-Cheney (as usual, from my 7-year-old "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism"):

"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.

(...)

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."

If George W. Bush deliberately set the region on fire, Barack Obama proved a poor fireman. He got Bin Laden and pulled out the troops as promised, but couldn't fix the whole mess. Furthermore, his sincere goodwill was not really rewarded, like that lovely Nowruz speech: it did lead to an Iran Spring, but didn't come with any back-up when the regime crushed it. Spinned by the GOP ahead of the elections, the Benghazi fiasco deprived the POTUS from all hope of convincing the rest of Washington to act in Syria or anywhere else. 

So for now, the new Bin Laden, self-proclaimed Caliph Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, is fearing much less Uncle Sam than Vladimir Putin or - who knows - Xi Jinping. Heck, even Francois Hollande looks scarier. 

All al Baghdadi needs to make it perfect is a GOP victory this November.

blogules 2014
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

9/11 2001-2011 : what we knew then, what we know now

What we knew before 9/11 :
- al Qaeda is a dangerous terrorist organization
- the clash of civilizations is an imposture
- George W. Bush is a stupid fundamentalist and a lazy president

What we have learned after 9/11 :
- al Qaeda is a dangerous terrorist franchise
- the clash of civilizations is a profitable imposture
- Trutherism or 9/11 revisionism is a profitable imposture
- George W. Bush is a dangerous fundamentalist pretending to be a war president

blogules 2011

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

Sand curtain

If protorevolutionary movements across the Arabo-Muslim world tend to remind me of the late eighties in Eastern Europe, this is completely different.

This time it's not about the regionwide collapse of a corrupt system and ideology with a top-down benediction from a pro-reform leader (Gorbachev), but about several grassroot movements challenging local dictators, corrupt regimes sans ideology.

Note that both Ben Ali and Mubarak were already ailing caids. Beyond their political deaths, what matters now is the removal of entourages controlling most of the power in each country.

Of course, nature abhors a vacuum, and fundamentalists would love to step in to fill the ideology void. At this defining moment, most people on the street seem to reject as false the choice between dictatorship and fundamentalism, but most people on the street prefer order to chaos, and uncertainty shouldn't last too long.

Israel nervously watches as Jordanian and Egyptian regimes falter under popular pressure. Muslim friends who could turn enemies, with the benediction of Iran, whose own corrupt regime postponed its ineluctable fall by a few years by crushing popular uprisings at home. Unfortunately, these days, Israeli leaders seem to position themselves as a corrupt regime with some ideology. Not a dictatorship, mind you, but not a bunch of nice guys either.

Barack Obama is a nice guy. Unfortunately, these days, the US leader doesn't seem to be in charge of foreign policy, so huge is the gap between what he says and what the US do. And the poor lad doesn't have one Gorbachev to call if he wants that sand curtain torn down...

So what's ahead ? Probably trouble and uncertainties, but somehow this transitional period has started after WWII and independence wars, and we're closer to the end than from the beginning. Something new will emerge and eventually, something positive. Societies freed from political and religious deviances. Hopefully, the time has come for a true Muslim renaissance.

Right now, most dictators across the globe must have gotten some kind of message. But even supposedly strong democracies should be thinking twice when they applaud successful local uprisings or self-determination processes like in South Sudan : what is a nation in this globalized world, what will be holding its members together in this networked millenium ?

More than ever, each individual will reach for the universal (as a human being), and the personal (identity).

blogules 2011

And now for something completely different

"It’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds".

With this, President Obama could let Sarah Palin drown in her own blood libelling pool if he weren't a truly compassionate leader : "we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other".

From Tucson, AZ to Tunis now: the great people of Tunisia managed to push dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his Trabelsi clique out. But some of their thugs remain loose on the street, and at the other end of the hate line, fundamentalists are more than ever eager to wedge their ways into the country. They obviously were not invited at the table for the national unity government : the unity they seek doesn't quite fit the democratic agenda.

From Tunis to Juba: here, the democratic agenda is set and a new country is about to emerge from the referendum. Complete with controversial borders, and strategic pipelines, Southern Sudan is also the perfect target for hatemongers.

From Tunis and Juba to Abidjan: these days, Laurent Gbagbo is probably paying some attention to what's happening in other African countries. To the Ben Ali scenario, I'm sure he'd prefer to see Ivory Coast split in two. Of course, without any democratic process.

From Tunis to Washington, DC : no need to wait for the next WikiLeaks batch to know that Ben Ali's quick retreat to Saudi Arabia owes something to US diplomacy. A small compromise, but an overall B+ for Secretary of State Clinton in this (at long last) booming region. Maybe Chinese diplomats contributed : all of a sudden, supporting local dictators in exchange for raw materials is not as politically correct as it used to be.

Cynics would say that after this African Yalta, the Chinese will keep nurturing their dictator in North Sudan, while Americans will start pumping oil in South Sudan.

Another victory for Africa yesterday ? The new Front National leader has African origins : like her dad Jean-Marie, Marine Le Pen shares her origins with all of us French, Americans, Chinese... you name it. But I don't think she's going to celebrate this politically and scientifically correct fact. In a way that heals.


blogules 2011

Mid-Term Elections : Sarah Palin to run in West Dakota

My dear fellow Amerikans,

Howdy lads and gals ?

As you know, my second book, "Amerika by Heart: reflections on family, faith, and flags", will be published after the mid-term elections, around November 23. Depending on the result, it will either be about my role in the victory, or a "toldya so" condemnation of the GOP's doomed campaign of 2010.

After working on two books in one, my head is swimming with words, but thank God I kept my eyes on the ball... which, by the way, was much easier to find than Obama's cojones (wink - wink) !

As you also know*, I will run in 2012. I got all the credentials as a top FOX News barker. And if the Reps dare not nominate me, I'll merge the Tea Party and my fundamentalist base into a "Libertarian, Gonads, Bible, Tea Party". Will that "LGBT Party" be the pride of our glorious nation ? You betcha !

For 2010, I needed to legitimitize my involvation in the electoric process. I badly hadda run for a seat, and not only because I had a mean chili con carne for lunch. I long hesitated between West Dakota and North Virginia, and settled for the former, 'cause it has a border with Saskatchewanistan : this winter, with Todd, we're gonna Skidoo hunt Bin Laden and his fellow thugs, smoke'im out, gut'im out, hang'im high, you nam'it.

But before that, during this whole year, I'll keep reminding US voters why they need to vote Republican this November : to fight against Obama's unfair policies that granted medical care to whiners and deprived Wall Street execs from well deserved impunities, to drill deeper into the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska (and while we're at it drill even deeper into our prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo - wink - wink), to restore Amerikan values (starting with waterboarding) and the positive image of Amerika overseas, plus, of course, to go back to our sound economy of 2008.

Yours Truly,

Sarah Louise Palin


blogules 2010

* "GOP - From Morale Building to Moral Damage Control Mode"

Texas State Board of Education dumps Education in favor of Creationism

I love Texas, but my patience is wearing thin.

Hosting and supporting the worst POTUS in history was one thing, delivering his dystopia is pushing a bit too far.

Among the key changes voted by the State Board of Education for 10 years starting in 2011-2012 :
- pupils will be taught that "separation of church and state" isn't written in the Constitution, a necessary step towards Dubya's vision (Intelligent Design at school, theocracy in Washington)
- pupils will be asked to point out attacks from the UN and other international bodies against the US of Amerika (you know, them Human Rights and Geneva Conventions, those un-Amerikan terrorists who dared criticize the way we handled things in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo)

Contagion to other states would be certain : Texas being a major market for textbooks, it often sets the pace at the national level.

I'm speechless, but I hope true democrats and republicans (across the aisle, without the capital D and R) will not let this infamy happen.

The obvious ways out would be a gubernatorial win by Democrats or a Supreme Court overrule. But even if they lose in the end, GOP fundamentalists would win by reigniting a really un-american civil war. This episode is also a perfect stimulus for mid-term elections : expect a spectacular turnout across the Bible belt.

blogules 2010

Herman van Rompuy, haikus, humor and religion

The new President of the European Council is praised for his talents as a negociator and haiku writer as well as for an undisputable sense of humor. What bothers me is the main reason why Herman van Rompuy probably got the job.

I strongly campaigned against once front runner Tony Blair. Less for his role in the invasion of Iraq than for his belonging to the clique of fundamentalists who, after ruining World peace along with their Islamist friends, are deliberately turning Europe into their new playground (see "Tony Blair : a newborn fundamentalist President of Europe ?"). But I'm afraid this man could be as dangerous for democracy in Europe.

If HVR passes for a moderate who "hates extremists", he is in favor of a fusional relationship between politics and religion.

For starters, he belongs to CD&V (Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams), Belgium's Flemmish Christian-democratic party. European-style Christian Democracy usually promotes rather balanced platforms for politics, economics and social affairs, but fundamentally, they mix religion with politics and expose a vision of politics somehow superseded by religion, which is incompatible with the concept of secular, republican democracy. Yet at this stage, mentioning fundamentalism would be more than far-fetched.

I nonetheless observe that Mr Van Rompuy, who regularly fights with Luc Van den Brande over the political future of Belgium, supports his CD&V colleague at the European level, where this ayatollah efficiently undermines democracy by promoting Intelligent Design.

Furthermore, our moderate who "hates extremists" is himself using rather radical terms, usually associated with ultra-conservative Christians in Europe. Turkish media didn't forget his outburst during the debate on Turkey's candidacy for the EU : "it's a matter of fact that the universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also the fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey".

Everybody knows Herman Van Rompuy majored Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Catholic University of Leuven) in economics, but he also majored in philosophy. And there again, he tends to blur lines.

Van Rompuy maintains he never campaigned for the job but that's not true. On October 19, 2009, exactly one month before his nomination, he delivered a conference on the last encyclical of a certain Benedict XVI about the Church's social doctrine.

I cannot help but think about John McCain giving a conference at the Discovery Institute ahead of his own campaign, as a guarantee to US theocons (see ""Change is coming" and Mac "will fight", but for whom and for what ?").

In this conference ("Conférence de Herman Rompuy sur Caritas in Veritate", on LaCroix.com), economics / philosophy expert Van Rompuy talks about love and humanism, but also and first of all, just like Pope Benedict XVI, about politics :

. "No political regime, no social organization and no economic system can claim the realization of ultimate salvation" - all this is nothing compared to faith and religion
. "According to Social Doctrine, the political community is at the service of civil society where it originated. This civil society represents the sum of all relationships and goods, either cultural or associative, which are relatively independent from politics and economy" - politics cannot rule over everything, and a superior power somehow needs to be materialized
. "The principle of subsidiarity is binding, each human should have the opportunity to contribute to the construction of well being and prosperity. Yet, the difficult question is to know how today, we can achieve this principle within an unified Europe and in a globalized world where more and more decisions are taken at a level actual individuals cannot reach, even as they know how they condition his well being and prosperity, his work and his responsibilities" - BTW: did you notice that religions are not only relevant when it comes to essential issues, but also perfectly organized to cope with subsidiarity issues, and to reach each and every individual ?
. HvR then directly pushes Benedict's agenda, using the core message of his encyclical : "there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago." - the new President of Europe stops here his quote, but Ratzie and his followers perfectly know what comes right after that sentence : "Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth" (...) It would also "require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations". So like Ratzinger, Van Rompuy wants the lines "between moral and social spheres" to disappear.

I already denouced the imposture of Benedict XVI, a hardcore fundamentalist undermining, beyond Evolution itself, centuries of evolution for the Church from a Medieval mob to a modern, compassionate religion. If you purge elaborate and nice sounding circonvolutions from his texts, they always come down to the same message : let's go back to the time when religion was at the center of education, science and politics, the very attributes of democracy, that corrupt system (i.e. "Le mauvais plan de Benoît XVI"). Watch him exulting at the FAO meeting the other day : the "true world political authority" he envisions welcomes religious authorities as star constituents. In this quest, he already had the support of people like Ban Ki-moon at the UNO : very discreet regarding his own faith, and always pretending to be neutral in that field, Secretary General BAN pushes inter-religious dialogs INSIDE institutions he is reponsible for. European secular organizations were likewise appalled to see similar oddities recently performed in official EU meeting places.

Now Herman van Rompuy joins Barroso, van den Brande and company as an eminent element of the wedge strategy of fundamentalists against truly democratic European institutions.

I'm curious to see if this Christian democrat will be more "democrat" or "Christian" when it will come to defend European Court of Human Rights against the next attacks from fundamentalists*...

I wish I investigated a little bit earlier to expose the Herman Achille Van Rompuy imposture.

At this stage, I didn't find anything suspect against Cathy Ashton, alias Lady Catherine, a.k.a Baroness Ashton of Upholland, the EU's first High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

blogules 2009 - initially published on blogules (V.F.) "Herman van Rompuy, les haikus, l'humour et la religion"

* see "European Court of Human Rights slams fundamentalists (a)cross Italia and Europe", "Traditions, conservatismes, obscurantismes et fondamentalismes"

European Court of Human Rights slams fundamentalists (a)cross Italia and Europe

"The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it" : so Italy will have to stop allowing crucifixes in courts or worse, public schools.

To support its sound decision*, the European Court of Human Rights specifically mentioned arguments traditionnally used by religious conservatives : the right for the parents to educate their children according to their own beliefs, the right for the childre to freedom of religion.

The plaintiff, Mrs Soile Lautsi, a Finnish-born Italian mother, will receive EUR 5,000 in damages. But this is not about money, and all partisans of secularism across Europe should rejoice : mixing religious signs with public service clearly insults to the very essence of democracy and republican values. Judge Luigi Tosti also fought for this vital cause, putting his career in jeopardy because he refused to enter in court rooms featuring a crucifix.

Once again, this is not about atheism vs. religion, but about democracy vs. fundamentalism AND about religion vs. fundamentalism. Secularism is the only way to protect at the same time democracy AND religion from their common and most lethal enemy.

Needless to say, the Lega Nord, the Re-Reformed Church of Chief Fundamentalist Benedict XVI, and other fundamentalists from all confessions** didn't welcome such resistance before the probable inauguration of one of them at the first continental leader (see "Tony Blair : a newborn fundamentalist President of Europe ?").

Yesterday, Minister of "Education" Mariastella Gelmini tried to make crucifixes pass for "symboles of Italian tradition"... The usual neo-creationist trick : multiply smoke screens, ban from the vocabulary all religious reference, deny any hidden agenda / wedge strategy, and send coward, submarine strikes against science, education, and democracy (see cf "En finir avec l'Intelligent Design").

The battle is not over : Italy's Supreme Court revoked in 2004 a 2003 judgement banning crucifixes from schools and courts without bringing any legal justification, and the European Court of Human Rights must brace against furious attacks from fundamentalists, most likely using their usual proxies within European political spheres (i.e. Luc van den Brande).

This battle is not a new one, but it's now official and out in the open : like the US before, Europe fights for its very survival as a symbol of democracy against its worst enemies, imposters from within.


blogules 2009
also in French : "La Cour Européenne des Droits de l'Homme crucifie les fondamentalistes"

* "Communiqué du Greffier - Arrêt de chambre - Lautsi c. Italie (requête n° 30814/06)" - the English Version :

CRUCIFIX IN CLASSROOMS:
CONTRARY TO PARENTS’ RIGHT TO EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN IN LINE WITH THEIR CONVICTIONS AND TO CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education)
examined jointly with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion)
of the European Convention on Human Rights
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(...)
The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it. In particular, it was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education, where attending classes was compulsory irrespective of religion, and where the aim should be to foster critical thinking in pupils.

** I cannot imagine any better message for moderate Muslims struggling to eradicate fundamentalism across the world (i.e. most recently Al-Azhar University in Egypt banning the niqab, or the heated debate about "France, secularism and burqa").

ADDENDUM 20091104
I replaced the French version (below) by the English Version (above) :

CRUCIFIX DANS LES SALLES DE CLASSE : CONTRAIRE AU DROIT DES PARENTS D'ÉDUQUER LEURS ENFANTS SELON LEURS CONVICTIONS ET AU DROIT DES ENFANTS À LA LIBERTÉ DE RELIGION
Violation de l'article 2 du protocole n° 1 (droit à l'instruction) examiné conjointement avec l'article 9 (liberté de pensée, de conscience et de religion) de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.
En application de l'article 41 (satisfaction équitable) de la Convention, la Cour alloue 5 000 euros (EUR) à la requérante pour dommage moral.
(...)
"L'Etat doit s'abstenir d'imposer des croyances dans les lieux où les personnes sont dépendantes de lui. Il est notamment tenu à la neutralité confessionnelle dans le cadre de l’éducation publique où la présence aux cours est requise sans considération de religion et qui doit chercher à inculquer aux élèves une pensée critique".

Tony Blair : a newborn fundamentalist President of Europe ?

Unsurprisingly, Tony Blair came out in the open as a candidate for the Presidency of Europe.

The problem is that previously, he also came out in the open as a newly converted Catholic. Some - including yours truly - would rather say "born again fundamentalist".

After palling and praying around with a fundamentalist imposteur (George W. Bush), after courting a fundamentalist pope (Benedict XVI), The Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair will be welcomed by people like fundamentalist Luc van den Brande, the man who a couple of years ago censored a report denouncing creationist / Intelligent Design lobbies at governmental levels across western Europe.

So this man can campaign on consensual and noble causes as much as he wants on his website (he just published "Technology for a Low Carbon Future" - tonyblairoffice.org), make no mistake : his job is to boost fundamentalism and to turn Europe into a safe haven for US style cults and megachurches.

Europe simply must not be represented by a Tony Blair - Jose Manuel Barroso ticket.

Other "political" news ? Former Solidarnosc Jerzy Buzek, the European Parliament's new President, is following the Lutherian Evangelical Church of Augsburg.

Amen.

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").

Khamenei's death wish

It's over now. As expected*, even if Khamenei manages to crush the opposition, the Supreme Leader has totally lost the battle against himself.

Iran rulers are now led to the classic desperate straits of a fascist regime lacking confidence in their discredited leader. Since they cannot anymore pretend to bring the Iranian people together around the figures of Ahmadinejad or Khamenei, they forge a case for terror attacks on the father figure of the 1979 Revolution ("suicide bomber" near Khomeini Mausoleum), and fuel nationalism by mentioning foreign agent provocateurs**.

Official media exhibit demonstrators attacking policemen as a proof of their terrorist nature, but the very image of demonstrators defying the explicit orders of Ali Khamenei is in itself a major blow to the country's most important Ayatollah.

Terror and foreign agent provocateurs are a reality, though. But terror perpetrated by the State, foreign agents invited by the State (some Iranian policemen refuse to hit their own kind, some militiamen talked only Arabic and not Farsi...).

Official propaganda remains strong and powerful, but Iran's level of education and international overture makes it impossible to control minds as tightly as in other countries.

Mousavi brilliantly exposed Khamenei's contradictions, putting a true believer's mirror in front of his face and caricature of faith. Who is the true guardian of the spirit of the revolution ? Who is the true defensor of the Islamic Republic ? Who would be a true martyr if he were to die ? And on the other side, who is this imposteur posing as a Supreme Leader ? Who is this deviant liar ? Who must "face the consequences" ?

The stronger the repression, the quicker the implosion. Khamenei seems ready to go all the way and probably won't concede. The key now is to see who wants to join him as he fullfills his death wish.


* see "Ahmadinejad Alienates Iranian People Today, Iranian Clerics Tomorrow" and "Party Unity My Ayatollah ?"
** UK explicitely named by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. BBC's Jon Leyne asked to leave (BBC in Farsi too independent for the regime).

State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine

Believe it or not, we live in a multicultural and diverse world.

A world with Muslim Americans, Christian Palestinians, and Jewish Iranians. A world where a woman can lead the biggest Muslim-majority country, where a Hussein can lead America (which by the way is not a Christian country*), and where an Israeli leader is allowed to survive a few hours after signing a peace agreement with an Arab or Palestinian leader.

Barack Hussein Obama delivered his first State of the World Union address in Cairo**.

A great and powerful speech, without any surprise as far as the content was concerned. But I guess much will be said about its form, around 7 points (a number rich of symbols in all religions) :

Priority given to "violent extremism in all of its forms". In a nutshell : "We reject as false the choice between the Bush Doctrine and the Qaeda Doctrine"***. Yes, dear reader, we're definitely heading towards a Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism. And U-Turn is not an option, because "violence is a Dead End".

Second point : solving the first point will be much easier once we settle the issues between "Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world" (note the address to the peoples, beyond the states)

Third point : North Korean and Iranian leaders must read Sun Tzu and Stan Lee. "With great powers come great responsibilities", said Uncle Ben to Peter Parker. In That One's mouth, it comes like this : uh... lllook, let's consider the "rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons".

Issue #4 : Democracy. A beautiful word, which the new POTUS doesn't want to define nor to force into other countries (leaving that to his predecessor). He does expose clear directions, though : "the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people." The perfect message ahead of the Iranian elections, stressed by this spectacular act of contrition on behalf of the American people : "the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government". Change is coming to the CIA as well...

The 5th branch of this verbal Menorah is "religious freedom". But not as the "freedom of proselytization" envisioned by W., willing to open the gates of secular Europe to fundamentalists, cultists, and megachurch franchises... Religious freedom is first about "the ability of peoples to live together". Obama prefers "Interfaith service" to that more or less literal cut-throat competition.

Number 6 : "I am not a number, I am a free man!" And a free woman. Always keeping in mind that "women's rights" are not threatened only in the Muslim world. The US or France are lagging behind "Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead". Obama scores another big hit when he blames hastive judgements : "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who CHOOSES to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality".

The 7th and final point can seem a trifle commercial, but "economic development and opportunity" does include education and science, and not the way intended by promoters of Intelligent Design and other creationists of all confessions. We are facing a future where, even if peace emerges soon, many generations will have no experience of it beforehand. This is about preventing a relapse to "violent extremism in all of its forms", preventing a return to square one.

A call for mutual respect wrapped up in references from the Torah, the Quran, and the New Testament. Religion never mixes well in politics but precisely, somehow, Obama managed to draw a most precious line in Egypt.



* according to the first international treaty signed by the US (Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, Art. 11.) : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". That's right before the part quoted by Obama in Cairo ("the United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims").

** see transcript (NYT 20090604)

*** If you miss the Bush-Cheney, us-vs-them mantras, there's still Osama Bin Laden :
""Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama"

"Antagonizing Muslims" ?!? Look who's talking, Osama

Osama Bin Laden has got a sick sense of humor : Barack Obama would be "antagonizing Muslims"... that's according to a man who killed much more Muslims than non-Muslims.

Remember this : the main targets of al Qaeda are not Americans but moderate Muslims across the world. And George W. Bush's Amerika was not an enemy but a partner, and a very efficient at that : a double imposture that fueled fundamentalism over the past few years (see "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").

Bin Laden speeches resonated well with a fellow fundamentalist at the helm of the US but now, they fall short. His attacks sound more unfair, less sincere than ever, and at last, the impostor is exposed.

Bin Laden is not a religious leader with consideration for coreligionists, but a selfish warlord purely motivated by hatred, on a personal crusade against himself, alienating his own allies because he is unable to build anything positive, hiding behind Zawahiri's fundamentalist rethorics to make himself believe he is fighting for a cause. Bin Laden is not submitting to Islam but to his own troubled ego. He is not defending Islam but destroying it.

Barack Obama is not a religious leader (and he most certainly doesn't want to be that One !) but he has the qualities required for a great religious leader. Not respected because feared ; respected because respectful.

Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries".

Barack Hussein Obama is not antagonizing Muslims when he says "My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people" (...) "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy" (...) "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect".

President Obama doesn't act like a stubborn again Christian fundamentalist pretending to force caricatures of democracy into other countries, but as a humble leader trying to restore the core values of democracy in his own country.

Of course, Ayman al-Zawahiri can mock at Mubarak or King Abdullah, the kind of leaders who make al Qaeda's day almost everyday. But what is Zawahiri doing except reminding us what his top job consists of : "antagonizing Muslims".

And while touring the Middle-East, Obama will probably put as much pressure on the Egyptian and Arab leaders as he did on Netanyahu.

Bin Laden (or his al Qaedan impersonator) doesn't dare to flash the Palestinian card in his attacks. So he focuses on the usual new weak spots*, and pushes hard on Pakistan : "Obama and his administration have sown new seeds to increase hatred and revenge on America. The number of these seeds is equal to the number of displaced people from Swat Valley."

Not totally untrue : as everybody concedes, US bombings in Pakistan as well as civilian casualties both sides of the border, an unsettling echo of the Bush heritage, hurt the image of the country and trouble the message of its leader.

But somehow, Bin Laden is not as much planting new seeds in order to harvest future generations of terrorists as trying to secure his own old and shaky alliances with Talibans.

Osama Bin Laden is weaker than ever : USA's main target is no more a fake icon pretending to lead the Muslim world, but the very roots of fundamentalism upon which this impostor feeds and thrives. Obama means to fight poverty and unfairness, help moderate Muslims reclaim their hijacked religion, contribute to a sustainable resolution of key conflicts...

You simply can't grow in popularity by criticizing this kind of agenda.


* see "Next stop: Pakistan"

Next Stop : Pakistan

They have fled Iraq for Afghanistan. For many, it was a way back to where it all started. Others learned their trade in Iraq, a giant terrorist training camp created by George W. Bush in his fundamentalist crusade in a country that really didn't need this kind of touristic resorts.

Now that a surge is on the way to Kabul and Southern Afghanistan, they are touring Pakistan beyond their usual Northern safe havens.

Pakistan is not safe, and the economical, social, and political situation worsened since last November, when I wrote these already gloomy lines (see "Lessons from Mumbai ?") : "The main target in the Mumbai attacks was Pakistan, the weaker link, and the democracy the most likely to fall for fundamentalism if the international community fails to help it help itself."

44 started using the same military quick fixes as 43/36* : air strikes as "surgical" as Israel's bombs on Lebanon or Gaza. But make no mistake : diplomacy is on its way. Not the naive, vintage dovish kind of diplomacy, but resolute and fair.

Diplomacy is on its way, and Barack's most lethal weapons are on their way : ahead of Hurricane Hillary, "diplomatic equivalent of a hydrogen bomb" AfPak envoy Richard Holbrooke met with Hamid Karzai... and The H. Bomb clearly avoided the kind of toasts Carter shared with Shah Reza Pahlavi over 30 years ago.

Last week, a local governor made an international show of a bonfire of puppy crops and illegal drugs seized in his region. A small step for Afghanistan, but a major leap out of the loop for ever the media magnet Karzai.

A surge on the ground, elections and potentially new faces at the helm of the country... change is probably coming to Afghanistan.

A Taliban surge, a catastrophic economic downturn, déjà vu short sighted legal and constitutional compromises with fundamentalists, radical factions fueling the seeds of civil war... change is surely coming to Pakistan.

President Obama must keep his eyes on the ball. Keeping in mind the fact that dancers are once again changing ballrooms.


* not Lyndon Baines Johnson but George Walker Bush : 43 has just been awarded the 36th position in the best POTUS contest. Dubya's behind Hoover but before Fillmore - the latter does have the name of a villain in a Harry Potter book, while W. enjoys the fame of Daddy Herbie (41 went up from #20 to #18).

Bush's Farewell : Mission Accomplished... as Fundamentalist in Chief

"There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions, but there can be little debate about the results".

Well. The least one could say is that George W. Bush was not very open to debate before nor during these decisions, but I agree with him on this : "there can be little debate about the results". Thanks to him, Muslim, Christian and Jewish fundamantalists are far better off than before 9/11.

Because George W. Bush never acted as a POTUS for the good of his country,
and George W. Bush never even acted as a Republican for the good of his party
George W. Bush always acted as a Fundamentalist for the good of fundamentalism.

So Mission Accomplished, Mr Fundamentalist in Chief.

Now, let History do its job and put "The Bush Legacy" into perspective.

Justice in America, No Democracy in Israel ?

Yesterday, Eric Holder confirmed that waterboarding was torture, and that "Adherence to the rule of law strengthens security by depriving terrorist organizations of their prime recruiting tools". In other words : yes, the Bush-Cheney Administration fueled terrorism by disgracing the very values they were supposed to defend. No wonder Karl Rove wants Holder's head before he get yours, Dubya.

Once again (see "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism"), the only way of fighting against terror and fundamentalism is at their roots : poverty, unjustice, and wrongdoings of supposedly model democracies.

Once again (see "The Stolen Election"), America has only gone halfway towards redemption by electing Barack Obama, and will finish the job by bringing actual justice to the people who insulted her. Gonzales must pay, Cheney must pay, Rumsfeld must pay, Bush must pay. Their desperate attempts of rewriting History are bold revisionism (see "The Bush Legacy").

Meanwhile, Israel confirms its wrong choices (cf "Come Feb. 10th, Will Israel Embrace History Or Vote Bush-Cheney 2004 ?") : by banning two Arab parties from upcoming elections, the Government clearly stated its poor consideration of democracy and its will to exclude from the Nation its non-Jewish citizens.

Muslim Israelis (about 16% of the population) were already asking themselves questions : they pay taxes but don't think the money is well spent in the Gaza invasion. Actually, extremists from both sides would love to see them turn into radicals.

At this stage, the Hamas alibi doesn't stand. It's not about Israel v. Hamas but about Israel v. Israel. Like Amerika v. America. Israeli voters are entitled to know where this Government actually wants to go. Keeping digging deeper and deeper as if there were no limits is totally suicidal.

Israel cannot postpone an official declaration about how it defines itself in the XXIst Century, its nature, its values, its political project.

Presented at birth as the State of the Jewish People, this country chose democracy and republic, and Non-Jews represent 20% of its population.

But the 1948 project of Constitution failed because of disagreements between fundamentalists and partisans of secularism, and nothing has really changed ever since.

It's time to stop kidding and play out in the open : does Israel want to become a democracy among peers or a Jewish sidekick to Iran-style Islamic Republics ?

If Israel prefers the latter, it only has to keep insulting fundamental values and rights, refusing international law, and of course giving terrorists "prime recruiting tools" by multiplying illegal exactions and usages of WMDs...

But the USA may not keep using their veto rights to absolve them much longer...

Obama pledged to close Guantanamo et restore Justice and Democracy at home. I sincerely hope he will help democracy in Israel even quicklier.

---
PS: "Six Days Seven Nights" - Jon Stewart on W.'s farewell speech, mistakes, disappointments, and soul sales :

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Six Days Seven Nights

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

A Christmas Gift for Fundamentalists ?

Tel Aviv hawks delivered Gaza to the Hamas because they needed this convenient evil at their doorsteps (see "Palestine : the Pakistan-Bangladesh scenario").

They are about to lose their main supporter in Washington, but they are determined to make the most of the last few weeks before Obama's Inauguration.

Hopefully, they won't offer Fundamentalist in Chief Bush his most coveted dream of a full throttle war with Iran (see "Iran who wants war and why"). Nonetheless, they'll do their best to secure victory for one of their own in the February 10 national elections, and a massive operation on Gaza is gaining ground.

Fellow lame duck Ehud Olmert showed a few remorses months ago regarding the way Palestinians were treated, and Livni's recent visit to Mubarak was an interesting development... but Netanyahu and the Likud want diplomacy and Kadima to fail, and you can count on them to pour oil on the flames.

The Hamas cannot afford losing either. And they do know how to go with a bang...

Anyway, the calendar definitely looks grim for moderates, be they Israeli or Palestinian... and the window of opportunity perfect for fundamentalists, be they Jewish, Muslim or Christian.

9/11 Truthers Knockin' At Your Door

A "discussion" with a 9/11 Truther is similar to a visit from a Jehovah's Witness : about 30 seconds into his monologue, you wish you never opened the darned door... and the fanatic won't leave until he's managed to either convert you, or extort from you the pledge to read the tons of brochures he came with.

And it works : the cult claims every day more followers, and because of the network effect (now that more and more people talk about it around me, it sounds more plausible), "skeptics" now refer to the few naïves who keep refusing to believe in The Obvious Truth. At the speed of light or almost (not everybody is optical fiber connected, but the internet surely helps), an underground streamlet becomes the powerful mainstream.

By the end of 2006, more than one third of Americans thought that 9/11 was somehow masterminded by their own Government (cf "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away" - Time Magazine 20060903). At that stage, this alternative propaganda reached the levels of the official propaganda circa 2004 elections. By "official propaganda", I mean the neocon/theocon spin (Saddam did it), not the plain facts (al Qaeda did it).

Of course, the vast majority of believers have nothing to do with the minority of activists from the far left and the far right who designed this now indestructible perpetual motion device. The aim of the game is not to reveal truth but to keep masses of faithful citizens very angry against the media, democracy or justice... and thus ready to switch to something radically different.

In an ultra-conservative's "best of all possible worlds", the Democratic Party, which somewhat managed to sideline the more or less nihilist "ultra-liberals" who doomed its federal elections for decades, could face the same turmoil as the Republican Party facing its own fundamentalist "minority" (see "GOP : Time to Split"). In a nutshell : US extreme right, in its last throes, resuscitating US extreme left... now we're talking conspiration theories, GOPdamnit !

I've already made¹ the parallel with fundamentalism and explained how decent citizens, legitimately demanding accountability and transparency, are being shamelessly fooled, how 9/11 revisionist movements actually serve both the terrorists who committed the crimes, and the excuse for an administration that deliberately betrayed the victims and lied to its own people.

You want to elaborate on this parallel.

In the endless and strange alternative swamps roam self-proclaimed Keepers of The Truth About 9/11. I guess this breed of fundamentalists, "Truthers", owe their name to the same guys who came up with "pro-life" for "anti-abortion rights". Just like with religious fundamentalists, you can find an infinity of Truths, sects, and charismatic preachers. The difference is that each one of them publishes his own Holy Book.

Speaking of which... one of the main reasons why conspiration theories keep multiplying is the fact that the supposed reference book happens to be a total joke for everyone, including its own authors. Doomed from the start, The 9/11 Commission Report was reluctantly initiated more than one year after the attacks (at that time, even the name of the House Majority Leader was DeLay), and carefully monitored and edited in order to spare the Bush-Cheney ticket... Unsurprisingly, when the final report was issued (July 2004), 9/11 revisionists had more fish to fry than 11/2 conspiratists.

Aggravating circumstances : the whole 9/11 affair is plagued with all the ingredients needed for vintage conspiracy theories. Secret services from Western and Eastern countries alike were aware of the eminence of a massive terror attack in the US involving planes, the White House dismissed the threats, neocons (and Darth Vader himself, the very Lord of False Flags) were waiting for the occasion to spread wealth for corporate lobbies and mayhem for enemies of democracy, the operation leveraged on al Qaeda's comprehensive network and often from US friendly countries, and the public opinion had been relentlessly carpet bombed by Dubya's Weapons of Mass Disinformation... enough stuff to feed one successful thriller trilogy, two sequels, five prequels and a pretzel - no sweeteners needed, thank you.

Anyway... Truthers are pumped up to the max, and they want to expose everything about 9/11. Well... almost everything. For instance, they refuse to see those plane debris around the Pentagon, they don't want to consider the potential links between the collapse of the WTC and the minor dent caused by a small boeing passing by, and they have no clue whatsoever how a peaceful santa claus look-alike meditating in the Afghan mountains could have any connection with this American tragedy.

As Michelle Malkin nailed it the other day, "The plain truth will never mollify a Truther"².

Truthers are the masters of cover-up : everyday, they overwhelm facts with thick layers of new documents, analysis, and theories. Everyday, this fertile soil welcomes more fundamentalists eager to grow everyday more greenbacks. Too bad the said theories are not as sustainable as this profitable ecosystem...

Which may explain why, when it comes to claiming justice, those guys are more successful at building Facebook petitions than bulletproof cases for the usual legal path.

I mean come on, this is America, a country where even before gas prices took a hike, there were more lawyers per capita than cars (I'm wrong ? Sue me). This is Amerika, a country where the First Amendment makes sure the Nazi Party can parade in Ohio or sponsor a highway in Oregon³. This is America, back on track, where even the President's Vice and his former Chief Torture Officer can be brought to justice⁴. This is America, where even O. J. Simpson can run, but can't hide.

The day someone actually finds the proof that al Qaeda didn't commit 9/11, and the day this person actually wants to make his Truth triumph in the arms of Justice, he will succeed. You betcha.

The question is who's gonna win the Race of the Millenium : the fundamentalists desperately waiting for the WTC Messiah, or the fundamentalists ready to provoke the second coming of the Christ / Mahdi via their own false flag⁵ ?

---

1 - sorry dear compassionate reader, but you'll have to visit my French website for that blogule ("Propagande + contre-propagande = tout bénef pour les extrémistes"). Ditto for the parody I recently committed about a mythical French 9/11 ("11 Septembre français : l'incroyable vérité"). Needless to say Truthers didn't enjoy the joke and retaliated. I decided to expose them once again in "Baggy Truthers", a blogule which I decided to follow-up with a translation into my broken English (the very pamphlet you're reading right now).

2 - "The plain truth will never mollify a Truther. There’s always a convoluted excuse – some inconsequential discrepancy to seize on, some photographic “evidence” to magnify into a blur of meaningless pixels – that will rationalize irrationality." ("Truthers to the left of me, truthers to the right" 20081205).
NB: yeah, I know... I'm a subscriber to Karl Rove's e-mails and I sail dangerous seas over the web. But browsing the site of a "conservative syndicated columnist, author, and Fox News Channel contributor" can be rewarding sometimes. Check this banner out : what a lovely souvenir I fished on her homepage yesterday - Santa GOP has already come to town ! I voted McCain and all I got is this lousy Palin 2012 T-shirt ! =>

3 - see "Red blogule to the First Amendment - Land of Opportunity for Nazis, Land of Plenty for Fascism"

4 - see "Everybody loves Raymondville, TX"

5 - see "Iran : who wants war and why"