At long last!
Surviving three long days of 2012 RNC on FoxNews was already a challenge, but this last one... To tell you the level of torture: even Dick Cheney skipped it, and only "Turd Blossom" Karl Rove seemed to enjoy the stench.
Consider this:
- The moto of the day: painting Obama as Carter, Romney as Reagan. But on this RNC propaganda video of Reagan, you see the difference with Romney. Romney's name may start the same way as Reagan's, all you can see is the rhyme with money.
- Newt and Callista Gingrich reciting a soulless script with the enthusiasm of Christopher Lee snoring in his coffin.
- Jeb Bush talked about a better, fairer education system for America, and in the same breath invited on stage Sean Duffy, a teacher who judges other teachers, and qualifies them as "good" or "bad". Jeb's ideas may sound nice, his vision of "higher learning" ended up in ballot fixing, and the "equal access" he's been promoting the most efficiently is the equal access to guns. When Jeb Bush makes a comparison between diversity in milk and education, he lists 'milk that doesn't even have milk in it': I presume he wants to see Intelligent Design taught in school, that's 'pseudo-science that doesn't even have science in it'.
- After that? Rick Perry spinning weather vane Romney: oops, a whirlwind of insHannity.
- US Olympians worshipping Saint Mitt, He Who Saved the IOC. Next thing we know: Romney will be walking on water (flic, floc, flip, flop). Only on FoxNews: "It doesn't get any more American than that" (Nikki Haley about US Olympians). Eluding taxes in the Cayman Islands maybe?
- Saint Sarah Palin playing the 2008 martyr of unfair attacks by the Democrats. The Palinism of the day? "Reverse discrimination stuff", about these Dems who shamelessly display African-American or Latino speakers during their conventions for electoral purposes (indeed, no decent GOP member would ever consider such an infamy).
- Sean Hannity mentioning "false narrative". Not about the 2012 Republican National Convention, but about the Democratic campaigns unveiling the true Mitt Romney.
- A video of Mitt Romney talking about his dad. "He was immovable". Obviously the quality skipped the next generation. The only moving moment was the testimony of people who were visited by Mitt when they were in despair, but that's only a sign of good marketing know-how from a profesionnal missionary.
- Clint Eastwood tried to make Romney's day, and instead made an embarrassment of himself. His apparition had something reaganesque to it: after all, Clint brought the only star power this dullest convention in ages would ever see. But he struggled with words, remembering only a few good punchlines in an inarticulate and confuse speech. Someone had to remind him to mention Romney. Clint refused, before realizing where he was. He eventually fired "a businessman, a stellar businessman", and "let'im go". Let'im go, really. Someone, have mercy: bring a wheelchair for poor ole Clint. Please.
- After that, we had to watch Marco Rubio deliver his address to a bay of P.I.G.s. Maybe this young man needs to learn that the USA are supposed to be a democracy, not a theocracy. Rubio pitched Romney so poorly the old man reached first base before he even threw the ball.
- It was supposed to be his day, and Mitt Romney stretched his apparition to the fullest as well as to the foolest. His handshaking session across the floor was an embarrassing scene where a jimcarreyshy Tin Woodman struggled to make natural contact with actual human beings. This guy's obviously not used to shaking hands without signing a contract right after.
- After robotting his way up the Calvary, Mitt read his prompt with a body language that screamed "get me out of here". Progressively, the carfully crafted script almost brought some humanity, and even actual emotion on this deadpan comedian's face, but he had to deliver at that precise moment his ultraconservative vision of women as mere mothers and housewives. Right there, Mitt lost for good the votes of independent women. Who needs a POTUS stuck in the 1950s with a vision from the XIXth century?
Romney's speech was only inspiring to Bain Capital owners. It was so boring I felt like turning off the TV, until I remembered this guy was already completely disconnected.
- In the end, Mitt Romney was rescued by a sea of fellow helium balloons on stage. Paul Ryan threw in a couple of tea bags before both perfect families reunited in the usual final tableau.
Hey, Republicans, sorry to tell you that but this is not a remake of Carter-Reagan, folks: you're in for Obama-Biden vs Bob Dole-Dan Quayle, and for Obama 2012 vs Romney 1812.
blogules 2012
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!!
* see "Total Un-Recall: RNC 2012 In Denial, Welcome to Tampa, FL (Fantasy Land)", followed by "Lies, damned lies, and RNCs"
Showing posts with label intelligent design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intelligent design. Show all posts
20120705
Didier Raoult: a closet Creationist or just a questionably honest scientist?
Still under the shock following the recent triumph of Creationists in Korea (see "The Republic of Korea is under attack. From within."*), I smelled something very very fishy as soon as I saw this title for a Viewpoint in today's Korea JoongAng Daily: "Life after Darwin".
Indeed, this piece seems very much to have been written if not by a closet Creationist, at least by a more than questionably honest scientist.
Either way, Didier Raoult is gathering audience. The Director of the Research Unit in Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases (URMITE) at the University of the Mediterranee in Marseille is a mass producer of articles criticizing Darwin and more or less directly fueling Creationist propaganda.
Ever since the Intelligent Design imposture collapsed (following the publication of the "Wedge Strategy", a document where their 'inventors', the Discovery Institute, detailed their methods and actual political agenda), creationists and fellow fundamentalists have been trying to find more subtle ways of undermining science and democracy.
This "Life after Darwin" was published by The Project Syndicate, and also appears in The Cambodia Herald. Interestingly enough, today, the "Particle of God" was to make the headlines following yesterday's press conference at the CERN. Not a good day for science revisionists, who needed to be cheered up with some classic Darwin bashing.
Bring'em on! Higgs Bosons will fly.
PS: I just submitted this to Korea JoongAng Daily:
When a scientist insults intelligence
Didier Raoult’s “Life after Darwin” (Korea JoongAng Daily - July 5, 2012) cannot remain unanswered, particularly at a time when scientific revisionism is gaining ground in Korea: Nature recently published an article exposing an alteration of the Ministry of Education’s guidelines for school textbooks following intense lobbying from Creationists. Such a bold attack on democracy would have instantly made the headlines in the US or in Europe, but it didn’t seem to cause much emotion in Korea beyond scientific circles. Here, the message is much more subtle.
To say the least, Mr. Raoult is a controversial figure. If he’s always careful to officially keep his distances with Creationism and its offsprings (including the Intelligent Design imposture), he nonetheless uses the same deceitful techniques, and his critiques of their nemesis, Darwin, basically recycle arguments from the past with a modern twist. As a result, Mr. Raoult never manages to convincingly challenge evolution itself, but he constantly contributes to the verbose smokescreen at the core of the Intelligent Design's "Wedge strategy". No wonder his writings are widely circulated among Creationist circles.
Mr. Raoult criticizes Darwin and Darwinism very much the way I could criticize Hippocrates and Scientism. For instance, he singles out Darwin’s simplistic representation of the tree of life, but without taking into account the scientific progresses made ever since (believe it or not, there’s evolution in science itself as well, and evolution as a science is already experiencing “life after Darwin”!), and the way he mocks at Darwinists as members of a cult mirrors the critics waged against Scientism centuries ago. Fundamentally, he’s not tackling the key issue, and he never succeeds in proving evolution wrong.
Of course, recent discoveries in his field, and the complexity of ecosystems within every living organism are clearly adding to the scientific challenge, but unfortunately for Mr. Raoult, they are only making evolution even more interesting and stimulating to study.
Scientists must always challenge existing theories, and honest scientists are delighted to study new ones when they respect a rigorous scientific approach. Mr. Raoult may be good in his field, he certainly doesn’t respect our intelligence with this very ambiguous piece.
blogules 2012 - initially published in SeoulVillage ("Scientific revisionism, continued?")
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!!
* "State-condoned creationism in Korea? A cold-blooded murder against King Sejong" on SeoulVillage
Indeed, this piece seems very much to have been written if not by a closet Creationist, at least by a more than questionably honest scientist.
Either way, Didier Raoult is gathering audience. The Director of the Research Unit in Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases (URMITE) at the University of the Mediterranee in Marseille is a mass producer of articles criticizing Darwin and more or less directly fueling Creationist propaganda.
Ever since the Intelligent Design imposture collapsed (following the publication of the "Wedge Strategy", a document where their 'inventors', the Discovery Institute, detailed their methods and actual political agenda), creationists and fellow fundamentalists have been trying to find more subtle ways of undermining science and democracy.
This "Life after Darwin" was published by The Project Syndicate, and also appears in The Cambodia Herald. Interestingly enough, today, the "Particle of God" was to make the headlines following yesterday's press conference at the CERN. Not a good day for science revisionists, who needed to be cheered up with some classic Darwin bashing.
Bring'em on! Higgs Bosons will fly.
PS: I just submitted this to Korea JoongAng Daily:
When a scientist insults intelligence
Didier Raoult’s “Life after Darwin” (Korea JoongAng Daily - July 5, 2012) cannot remain unanswered, particularly at a time when scientific revisionism is gaining ground in Korea: Nature recently published an article exposing an alteration of the Ministry of Education’s guidelines for school textbooks following intense lobbying from Creationists. Such a bold attack on democracy would have instantly made the headlines in the US or in Europe, but it didn’t seem to cause much emotion in Korea beyond scientific circles. Here, the message is much more subtle.
To say the least, Mr. Raoult is a controversial figure. If he’s always careful to officially keep his distances with Creationism and its offsprings (including the Intelligent Design imposture), he nonetheless uses the same deceitful techniques, and his critiques of their nemesis, Darwin, basically recycle arguments from the past with a modern twist. As a result, Mr. Raoult never manages to convincingly challenge evolution itself, but he constantly contributes to the verbose smokescreen at the core of the Intelligent Design's "Wedge strategy". No wonder his writings are widely circulated among Creationist circles.
Mr. Raoult criticizes Darwin and Darwinism very much the way I could criticize Hippocrates and Scientism. For instance, he singles out Darwin’s simplistic representation of the tree of life, but without taking into account the scientific progresses made ever since (believe it or not, there’s evolution in science itself as well, and evolution as a science is already experiencing “life after Darwin”!), and the way he mocks at Darwinists as members of a cult mirrors the critics waged against Scientism centuries ago. Fundamentally, he’s not tackling the key issue, and he never succeeds in proving evolution wrong.
Of course, recent discoveries in his field, and the complexity of ecosystems within every living organism are clearly adding to the scientific challenge, but unfortunately for Mr. Raoult, they are only making evolution even more interesting and stimulating to study.
Scientists must always challenge existing theories, and honest scientists are delighted to study new ones when they respect a rigorous scientific approach. Mr. Raoult may be good in his field, he certainly doesn’t respect our intelligence with this very ambiguous piece.
Stephane MOT
blogules 2012 - initially published in SeoulVillage ("Scientific revisionism, continued?")
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!!
* "State-condoned creationism in Korea? A cold-blooded murder against King Sejong" on SeoulVillage
20120613
The Republic of Korea is under attack. From within.
After the shameful termination of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Korea, and after the flabbergasting removal of history from school curriculum, yet another outrageous victory for revisionists in Korea: the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology gave in to a Creationist lobby, and made possible the publication of high school texbooks where examples of evolution have been removed.
This incredible story, "South Korea surrenders to creationist demands", was published earlier this month in Nature:
Letting Creationism, the very negation of science and education and one of the worst enemies of democracy, dictate the contents of textbooks is undoubtedly the most profound disgrace imaginable for any Ministry of Education.
But here in Korea, that's the ultimate abomination.
This is Korea, the country of King Sejong, a wise statesmen who advocated education and science.
This is Korea, a country victim of revisionist texbooks in Japan, where the extreme right, though very small in members, has considerable power over national politics and manages to keep the whole population in the dark regarding the country's troubled past.
Once again**, it seems that Korea is under attack from its worst enemies, the ones from within. A minority of extremists who dream of copying the Japanese "model" and to rule over the past and the future of the country.
And once again, these impostors are not nationalists: they want the destruction of Korea as a republic and as a democracy, and they are the best allies of the impostors who, in Japan or in China, multiply the same kind of provocations to fuel mutual hatred and extremism across the region.
Across the aisle, true Korean nationalists, true partisans of democracy and of the republic must defend the nation against the impostors who try to destroy it: expose and condemn their impostures, prevent revisionist textbooks from being published, and restore the values that make Korea a great country.
Wake up Korea!
blogules 2012 (initially published on SeoulVillage: "State-condoned creationism in Korea? A cold-blooded murder against King Sejong")
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! Seoul Village 2012
NEW : follow Seoul Village on Facebook and Twitter
* Of course, "creation" and "research" are antinomic, but precisely, the whole concept of creationism is an insult to science and education. If believing in a creator is perfectly respectable, "Creationism" is pure forgery, an imposture that has nothing to do with science, and even nothing to do with religion: the agenda is political and ultimately, it's about replacing democracy with theocracy, and about replacing religion with fundamentalism.
** They seem to grow bolder by the day, and the multiplication of such provocations (see recently MBC's xenophobic video - "Still no apology from MBC, and more provocations on the Chinese front") is probably not a coincidence in this election year.
This incredible story, "South Korea surrenders to creationist demands", was published earlier this month in Nature:
A special purpose vehicle of the Korea Association for Creation Research* (kacr.or.kr), the revisionist lobby which pulled the strings didn't try to masquerade behind an Intelligent-Design-like smokescreen: it's even named the Society for Textbook Revise! Note how STR's website (str.or.kr) apes its US creationist counterparts:
Letting Creationism, the very negation of science and education and one of the worst enemies of democracy, dictate the contents of textbooks is undoubtedly the most profound disgrace imaginable for any Ministry of Education.
But here in Korea, that's the ultimate abomination.
This is Korea, the country of King Sejong, a wise statesmen who advocated education and science.
This is Korea, a country victim of revisionist texbooks in Japan, where the extreme right, though very small in members, has considerable power over national politics and manages to keep the whole population in the dark regarding the country's troubled past.
Once again**, it seems that Korea is under attack from its worst enemies, the ones from within. A minority of extremists who dream of copying the Japanese "model" and to rule over the past and the future of the country.
And once again, these impostors are not nationalists: they want the destruction of Korea as a republic and as a democracy, and they are the best allies of the impostors who, in Japan or in China, multiply the same kind of provocations to fuel mutual hatred and extremism across the region.
Across the aisle, true Korean nationalists, true partisans of democracy and of the republic must defend the nation against the impostors who try to destroy it: expose and condemn their impostures, prevent revisionist textbooks from being published, and restore the values that make Korea a great country.
Wake up Korea!
blogules 2012 (initially published on SeoulVillage: "State-condoned creationism in Korea? A cold-blooded murder against King Sejong")
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! Seoul Village 2012
NEW : follow Seoul Village on Facebook and Twitter
* Of course, "creation" and "research" are antinomic, but precisely, the whole concept of creationism is an insult to science and education. If believing in a creator is perfectly respectable, "Creationism" is pure forgery, an imposture that has nothing to do with science, and even nothing to do with religion: the agenda is political and ultimately, it's about replacing democracy with theocracy, and about replacing religion with fundamentalism.
** They seem to grow bolder by the day, and the multiplication of such provocations (see recently MBC's xenophobic video - "Still no apology from MBC, and more provocations on the Chinese front") is probably not a coincidence in this election year.
20111210
Newt Gingrich enters McCainistan
How low can GOP candidates go to get the nomination?
Four years ago, John McCain set a record by selling his soul to fundamentalists: a visit to the Discovery Institute (a creationist joint) before the primaries, an ayatollah with lipstick as a running mate (Sarah Palin). Even Fundamentalist in Chief Dubya had to give his nod to his former rival.
Newt Gingrich scattered the crass ceiling in an interview to the Jewish Channel by referring to Palestinians as "an invented Palestinian people"*.
As ludicrous as his depiction of Netanyahu's dystopia as "a civilian democracy that obeys the rule of law".
What next The Grich: picking Billy Graham as VP? recruiting armies of Timothy McVeighs to reduce the number of civil servants?
What's the point of winning the favors of AIPAC if he loses the rest ?
Does this man really think the "invented American people" will vote for him?
blogules 2011
* see "Newt Gingrich: Palestinians are 'an invented' people [video]" (LA Times 20111209)
Four years ago, John McCain set a record by selling his soul to fundamentalists: a visit to the Discovery Institute (a creationist joint) before the primaries, an ayatollah with lipstick as a running mate (Sarah Palin). Even Fundamentalist in Chief Dubya had to give his nod to his former rival.
Newt Gingrich scattered the crass ceiling in an interview to the Jewish Channel by referring to Palestinians as "an invented Palestinian people"*.
As ludicrous as his depiction of Netanyahu's dystopia as "a civilian democracy that obeys the rule of law".
What next The Grich: picking Billy Graham as VP? recruiting armies of Timothy McVeighs to reduce the number of civil servants?
What's the point of winning the favors of AIPAC if he loses the rest ?
Does this man really think the "invented American people" will vote for him?
blogules 2011
* see "Newt Gingrich: Palestinians are 'an invented' people [video]" (LA Times 20111209)
20091121
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 :
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"
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"
20091104
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 :
** 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) :
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".
20090611
Intelligence Supremacy
Yesterday, an 88 year old unrepented White Supremacist, James W. von Brunn, murdered a black guard at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Earlier this month, a "pro-life" fanatic murdered a doctor at his church (see '"Pro Life" Murderers').
Both crimes demonstrated the sad reality of "supremacy" : bullets over flesh, negation over facts, fundamentalism over intelligence.
In this country, John Kerry or Barack Obama have been criticized for respecting the intelligence of voters.
In this country, the First Amendment allows Nazis to parade and advertise.
In this country, creationist can call "Museum" an altar to revisionism and to the negation of science or education.
If they existed, Intelligence Supremacists would never - say - burn down that infamous Creation Museum. Instead, they would transparently and without any ounce of hatred expose the imposture, and make sure democracy prevents revisionism and hatred from spreading.
Unfortunately, US democracy has to survive in spite of a double edge sword Amendment.
Recent history proved that some form of intelligence could easily undermine even further this already fragile democracy. The time has come to use intelligence a more positive way.
I wish Supreme Court could come up some day (the earliest the better) with a really smart America v. Amerika case, waterproofing democracy for good instead of waterboarding it for ever.
Both crimes demonstrated the sad reality of "supremacy" : bullets over flesh, negation over facts, fundamentalism over intelligence.
In this country, John Kerry or Barack Obama have been criticized for respecting the intelligence of voters.
In this country, the First Amendment allows Nazis to parade and advertise.
In this country, creationist can call "Museum" an altar to revisionism and to the negation of science or education.
If they existed, Intelligence Supremacists would never - say - burn down that infamous Creation Museum. Instead, they would transparently and without any ounce of hatred expose the imposture, and make sure democracy prevents revisionism and hatred from spreading.
Unfortunately, US democracy has to survive in spite of a double edge sword Amendment.
Recent history proved that some form of intelligence could easily undermine even further this already fragile democracy. The time has come to use intelligence a more positive way.
I wish Supreme Court could come up some day (the earliest the better) with a really smart America v. Amerika case, waterproofing democracy for good instead of waterboarding it for ever.
20080905
"Change is coming" and Mac "will fight", but for whom and for what ?
What a disgrace for such a great man.
A "Maverick" ?
McCain sold his soul to Bush and other theocons in order to clinch the nomination, and even accepted the humiliation of a Karl Rove sidekick leading his own campaign, 8 years after being thrashed by the same team.
"Change" ?
What do you think McCain had to pledge to these madhatters in order to get their nods ? Over the last few years, he has repeatedly pleaded allegiance to theocons, Intelligent Design advocates and extremists who expect only one thing from him : to put one more ultraconservative justice in the Supreme Court.
A "Maverick" ?
McCain sold his soul to Bush and other theocons in order to clinch the nomination, and even accepted the humiliation of a Karl Rove sidekick leading his own campaign, 8 years after being thrashed by the same team.
"Change" ?
What do you think McCain had to pledge to these madhatters in order to get their nods ? Over the last few years, he has repeatedly pleaded allegiance to theocons, Intelligent Design advocates and extremists who expect only one thing from him : to put one more ultraconservative justice in the Supreme Court.
George seems to trust John, to be sure he won't take any maverick initiative. And he told it clearly to his fellow fundamentalists at the RNC : "John is a leader who knows that human life is fragile … that human life is precious … that human life must be defended". The message is clear : this guy will destroy Roe vs Wade. And John knows something : his new friends have put a born again ayatollah one heartbeat away from his job... so he'd better enjoy his eighth house quietly, and paint it black without asking too many questions. Sarah Palin is not only a pitbull with lipsync (see her stand-alone gig reading o'reillishly partisan jokes from a prompter), but some kind of "pro-life insurance" for hardcore fundamentalists.
How dare John McCain claim at the same time his independent heritage, the Bush heritage, and the theocon leadership ?
"Change is coming" all right : voting for McCain means voting against America and for Amerika, against democracy and for theocracy. I saw McCain change over the years and I wouldn't like all his fellow Americans to follow the same path.
Will America be fooled once more, or will America wake up on time and declare its independence from theocons ?
20080831
Prisoner Of Wasilla - A short sighted Maverick
John McCain is a POW now. Prisoner Of Wasilla, he'll have to go all the way to November with the caricature of a Veep he picked in a last minute "hail Maria pass" (as Jonathan Atler splendidly put it).
Old Noah had to fill his Arch before the Gustav flood, but didn't have enough time to find a member of each species. With Sarah Palin, he filled a few checkboxes in one shot : Mac is targeting hardcore Hillarists ? Palin is a woman. Mac is turning 72 ? Palin is 44. Mac wants to rally ultraconservatives ? Palin is a mother of 5, against abortion rights, and a NRA activist. Mac wants to please Bush's fundamentalist base ? Palin prones the teaching of creationism / Intelligent Design at school.
Even better : as Mark Brown put it, "Palin gives them the reason (excuse?) they needed to vote for McCain, assuming they weren't already there. Now they won't be voting AGAINST the black man. They'll be voting FOR the woman." So the Palin quick fix is solving both the gender and race issues. Another way for McCain of evading the direct comparison with Obama.
Brilliant...
And pathetic.
This isn't a daring move but a purely defensive, tactical, and short sighted one. The kind of moves a cornered rookie chess player would try in an embarrassingly childish final display of bravado. John McCain has no long term vision whatsoever : he is simply everyday more desperate to please everybody, everyday more hollow and inconsistent.
Mac says he’s been keeping an eye on his Pal for years, but he actually met her 6 months ago, and called her only once about the job*. The "maverick" is gone, replaced by either a compulsive gambler, or someone who totally despises the Vice Presidency (after all, this very man already delivered a cristal clear definition for the job : "The vice president has two duties : one is to inquire daily as to the health of the president, and the other is to attend the funerals of Third World dictators").
What a contrast with the Obama - Biden ticket ! Barack chose Joe because he respected him for his judgement and his ability to challenge him a positive way for the good of the country, like a trustable and unbiased partner would do.
McCain-Palin ? They don’t respect each other. They don’t even know each other, never worked together. Can’t work together... unless, of course, John McCain decides to give up totally to his darker side, and accepts to lose the McCainistan war. I don't know whether he's lost his bearings, but I hope Independents won't lose theirs and follow such a dangerous path.
Let Obama take care of him in the Presidential debates.
Meanwhile, Hillary has unfinished job to do and I expect her to come out and expose Palin's imposture (she personifies what feminists abhorr : a former beauty queen**, a militant against abortion rights, a NRA activist willing to nuke Roe vs Wade). That would prove she really meant what the said the other night.
Before Hurricane Hillary touches down, the McCain-Palin duet intends to surf on Hurricane Gustav, the perfect Weapon of Mass Distraction : imagine them facing the elements in a spectacular New Orleans acceptance speech - what a dramatic, un-Conventional, un-big-stadium-extravaganza change ! The perfect PR op' at the best moment.
And far less risky than facing a mob of dubious and angry Reps.
Old Noah had to fill his Arch before the Gustav flood, but didn't have enough time to find a member of each species. With Sarah Palin, he filled a few checkboxes in one shot : Mac is targeting hardcore Hillarists ? Palin is a woman. Mac is turning 72 ? Palin is 44. Mac wants to rally ultraconservatives ? Palin is a mother of 5, against abortion rights, and a NRA activist. Mac wants to please Bush's fundamentalist base ? Palin prones the teaching of creationism / Intelligent Design at school.
Even better : as Mark Brown put it, "Palin gives them the reason (excuse?) they needed to vote for McCain, assuming they weren't already there. Now they won't be voting AGAINST the black man. They'll be voting FOR the woman." So the Palin quick fix is solving both the gender and race issues. Another way for McCain of evading the direct comparison with Obama.
Brilliant...
And pathetic.
This isn't a daring move but a purely defensive, tactical, and short sighted one. The kind of moves a cornered rookie chess player would try in an embarrassingly childish final display of bravado. John McCain has no long term vision whatsoever : he is simply everyday more desperate to please everybody, everyday more hollow and inconsistent.
Mac says he’s been keeping an eye on his Pal for years, but he actually met her 6 months ago, and called her only once about the job*. The "maverick" is gone, replaced by either a compulsive gambler, or someone who totally despises the Vice Presidency (after all, this very man already delivered a cristal clear definition for the job : "The vice president has two duties : one is to inquire daily as to the health of the president, and the other is to attend the funerals of Third World dictators").
What a contrast with the Obama - Biden ticket ! Barack chose Joe because he respected him for his judgement and his ability to challenge him a positive way for the good of the country, like a trustable and unbiased partner would do.
McCain-Palin ? They don’t respect each other. They don’t even know each other, never worked together. Can’t work together... unless, of course, John McCain decides to give up totally to his darker side, and accepts to lose the McCainistan war. I don't know whether he's lost his bearings, but I hope Independents won't lose theirs and follow such a dangerous path.
Let Obama take care of him in the Presidential debates.
Meanwhile, Hillary has unfinished job to do and I expect her to come out and expose Palin's imposture (she personifies what feminists abhorr : a former beauty queen**, a militant against abortion rights, a NRA activist willing to nuke Roe vs Wade). That would prove she really meant what the said the other night.
Before Hurricane Hillary touches down, the McCain-Palin duet intends to surf on Hurricane Gustav, the perfect Weapon of Mass Distraction : imagine them facing the elements in a spectacular New Orleans acceptance speech - what a dramatic, un-Conventional, un-big-stadium-extravaganza change ! The perfect PR op' at the best moment.
And far less risky than facing a mob of dubious and angry Reps.
* read "The story behind the Palin surprise" (Jonathan Martin on Politico 20080829)
** When you say "I think that’s a pretty, pretty event-filled and record-filled resume", are you talking about the Miss Wasilla 1984 line, John ? Do you really believe in this "agent of change" who doesn't understand evolution ?, this untested, small town celeb one heartbeat away of leading 300 million Americans ?
20080703
The Case Against Barack Obama ? More propaganda from mud loving PIGs
Praise Muckety's Carol Eisenberg for her alert* regarding the publication this summer of a smear campaign book against Obama by the very publisher that spat "Unfit for command" four years ago in the face of John Kerry (John E. O'Neill's propaganda terror attack worked so well that a verb was made out of his "swift boat" tale).
It is precisely in order to protect his candidacy from this kind of lies that Barack Obama decided to optimize the size of his campaign war chest and the share devoted to the exposure of ultra-conservative propaganda.
"The Case Against Barack Obama" will be released in August, around the DNC Convention. Eisenberg gives useful insights about the ultra-conservative credentials of the people involved in the operation, starting with author David Freddoso.
Anyway, this terror attack is not exactly an undercover op. First, expect a nasty sales pitch on the cover of the book. And second, the publishers are proud to expose their own biases : Regnery Publishing Inc., self proclaimed "the nation’s leading conservative publisher" is a subsidiary of Eagle Publishing, Inc, self proclaimed "America's leading source of books and periodicals with a conservative, free-enterprise focus".
Equipped with a barf bag, I visited Regnery's page about their Politically Incorrect Guide™ series, where history, science, politics, or social issues are boldly revisited : "Reach for a P.I.G. when you want to cut through the bull and get to the real truth—in all its politically incorrect glory!"
Well. You are not cutting through the bull... but drowning in a nauseating ocean of mud : revisionism, Intelligent Design, religious hatred, environmental nightmares... a "glorious", dream Amerika from a Bushite point of view, but one of the lowest circles of Hell for anybody else... probably the 8th, where according to Dante you would meet falsifiers and evil counselors... or the 9th, where you DO find those who betray their own countries, and also those who betray their own political parties (true Republicans wouldn't subscribe to such an un-American agenda - or would they** ?).
With such lawyers, The Case against Barack Obama doesn't stand a chance. American voters got fooled too many times by this kind of sordid tactics, and exposing those mud loving PIGs is the best way of helping the public understand who is standing where.
* "Regnery to publish ‘Case Against Barack Obama’ in August" (20080624), perfectly relayed by the CMD the same day "The Swift Boating Begins in August".
** see "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism"
It is precisely in order to protect his candidacy from this kind of lies that Barack Obama decided to optimize the size of his campaign war chest and the share devoted to the exposure of ultra-conservative propaganda.
"The Case Against Barack Obama" will be released in August, around the DNC Convention. Eisenberg gives useful insights about the ultra-conservative credentials of the people involved in the operation, starting with author David Freddoso.
Anyway, this terror attack is not exactly an undercover op. First, expect a nasty sales pitch on the cover of the book. And second, the publishers are proud to expose their own biases : Regnery Publishing Inc., self proclaimed "the nation’s leading conservative publisher" is a subsidiary of Eagle Publishing, Inc, self proclaimed "America's leading source of books and periodicals with a conservative, free-enterprise focus".
Equipped with a barf bag, I visited Regnery's page about their Politically Incorrect Guide™ series, where history, science, politics, or social issues are boldly revisited : "Reach for a P.I.G. when you want to cut through the bull and get to the real truth—in all its politically incorrect glory!"
Well. You are not cutting through the bull... but drowning in a nauseating ocean of mud : revisionism, Intelligent Design, religious hatred, environmental nightmares... a "glorious", dream Amerika from a Bushite point of view, but one of the lowest circles of Hell for anybody else... probably the 8th, where according to Dante you would meet falsifiers and evil counselors... or the 9th, where you DO find those who betray their own countries, and also those who betray their own political parties (true Republicans wouldn't subscribe to such an un-American agenda - or would they** ?).
With such lawyers, The Case against Barack Obama doesn't stand a chance. American voters got fooled too many times by this kind of sordid tactics, and exposing those mud loving PIGs is the best way of helping the public understand who is standing where.
* "Regnery to publish ‘Case Against Barack Obama’ in August" (20080624), perfectly relayed by the CMD the same day "The Swift Boating Begins in August".
** see "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism"
20080512
Values Question Marks
Douglas E. Schoen raised the "Obama and the Values Question Mark" issue in the Wall Street Journal.
I do believe the question marks to be much bigger as far as John McCain is concerned.
Obama didn't have to make compromises as damaging as those made by his GOP rival.
And McCain can lose his independent base as well as the theocon base he's desperately been courting for months : he will be under sniper fires from both sides.
... not to mention Obama who will ask a few questions. Such as :
- did you actually vote for Roe vs Wade before you voted against it ?
- did you actually not vote for Bush before you asked for the vote of his followers ?
- was your conference at the Discovery Institute a sign of change in the US educational system ? do you favor Intelligent Design ?
- ...
Question marks, anyone ?
---
PS (addendum 20080514) - ethics an issue, anyone ? - Amy Poehler a definitely spitting image of HRC :
I do believe the question marks to be much bigger as far as John McCain is concerned.
Obama didn't have to make compromises as damaging as those made by his GOP rival.
And McCain can lose his independent base as well as the theocon base he's desperately been courting for months : he will be under sniper fires from both sides.
... not to mention Obama who will ask a few questions. Such as :
- did you actually vote for Roe vs Wade before you voted against it ?
- did you actually not vote for Bush before you asked for the vote of his followers ?
- was your conference at the Discovery Institute a sign of change in the US educational system ? do you favor Intelligent Design ?
- ...
Question marks, anyone ?
---
PS (addendum 20080514) - ethics an issue, anyone ? - Amy Poehler a definitely spitting image of HRC :
20080125
Sign O' The New York Times
The NYT picked John McCain and Hillary Clinton as Primary Choices.
There should no contest for McCain, who stood against Bush, against torture, for democracy. And yes, Mitt Romney keeps compromizing on any issue in order to get one more vote (he even joined the crew of "Roe vs Wade" killers). No one know what that guy would do.
But John McCain sold his soul to the Discovery Institute and stood in favor of teaching Intelligent Design theories in school. And that's a rather scary perspective.
Unless someone comes out of the blue (Bloom ?), the only way out for the US is to elect a Democrat for the top job.
Both Clinton and Obama would do fine, but the NYT decided to put a conservative bet on Hillary. A little bit too early in the race. Truly, a big favor at the tipping point of the campaign...
NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller can trust Hillary's judgement : not only did he support the war in Iraq but he preferred Paul Wolfowitz to Colin Powell.
By the way : Wolfie is back to the White House.
Is Keller also betting on a war with Iran ?
There should no contest for McCain, who stood against Bush, against torture, for democracy. And yes, Mitt Romney keeps compromizing on any issue in order to get one more vote (he even joined the crew of "Roe vs Wade" killers). No one know what that guy would do.
But John McCain sold his soul to the Discovery Institute and stood in favor of teaching Intelligent Design theories in school. And that's a rather scary perspective.
Unless someone comes out of the blue (Bloom ?), the only way out for the US is to elect a Democrat for the top job.
Both Clinton and Obama would do fine, but the NYT decided to put a conservative bet on Hillary. A little bit too early in the race. Truly, a big favor at the tipping point of the campaign...
NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller can trust Hillary's judgement : not only did he support the war in Iraq but he preferred Paul Wolfowitz to Colin Powell.
By the way : Wolfie is back to the White House.
Is Keller also betting on a war with Iran ?
20080113
GOP : Time to Split
I warned Republican voters four years ago* : if Bush wins these elections, your party loses.
The divide seems everyday more obvious now, but the main decision remains to be taken : to separate US politics from religion.
As expected**, all 2008 candidates are compelled to prove how strong their belief is, and this sick competition turns into a caricature : Romney, faithful to his Mormon religion as well as to his wife, is criticized by a womanizer (Giuliani) and two more or less outspoken promoters of Intelligent Design (Huckabee and McCain - the latter even gave conferences at the infamous Liberty University and Discovery Institute***). It sounds almost normal to most Americans but this is not a political debate - at least not in a country supposed to be a model democracy.
It is time to make things clear to the audience at the National as well as at the International levels and to officialize the creation of The Theocratic Party. All candidates would then decide : do they put democracy and the republic first, or they believe politics should be ruled by religion ?
True democrats and true republicans will chose not to mix religion with politics. Those who want America to turn into a theocracy and away from its core values must be clear about it. They can keep competing on theological issues, but never more in the name of a Republican or a Democratic Party.
* see "Red Blogule to the Bush system - Prevent a New War of Secession" (20041101)
** see "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism" (20070809)
*** if you didn't get the scoop from my French blogules ("Bonne année 2009" - 20080102) : both are casting Bruce K. Chapman as their VP
The divide seems everyday more obvious now, but the main decision remains to be taken : to separate US politics from religion.
As expected**, all 2008 candidates are compelled to prove how strong their belief is, and this sick competition turns into a caricature : Romney, faithful to his Mormon religion as well as to his wife, is criticized by a womanizer (Giuliani) and two more or less outspoken promoters of Intelligent Design (Huckabee and McCain - the latter even gave conferences at the infamous Liberty University and Discovery Institute***). It sounds almost normal to most Americans but this is not a political debate - at least not in a country supposed to be a model democracy.
It is time to make things clear to the audience at the National as well as at the International levels and to officialize the creation of The Theocratic Party. All candidates would then decide : do they put democracy and the republic first, or they believe politics should be ruled by religion ?
True democrats and true republicans will chose not to mix religion with politics. Those who want America to turn into a theocracy and away from its core values must be clear about it. They can keep competing on theological issues, but never more in the name of a Republican or a Democratic Party.
* see "Red Blogule to the Bush system - Prevent a New War of Secession" (20041101)
** see "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism" (20070809)
*** if you didn't get the scoop from my French blogules ("Bonne année 2009" - 20080102) : both are casting Bruce K. Chapman as their VP
20071207
Faith, lies and videotapes
Mitt Romney may lose the primaries because he's a Mormon supporting religious diversity and mutual respect*. Mike Huckabee may win the primaries because he's a moron supporting creationism and ID.
Guess what : the case for Iran was forged, intel cooked** - and the CIA even destroyed evidencies of Amerika's other wrongdoings : videotapes of torture sessions that could have revealed the faces of CIA agents. Because in Amerika, denouncing torture is a crime... unlike giving names of such weaselish peacemongers as Valerie Plame.
After signing so many pacts with the Devil, George W. Bush decides to write a letter to Kim Jong-il. It starts with "Dear Mr. Chairman", as if North Korea's dictator were a member of his base of "the Haves and the Have-mores". Dubya is just buying time : let me have a cleaner sheet with this atheist "pigmy" - I don't care if I lose face in Asia, all I want is you to let me finish this little crusade of mine in the Middle East before my mandate is over.
This is Amerika all right : this country has lost its values to the point it cannot even consider impeaching its most dangerous criminal.
* this absurd witch hunt is still on, and the reverse burden of proof remains to be implemented. As I pleaded before (see "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism " - 20070809) : "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."
** nothing new under the sun (see "Iran : who wants war and why" - 20070925)
Guess what : the case for Iran was forged, intel cooked** - and the CIA even destroyed evidencies of Amerika's other wrongdoings : videotapes of torture sessions that could have revealed the faces of CIA agents. Because in Amerika, denouncing torture is a crime... unlike giving names of such weaselish peacemongers as Valerie Plame.
After signing so many pacts with the Devil, George W. Bush decides to write a letter to Kim Jong-il. It starts with "Dear Mr. Chairman", as if North Korea's dictator were a member of his base of "the Haves and the Have-mores". Dubya is just buying time : let me have a cleaner sheet with this atheist "pigmy" - I don't care if I lose face in Asia, all I want is you to let me finish this little crusade of mine in the Middle East before my mandate is over.
This is Amerika all right : this country has lost its values to the point it cannot even consider impeaching its most dangerous criminal.
* this absurd witch hunt is still on, and the reverse burden of proof remains to be implemented. As I pleaded before (see "Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism " - 20070809) : "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."
** nothing new under the sun (see "Iran : who wants war and why" - 20070925)
20071005
David Attenborough attacked by Fundamentalist apes
EO broadcasted Sir David's "Life of Mammals" series in the Netherlands, respecting the 5 mn of edition allowed by the BBC.
But Evangelische Omroep / the Evangelical Broadcasting Organisation is a Christian fundamentalist channel, the parts edited were key to explain evolution (ie "our closest relatives" becoming "the apes"), and one whole episode was censored. Flemmish radicals tend to upset me these days : when they don't fuel hatred and racism, they promote ID and creationism. Both sides of what's left of the Belgian border.
David Attenborough is not dead yet*, he is quite angry, and so should we all. This battle is worth fighting for the great white Dave.
* see "David Attenborough, one life on Earth" (20070716)
** see "Red blogule to Luc van den Brande" (20070627)
But Evangelische Omroep / the Evangelical Broadcasting Organisation is a Christian fundamentalist channel, the parts edited were key to explain evolution (ie "our closest relatives" becoming "the apes"), and one whole episode was censored. Flemmish radicals tend to upset me these days : when they don't fuel hatred and racism, they promote ID and creationism. Both sides of what's left of the Belgian border.
David Attenborough is not dead yet*, he is quite angry, and so should we all. This battle is worth fighting for the great white Dave.
* see "David Attenborough, one life on Earth" (20070716)
** see "Red blogule to Luc van den Brande" (20070627)
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.
20070315
George Pontius Pilate Bush lets Gonzales face justice - Red blogule to Our Dear Compassionate Leader
"Al has got work to do up there".
Ecce homo. I give you Alberto Gonzales, and it's up to the people to judge, it's up to him to explain why he dismissed some nosy attorneys, it's up to my fuse to explain why he short circuited the Congress.
George W. Bush washes his hands and I see mud on them : his justice promotes scientific revisionism and medieval fundamentalism, attacks the moderates and pacifists, protects Special Interest Groups.
George W. Bush washes his hands and I see blood on them : his justice promotes torture and protects the gunslingers.
George W. Bush pretends to be compassionate and to stand for values ? He should be remembered as the immoral coward who betrayed America.
Go get Alberto Gonzales, the mastermind of this deviant justice, but don't forget to get the man who ordered this kind of plans*.
Go get Alberto Gonzales, the mastermind of Abu Ghraib, but don't forget to impeach his master.
* "plans", "intelligent design", "The Architect"... building a fundamentalist utopia looks demanding on the gray cells side for the promoters, but the aim of the game remains the negation of intelligence for all others.
Ecce homo. I give you Alberto Gonzales, and it's up to the people to judge, it's up to him to explain why he dismissed some nosy attorneys, it's up to my fuse to explain why he short circuited the Congress.
George W. Bush washes his hands and I see mud on them : his justice promotes scientific revisionism and medieval fundamentalism, attacks the moderates and pacifists, protects Special Interest Groups.
George W. Bush washes his hands and I see blood on them : his justice promotes torture and protects the gunslingers.
George W. Bush pretends to be compassionate and to stand for values ? He should be remembered as the immoral coward who betrayed America.
Go get Alberto Gonzales, the mastermind of this deviant justice, but don't forget to get the man who ordered this kind of plans*.
Go get Alberto Gonzales, the mastermind of Abu Ghraib, but don't forget to impeach his master.
* "plans", "intelligent design", "The Architect"... building a fundamentalist utopia looks demanding on the gray cells side for the promoters, but the aim of the game remains the negation of intelligence for all others.
20061107
VOTE FOR AMERICA - VOTE AGAINST BUSH IF YOU ARE A TRUE REPUBLICAN
If you are a true Republican and if you are a true Conservative, you MUST vote against your party.
Back in 2004, you missed the opportunity to kick George W. Bush out of the White House and restore the values that built America. If you don't realize by now how far you have been betrayed by this President, here are a few wake up calls :
- the Bush Administration doesn't fight terror but feeds it. You've heard about it, you may even understand some of it, but that's not the worst piece of news : all this is done on purpose
- this president turned America into a outlaw and a pariah, insulting the very values he pretends to represent : how can you be proud of your country and how can it remain a model democracy overseas when its leader refuses any kind of accountability before the international community as well as before its own Congress, when it legalizes torture and abductions, when it denies its own citizens basic human and legal rights ? Do you believe this "compassionate republican" ? Do you think this president does what is best for his country or what is best for his own hidden agenda ?
- it is time for you to understand Bush's agenda is neither conservative nor even neo-conservative : the aim of the game is to make fundamentalism mainstream across the world and in the US. And fundamentalism cannot survive in a peaceful environment - fundamentalism feeds from fear, anger, war, frustration, injustice, unfairness, the absence of debate... the very way this Administration is running and ruining the country. Don't expect these guys to lead Amerika nor the World to peace.
- this has nothing to do about genuine faith or religion : this is about changing politics, science, society, about raping the very idea of democracy to please a bunch of madhatters
- if you don't consider US fundamentalists as mad as Islamist fundamentalists, consider this : from the very start, your leaders wanted Iraq to collapse and be parted, Iran to become the superevil it is now and Israel to infuriate its neighbors. All this because the craziest among them believe the final battle between Israel and Evil must happen as soon as possible in order to provoque the return of the Messiah during their lifetime... How is that for an "intelligent design" ?
You may like your Republican representative or your senator but do you really think America can afford two more years of impunity for the Bush Administration ? Do you really want to see what these people (from the White House, not from Capitol Hill) will do to make sure they remain in power after Dubya's second term ?
What will you tell your children and grandchildren ?
Vote for America, vote against Bush.
Back in 2004, you missed the opportunity to kick George W. Bush out of the White House and restore the values that built America. If you don't realize by now how far you have been betrayed by this President, here are a few wake up calls :
- the Bush Administration doesn't fight terror but feeds it. You've heard about it, you may even understand some of it, but that's not the worst piece of news : all this is done on purpose
- this president turned America into a outlaw and a pariah, insulting the very values he pretends to represent : how can you be proud of your country and how can it remain a model democracy overseas when its leader refuses any kind of accountability before the international community as well as before its own Congress, when it legalizes torture and abductions, when it denies its own citizens basic human and legal rights ? Do you believe this "compassionate republican" ? Do you think this president does what is best for his country or what is best for his own hidden agenda ?
- it is time for you to understand Bush's agenda is neither conservative nor even neo-conservative : the aim of the game is to make fundamentalism mainstream across the world and in the US. And fundamentalism cannot survive in a peaceful environment - fundamentalism feeds from fear, anger, war, frustration, injustice, unfairness, the absence of debate... the very way this Administration is running and ruining the country. Don't expect these guys to lead Amerika nor the World to peace.
- this has nothing to do about genuine faith or religion : this is about changing politics, science, society, about raping the very idea of democracy to please a bunch of madhatters
- if you don't consider US fundamentalists as mad as Islamist fundamentalists, consider this : from the very start, your leaders wanted Iraq to collapse and be parted, Iran to become the superevil it is now and Israel to infuriate its neighbors. All this because the craziest among them believe the final battle between Israel and Evil must happen as soon as possible in order to provoque the return of the Messiah during their lifetime... How is that for an "intelligent design" ?
You may like your Republican representative or your senator but do you really think America can afford two more years of impunity for the Bush Administration ? Do you really want to see what these people (from the White House, not from Capitol Hill) will do to make sure they remain in power after Dubya's second term ?
What will you tell your children and grandchildren ?
Vote for America, vote against Bush.
20061102
Red blogule to Dick Cheney - Apneamerika
Hold your breath. The latest videogame is about entering Amerika safe and leaving it alive.
First, you must pass through the Great Mexican Wall. Then, you have to avoid Florida snipers (The Gunshine State welcomes you*) and scary CIA Abductors. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200 but give ten times that amount to the GOP and you may reach the next level. But you can end up in a dead end even before entering Amerika - that twilight zone is called the Guantanamo Law Warp.
Now is the moment of truth : are you truly an Amerikan ? Answer a few tricky questions from Darth Vader (Lobby Dick Cheney), such as "Do you consider the law of the jungle in business to be Darwinian (only the fittest prevail) or creationist (there is a scheme and big corporations set some kind of an Intelligent Design) ?"
Whatever the outcome, you then must take a bath. Either in order to be baptised a stubborn-again Bushite, or to be drowned to death a cruel, inhumane and degrading way**.
* see "Red blogule to the Gunshine State - shootfirstlaw.org Hammered down by the NRA" (20051011)
** see "White blogule to John McCain vs cruel, inhuman, or degrading Amerika" (20051025)
First, you must pass through the Great Mexican Wall. Then, you have to avoid Florida snipers (The Gunshine State welcomes you*) and scary CIA Abductors. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200 but give ten times that amount to the GOP and you may reach the next level. But you can end up in a dead end even before entering Amerika - that twilight zone is called the Guantanamo Law Warp.
Now is the moment of truth : are you truly an Amerikan ? Answer a few tricky questions from Darth Vader (Lobby Dick Cheney), such as "Do you consider the law of the jungle in business to be Darwinian (only the fittest prevail) or creationist (there is a scheme and big corporations set some kind of an Intelligent Design) ?"
Whatever the outcome, you then must take a bath. Either in order to be baptised a stubborn-again Bushite, or to be drowned to death a cruel, inhumane and degrading way**.
* see "Red blogule to the Gunshine State - shootfirstlaw.org Hammered down by the NRA" (20051011)
** see "White blogule to John McCain vs cruel, inhuman, or degrading Amerika" (20051025)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search my personal portal :
