Invasion of Iraq: The Bush Legacy in 3 Impostures

It's been 10 years since the invasion of Iraq, and I won't repeat my usual rant. In case you missed the previous episodes, here are 3 messages you should remember:
 

***

1) The invasion of Iraq was meant to spread fundamentalism worldwide, not democracy in Iraq:

Always keep this in mind: "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."

I wrote the "Universal Declaration of Independence from Fundamentalism" to expose the imposture of fundamentalism (a totalitarian, political program advertised as a universal, religious program), the way it undermines both democracy and religion, and the ways to defuse the sick ping pong between supposedly opposed extremists.

As I posted for the 5th anniversay of this masquerade ("Iraq - 5 years of success for fundamentalists"), the invasion of Iraq was a triumph: as expected, it boosted fundamentalism and terror worldwide. "Mission accomplished".

And we should consider ourselves lucky these lunatics didn't go all the way (see "Iran : who wants war and why").


***

2) Oil was the means of corruption, not the aim of the game, and the undermining of US democracy was not just collateral damage:

To make it short: theocons set the agenda with the help of neocons (what better duet than Bush-Cheney to achieve this?), and sold the war to paleocons*.

In other words: the aim of the game was to undermine democracy (the theocon - fascist purpose), and the official cause an intervention to free a country from its dictator (typical neocon stuff), but in order to launch the war, the blessing from the oil and defense lobbies was needed (enter the paleocons).

The only thing missing was an alibi for immediate action. A clear and immediate danger. The outrageous lies and forged cases about WMDs or Saddam-al Qaeda ties did the trick.

Of course, there was always the risk of nosy reporters doing their jobs, of citizens exercising their rights to transparency.

The Patriot Act became effective more than one year before the invasion. The trickier part was the media, and the Bush Administration offered a deal to US majors: don't get at us until after the 2004 elections** and we'll help you consolidate your power. At the head of the FCC, the son of Colin Powell did his best to alter competition laws, and was instrumental in the concentration that followed at a critical moment in the history of traditional press, broadcasting, and internet. Michael Powell went as far as organizing a phony forum to settle the case just weeks ahead of the invasion. He later joined the RAND Corporation.

In general, the Bush administration more or less successfully tried to undermine the separation of powers at the root of democracy:
. executive? too far (right) reaching, and totally unaccountable.
. legislative? corrupt, and producing anti-democratic laws
. judicial? promoting torture and the negation of all rights
. media? at best embedded, at worst accomplice
. netizens? brainwashed by pervasive propaganda, monitored by a dystopian state
. ....
. and, of course, the theocons' priority: destroying secularism, the pilar of democracy. Again, mixing religion with politics, education, science... is the best way to attack democracy and religion at the same time (see "France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one")

Yes, a lot of money was at stake. For the religious lobbies that pushed against the separation of church and state as well as for the military and oil lobbies. And the mass plundering of Iraqi resources is only one side of a scheme that turned record surplusses into record deficits (among other vital rescue missions: saving private Halliburton... a charity movement that continued in another Gulf, following Kathrina - see "Red blogule to Halliburton and the 40 thieves").

But the corruption reached much deeper, to the very fundamentals of democracy.
 

***

3) The Arab Spring owes nothing to the Iraq War, to the contrary:

 
George W. Bush and his fan club try to sell us the Arab Spring as the consequence of his invasion of Iraq, a "liberation war" that "spread democracy across the region", but this imposture is totally unacceptable.
 
First, Bush's crusade contributed to silencing moderates, and strengthening radical islamists as the only political force capable of taking power.
 
Second, his illegal invasion for anti-democratic purposes cannot be compared to self determination movements aiming at genuine freedom and democracy. The only nation Bush ever tried to build was a theocracy: he may be an inspiration for islamists, certainly not for actual freedom fighters.
 
Third, the Bush administration did serve as an example in the region, but not in the arab world (see "Israel accepted as true the choice between its security and its ideals").


 
***
Justice has yet to be done, and I guess the last words of Tomas Young (in "The Last Letter") are worth remembering:
"A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney From a Dying Veteran": "I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.".

And as always, we should expose and denounce the impostures, and blow the whistle each time a government tries to alter the separation of powers or to play with the fundamentals of democracy.


blogules 2013
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)


* ... and if the "anticons" were not yet in the picture, they're not a model for democracy either: "the Tea Party is not just an alternative to the Republican or the Democratic parties, but the very negation of the republic, the very negation of democracy" (see "Grand Old Parting - enter the anticons")
** Heck, even until the 2008 elections for most of them (see "The Silence of the Lambs (War in Iraq and US networks)"). How dare collaborators give lessons after such a disgrace (see "What Fareed Zakaria got wrong")?

Bubba Clinton rocks DNC 2012: GOP Unity My Ass!

The day the NRA and the AIPAC stop dictating political platforms, the USA might become an independent democracy.
 
Day 2 of DNC 2012 started in damage control mode: the Democratic platform had to mention God and Jerusalem to pass the theocratic cut. The POTUS didn't need to receive a 3 A.M. call from the AIPAC to sense the danger for November 6. You can count on conservative pundits to spin this non-event as a blahblahgate blown to biblical proportions, but the case got easily closed. For good measure, Madeleine Albright pinned a splendid "Pro-Israel" brooch on Obama's chest. 
 
And the incident proved that at least, the Democratic Party remains open for debate. Heck: Sister Simone Campbell was even allowed to deliver her "pro-life stance"! And she didn't crucify Romney just to redeem herself or simply because he's a Mormon. 
 

 
Day 2 of DNC 2012 soon switched back to full groovy mode. The floor fretted at the news that Barack would meet Bubba on stage later in the night, and everybody waited for something special from Liz Warren.
 
Meanwhile, with only a few VIPs on stage to hammer the messages (in substance: if Barack Obama stands for working people in the US, Mitt Romney rather watches his own money work in the Caymans), CNN served slices of Hillary to fill the blanks. The Secretary of State had seeked refuge in NonCharlottistan during the Convention, and I bet John Kerry will succeed her for Obama Season V, but when she was abruptly asked how she judged her "boss", she answered with one of the sweetest compliments she ever made to her 2008 rival. Amazing "grace" indeed.
 
Meanwhile, still, John King delt his full deck of maps. I'm pretty sure that when he sleeps, John King sees red and blue county maps. Grey ones when he's got a nightmare. And when he can't fall asleep? He probably recounts Florida 2000 ballots.

Eventually, we didn't have to wait long for great moments. Sandra Fluke did more than deliver a pro-choice speech. She brought down the house and for that, she didn't even have to raise her voice. Sandra Fluke simply rose and use her voice, exactly what conservatives don't like in a woman.

At the beginning of Elizabeth Warren's "warm up act for President Clinton", I confess I thought she too needed a warm up act. Then she started addressing the issues that count, and my oh my, if independent voters listen to her speech, they'll instantly tear down the GOP ballot. Warren stood for all humans against the inhuman program of Romney-Ryan. The best answer to Mitt's infamous "corporations are people".

Bill Clinton trumpeted Barack Obama's second term from Yesterday's Gone to Forward Folks. Not as perfect as Michelle Obama yesterday (Bubba can be too talkative and professoral), but he won her heart by offering his best support to the "man who had the good sense to marry" her. What a one man show! Simply unstoppable. Barack ? "A man cool on the outside but burning for America on the inside". The RNC 2012? In "an alternative universe". Correct location, Bill. And we're not even mentioning Romney's "moral compass", more than questioned by Randy Johnson, a former Bain employee, a couple of hours earlier. By the way, Mitt: Joe Biden's seat is not empty, but all others are. For the standing ovation in his honor, courtesy POTUS #42.
 
Professor Bill Clinton slammed Mitt Romney: the wannabe should learn arithmetic before giving lessons on budget. And even on jobs. America is better off without Republicans who cost her one million jobs by crippling the Congress, and of course GM is better off without Romney in the driving seat. Paul Ryan? It takes an Irishman to know one, it takes a saxophonist to know brass, and "it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did". Struck out, the rookie.

Not only did Bill deliver an even better speech than he would have for himself, but this final, powerful Clinton-Obama embrace? You couldn't find a more perfect union at work.

Cruel comparison with that cold reunion of losers right after Ryan's acceptance speech... Last time Mitt Romney hugged someone so hard, nine month later Ann had their last kid.

 
blogules 2012
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!!
 
* see "DNC 2012 Day 1: Come Together, Now"

Texas State Board of Education dumps Education in favor of Creationism

I love Texas, but my patience is wearing thin.

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

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

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

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

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

blogules 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I should say the same double misunderstanding :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People ask "What's wrong with France ?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

stephane mot - blogules 2009


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

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

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

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

State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

** see transcript (NYT 20090604)

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

So help me Rick Warren

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 - see today's Politico Arena.

Lessons from Mumbai ?

This is vintage terror, classic asymetric warfare, and certainly nothing new under the Indian sun. Maybe more mediatic exposure because big networks don't have much fish to fry in this lame duck season - nobody cares for Congo and the audience is fed up with financial news.

There is no way to prevent 100% of such attacks from happening, but there is a way to make them look irrelevant, to undermine the undermining effect of terror.

The message from the Mumbai terrorists is : we want people to hate each other because we fundamentalists need war and hatred to survive, we want Hindis to go at Muslims, we want Jews to go at Muslims, and most of all we want moderate Muslims to be silenced and overwhelmed by fundamentalists. The masses will follow us because we will accurately claim that Muslims are once again the actual victims of the attacks.

The main target in the Mumbai attacks was Pakistan, the weaker link, and the democracy the most likely to fall for fundamentalism if the international community fails to help it help itself. Manmohan Singh must not finish the mission of the terrorists and blame Pakistan, but help fellow victim Asif Ali Zardari win over enemies from within, and together they must expose the fundamentalists' agenda which as always is only about politics, not religion.

The best way and the only way to tackle terror is to go at its roots : to recognize the existence of unfairness and to start doing something about poverty, to denounce fundamentalism as foul politics masquerading as religion, and to let the moderates speak.

The opinion should be prepared for that, and the community bracing itself through positive and sound values, and neither through fear, nor nationalism. Let's not make the same mistakes as after 9/11, please.

The terrorist attack on Mumbai clearly echoes Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" because both are proposing the same imposture : this clash of civilizations, these religious wars are artificial, man-made, and deliberately fueled by people who want them to happen. No wonder Huntington's book is a bible for the neocons and theocons who sold the invasion of Iraq and dream of provoking a war between Israel and Iran. Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush offered the worst answer to the 9/11 attacks, but the best ones from the terrorists' point of view.

The worst answer to the Mumbai would be for India to retaliate against Pakistan.

Afghanistan was not guilty for 9/11 : the World let it fall into the wrong hands. Pakistan is not guilty for the Mumbai attacks : the World must prevent it from falling into the wrong hands.

The World, united, must declare its independence from fundamentalism.

John, Ben, Barack Hussein, James, Thomas, and other beautiful American names

What do McCain and Obama have in common ? Any of the two would be the 15th US President with a Semitic name*.

Yep. Barack Hussein is as American as John, Joe or Sarah.

And Barack Hussein Obama is no more un-American than such radical terrorists as Benjamin Franklin or Abraham Lincoln. Maybe President McCain would arrest Bin Yamin Franklin for inventing a weapon of mass destruction collecting energy from lightning bolts, or Abraham for sporting such a suspicious beard...

Obama never made a mystery of the nature of his relationship with Bill Ayers, and repeatedly denounced his past actions. We have yet to hear from John McCain about his relationships with John Singlaub and his presence at the board of the sulfurous U.S. Council for World Freedom (not exactly the board of a charity at that time, ask any Nicaraguan).

"Who is Barack Hussein Obama ?" We know the answer, the man is quite open about his past, present and future, about what he knows and doesn't know, about what he did wrong and right, about where he stands and whom he stands for.

"Who is John McCain ?" I'm not sure John himself wants to face the answer.

* praise Juan Cole : "Barack Hussein Obama, Omar Bradley, Benjamin Franklin and other Semitically Named American Heroes"


---
Addendum 20081019
Praise also Colin Powell for not only endorsing Barack, but also setting the record straight about US Muslims (NBC's "Meet the Press" 20081019) :

see also Barack's reaction - ABC News "Obama 'Beyond Humbled' as GOP's Powell Says He'd Be 'an Exceptional President'" 20081019)

Pope Music

Benedict XVI paid a visit to George W. Bush who greeted this fellow fundamentalist like the most important statesman on Earth... which he happens to be from their theocratic point of views.

Benedict XVI denounced paedophilia, nazism, and attacks against human rights (whose universality relies on - guess what ? - "natural law" and a divine origin). He even dared say religion shouldn't be part of any government... which would indeed appear pointless in his World where government is part of religion, and where no law is above God's law.

After six days of lamentation and contrition the show is over. From John Paul II's rock star attitude towards Benedict XVI's self lapidation, nothing changes.

Certainly not those other elderlies rolling stones in front of Scorsese's camera, and selling sympathy for the Devil to the masses.

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

Benedict XVI's "coming out"

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

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

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

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


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

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

Take me to the Moon, Daddy

George H. W. Bush will deliver a speech at the 25th anniversary party launched for The Washington Times by its owner, Reverend Sun Myung Moon.
The Washington Times is a lousy media losing a lot of money every year, but owning a newspaper in DC is more about influence than edition.
Herbie and Barbie already attended other anniversaries, of the birthday of the very sect leader, for instance. The thing is Moon is good at wedding people by batch, and 41 is good at faciliting meetings between bad and worse guys.
Moon Sun-myung for Senior and Billy Graham for Junior - the religion of money-making runs in the family blood.

White blogule to USA 2016

(answer to the question "Where do you see the United States in the year 2016 ?")

The USA remain a key player but other entities have about the same political and economical power. Furthermore, the national political landscape has deeply changed, and like in Israel, there are now at least three major forces :

- one is conservative and nationalist / mainland (dubbed "Amerikan SUV" / American SUrge and Victory),

- another one more liberal and international ("R&D" / Reps & Dems), and

- yet another one clearly religious (the "POGO" / Party Of God Omniscient).

But many politicians don't feel like belonging to a specific party ; rather to several spheres depending on the issues... not to mention ethnies. The key question nowadays is shall we keep the system of primaries and indirect presidential elections ?

For November, the polls give a clear edge to George Bush III (that's Prescott, son of Jeb), supported by SUV and POGO. Clinton is out of the race (R&D preferred O'Bama to Chelsea).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

"Jesus vs Mahdi" Prophecy - Red blogule to Bush-Cheney's war on Iran

Lobby Dick has decided : the US must bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. W is almost ready, just making sure he doesn't need any agreement from the Congress, that ugly and totally unnecessary offspring of democracy.
Make no mistake : just like the invasion of Iraq, this attack has nothing to do with the official agenda. Preventing WMD proliferation, getting rid of a dictatorship, and even securing juicy contracts for big corporations... all these are mere alibis, the Bush Administration's usual sales pitch*.
The aim of the game is to accelerate the final showdown between Iran and Israel before the World's most important regime change : Lord Dubya's rule is bound to end by 2008, and this mad crusader has yet to fulfill his most important task ; the so called Bible Prophecy.
If you missed the previous episodes, here's the story : Bush believes Jesus Christ's Second Coming will be provoqued by the ultimate war between Israel and Iran. Crazy enough ? There's more : the Shiite sect to which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad belongs believes the Mahdi is coming this spring... which means Dubya's favorite philosopher will face another heavyweight messianic figure somewhere between the begining of the MLB season and the NBA finals. This definitely beats Rocky Balboa's return, Jason vs Freddy and even Alien vs Predator !
Both sides consider it The Clash between Good and Evil... without noticing they're talking about the same God. So make that "Good vs Good", or better : "dimwit vs dimwit".

It would be laughable if human lives and nuclear powers weren't involved.

If God does exist, I guess the time has actually come to pay us a visit and wipe all this crap out of the surface of the Earth.



* Don't get me wrong : Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a bad guy and potentially as dangerous as Saddam, and the Iranian theocracy is as dangerous for World peace as the US theocracy. I'm only warning you like I did four years ago : if you follow Bush on his crusade, you are doomed. And this time, we all could be doomed.

Rewriting history (reloaded) - IHT Letters To The Editor

Praise the International Herald Tribune. First for publishing another blogule of mine (even if slightly edited* to fit a wider audience than this utterly incorrect blog), second for giving it a title I've been mantrazing for a few years.

Actually, I mentioned "Rewriting History" in one of the few blogules published by "Le Figaro" before Sarkozy became Editor in Chief. Back then, I noticed the irony in the way Dubya compared himself to Roosevelt and Churchill ("Reecriture de l'Histoire - GW Bush le nouveau FDR ?" - 20040607).

I guess "rewriting history" could be considered today's international pastime on steroids.

Anyway... For those who missed my latest ranting on Abe** and/or reached their newstands to late, here is the letter as published in today's IHT*** :

Rewriting History
Your Dec. 16 edition delivered two rather disheartening insights on the way history is being taught.
In "Confronting Holocaust denial" (Views), Ayaan Ali Hirsi reveals how the Holocaust is not only absent from textbooks in many Muslim countries but also still considered a great idea by many young people.
In the news report "Japan passes measure for patriotic education," an education reform is not only meant to keep the Japanese people in the dark regarding the terrible war crimes committed during Hirohito's reign, but also to revive ultranationalism.
Perhaps worst of all: None of this comes as a surprise. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is on a permanent revisionist road show, while Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan has already declared his nationalist views.
I wonder what tomorrow's textbooks will tell the next generations about our time? In this sick medieval revival, even the president of the United States and the pope want to replace science and reason by an ultraconservative caricature of religion.

* let's say I elaborated a bit on "declared his nationalist views"

** see "Red blogule to Shinzo Abe - another revisionist leader" (20060926), or the unedited blog spill in French preceding my letter to the IHT : "Blogule rouge a Shinzo Abe - l'Empire contre attaque" (20061216)

*** see iht.com/articles/2006/12/19/news/edlet.php (20061220)

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.