Jolies mélodies

A catching melody isn't it? But have you noticed how it is built on a sequence of just three notes repeated on and on at different levels with the usual few notes that permit the transition from one scale to another? So it works wonder but basically the melodic line is at its simplest. Of course it had to be found though.

Like everybody, I am very sensitive to melodies but I mean real melodies, not just some sort of gimmick that certainly is efficient and powerful but yet somehow unsatisfying musically wise.

Now consider the difference between the stuff Macca used to come out with and that of Mick and Keith. One is a brilliant melody maker whereas the others are brilliant musicians. 

Think of that masterpiece whose first melody spans over 8 bars! And the second melody also spans over 8 bars!!! Two extraordinary melodies in one single song. Certainly Paul had received a visit by the Gods of music when he composed that piece.

Now listen to that one by Keith. Of course it's a wonderful song but note how it's nonetheless based on repetitions and the different parts have to be piled up in order to make ends meet, so to say.

To each his own of course and everyone has a special place in one's heart for such and such tune but globally speaking, consider the respective titles of the two groups and the melodies that come to your mind. It's not a matter of who's the best but just comparing the lenght of the melodies.

The name of Gérard Lenormand is totally unheard of in America of course but I give the link to that song which was an enormous hit in France 40 years ago and whose melody I've always found a long and sophisticated line worth the ones that are met in operas.

And compare with this one which also was a huge, huge hit in 1970. Lovely but the melody is rather simple, yet efficient and catchy.

Anyway, as is the case with books and films and songs that are recommended by the friend of the friend etc. our reception is usually tepid to say the least, the usual fear-of-the-unknown reaction. Also there's no accounting for taste as we all know.

There are thousands of such examples here but I admit I've lost contact with the modern production in the French songs department.

Soumission

Le Judaïsme se distingue de toutes les autres religions en ce qu'il est exclusif et fermé sur lui-même. Ne peuvent en effet appartenir à la religion juive que les descendants des bergers et des cultivateurs d'une secte apparue il y a vingt-cinq siècles. Un système social fondé sur un critère génétique, like it or not, that's the very definition of racism.

L'Islam et le Christianisme, pour s'en tenir aux monothéismes, ont pu croître et se développer précisément parce que ces religions sont englobantes, ouvertes à tous et prosélytes. De ce point de vue, ce sont véritablement des religions universelles dans la mesure où elles sont susceptibles d'accueillir toute l'humanité. Raison pour laquelle la plus récente d'entre elles, l'Islam compte plus d'un milliard de croyants quand le Judaïsme qui le précède d'un millénaire n'en compte pas même 15 millions.

L'essence même du Judaïsme, lui interdit toute croissance et expansion. Or toute entité vivante, quelle qu'elle soit, tend à persévérer dans son être et même à se développer si aucune entité d'une puissance supérieure ne s'y oppose (Spinoza as well as Darwin).

La Shoah a paradoxalement servi de déclencheur à cette force latente en toute chose à prendre le dessus sur tout ce qui se rencontre. Bien que légèrement antérieur à la Shoah, le sionisme a trouvé en celle-ci un point d'appui "inespéré" et imparable pour avancer et légitimer ses exigences.

Ce point d'appui c'est la culpabilité que les Sionistes mettent en œuvre depuis 60 ans de façon systématique auprès du monde entier (hormis l'Asie) et tout particulièrement de l'Occident, qui est tenu responsable de ce qui est arrivé aux Juifs et qui doit dès lors intérioriser cette culpabilité.

Nietzsche, avant Freud, a exposé comment la culpabilité était mise en ouvre par les faibles pour dominer les forts et combien elle était térébrante puisqu'elle conduit celui qui en est victime à l'oubli et même à la haine de soi. Il suffit d'observer l'attitude de F. Hollande relativement à la pseudo responsabilité de la France dans la rafle du Vel d'Hiv. 

Le fait que tous les chefs d'État se sentent tenus, sans même qu'il soit nécessaire de le leur suggérer - tellement ils en ont intégré la pseudo évidence - de porter la kippa quand ils se rendent en Israël ou même dans leur propre pays à l'occasion de telle ou telle cérémonie commémorative, témoigne de la parfaite réussite de cette politique de culpabilisation. 

I have made a quick research but I've failed to find one single pic of W. Wilson wearing a Kippah. And the same goes for Abe Lincoln, the first American Jewish president. Eisenhower, Kennedy? So now it seems it is mandatory for American presidents to wear the kippah out of respect for Judaism and the Jews. Who's next? The Queen of England?

One hundred years ago, Judaism was already here but there was no Zionism, American prezs were mostly Christians from European descent who were probably utterly uninterested with the pretention of the so called "chosen people". But things have changed now. Apparently the process of resorting to guilt in order to submit the other to one's will has worked wonders and as I once read in a British newspaper: In America you can criticize Jesus and God all you want but dare not say anything negative about the Jews.

Indeed, the guit machine is so powerful that as soon as the questions of Israel and Judaism arise, they are mostly met with embarrassed silence. The "at the ready trump card" of the Zionists is to suggest you're an anti Semite (yes, me personally I am an anti-Semite and then what?) and probably a potential accomplice of what happened in Germany 70 years ago.

Actually, not all American are happy with this situation, here, or according to the readers' comments I read in the NYT when the USA/Israel issue is questioned. 

Buddies

Je suis tombé sur l'info par hasard, les députés ont dans leur écrasante majorité refusé la proposition de loi d'un élu de droite (de Courson) visant à instaurer un contrôle de leurs frais de représentation ainsi qu'une fiscalisation desdits.

Socialistes et U.M.P. main dans la main quand l'essentiel est en jeu, à savoir on est dans le fromage et on se gave sans fin puisque ce sont eux qui décident de leurs rémunérations et de légaliser ce qui n'est ni plus ni moins qu'un vol de fonds publics.

On fait mine de se combattre sur scène et dans les coulisses on se tape sur le ventre entre bons copains qui se soutiennent mutuellement quand il est question de toucher au syndicat des exploiteurs de la Res publica. Vous avez voté il y a deux mois pour que cela change, très bien, but we rule and now you shut the f. up for the next five years until we fool you again like has been the case for the last two hundreds years and there's nothing you can do about it.

Cela me fait penser aux rabbins et imams en Israël il y a six ans lorsque les homos du pays avaient souhaité organiser une marche des fiertés à Jérusalem.

Ça n'avait pas fait un pli, les représentants des trois monothéismes étaient bien d'accord, c'était une abomination qui les faisait se retrouver sur leurs fondamentaux : Don't touch the rules we've set up for you and whose gardians we are cos' that's our raison d'être (and also this is a painless situation and you go to the factory in our place).

The same bastards who occasionally tell the ordinary citizens to go and kill their neighbours in the name of the gods they've invented.  

Chopping off some heads in 1789 wasn't such a bad idea after all..

How did their mothers raise them?

 

In my opinion, comedies are much closer to reality than are dramas. We may, to a certain extent, identify with the characters of dramas but we know dramas are fictions and we next to never actually live situations like those represented in, say, Casablanca, Rain man, Gone with the wind etc. you name them.

Everybody is supposed to be amused with comedies and generally is because comedies resort to a theme that is several thousand years old (to say the least), that is relations between men and women and, contrary to dramas, more or less everybody's concerned here.

In particular, there's an absolute and universal constant within this theme and it is the incredible propensity of men - whatever their age - to behave like they were 15 year old kids if not rightly 7 year old children.

Think of the Simpsons for example where Marge rolls her eyes about ten times in each episode (granted, Homer is hmmm... "different" but yet).

Or TV ads, where men are so often portrayed like irresponsible kids who would be lost without their wives and women are depicted as the real and only grown ups.

Why is it that men are so easily prone to regress and act like helpless creatures who want either to impress their wives/girls friends or arouse the maternal instinct of their partners? Haven't their mothers loved them enough?

And women? Why do they next to never regress and only for several months perhaps but certainly not to the point men do when they eventually act like toddlers? Have their fathers loved them all enough?

Could it be that mothers refuse to hand their sons over to other women and program them like time bomb other women will have to deal with?

Hmmm... life is so complicated. I know what I'm talking about anyway, I'm a great offender myself!

I'm not interested

Well, I was 11 when this unassuming person I had never heard of before died and since, I have learned she is perceived by hundreds of millions men around the world as the epitome of beauty, sophistication, sex-appeal whatever. Sorry but I'm not interested and never was.

They'll tell me she's the incarnation of innocence, candour, sensitivity etc. Hmmm... To me she's overall a marketing product in the child-woman/lolita department. Sorry, I'm more interested with the real stuff.

Think of it, there's something Nietzschean with this XXth century axiom that Norma Jeane Mortenson =  Beauty.

Indeed, when we have Plato's concept of ideas, good, bad, beauty etc. in mind, we also remember how Nietzsche taught us that there is no Good or Bad or Beauty per se but some choices have been  made by the (religious) rulers in order to have the masses conform to the will of said rulers.

Not to say this actress has been selected by any religious organisation with the goal of establishing some aesthetic standard but at the end of the day the outcome is more or less the same and in that sense, yes, she has been instrumental.

Fifty years after she's dead her image probably is not as powerful as it used to be in the 60s and 70s but there was a time she was considered the quintessence of female beauty all over the world. My guess is that she also has been an element of the "American Way of Life" policy like Brigitte Bardot was in her time.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder as everyone knows and we don't need to be presented with iconic figures that are supposed to teach us good from bad or beautiful from not so beautiful.

Sorry Marylin, sorry Brigitte, I'm not interested!

Érotisme et téléologie

What men don't know about women

Democracy, my foot!

When Wikileak started publishing the American diplomatic cables 18 months ago, Ms. Clinton, the American Secretary of State declared:

This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests ... it is an attack on the international community: the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity ... It puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national security and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems.

Wow. The situation seems serious here.

And Franco Fratelli, the then Italian minister of foreign affairs added this incomparable und unmistakable touch of  Italian drama:

« les fuites représentent un 11-Septembre de la diplomatie mondiale ».

Now, this is really, really very serious, we're on the verge of Armageddon.

Last time I checked, Time wasn't a revolutionary outlet and seemed not quite convinced by the dramatic tone adopted by the Obama Administration. And the same goes for the NYT which had the leaks published and about all media in America (safe the Fox group affiliated newspapers, radio and TV channels.)

One of the many interesting issues with this affair is how it glaringly demonstrates the gap that exists between the masses and their "democratically" elected leaders.

Basically, Julian Assange's initiative was to present the peoples of the world what was done in their name, what is hidden to them and to give them a glimpse of what their elected leaders do after they've been elected. Doesn't that initiative correspond more to the very definition of "democracy" than just the right to choose between a blue ballot and a red one?

This is apparently what Noam Chomsky thought when he declared:

Perhaps the most dramatic revelation ... is the bitter hatred of democracy that is revealed both by the U.S. Government – Hillary Clinton, others – and also by the diplomatic service. (here)

Another interesting issue here is to consider how the U.S. and all its allies are treating the case. 

Assange, who's not an American citizen, is being chased after like Ben laden has been for ten years. The main difference I can see is that in this case, the U.S, Sweden (shame on Sweden with its accusation of rape), the UK et al are faking to resort to fair and balanced trials and criminal prodedures whereas everyone slightly politically aware knows the case is already closed.

There apparently seems to be a possibility that Ecuador would give political asylum to Assange. Yet, the Ecuadorian Ambassador in London has flown to Quito for further talks. Hmmm... Anyone thinking the U.S. would exert any pressure on Ecuador, ranging from money to threats of all sorts, would be very misled and with a wicked mind.  

Julian Assange shouldn't worry about his fate though. Isn't he being taken care of by the most auto celebrated democracies in the World? And aren't the U.S., Great Britain and Sweden the very same countries that relentlessly tell us China is a non democratic country and should make efforts to accept political dissidence and freedom of speech as basic components of democracy?

Nah, you don't say!