The day I felt embarrassed

All along the 60s the space race really enthralled me. Gagarine, (yes, I was there...) the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. What a hell of excitement that was for a teenager then!

After their feat, the three Americans who made history were on a world promotion tour. And then they arrived in Paris to be introduced live on French television from the Palais de Chaillot, on October the 8th of 1969.

Man! And you thought they'd performed the hardest part of their mission... How wrong you were!

They had to endure an endless speech by no other than Maurice DRUON, of the French Academy. Why was this man chosen to welcome the American astronauts will for ever remain a mystery.

I still can vividly remember the three stoic men standing in row behind the talkative peacock and I couldn't help thinking what their thoughts might have been...

"Boy, they didn't warn us back home that the French leg would be that painful!"

No, really, I was so embarrassed that these men would be given such a cogent confirmation of what the French are renowned for among Americans: pretty good at making lengthy speeches and totally impotent when push comes to shove...

And Druon would go on and on and on and I was saying to myself: "Will he ever shut his big mouth?".

I had to admire the patience and fortitude of Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin for keeping a permanent smile floating on their lips while this buffoon was making a fool of himself. And to be polite and courteous enough to nonetheless thank him when their ordeal had come to an end.

Every time I remember this sinister episode of French stupidity I hope someone at least came to them and apologize for the despicable show they had been dragged into.

43 years later, I still feel embarrassed...

They say it wasn't you

 

No introduction needed right? Bill went into some problems after he... but I diverge.

Only in America do you think? Oh no, the very same thing happened in the Elysée palace some months ago but about nobody knows about it.

Nobody? Not exactly though.

The facts have been reported in a book, Le monarque, son fils, son fief, on sale in every bookstore (I've just seen it no latter than yesterday) whose author is the former (female) assistant of a rightist politician of Armenian descent, another French politician from the extreme right who's held several ministerial posts under Chirac and Sarkozy.

The author, Marie-Cécile Guillaume was hostess of the Canal+ TV channel and spoke on another radio station here.

As far as I know, the only politician who (slightly) protested but didn't really deny Sarko asked and received a favor from another woman of his party is no other than the thug who's been previously mentioned here, another very rightist politician (of Hungarian descent like Sarko), another French rightist politician who's been convicted some years ago.

The whole media/politician world knows about it of course and that's it. 

Now the question is: Why hasn't this episode made the front pages of all French media?    

The answer is twofold in my opinion: 

- The overwhelming majority of French journalists is composed of entertainers who are completely ignorant of what journalism is supposed to be. Also, they're simple employees of media which is very dependant on politicians. They risk lose their job if they ask too precise questions or are slightly irreverent like the most famous anchorman in France has experienced with Sarko.

Also, after 40 years of Gaullism, Pompidolism, Giscardism and Sarkozism, there's a tradition of submission to the powerful ones among French journalists. This is a historical/societal issue but that is another topic yet.

- Globally speaking, I think Americans - as a whole of course - have it right when they see the French (toujours as a whole) as being very laxist about all things related to sex. There's simply no way the episode which took place in the Elysée palace could have stirred the passions like the affair between Bill and Monica did in the U.S. Indeed, in general the French wouldn't have been scandalised or shocked whatever, they would have considered this as a private affair between adults.

The fact that it took place in the Elysée Palace wouldn't have been much of an issue either and this may be questionable yet.

When the DSK affair broke out, it isn't so much the mere sexual part of the story which was the focus point of attention here but rather the accusation of rape and the way the American judiciary system would handle the case. For some months, some French media has tried to whip the interest of their audience with the sequel of the affair but rapidly said audience was fed up so the media let it at that.

So, to make a long story short, isn't it interesting to consider how two nearly identical cases are dealt with according to the country (read cultures) they took place in?

The overall depravity Americans (as a whole) consider the French society to be impregnated with may not be a completely erroneous appreciation after all.

Locks of love

 

So there is this article in the NYT today with the usual clichés about Love and the French so that Americans continue fantasizing.

Another example of over generalisation: the phenomena which is described here is mainly a Parisian thing for what I know and 99,9% of the French (outside Paris I mean) don't know about it.

But even in Paris with say 2 million inhabitants, I'm not sure more than 1 % of them know about this tourist's habit which seems to be less than a few year old.

The only place where I saw these padlocks was on the Pont des Arts. It took me a while to understand what it was all about until I put two and two together.

Bon, ça ne mange pas de pain et la Ville de Paris les enlève régulièrement, otherwise there would be grappes of padlocks over the River Seine.

The interesting thing though is that a practise which in the first place probably started with one young man having an idea to have his girlfriend marvel at how he was in love with her, has been imitated God knows how and has now become the thing to do for dozens of thousands couples, whether Americans/Japanese/Chinese etc. and seems to epitomize in the eyes of millions from the world the way "the French" approach the notion of love.

But now I notice the name of the author of the article is Agnès Poirier which is as French as you get and I wonder if she's not on a secret mission commanded by some sort of French Tourist Department (North-America section) in order to perpetuate some myth re. the French and love.

Her theory about how "the French" regard love as essentially being free and not bound in the wedlock's of marriage most probably appeal to all males in the world, notwithstanding their nationality. I for one am of this opinion too ;-)

But I'm not so sure females the world over, again notwithstanding their nationality, share this purported sense that love means being free and open to the mille et une opportunities that everyday brings along though...

Submission

The idea for this post comes from a regular who twice, if not thrice, wrote: "The Israelis don't threaten to cut off the heads and hands of the infidels until the non-believers drown in a sea of blood and their seed is wiped out from the earth." 

If I'm not mistaken, the hidden message here is that the innate-Jews-hater-Muslims do actually threaten to cut off etc.

So, am I invited to understand that 2.6 million American citizens are potential murderers and fanatic zealots threatening to cut off the heads and hands etc?

 

Well, as usual it's all a matter of context and circumstances but the interesting point is that the foundation of Judaism - and not Islam but I may be wrong about that - is based on the story of an attempted infanticide. Talk of a message of peace and love for a start!

This foundation myth of Judaism is as {{mode ironic on}} elaborate and sophisticated {{mode ironic off}} as the pledge (retarded) teen-agers engage reciprocally into when they stitch each other's fingers and press together their two tiny drops of blood, swearing an eternal friendship or even love. Until the girl meets a handsome guy with a brand new Japanese moped two weeks later, unless it is the boy who meets a girl with bigger bumpers. Ah, love...

This notion of engagement through blood, with all the symbolic that is attached to it, is a universal archaic meme that corresponds to an early stage of mental development. No need to expand here, all the details are available on the Internet. 

Just remember the people for whom the Old Testament was written many, many years ago, were mere illiterate uneducated peasants whose maturity would compare to that of 7 year-old contemporary children. The message had to be simple and striking: Dady could kill me and was about to but wew... God intervened at the very last second. Wow, thank God, I owe you my life.

Now, there are two types of persons here: 

- Those who do really believe the scene as depicted in the Genesis is one that actually took place. Alas, these people are beyond any possible rehab I'm afraid.

- Those who do not dare think it is a fabrication since the Jewish law holds that it was dictated by God (no less) to Moses (yes, himself in person) on top of Mount Sinai. Not much different from the former methinks...

Quoiqu'il en soit, aucun parent, hormis peut-être les pires des fanatiques avec trois lignes de coke dans le pif (et encore), n'est prêt à jouer la scène d'Abraham et d'Isaac. Le Judaïsme ne leur demande d'ailleurs pas mais par contre ce qu'il attend des fidèles c'est une obéissance absolue et incontestée même et surtout vis-à-vis de l'incompréhensible. Juifs ou Chrétiens, "les voies du Seigneur" etc..

Apprentissage de la soumission dès la naissance en parallèle à l'affirmation d'une différence d'avec les autres fondée sur leur nature essentiellement différente et marquée définitivement par la circoncision. And they complain and lament that they've been rejected and ostracised by all other peoples of the earth for the past 2000 years. 

Hmmm... I wonder why really.

Court-martial

- So, you were responsible of the HMS Victoria and eventually there happened a little incident and the battleship sank and 357 of our brave British sailors perished at sea. Certainly you're innocent but yet, we'd like to hear from you what went wrong.

This question could have been asked to George Tryon, just he drowned with the ship. Too bad but yet, had he survived, one may imagine he would have had to face a court-martial upon his return from the shores off Lebanon.

The interesting thing (among others) with the military is the notion that every man is accountable for his conduct and for the consequences of his decisions.

A warship costs a certain amount of money and the loss of the sailors, regardless of the sensitive aspect of things, also is a loss for the military institution.

When one considers how the military, whatever the nationality, handles this concept of personal accountability when the occasion arises in the real world, one cannot fail to wonder if the military institution isn't a model of morality when compared to the world of politicians .

I've been told about a president who deliberately lied to his country and engaged the military he's the commander in chief into two wars which finally cost the lives of over 6.400  of his countrymen soldiers, notwithstanding the soldiers of his allies, let alone the lives of over 100.000 civilians of the countries he attacked 

Of course, the financial impact on the economy of his country of such foolish and criminal misconduct can be counted by the billions of € (I chose this currency as a red herring so that the person I’m thinking of eludes the guessing game).

And the same goes of course for a certain Prime Minister, his accomplice who would also be held for a war criminal if he had been captured by the Brits or the Americans, should he'd been on the ennemy's side.

As a matter of fact, this also works for all the politicians who betrayed their own country's interests and people such as Havel, Berlusconi, Aznar and the entire clique.

But the total and absolute unaccountability of politicians goes far beyond their bellicose proclivity and extends to about all the fields of their activity.

They can behave like plunderers and profiteers like Sarkozy and his gang have been acting for the last five years, leave the country on its knees and on the verge of bankruptcy, no matter what, they will always be immune of any questioning, let alone the slightest reprimand, and there always will be millions of voters ready to vote them again in office.

The tragedy is twofold here: The simple fact that this state of affairs is commonplace in "democracies" and also that next to everybody simply takes it for granted that politicians are above any trivial interrogation and accountability the sort of the military demands from its members.

Les tribunaux militaires certainement n'inspirent pas plus confiance que les tribunaux civils but yet, the notion of personal accountability seems not to be a completely unheard of concept.

Who would have though the military institution was the last guardian of morality?

(ps: The HMS Victoria and George Tryon aren't the examples I wanted to use but I can't remember the details of something similar which happened in the North Sea during naval manoeuvres - perhaps with the Tsarist marine- at the beginning of the XXth century.)

Free Will

For billions of years everything on Earth has just been another atom of solar dust and billions of people believe they're free and possess some sort of free will... Oh well...

---------------

Comme je sentais une certaine lassitude relativement au dernier thème chez certains des habitués, j'ai voulu changer d'air et for whatever reason, the souvenir of this movie by Allen and the topic of free will coalesced within 3 tenth of a second in my mind.

But, in the above video I couldn't see the segment with the black man asking twice "What am I doin' here?" which of course is extremely funny and another indication re. determinism. So I looked up again for another video and I found the one with Allen fatalistically saying in relief: "At least he's Jewish".

It probably has to do with stream of consciousness and synchronicity but we're back to our last theme, that is Judaism...

The line by Allen is funny but actually, would we had found it so funny had he said "at least he's Muslim" or "at least he's Christian" or if a Muslim or Christian actor had pronounced their respective line? Well, honestly no, we would have found the joke very poor and in these times of P.C, disturbing and on the verge of being "racist".

Now, this is very interesting because Allen, candidly, both with his joke and in the situation he's in, gives another obvious illustration of what makes Judaism different of all other religions.

He just refers to the simple fact that the very basis of Judaism is genetics and biology which leads to the core of the issue and also the basics of philosophy that is the distinction between Nature and Culture.

Nature is a given order of things and a universal one at that, whereas Culture is a construction realised by every human group and all possible specific cultures identify each and every human group for what it has done out of its original natural environment.

For what I know, no civilisation has ever claimed it was different from any other for any other reason than its achievement in whatever fields of human activity. From that starting point, yes each civilisation has considered itself superior to the next one for its culture but not for some natural given superiority over anybody else.

L'essentialisme du Judaïsme remonte au-delà de la Culture et tient qu'il y a un antécédent naturel à l'existence du "peuple juif" dont l'identité perdure pour des raisons biologiques et génétiques avant toute chose. If that isn't the very definition of racism I ask the question: what is racism then?

Even slave holders, whether 2000 years ago in Greece or Egypt or in America during the XIXth century, didn't so much believe that their slaves were naturally and by reason of their genes different from them but "rather" that their culture was superior to that of their slaves. African slaves were even evangelised by their white owners who still - globally speaking - kept the separation between Nature and Culture more or less distinct. Isn' it Thomas Jefferson who didn't mind having children with his black slave?

Philosophy isn't mere pipe dreams and we're back again to Plato's allegory of the cave whose message is still more than ever alive and relevant. 

When hundreds of millions in the West have been exposed for half a century now to a one way propaganda showing the Jews as the very embodiment of Good per se and the victims of discrimination wherever they've been going, like the prisoners of the cave they're just absolutely incapable to recognise the other image which is shown to them and they return to the cave convinced someone tried to dupe them into believing in something different from the only image they've ever known.

They have eyes and they cannot see, even if it's up their nose like E.A Poe's letter.

The irony of all this is that the U.S which preaches the whole world against racism, which in itself may be laudable, is protecting and putting all its strength in the defence of the most racist country in the world whose existence is based on the vilest racist religious lunacies.

And the current mantra in the West is "against racism and anti-Semitism". When head is tail and black is white... Oh the fools... oh the slaves of the cave.

Head is tail and black is white

Depuis une quarantaine d’années l’antisémitisme est le schibboleth de la conscience morale occidentale, la pierre de touche infaillible de la moralité occidentale contemporaine qui autorise la mise en œuvre éhontée d’une aptitude acquise à la culpabilité permettant de distinguer selon un critère exclusif et irréfragable les salauds irrécupérables (les antisémites dont je suis, ceux qui n’adhèrent pas) des autres (ceux qui se taisent).

Être « anti-raciste » c'est un slogan qui se veut universel, tous les hommes, quoique différents, sont égaux (on le croit ou pas, c'est autre chose) et par definition il n'y a pas d'exception et pas d'hommes ou de groupes plus « égaux » que les autres.

Toute adjonction et/ou singularisation est logiquement impossible, il n'y a dans la nature qu'une race humaine avec de nombreuses variantes, et toute différence entre les hommes ne peut être que culturelle et là encore c'est universel, effectivement il y a une multitude de groupes sociaux très différents les uns des autres à tous points de vue.

Nous vivons maintenant dans un registre de valeurs où s'est établie l'équation Juifs = le Bien au sens quasi platonicien which is beyond any scrutiny or critics. Just to be sure, Judaïsm is nothing else but a religion carried on by the purported descendants of a sect of shepherds and fruit pickers living in a small portion of the Middle East some twenty five centuries ago. A religion which is a closed system based on the law of blood contrary to all other religions in the world as far as I know.

The law of blood is the very definition of racism since it doesn't acknowledge someone's merits and value on h/h achievements but only according to the genes h/h biological body is made of. Which is scientifically a complete lunacy of course but the sort of which that makes the same distinction as that the Pures make between them and the Dalits.

Contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme. L’expression est consacrée, l’un ne va pas sans l’autre. Pourquoi pas Contre le racisme et l’anti-sinisme? Ou l’anti-slavisme? Ou l’homophobie? Qu’est-ce donc que cette catégorie tellement différente des autres hommes qu’il faut l’identifier et la singulariser comme telle? Serait-ce parce qu’il s’agit du peuple élu? Mais alors qui est “raciste” dans ce cas si ce n’est ceux qui insistent pour se voir différencier de la communauté humaine?

Qui ne voit que cette association Contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme - qui est maintenant devenue pavlovienne - est très exactement une contradiction interne qui affirme précisément le contraire de ce qu’elle prétend signifier?

The association "against racism and antiSemitism" is an utterly nonsensical one since it pretends to combat racism (what is it? by the way)  on the one hand and protect its very existence and practice on the other hand. What about "against racism and in favour of racism" then?

By mean of some sort of linguistical entryism, Judaism, which is a minuscule racist and excluding sect, has associated itself with a universal message of tolerance and open mindedness. And guess what? Since two or three generations have been continuously brainwashed and immersed in the belief that Judaism = Good per se and criticism of Good = Bad per se, hundreds of millions people in the world in total good faith and no less total ignorance and whose critical thinking has been castrated make theirs a cause which basically exclude them like the Pures exclude the Dalits.  

So when I state that I am an avowed anti Semite what else do I say but that I'm against racism and discrimination? Just that it will be translated like I am an accomplice of Auschwitz et al. Guilt anybody?

Moins les mots sont précis, plus leur signification originelle est diluée jusqu'à être détournée et remplacée par son contraire, plus est facile la manipulation des esprits qui n'ont plus d'appuis sûrs pour étayer un raisonnement ou exprimer des opinions raisonnablement fondées. Which is which when head is tail and black is white?

A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words