Sexe, love and passion à la française

When former President François Mitterrand’s funeral was held, his wife and two sons attended the burial as you would expect. However, his mistress and his daughter (born out of wedlock), also attended. This young woman is now part of the Parisian intelligentsia and she’s a writer (what else in France?).

The picture of the funeral is regularly presented in the American media as evidence that the French are different, verging on immorality, which makes them probably somewhat unreliable. And one must concede they’re on to something here. Isn’t adultery basically a breach of confidence? 

Nothing new here, mind you. Just consider the case of another French President, Félix Faure, who died in the arms of his mistress in 1899 at the Elysée Palace.

Want some more? Take, for instance, Jacques Chirac, our former president whose love conquests are too numerous to be numbered, yet his wife, Bernadette, is perfectly well aware of this state of affairs.

The same goes for former President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who was caught by the police one very early morning on the streets of Paris in 1976 because he was involved in a car crash. He was on his way back to the Elysée Palace from a nightly visit to a “friend”. Giscard went so far as to publicly confess that he often thought, during the Council of Ministers, how Mme. X, then Minister for Higher Education, looked like when…err...while...

You might think, only presidents? Wrong you are.

It doesn’t stop there. The current French Minister of Justice, Mme. Alliot-Marie, who is divorced, has been engaged for nearly 20 years in a relationship with a French deputy. They still aren’t married.

Of the two contenders for the second round of the presidential election three years ago both had an unusual marital status. On the left, Segolene Royal had been living unmarried with the father of her 4 children for over 20 years. On the right side, Nicolas Sarkozy’s second marriage nearly went on the rocks after his wife left him for 6 months (no, not to live in seclusion in some kind of monastery…). While separated from his wife, Mr. Sarkozy took a mistress...

And now, the President of France has married a third time, is a divorced man with children from 2 beds, whose former spouse is also a divorcee from a (prior) TV entertainer. He won the presidential race over an unmarried woman who has been living in sin for over 20 years.

And you know what? The French simply don’t care. They don’t care to a point that probably can hardly be imagined by our American friends.

Do you think someone could ever be elected President of the US in the forthcoming years under the same sinful circumstances? Bill and Monica anyone? Gary Hart? And in the end, does it really matter what politicians do with their private lives?

(It is said American President F.D. Roosevelt died with his mistress on his side.)

As everyone knows, things have dramatically changed since the presidential election : Segolène Royal has split from her former partner because he had a mistress!

Nicolas Sarkozy, the now president of France, has divorced from his second wife (see Lesly Stahl) but has engaged within three months with a former top-model who he eventually married.

Some things never change on the other hand: The French don't care about all these personnal affairs but we're really, really tired to be informed about what we don't want to know.

And I was wondering how our American friends could not believe there must be some truth in the cliché of the French as serial womanizers and their general liberal attitude regarding all things related to sex...

War is fun and entertaining

Do you remember when the Bush administration wanted to dot Poland and The Czech Republic with ultra sophisticated radar systems in order to prevent any missile launch from... guess... Iran ?

Right along the Russian borders. And you know what? The Russians weren't happy about that. You bet...

But why on earth would the Iranians want to launch missiles against the US over Europe? When was the last time Iran attacked another country? And the US?

And to top it all, the American MSM keeps on pounding that Russian military spending is on the rise again and must be contained and America has to always increase her military budget in order to counter the threats she's facing. When she actually is creating threats all over the world.

I have no doubt the Russians don't believe one nano second the rationale the Americans are using to have their domestic audience actually believe Iran poses a real and lethal danger against America.

They know what the American industrial-military complex is up to, (they have their own) like they know the US is fraught with many Dr. Strangelove. And they also know about the warmongerish mentality of this country, typical of paranoid mindset which leads to such scarring insanities.       .

It is crystal clear that America will create and encourage any fake argument in order to wage war (it has happened so many times before) and assert her imperialism.

'Cos war is fun, entertaining and the biggest money provider you can think of.

Rep or Dem, I'm afraid it doesn't make much of a difference, the real power holders are in the Pentagon like we've seen since Obama has been elected.

Damn French!

  


                                                                                                                                                                
And you wonder why the French are so often associated with sex in the US?

Now consider where the word bra comes from... Yeah, French "brassière".

There are 300 million people living in the US; say about 150 million women. If 90% of them wear said bras, is it inappropriate to say that Frenchness stick to their skin?

And here's the reason why the French in general infuriate American males: They have to deal with these maddening bras before they can reach their ultimate goal. Not always an easy task...

It's all the French's fault...

Delusion

When Jacques Chirac was elected President of the French Republic 15 years ago I remember the general feeling of relief that could be felt in the American media. At long last Mitterrand, the socialist who dared to include communist Ministers in his Government in 1981 was gone.

At last, an energetic openly pro-American politician was at the head of the arguably most anti-American country in western Europe.

The romance lasted some months but rather rapidly there was a sense of delusion when the energetic one lost the battle against the railways strikers 8 months after he had been elected (Dec 95). And after 9 years of "inactivity" came the final blow : J.Chirac opposed the Iraq war and thus became the most hated foreign politician in the US...

Three years ago it was Nicolas Sarkozy's turn to be elected as President. You could see the American MSM swoon in admiration with the little man who professed his adulation for eveything American. An energetic, incredibly dynamic President who had nothing more important to do than to pay a visit to the lame duck President Bush had become, who spent a couple of weeks in America for his vacation and who eventually came in the heart of the American Congress to tell his audience how much he loved America.

To top it all, the renegade went so far as to condemn the French arrogance regarding her position à propos the Iraq war. Now, a submissive French politician : That's what seems to be the pattern of friendship in Washington !

But wait... Some months later I could read some questioning in the American press. In Newsweek for example or in the International Herald Tribune or the Financial Times. What is the man really up to? He doesn't seem to be able to deliver all the promises he made. His economic policies (if there's even one) is... bizarre, seemingly inconsistent.

Dear American friends, you were just witnessing the beginning... But one thing is sure : The French  (53% of them) certainly didn't elect him because of his childish admiration for all things American but because they thought he would pull them out of the doldrums they felt they were in.

What the French want, like all people around the world, is an increase of their purchasing power, not to be told about their President's marital status or love for Elvis Presley and Sylvester Stallone.

By and large, hardly 8 months after he'd been elected, a majority of the French was ashamed of Nicolas Sarkozy's crass illiteracy and gross vulgarity. That he is "pro-American" is the last of their concern. By now, about 80% of the French simply loath him.

It's the economy, stupid!

Appalling

One of the most troubling line one can never fail to meet when reading many American newspapers and American blogs as well as when listening to American politicians, is that the military needs to enjoy an unconditional support from the population because it protects the country.

- Protect the country? Against which enemy?

- "Against the enemy of America!"

- But who are they? Are Canada and Mexico, your closest and only neighbourgs, about to launch a massive attack against the US?

- "You're so naive... The enemy of America, those who hate us because we're free."

- Huh?

- "Yes, the Iranians, that's why they want the bomb: They want to attack America because we're free and that's why they hate us. Like did S. Hussein with his WMDs."

- Huh?

- "And don't forget the terrorists" Do we have to bear another 9/11 before we realize how dangerous they are for the survival of the US?"

- Huh? But there haven't been any terrorist attack in the US since 9/11. And far more people have been killed in the so-called war on terror than the terrorists ever killed.

- Yes, and that's because the military has done a helluva great job of protecting us against these devilish criminals.

- But maybe is it only because no "terrorists" have ever set foot in the US since then whereas they could enter the country at will through the Mexican and Canadian borders if they wanted to.

- You're so naive and anti-American! Why don't you support the troops? Don't you realize they're heroes who protect the country? Do you wish another attack against the American people who's so helpful to the rest of the world living in tyranny?

- Huh?

Now, during the last presidential campaing, in the US John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, had issued a clip where he presented himself and the values he stood for. McCain was from the military, like his father was and his grand-father too. Needless to say he had a certain mindset concerning foreign relations. It looks like it's a major asset among a large segment of the American population to the point where he could hum "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" or suggest that the US may well stay in Iraq for the next 100 years.

I can't think of any European country where a politician could seriously compete for the highest political position with such warmongerish rhetoric. But there has been such a brainwashing in the US regarding the supposed endangered security of the country since WWII that such an appalling approach of international relations is heralded as unequivocal evidence of statesmanship.

And you wonder why the rest of the world sees America as the current greatest danger for world peace...

Appalling!

Monticello in Paris

In front of the Musée de la Légion d'honneur in Paris stands a statue of Thomas Jefferson. It has been erected in July 2006 with the American ambassador attending the unveiling.

In Jefferson's left hand you can see the lay-out of the Monticello house which was built along the design of the hôtel de Salm (now the Museum of the Legion of honour) that Jefferson is facing.

Another French myth collapses

This French vidéo was made in 1964 and was a huge hit at the time. So what? will you ask, the 60s were a time of huge hits. Yeah, sure, but this was a real, real, huge hit really. I mean so huge that the title of the song ["Zorro est arrivé" (Zorro has arrived)] has now turned into a set expression of the French language. Whether politicians, trade-unionists, school children etc. they'll all refer to "Zorro" in order to indicate that we were in dire straits but the white knight came and saved us all.


Now the singer we see here was a very famous French one and still performing atfter 90. He's reckoned to be a great musician (although you can't tell from this clip) and many of his songs now belong to the French repertoire. So I never had any doubt that this Zorro song was as French as the béret and the camembert.

How wrong I was! To my great, great, great surprise, I've just learned that "Zorro" is the French cover of the "Along came Jones" title by the Coasters (1959)!

And eventually it should come as no surprise since the French musical scene was so pathetic during the 60s that the only way to feed the market with popular songs was to cover American hits. The most enduring one in France probably will remain "500 miles" in 1962.

But as astonished as I was to learn about the real origin of Zorro (Leiber-Stoller), how many Americans would be to learn that "My way" is originally a French song? The cover by F. Sinatra is so great that you would think it's kind of emblematic of America. And yet, it was a French song in the beginning, created by the worst disaster to ever strike the French music industry (in terms of quality). I don't give the video, this blog has certain claims in terms of decency...

Zorro is American?!? The things you learn with the Internet...

And here we go again...

Change we can believe in.

That was, I think, the Democrat candidate's slogan.

For some reason I didn't exactly believe there would be much change.

Barack Obama had a handicap vis-à-vis his Republican challenger: a majority of Americans believed he couldn't handle the responsibilities of commander in chief of the military.

So Obama had to do something about this.

Where John McCain pretended he would win both wars, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, Obama had pledged he would have most American soldiers in Iraq back home within 16 months of his mandate whereas in the same time he would send 15.000 more in Afghanistan.

Does anyone know what winning the war in Iraq or Afghanistan may ever mean?

A majority of Americans now believes going to Irak wasn't a wise thing to do and asks for a return of the troops but still, this Nation has been so thoroughly brainwashed into thinking that barbarian terrorists were out there only to destroy their country that too many Americans seem not to mind sending troops in Afghanistan. Can B. Obama say to a war thirsty country that the US will retreat from Afghanistan?

Against which army by the way? S. Hussein's army wasn't top notch by 2003 but still, there was an army. But in Afghanistan???

This whole madness reminds me of Dino Buzzati's novel, The Tartar Steppe.

Since Obama has been elected, Afghanistan has taken the place of Irak as the perfect example of a foreign policy gone awry.

So Obama has just made a shift in the deployment of the army but one way or another he carries on a war against spooks.

As a reminder, the only terrorists who ever hit America were Saudis. Not Irakis and even less Afghans.

And now this war is his.

For how long

It will soon be 9 years now that the UN has approved a military engagement of allied forces in Afghanistan. For which results so far?

The very first reason why the US decided to strike this country was because OBL was hiding there and the then "rulers" of the place refused to extradite him. The goal was to put a hand on Al Q's leader. Had OBL chosen to take refuge in the middle of Africa, this is where NATO forces would be by now.

He's still on the run and will never be captured. Didn't President Bush acknowledged once that getting OBL wasn't a priority? (March 13 2002) ("I don't know where Bin Laden is, I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority")

Out of solidarity with America after the 9/11 attacks, all its allies volunteered to participate in the war and the ongoing occupation.

Now, since catching OBL isn't a priority not even a goal of this war, many in the US -and even more in Europe- begin to wonder what's the point of all this.

Let's see:

1°) Winning hearts and minds of Muslim populations whose country is being occupied by "infidels" who want to impose their political system? Needless to say nobody believes one word of that stuff.

2°) To eradicate training camps for would be terrorists? Any derelict place in the world can be turned into a "training camp".

3°) To foster a prosperous, dynamic economy in a country that will soon embrace western values and life style? Actually, poppy crops are prosperous like they've never been before. The first market is the West.

4°) To assure the building of a reliable military ally of NATO forces? What's going on in Pakistan (the staunchest support of the Taliban regime up to 2002) shows how reliable this sort of ally can be.

5°) To sow the seeds of democracy and expect gratefulness of the locals?

There's no end in sight but nobody can admit the truth: there's no point in staying in this region of the world where the mentalities are about what they were back in the 13th century among people who hate the West and its inhabitants.

The casualties are minimal as a matter of fact but the Germans for example wonder why they've lost 42 men over there. And the Canadians may well think that 151 is too many. As for the US they've lost 1223 soldiers. For what purpose? What has been achieved after 8 years of war and occupation? What can be expected for the 5 years to come?

The Russians -who weren't exactly sissies- failed to achieve anything in Afghanistan. It's very likely that the outcome will be the same with the current NATO engagement in this place stuck between Iran and Pakistan, where about every individual (there are more than 30 million of them) is a potential enemy of the West.

Unless, of course, the real goal of this occupation is to settle even more military bases around Iran...

Peace isn't around the corner then.

The U.F.O conspiracy

 

Although totally unimportant, this whole UFO topic is another display of ethnocentrism toying with the concepts of time and space. Nothing new here although, in its current form, it has really taken off after WWII. 

I can’t remember what Kant had to say about little green men from outer space. Eventually it all boils down to the same question, although formulated in a modernized, more technologically related version: “Could I be somebody else living in another place in another time?” Those gullible enough to really believe in the possibility of visiting extraterrestrial beings are just looking for themselves in a fabricated mirror of their own. In search of their identity or their self, whatever one wants to name it.

Coincidentally, and I’m not trying to be offensive nor provocative here, the OVNI industry really started in the US and the “virus” spread from there all over the planet in the years following WWII. Communist regimes were not amused at all with this stuff which they saw as another attempt of the capitalists to distract the working masses from the real problem they had to face and the real struggles they had to lead in order to get free from the alienation the capitalists wanted to impose and maintain on them. (Methinks their analysis was right).

For those interested in the multi-dimensions problematic, may I suggest to read this entertaining little book published in 1884. It’s funny and yet very serious!

As for the rational impossibility of space travel and visitors from hundred thousands light years away from earth, there was a convincing demonstration by E. Fermi : Given the extraordinary short time-span of human life in the universe, it would take a nearly incommensurate probability (asymptotic, that is impossible) that there could be a coincidence between the moment any UFO would start their travel from a distant Galaxy and their arrival on earth (why earth?) at the moment when it is populated with our race. Any margin of, be it only some millions of years, would be totally unacceptable. Some “millions of years” are a bat of an eye in the face of a hundred thousands of light years travel.

Where I agree with the view the communists held about the UFO thingies is when I consider the millions of young people who were raised with such insanities and grew up definitely convinced with such b.s in their heads. What a waste of available intelligence!

Iraq first, then France

When the Nazis invaded France 75 years ago, I don't know what the feelings of the German people were but nowhere have I ever read there was any strong dislike (not to say hatred) against the French. The Germans were living under a dictatorship and, except for the usual minority of diehard nationalists and warmongers, there was no particular francophobia, save a bitter taste from 1918.

The Nazi propaganda did all it could to stir enmity between our two peoples, but to no avail, globally speaking the French then and now knew how to differentiate the Nazis from the Germans. We knew the Germans had been taken hostages by a criminal regime. And that any protest was met with a single ticket to KZL...

70 years later, current relationships between French and Germans are simply great, only each other's language are unfortunately wholly unknown by the other.

8 years ago, the American media in its vast majority also stirred animosity between the American people and the French one and, alas, was very successful in so doing. On the other hand, it wasn't that difficult, so strong has the underlying antiFrench sentiment been since the very beginning of the US.

And I'm afraid to say, should any warlike situation arise between the US and France (God forbid a real war) my bet is that not a minority of Americans would gleefully welcome an opportunity to smash the French to pieces. They would just think it perfectly legitimate to settle old scores with the Frogs. And probably not a tiny minority.

Sad to say but I'm afraid it reflects reality.

Marie-Antoinette in America

 There's been an exhibition held in the grand Palais in Paris two years ago, all dedicated to the life and fate of French queen Marie-Antoinette.

There were several articles in American newspapers which reminded me how this character of the XVIIIth French century seems so much to attract attention and sympathy in America.

There also was a movie by Sofia Coppola 4 years ago, and it wasn't the first one, far from it; there already was an American flick more than one century ago!

And I was wondering, why does this unfortunate queen raise such interest in America?

One may expect an English queen to be the subject of an equally attentive curiosity. But which one, save Anne Boleyn? And past English Royalties probably don't sound too sympathetic to Americans.

- A very dramatic story, good script for Hollywood, yes but what else?- Nostalgia for a time when the Ancient Régime looked like a Disney fairy tale?

- She was the wife of the French king who was on the throne when Lafayette went to the help of the American revolutionaries?

I can't see any other reason for this apparent American fondness for Marie Antoinette, something you won't find in the UK.

A former Austrian princess who became queen and who was the very image of luxury and abandon with eventually an infamous death, and all this somehow related to the very first days of the American Republic that must be it...

And now, Michelle Obama and her daughter are enjoying some vacation in Spain which inevitably calls for a certain comparison with Marie-Antoinette again in some American papers.

Here's another unexpected historical bond between France and America it seems...

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!

It is said most of us remember where we were the night the Eagle landed on the moon. For my part, I was in Germany during this month of July 1969, but this is another story...

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 a one hour long 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 were dragged into.

41 years later, I still feel embarrassed...

Doomed!

We, Europeans, are doomed. It’s written. Here. By Walter Laqueur. A rather long article meant to be a critical analysis of his latest book The last days of Europe.

The conclusion leaves no doubt: Europe not only is in decline, it is also a lost case on the world stage. Ouch!

We could object to each and every one of the arguments that are presented, but that wouldn’t get us very far. You’ll notice how the article is written in such general terms that there aren’t really any noticeable mistakes that could easily be made salient. Of course, the author was cautious enough to make it difficult to be refuted in terms of precise data. For example, he often writes “many” (immigrants) etc. What is many? How many? 

Rather, it’s all about concepts, feelings, and general ideas. You can have fun challenging some of the arguments Laqueur uses in order to make his point. There are many of them…

 

Now, let’s see. Who is Walter Laqueur? Born 89 years ago in Poland to a Jewish family who died in the Holocaust, he spent 15 years in Israel before moving to the UK and then the US. Am I being too suspicious to suspect he may bear some grudge vis-à-vis Europe in general? And that the overall tone of his book reeks very much of wishful thinking?

The main issue which is being dealt with in this article is how migration trends are changing forever (and for worse) the Europe he was used to. Now, here seems to emerge a recurring obsession among certain American circles, that of Muslim Islamism. Coming from a Jewish writer who’s spent 15 years in Israel, am I wrong in questioning the neutrality of the writer and suspecting he may have some axe to grind here?

At the end of the day, my conclusion after reading this text is that it’s nothing more than wishful thinking, expressing the underlying desire to see Europe as a model to be discarded in order to leave the place to America. According to him, the Europe that has long been considered a model and a paragon of sophistication will eventually cease to be an everlasting object of envy and fascination to America. 

Note: The painting is “Persistence of memory” by Salvador Dali.

 

We're all American

As far as I remember, the only coverage we used to get of American presidential elections up to 2000 was in July/August when there were the D/R conventions. Straw hats, zillions of flags and candidates kissing their wives and children... hardly did we know the process that had led them in this final stage.

This sort of superficial coverage is over now; it belongs to the past. Since the beginning of the last campaign (that is at least three year ago) every European knows about everything there is to know re. the caucuses, the delegates and super-delegates...

State by State we are entitled to learn how each candidate did perform, how many votes he/she has garnered, who's leading the pack, what are the chances left for each candidate etc.

I see three reasons for that overwhelming stream of information:

- Media globalisation on a scale unprecedented until now. But this isn't the main reason.
- Two unexpected candidates in the Democratic camp. A woman, a coloured man. But that isn't the main reason either.
- A world impatience to know who will get the world rid of one of the worst disastrous American President ever.

Even those among the American citizens who think the Euros despise them, should acknowledge that this world interest in the outcome of their presidential elections can be read as a sign of sympathy toward their country. Because, globally speaking, whoever is elected, that won't make any change in our everyday life. Except of course, if you're an Iranian ("Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran") used to hum McCain...)

On a side note, it will be hard for ill-informed Americans to maintain that Europeans know nothing about their political procedure.

And, in order to defuse any suspicion, I can' t see any specific complacency in the Euro media vis à vis one candidate over the others.

Worshipping

Like in every country around the world, the American population is divided between two main political trends, we all know that. Their constitution attributes to their president an exceptional status since he physically embodies the nation, the country and its inhabitants.

Thus, as a private person, the president may be loathed or admired; he's not above any criticism. But when it comes to the symbol he represents, he's next to out of reach and unassailable. Somehow, he's the American people per se. 

Yet, the respect and admiration Americans generally show toward the very image of their president (that is themselves in the end) sometimes seems rather going a bit too far.

One of the many worth visiting monuments in the US are the Mount Rushmore sculptures carved in the cliffs of South Dakota by an American sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, trained in Paris where he met the famous Auguste Rodin.

It's a great piece of work indeed and very impressive. As a matter of fact, it was meant to be so. Big is beautiful in the New World... I certainly would like to visit, should I travel over there.

But I was wondering, what's the difference with the ancient Egyptians erecting giant statutes of their gods and divinities? Or any tribe of South America or Asia regarding their leaders?

Isn't there a certain totemic relationship between the Americans and their elected president? And is the narcissistic dimension of all this lost on everyone?

Just for French readers. Can they imagine 60 foot high sculptures of Vercingétorix, Clovis, Louis XIV and Napoleon in the Alps? Having been set up there only 80 years ago?

Aftermath

We’re nearing the 9 year term of the second longest war the US has ever fought (with no end in sight) and it seems the relationship between France and America has cooled down and is back on its regular track.

Was France right or wrong to oppose the American-les war in Irak (She was right)? But never mind, this episode of our common stormy relation is all but another instalment of a unique bond that links our two countries.

Thanks to the American media in general and the Bush administration in particular, about all Americans know what the position of France was regarding the sombre decision to invade a Middle East country. But how many know what Germany’s position was? Or Russia’s and China’s ones? The same as the French but it’s mainly France and the French (notwithstanding Chirac!) which are reminded.

You’ll tell me it won’t change any American’s perception of France, save for a tiny minority of “apostates”… and you’re right. There were those who’ve always considered the French as ungrateful, treacherous, unreliable “allies” and those who’ve always looked at them as a wise, sophisticated, historically minded lot. And both groups will be sure to have been proven right!

 

What matters in the end is that, more than any other country, France stays apart in the collective mind of many Americans, for better or worse. But this particular relationship is a part of each country’s history and identity and that’s fine with me. Isn’t it more entertaining than the relations between Portugal and Canada for example?

The Stowaway

We know the prejudice related to the French among a good part of the American population. Some are positive, some are less so...

Those who indulge in French bashing or simply keep on nurturing the prejudice probably believe they do so out of their own free will and after careful examination of the issue.

They forget there was a stowaway aboard the Mayflower, whose name was: francophobia. Yes, when the pilgrims set sail towards America, they carried with them 5 centuries of enmity and prejudice vis à vis the French. Hadn't the English been invaded in 1066 and at war with France during the 100 year war, 4 centuries later? Remember Joan of Arc?

5 centuries of hostility way before the foundation of the American Republic! That's more than twice the life span of the US as an independent country...

Like it or not, American French-bashers are puppets in the hands of their former masters, the English, who are still pulling the strings beyond the centuries and beyond the waves.

And yet they should know: after nearly 1000 years, the French don't really care about the English, at least they don't pay attention to their innate francophobia. We know it's one of these weaknesses they've transported to America.

At the end of the day, the Atlantic Ocean is no more than 20 miles wide, just like the English Channel, when it comes to francophobia.

How O.B.L won the war

The definitive victory of terrorists isn’t the number of victims they actually kill in reality but the distortion of perception they induce among the masses. Zillions $ have been spent on security around the whole world to prevent terrorist acts which, in the end -save 9/11 which cannot happen twice- can kill a very limited score of people. 


Granted, some security measures are necessary (particularly in the flying business) but overall the money (by the billions, really) that is spent on totally unnecessary precautions could save thousands of people, be it used wisely to fight diseases. Or by strictly implementing the basics rules of road driving safety.

There was a ship accident 5 years ago in the New York Harbour when a tourist boat sank with 5 victims (I don’t remember exactly). It wasn’t due to terrorism so it was forgotten two days later. The captain was responsible I think. Had it be caused by a terrorist attack (why would terrorists -but some nuts- want to scull a tourist boat is beyond me) another set of draconian regulations and security and screening measures would have been implemented with bio/fingerprinting of all passengers, where they come from, their ancestors etc. etc. 

It looks like (and it is admissible, given the context) the US was all in a frantic chase of murderous terrorists some weeks after 9/11 because of a purported planned attack against indiscriminate citizens with anthrax. In the end, only 3 persons died and the whole thing petered out… That’s where lays the core raison d’être of terrorism: to alter the perception of reality and eventually change reality. Not directly but by making potential victims of terrorism change reality themselves. Out of their “free will”. In that sense, you need not to be killed or even maimed to be a victim of terrorism. 

By refusing to assess reality as it is but rather participating in the distortion of said reality by nurturing the fear factor, you simply are contributing to the terrorists’ strategy and victory. By calling to endless security measures with no end in sight you’re simply turning yourself into a terrorist. When Blair once said that we will have to live with terrorism for at least a generation this dimwit played the fear factor full steam. As did G. Bush and his war against terrorism. And when will the war come to an end? 

When these two war criminals will have left their job to more responsible leaders. 


Hummm... That's what I thought before Obama and Brown took over...