How American lesbians perverted hitherto honest and decent French women

As seen from America, France and specifically Paris have long been considered a cauldron of vice, lust, lewdness, debauchery and perversion.

Wasn't! This is an urban legend. French women in particular (who were shy and innocent persons) have a dreadful reputation in the eyes of America whereas it's an American woman who was at the root of all evil.

Have you ever heard of Nathalie Clifford Barney who may well be considered the serial killer of sapphism? Among her many friends were Renée Vivien, Liane de Pougy, Romaine Brooks, Elisabeth de Grammond, Dolly Wilde (the niece of Oscar), Emma Calvé, Colette, Lucie Delarue-Mardrus, Djuna Barnes and on and on and on...

Although the most prominent of them all, Nathalie Clifford Barney wasn't the only American lesbian  in Paris since you could also mention Janet Flanner, Margareth Anderson who had a liaison with Georgette Leblanc, Solita Solano...

Actually, Nathalie Clifford Barney may be viewed as the harbinger of what was to become the trademark of Paris as the place of devilish sexual depravity in the eyes of Americans back home. And yet, Clifford Barney's souvenir has been shadowed by another American lesbian who arrived in Paris ten years later.

An educated and talented woman, Gertrude Stein already possessed all the prerequisites that would allow her to be introduced among the intellectual Parisian elite of arts and literature. Her relationship with Alice B. Toklas lasted until Stein died in 1947. Theirs was the most famous lesbian couple of that time and as everyone knows they were at the center of the American artistic community in Paris from the 20s to 1940.

Now the point of the post of course in not to make a comprehensive list of all these women but rather to underline how important they were at that time for the artistic world in Paris and how their lives definitively identified the presence of America in France during the first half of the XXth century.

To my knowledge, these Americans were much more influential than French lesbians may have been during all these years and also, it looks like these women seduced many more French women than the other way round.

As written at the beginning of the post, hitherto French women were innocent lambs.  But again, what do I know?

Who the real musicians are

This video of Oscar Peterson playing Yesterday of Paul MacCartney is an example among dozens of other titles by the Beatles covered by the greatest names of the American jazz scene.

I remember Ella Fitzgerald singing Can't buy me love which has a powerful swing in it. Count Basie also played one title of the Fab Four (although I can't remember which it was), not to forget Ray Charles (Yesterday and Eleanor Rigby) and Franck Sinatra as well, singing Something by George Harrison.

Also we have Joan Baez singing Eleanor Rigby and Aretha Franklin doing the same here.

There are certainly many, many other American artists (Elvis, but he may have been a good performer and singer, he's not particularly remembered as a musician)  who covered many titles written by Paul and John, simply no name comes to mind at the moment.

This long list in order to make a comparison with the Rolling Stones (yeah, I'm not dealing with metaphysics here) who may be great performers but, IMHO, are poor musicians when it comes to composing.

Apart Ruby Tuesday, Lady Jane and Sitting on a fence which all have tremendous melodic lines, most of the songs by the Stones are shallow musicalywise.

Don't get me wrong here: Honky Tonk Woman, Sympathy for the devil, Jumping Jack Flash, Gimme me shelter and many others are really exciting tunes to listen to but where's the melody?

That may be the reason why the Beatles' songs were so many times covered by American musicians since, for what I know, Americans are impressively good at writing beautiful melodies. Listen to this for example...

Think of Bing Crosby, Irving Berlin, Nat King Cole and so many others.

So sorry but when it comes to compose beautiful melodies (notwithstanding the harmonies and variety of instruments) the Beatles beat the Stones hands down!

A lost cause from the beginning

There was Another article some times ago in the NYT about the Afghan war.

The readers' comments are worth reading as usual. Although I haven't read all of them, an overwhelming majority calls for America to withdraw out of that absurd, insane, neo-colonial  military entanglement with no chance to achieve anything whatsoever but final disaster.

I have written several posts about this in the past such as here, here here and here again. 

Save for a tiny minority of Europeans and Americans diehard warmongers or those gullible enough to believe in the politicians' outright lies, a vast majority of the American as well as European people demand and end to this sheer madness.

To no avail of course since people have no say in any matter in our so-called democratic countries...

The Germans, the French can't stand that their countries are involved in that far away land which has no connection to them. But the media, particularly in France, have decided not to play any role in  conveying the French people opposition, as these media have long renounced to play their part as fourth power.  

And after all, only 50 French soldiers have been killed over there, which is insignificant after 8 years on the ground.

Since the economic crisis is striking everywhere next to everybody, the war by far is not a major concern for Europeans and yet, how much do the costs of this war weigh on our economies?

E la nave va...Gods of all civilisations are speechless in front of human stupidity! Only when they'll decide to put an end to the lunacies of their creatures will wars no longer happen on earth.

Except that there are no gods!

Laozi and the witch

I don't know much about American history but it seems immigrants arrived in this country with no expectation at all about the help the American State could provide for them. As a matter of fact, the very concept of "State" seems to be somehow eerie to most Americans who refer to the Government where Europeans -and the rest of the world for that matter- would refer to their respective State.

As we all know, the global historical mistrust of any too big political entity in America is reflected in the philosophical opposition between statism and minarchism. That fundamental dividing line between these two approaches of how a country should be run was most famously exemplified by R. Reagan's slogan:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem

As written above, I don't know much about American history and politics but eventually I've come to the understanding that Republicans are more favorable to minarchism than their Democrat opponents.

There's now been some 2 years or so that a recent political trend in the US has emerged which seems to be even more demanding than the Rep re the need for less State (aka Marxism) and more "let the people free to live their lives without Government entanglement".

Whether they know it or not, these people in fact are giving a second life to a very old and basic concept of Chinese Taoism which is known as Wu wei. The core meaning of this concept is rather complex and hard to precisely define (we're talking about China here) but yet can be summed up as a means to restrain the prince from abuse of power, enjoining him to 'do' as little as possible.

For what I understand of the Tea Party movt, isn't it exactly what they expect from the people in Washington: Stop meddling in our private lives and get your dirty hands off our country!

I missed much of the story but I kinda understand that a certain Christine O'Donnell, more or less a prominent figure of the Tea Party, admitted she practised witchcraft as a teenager. Although her positions on sexuality aren't exactly sync with taoist sexual practices, she nonetheless actively and forcefully promotes a Chinese political theory in the United States of America.

After I've so often read so many Americans complaining that their country has been outsourcing most of the industrial jobs to China, the question arises now: Isn't Christine O'Donnell a leading member of the Chinese fifth column in the US whose ultimate goal is to bring America down to her knees?

Who would have thought that 2.500 years after he died Laozi's philosophy would be propagated on the other side of the earth by an American witch?

He's a she

 

After years of soul searching I now know (until my neurons evaporate) that the United States is a singular subject which must then be conjugated accordingly.

This leads us to a typically light topic: What is the gender of the 50 American States in French or other European languages?

A quick look at Wiki and we come back with the following result: 8 of the 50 American states are considered feminine in gender (in French) regarding their names and the way they must be conjugated.

California,

Carolina (North and South)

Florida,

Georgia, 

Louisiana,

Pennsylvania

Virginia,

Suffice to look at the last letter of each one and you can't be mistaken that the a ending is indicative of a Latin root. Which doesn't explain much since 12 other States also end with an a.

Alabama,

Alaska,

Arizona,

Dakota (north and south)

Iowa,

Indiana,

Minnesota,

Montana,

Nebraska,

Nevada,

Utah.

Hmmmm… looks like I need a linguist's expertise here since many names have their roots in the native's own names for their territories. Maybe did the colonists adapt the original Indian names to a more European educated-sounding tune. 

Another wild guess: Save for Pennsylvania, all these names are girl first names in French (Virginie, Caroline, Louis/Louise) or Spanish.

My attention was called upon this rather unimportant matter a dozen years ago about California since that was, at the time, the only State that came to my mind as being feminine in French. The answer I got then was referring to a Spanish novel and I left it to it.

But here you'll find a much comprehensive article regarding the origin of the name California.

I suppose you'll find similar articles on Wiki a propos all American States whether they bear a "feminine" name or not.

I haven't furthered the research in German, Polish or Italian but hey, if you feel like...

Rip Van Winkle

It's been such a long time that I've heard about this short story by W. Irving that I had to read it. Mission accomplished and I can't say that was the literary experience of my life. A nice bucolic little story it may be but that can have some importance for American readers only methinks.

It's all about the symbol of the birth of America or rather, the transition from a British colony to an independent state which led to the unaltered identity of the American citizens per se.

I gather it must be some mandatory reading in American schools (or is it?) and the only reason why a foreigner would read this piece is because he's/she's interested in American culture, history and literature which is my case then.

I didn't do any serious research but I believe the action is supposed to have taken place between, say, 1766 and 1786.

There's something which didn't fail to arise my curiosity and it's the name of the main character. He's a descendant of the Dutch settlers and in his name I can read blink, wink, and wrinkle. Come to think of it, all these words are Time-related whether be it about its brevity or, on the contrary, its length which is the condition for wrinkles to appear.

Did Washington Irving choose this name on purpose or did the inner dynamic of language do the trick for him? True to say, there are so many possibilities with the English language that it seems any word-clustery is likely.

And also, did the author chose the first name of his caracter, Rip, at random or is it legitimate to read Rest In Peace, you former subject of his majesty king George the third?

Well, at least I know who Rip van Winkle was and why he's so often referred to in the US. Even Thoreau in his Civil Desobedience  (1849) mentions him 30 years after the story of Rip van Winkle was published.

(On a side note it's worth noticing that the Wiki articles about Rip and Thoreau are both classified as quality articles respectively in German and French but not in English)

Purported early French anti-Americanism

At the height of the anti-French frenzy led by the American MSM from 2003 up to 2007 the name of Comte Georges Buffon was often mentioned as evidence of historical French anti-Americanism. 

The reason why Buffon was associated with this canard of naturally born French anti-Americanism was to be found in his major work l'Histoire naturelle, published between 1749 and 1789 (8 years after he died). In this very popular encyclopaedia, Buffon wrote some passages where he described the natural world in America as much inferior in size and abilities to the European one.

Needless to say, this book was very favourably received when it was published in the US in 2005. At long last, a Frenchman validated the American certitude of yesteryears about the natural anti-Americanism of the French.

Now, to use Buffon's work as evidence of early French anti-Americanism as Philippe Roger did in his book The American enemy is beyond common sense. At least he found a niche...

- Everybody knows how unscientific Buffon was.

- He wrote his book before the US was even born as an independent state.

- He merely exposed the Eurocentrism of nearly each and every "scientist" in this field of research  in the XVIIIth century.

- When he wrote his Histoire naturelle, a third of the land known as America belonged to the French as we can see here and here. Why would have Buffon written something deliberately disparaging about Americans (e.g. white immigrants) whereas he was writing about the natives, save for his European bias and unscientific approach of the issues at stake?

The reproach holds true, IMHO for Sophie Meunier and Denis Lacorne who both fall in the same trap, that is mentioning Buffon as evidence of early French anti-Americanism.

Modern Americans taking at face value the use of Buffon's work as evidence of very early French anti-Americanism are being misled to say the least.

The same "accusation" of early anti-Americanism can be made against Stendhal for example. I remember reading something about the omnipotence of the dollar in his preface to the Italian chronicles. It may be understood as early anti-Americanism. It also may be a good opportunity to remember that in those times the American population Stendhal was referring to was mostly composed of European immigrants. And not exactly the upper crust of the society. Mainly peasants and traders, poor people from Scandinavia, Ireland or Poland, gold rushers etc… 

The US was seen by many Europeans as an exit strategy after the crimes they may have committed in their respective lands. The country was a limitless space open to all sorts of adventure to people who certainly didn’t belong to the European circles were hand-kissing was practiced. 

Ever heard of the Loterie du lingot d'or? The thousands of French who were sent to California weren’t used to hand-kissing according to all probabilities since the settlers in XIXth century weren’t exactly adept at this social behaviour when they were still living in Europe. Just like the first British sent to populate Australia were'nt scions of the English aristocracy.

So, to make a long story short, maybe Stendhal (among others) was critical of these Europeans who were emigrating rather of Americans per se, that is those with 3 or 4 generations behind them on American soil. In that case they were mostly English descendants from a nation of shopkeepers as you know (cf. Napoleon). 

Having fun

Although they've been dominating the world of entertainment since the earty 20s, not all American comedians or artists did it out of America. Dany Kaye, Deanna Durbin, Abbott and Costello come to mind and many other thousands I don't know of by definition. 

Among them is the trio known as the Three Stooges which I thought were British the first time I heard of them. I guess Laurel and Hardy were too much of an act to let The three Stooges have their chance on the world scene.

Here is a short I chose at random but someone may propose another one deemed funnier, I have no idea.
 


 
And here is a French episode of the Un gars/Une fille tv serial which I am a fan of. This one must be my favorite...

Out of touch

There was an editorial the other day in the New York Times about the proposed banning of the Islamic veil in France.

The one who wrote this piece seems to have absolutely no clues about what's at stake here and what the real issues are.

Here we have another display of total ignorance of the local context and another opportunity to teach others how they should behave and legislate in accordance with American values.

"Freedom, Freedom" is once again the spearhead slogan we hear coming from the US when the same country (like any other) knows perfectly how to toy with its own values (including freedom) when it sees it fit. Need I say more?

I can't wait to read the editorial in the N.Y T when the streets of New York will be criss-crossed by hundreds of women wearing the Islamic veil.

Or when the media will report that some guy in an airplane will have had a fit of panic because he was seating next to someone wearing the burka... Now, I even wonder if the American security services would allow a ghost-woman to board into a plane flying from Detroit to Minneapolis.

There's quite a number of articles on the same topic.

(Seems that a fair majority of American readers favour this planned banning)

Jews on high seas

Whether R or D, every American administration since the end of WWII has had one intangible dogma in foreign policy : unconditional support to the State of Israel, through thick and thin and whatever the cost.

And yet, it hasn't always been the case.

Up to 1944, Jews were immigrants like  all others, coming mainly from Europe, more precisely from the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They later arrived from Greece, Poland, Germany but very few from France. One may wonder why, since it's so evident according to the American MSM that France is a hotbed of anti-Semitism...

They were accepted as immigrants like everyone was, not because they were Jewish but because America had a vital need for an ever increased number of individuals in order to populate her such large territory.

In their vast majority, Americans are all in favour of the Jews. Nothing wrong with that but how much do they know about the dramatic fate of the Jews fleeing the Nazi persecutions aboard the MS St. Louis (1939)

The Jews aboard were denied entry on US soil and had to be returned to Europe, in the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and... France, yes, this most horrific anti-Semite country. 224 of them were allowed to disembark in France when the US turned them down!!!

The official American stance about Jews began changing with F.D. Roosevelt in 1944 and, the year after, with the discovery of the concentration camps and the Holocaust.

Back home, the Jewish organisations, communities, committees, fund raisers etc. then undertook a program of sensibilisation to the peculiar situation of the Jews, both towards the political and economical elite and the American people.

By mean of guilt, entrism (by 1940 there were about 3 millions Jews in the US), subliminal identification process between Americans who, in the first place, were refugees from European religious intolerance and the Jews who also were persecuted in Europe for their faith, using another analogy between the chosen people and the manifest destiny, the Jewish community succeeded into pressing the US to put on the UN agenda the creation of a specifically Jewish State.

Then there was this movie, Exodus (1960) by O. Preminger based on a novel by Leon Uris (look for yourself what his origins were), were it was plain to see that we were witnessing a revival of the Mayflower odyssey, with persecuted people in search of the promised land.

Like the former American colonials, the Jews had to start to build a nation from scratch, in lands stolen to Arabs who then became their arch enemies. Can't anybody see this other analogy with how Americans proceeded during the American Old West period, chasing the Native Indians into Indians reservations?

After so many parallels were set up between the Americans and the Jewish people, how could one wonder why Americans, by and large, consider the Jews like their closest allies, the ones they have the duty to protect, both peoples being so religious and tied to each others by so many bonds?

How grateful the Israelis have been!!! How many Americans remember or even know about what happened to the USS Liberty?

From which other country Americans would have tolerated such an act of war? Iran?

Israelis said it was a mistake. Strangely enough, the American Navy didn't believe one word of the Israeli version.

Information abound on this matter like here with the subsequent links.

And to top it all, the Israelis regularly send spies in the US.

Yet, there are anti-Semite factions in the US, like the American Nazi Party.

60 years after the Jewish comunity took hold of the State Department and has imposed its doxa to the American MSM, no wonder America is now so tied to Israel's interest that she has lost all credibility in the M.E  as a potential peace-broker.

Guns don't kill people, people do

Well, you know the line, it’s the motto devised by the NRA, the famous peace and love club.




First time I heard it I admit I was taken aback and couldn’t help thinking, well, sounds true in the end. And yet, I knew there was a hitch but where was it hidden?

Let's see how it works in other situations.

- It’s not the saw that cuts the branch of the tree it’s the one who uses the saw. Huh? And if he has no saw? Well he’ll use an axe. But if he has no tool can he cut the branch? Humm… obviously not, he needs some kind of device but he alone can’t do anything. There’s interdependency between both a tool and someone to use it.

Not really convincing still.

- Let’s try with something else:

It’s not the plane which flies, it’s the pilot who makes it fly.

Hummm… I feel there’s some kind of trick here.

- Sugar doesn’t cause diabetes, it’s the one who eats sugar.
- Tobacco doesn’t cause cancer, it’s the one who smokes.

And on and on and on…

It’s very confusing really because at first glance you can’t dismiss the apparent logic of the line.

Now, let’s have a look at Aristotle and his notorious 4 causes.

Isn’t it clearer now that when someone came with the line we’re discussing he actually constructed a sentence with 2 final causes included?

The gun is the final cause because it has been designed and manufactured in order to kill and nothing else. It’s a tool like any other one.

Man is the efficient cause because without him there would be neither guns nor any other tools.

Each tool has been conceived with one specific goal, the ultimate goal of the gun being to kill whereas the man wasn’t born to kill (well, for some happy-triggers you may wonder indeed).

Here lies the trick then: To artificially put on the same level the man and the tool (here the gun) he fabricated, e.g. to hop over the efficient cause in order to have 2 final causes in the same sentence, which is logically impossible since it comes down to circular thinking. A = B then B = A. Well, great... and where do we go with that?

Plutôt que de recourir à la logique classique, essayons autre chose: la réfutation par l'absurde (ad absurdum)

The NRA mantra is basically a trivial tautology. Of course, without men tools are ineffective (be it a saw, a hammer or a submarine). Well, this is sheer common sense and pure tautology.

If guns didn't kill people, criminals could resort on the sole lethal power of their frightful look. But it's inefficient so they use the tool most effective to accomplish their wishes.

Some try by throwing balls made of paper but it doesn't really work. And yet they do try hard... It's not the will only that kills people, it's the tool, e.g. the guns which raison d'être is to kill.

If guns don't kill people then I'm happy to learn that Abe Lincoln didn't die because a bullet smashed his head off. And the same goes for Kennedy. Bullets didn't cause their death I'm told, just the will of the murderers.

Ca tient de la transmission de pensée là...

Since we're at it, how many Americans are shot before they can react and kill the would-be killers? I have a feeling there are more innocent victims than the other way round like we've seen again no later than three weeks ago in Connecticut.

- If guns don't kill people but people do, why didn't William Calley, convicted as a war criminal by the US judiciary, end his life behind the bars?

As I wrote above, will doesn't suffice to kill, a tool is necessary, be it a chainsaw, a gun or an iron bar.

If not, then P. Tibbets is personally responsible for the death of 80.000 Japanese, not the atom bomb.

The guys who turned the taps open are personally responsible for the death of 6 million Jews, not Zyklon B.

The American pilots who dropped million tons of napalm in Vietnam are personally responsible for the death of, say, one million Vietnamese, not the bombs. Unless it was R. McNamara who wasn't even in the planes over Vietnam.

There has been an earthquake last January in Haiti. If we admit the logics of the NRA line, whose will is behind the 250.000 dead in Haiti? The tectonic plates (as weapons) or... God himself who created all things on earth?

En fait ce slogan de la NRA n'a d'autre raison d'être que de donner bonne conscience et déresponsabiliser les clients des armureries du pays. Il faut faire marcher le commerce et une bonne accroche marketing logiquement trompeuse légitime moralement ce commerce.

On the other hand, if many Americans want to shoot at each others it's none of my bloody business, is it?

Molière in Bulgaria

After their ordeal lasted over 8 years, the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian GP have finally been freed three years ago. We all know what kind of person Kadhafi is, there's no need to dwell on the matter.

Yet, I've always had the feeling that the nurses -although totally innocent of the crimes they were accused of- had their share of responsibility in what they had to endure. In the sense that our acts and choices engage our responsibility.

When the nurses went to Lybia in 1998, it was ten years after the Lockerbie terrorist attack which was ultimately attributed to the Libyan secret services, e.g. to Kadhafi. Even if there are some doubts about the real responsibility of the carnage, it remains that the Libyan leader is a dictator whose record is undisputed. Particularly among the French who had to wage war against the libyan forces.

Hadn't the nurses ever heard of Kadhafi and who he was and what he was up to when they decided to go to Libya to make more money? Didn't they have no qualms? You'll tell me they did it for the Libyan children. But isn't there enough to do in Bulgaria or neighbouring Romania for children?

Do you remember Les Fourberies de Scapin by Molière? Particularly this tirade by Géronte, Act II, scene 7: "What the devil was he doing in that galley?.

The teaching of Les Fourberies de Scapin should be made compulsory in Bulgaria!

On a side note, Americans know how their country had to deal with Libya since its very first days. It's called the First barbary war. It is remembered in the two first lines of the Marines' hymn:

"From the halls of Montezuma

To the shore of Tripoli"...

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.