Define: hero

20070601
(answer to the question "What is a hero?")

A hero cannot be self proclaimed and has to be somehow distinguished by someone else. By whom, in which context and on what ground ? Answering to these questions will give you a fair notion of the value and durability of this distinction.

Warning : heroes in mirror are hollower than they appear. By no means can this superficial notion define a being : it is not about what you are, nor even about what you do, but about how you are perceived.

Red Blogule to the Bush system - Prevent a New War of Secession

Archives 20041101

The Republican Party is bound to lose : they either lose this election or lose their very soul. A Bush reelection would mean the success of the raid of a group of extremists on the GOP. To those who wonder how such a mob of liars, crooks, religious fanatics and extreme right madhatters could ever be reelected, remind them a man like Hugo Chavez managed to get democratically reelected earlier this year.

What would mean a Bush reelection but the risk of a political war of secession across the US ? Moderate Reps and Dems could unite in the Resistance. Whole states could refuse more extremist laws or worse fully comply to them. History proves any people can regress into fascism and never since McCarthy-Hoover has this country been so dangerously close to it - we're not talking neibourhood watch militia : remember Patriot Act I encourages denouncement and Patriot Act II would legalize the deportation of US citizens. Can America afford four more years of Kind Dubya, Lord of the Banana Republic of the Divided States of America ? Beyond the man, there is a system of negation of what made this country a great country respected across the globe. What would History think of a people who decides to keep them in power ?

This can be prevented : America must wake up on time and elect a President who respects the values of this country. Vote Kerry.

SM on a forum

White Blogule to the Republicans for Kerry-Edwards

Archives 20041026

To me this election mirrors the fight on terror.

Regarding the latter, Bush doesn't understand (or pretends not to understand) this is not a religious war between America and the terrorists but a war from radical islamists to moderate muslims. The US have been drafted in order to magnify it but I don't think Bin Laden, even in his wildest dreams, ever hoped America would react as stupidly as this Administration did: instead of fighting extremism and terror they fueled it by launching a religious crusade - the way a medieval leader would have proceeded, not a responsible XXIst century leader.

Regarding this election, the key battle is not about Reps vs Dems: we are witnessing an attempted coup of extremists on the GOP, against moderate Republicans. Should Bush win November the 2nd, there may well be a much deeper crisis within the Republican party than within the Dems, who would unite even stronger as Resistants. Because the Republican Party would lose - if not this election, more fundamentally its very soul.

Kerry proved he has the ability to work hand in hand with Republicans because he is the one candidate to respect the values that built America, and most Republicans share this vision.

You are a Republican and you want to vote for Kerry but you are wondering if it is consistent ? It is, since President Bush is not a Republican. He doesn't respect the Republic (the res publica is about accepting the debate, bringing the issues out there, not about hidden agendas, undiscussed laws, preventing even Republicans from knowing what's going on...) nor the values that earned this country respect from its citizens as well as from other countries. As a Republican, you have a moral duty to protect your country. And the biggest danger it is facing right now is not terror but about the direction it is about to take, about it's very leadership. You are making the right choice for a true Republican.

SM on a forum

Red Blogule to this "pro-life" President - Stem cells : who's the murderer ?

Archives 20041023

Somebody tell me why this "pro-life" President, so much eager to protect life in the form of embryos, is the biggest supporter of death penalty and holds the record for executions in the US.

Somebody tell me why this man, who says every tiny cell counts, doesn't show any remorse when soldiers die because of his failures or kids are slaughtered during his massive bombings to smoke Zarkawi out before November the 2nd.

Somebody tell me why this imposteur, who dares say he defends the values that built America, should even have the slightest chance of fooling the electors once more.

Wake up America !

SM on a forum

White Blogule - putting more pressure on Dubya for debate 2

20041004

(discussion between prez debates 1 and 2)

Homeland security is one thing, homegrown propaganda another. Kerry should expose W in next debate.

Last thursday, John made a strong point remembering Osama was the one who did 9/11, not Saddam. He has one more move to do in order to complete the home run on this issue.Let's make it clear, with the bold facts :
- because of the Weapons of Mass Disinformation carpeting the US since 9/11, too many US citizen still believe there was a link between Iraq and 9/11
- the intelligence cannot be blamed since the only tiny thread (a meeting in Baghdad) was very early confirmed as a fake by the US as well as by European and Middle East intel services
- the Veep keeps telling lies about it
- the Prez did admit something but not wholeheartedly, and even now keeps leaking fake lapses (oops, did it again during debate 1 - too bad a smart man was in the audience and had the opportunity to talk back)

Here and now, during this very debate and in the name of truth, let Kerry ask Bush to confirm he was wrong when he said there was a link between Saddam and 9/11, and that Dick Cheney, the man who would be President if anything happened to him, is wrong when he maintains it. Now regarding the way this Administration is defending the US : the strategy is totally counterproductive. It is the way a fascist regime would proceed : isolating the country from its partners, depriving citizens from freedom and raising fear across the land with people as respectful of democracy as Hoover or McCarthy, exporting chaos and fueling terrorism abroad and at home with a crusade in the name of God...

The question is not what President Kerry could do to improve this arsenal, but how long it will take for America to fix the mess and restore its pride.

Bush fails to defend the US because he fails to respect its values. He is corrupting America from the inside and should not be allowed to do more harm at the command of the country...

SM on a forum

White Blogule to the first US Prez debate - Masks off

Archives 20041004

Thursday's debate revealed both candidates as they truly are : an honest man guided by a strong personal ambition but also the values that built America, and a man less and less able to hide his own limits and contradictions.

The thing is the one who doubts is not the one you may think : while Kerry decides after a long decision process but never compromises on values, Bush doubts more fundamentally about himself. His own lies don't fool him anymore and he knows his so called values are just one more set of lies.

For over one year now George W. Bush has been betrayed by his body language : the more the man insists on his confidence, the more his body screams the opposite. Last thursday, this lonely man looked like the tragic buffon success has abandoned. Beyond the loss of the debate (how could a man who refuses the very idea of debate win ?), Bush seems lost for good.

Can his staff manage a spectacular turnaround before next debate - any other way than with more lies in more coward ads that is ? I can't even dare imagining how deep in the mud Karl Rove will have to dig this time...

SM on a forum

White Blogule to the preparation of the debates - Reality check

Archives 20040910 (see blogules 2004)

(discussion about "how would YOU attack Bush?")

I would attack Bush on what are supposed to be his strongest points :

. He is amoral and would do anything to win
.His decision making is catastrophic
.He is not compassionate but makes show of his fake compassion
.He is not clean. He may have recovered from booze and dope but is still badly addicted to power
.He is not even Republican. Not a Dem either. The guy just wishes he were a dictator
.He is not for this space and time. You could find fundamentalist rulers back in the Middle Age, but Bush is the worst man at the worst place at the worst time
.He is not a strong leader. His weakness shows on how he behaves, how he speaks. Body language doesn't lie. Deep inside, he knows he is a fake.

SM on a forum

White Blogule to Kerry's biting back - Wake up call

Archives 20040904

Now this is closer to the wake up call I've been expecting for America !

Wake up, wake up, wake up, everybody!!!

Wake up and look back at what this self-proclaimed "compassionate leader" (doesn't it sound north korean to you?) did of your country at home and abroad!

Wake up and respect the world you live in - only then could you be proud again!

Wake up and unite to restore the values your country was built on!

Let's expose the true Bush and the true Kerry to the public. Man to man. No man to mean old Karl.

SM on a forum

Red Blogule to Bush's doubletalk

Archives 20040829 (see blogules 2004)

Bush never flipflops. He is always the same self : a dangerous demagogist using whatever words are needed to win. If he always told what he thinks, he would reveal himself as he truly is : a stubborn again Christian, a power abuser, an amoral wannabe who by mistake or theft somehow managed to become the most powerful person in the world. And who now is doing whatever it takes to fool us 4 more years.

SM on a forum

White Blogule to the Young Republicans - Young Republicans Denounce Bush

20040824 (see blogules 2004)

Once again, in George Bush's Divided States of America, the great divide is not between Republicans and Democrats, but between the people who respect democracy and the republic on one side, and this very Bush Administration on the other one.

The wake up call from the young generation of Republicans exposed in this article is great news for the Republican Party, but also American politics in general. The John-John ticket should rejoice as well:
"Sunday, Aug. 22, 2004 - Earlier this month, a group of students met in Washington to bash George W. Bush, debate the power of multinational corporations and hear a speaker who denounced the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and stricter airport security. A leader of these college kids calls them "the new counterculture", but here's the thing: they aren't liberals. The 185 students were in Washington to attend the 26th annual National Conservative Student Conference."

From "The Right's New Wing", an article by John Cloud in Time Magazine.

SM on a forum

Red Blogule to neo-fascists - LET'S FACE IT THEY'RE FASCISTS

Archives 20040527-0602 (see blogules 2004)

(Disinfopedia discussion about the definition of "neo-cons" - "formerly liberals, now conservatives" ? should they be called "imperialists" instead ?)

"Neo" is too positive a prefix for such a medieval mob. Strangely enough, the "neo-cons" hate the liberals just like the Nazis hated (among too many others) the socialists and communists. And the word "Nazi" comes from National Socialism...

As far as I'm concerned, I'd dub them "fascists" rather than "imperialists". Such is fascism as defined by Benito Mussolini himself in 1932 (note that there is also a reference to imperialism...) :

• Definition of Fascism by Benito Mussolini - 1932 (Source Fordham.edu)


• . "Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death"...


• . "Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; its denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immuable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage. (...) Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress."...


• . "The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results : on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State"...


• . "The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone"...


• . "For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialists; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands disciplin, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice; this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it"...

Doesn't it ring any (alarm) bell ?

SM on Disinfopedia
(NB : this blogule led to a massive diffusion of literature comparing Bush and Benito)

Bases are loaded, folks. "The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom". And we shall dub this "The Patriot Act".
Oh yes it's good to be the king, ooh la la

Q : who released those two unforgettable quotes ?
. 'I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel I owe anybody* an explanation."

. "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it".

A : George W Bush aka King Dubya from The Banana Republic of The Divided States of America. Someone who never flip-flops when high moral standards are required (still dodging after all these years).

* Anybody ? How about the American people ? Duh ! I forgot you don't owe them anything since they didn't elect you...

What, me worry?
Totally Mad!

Red Blogule to the Abu Ghraib mess - OUTLAWS AND DISORDER

Archives 20040428 (see blogules 2004)

The attack on Iraq ? Illegal.The Guantanamo extravaganza ? The negation of human rights.The pressures against the moderate international nations ? What you'd expect from mobsters.The constant, unrepentant and unpunited disinformation, cover-up and censorship in the media ? Back to the Hoover-Mc Carthy era folks....The outrages in the Iraqi prisons and the growing anger against America ? Nothing to wonder about given the example from above.

SM

Red Blogule to fundamenstalists - History will remember this surge in fundamentalism

Archives 20040428 (see blogules 2004)

What irritates me most about Iraq is not the fact everything was foreseeable (except the US public opinion harrassed by Weapons of Mass Disinformation, no one was actually deceived). It is the fact a great part of strategical mistakes were not mistakes but actual clear-headed-cold-blodded choices.

History will remember this troubled era when fundamentalists held the power and/or the media simultaneously in the Middle-East, in Israel and in the US, feeding each other with their radical ideologies. It is high time to remove the leaders that can be removed and it is high time for each religion to speak aloud and expose their values of tolerance and respect. Democracy gives opportunities to both the US and Israel, Christianism has one leader who can - at times - speak for his church, but there is no equivalent for Islam. Saudi Arabia could play a positive role... once they kick the wahabbits, that is.

Let us remember the worst enemies of al Qaeda are not the US (right now Bush is actually their best ally), but moderate muslims whose only weapon is speech and most of the time don't have any license to carry such a dangerous weapon.

SM

Red Blogule to the so called "war on terror" - Are you better off ?

Archives 20040419 (see blogules 2004)

"Are you better off now than back in 2000?" Any terrorist - even talibans - would answer "yes" without any shadow of a doubt. George W Bush is an insult to the values that built America. He isn't waging any war on terror but for it...

- "Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement". George W Bush - 20030501

- "Four years of lies and intimidation could not make the US people love their President or desire their own humiliation". US Voters - 20041102

SM

Red Blogule to Bush's Hidden Agenda - The Dark Ages Of BC00

20040428 (see blogules 2004)

America can avoid collapsing deeper into the dark ages of BC04. Let's remind the public what BC00 was supposed to be all about, let's cite some quotes from Dubya's lovely coronation speech, let's talk "hidden agenda".

How can you trust someone who hides what he is doing, even to his fellow Republicans (Congress) ? Maybe Bush is not a Republican. Republic is about "res publica" - the public thing, debating in public...

The beauty of it is Bush is an adversary to his own camp and you should leverage on it. Many Republicans do not feel comfortable with the way he behaves and this vote is about restoring the democratical debate, ways beyond the usual donkey vs dumbo battle. Bringing America back on tracks. United we stand, but not against each other.

From History's point of view, Bush may become to the Republican Party what Hoover was to the FBI : the man who turned his house into a powerhouse but cast some shame on it as well, exposing the worst of it.

From France with hope.

SM on a forum