Archives mensuelles : mars 2019

Impunité (suite) : doctrine de la foi DANS TON CUL, vieille truie !

L. Ladaria Ferrer, préfet de la congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi

Chez ces gens-là, ma bonne dame, la perversion est immanente !…

« Selon des sources ecclésiastiques, le cardinal Barbarin, contrairement à ce qu’il avait évoqué après sa rencontre avec le pape, ne s’est pas retiré dans un monastère. En réalité, il demeurerait toujours à l’archevêché, compliquant grandement la situation au quotidien. «Son agenda est plein pour les trois mois à venir», précise à Libération un prêtre de la région.

Sachant qu’à la mi-avril doivent se tenir les grandes célébrations de la semaine de Pâques, l’incertitude perdure sur le fait de savoir si l’archevêque de Lyon les présidera lui-même ou non. Sa présence pourrait constituer un casus belli chez ses opposants. »

Résumé : Ladaria Ferrer a refusé de livrer un pédoprédateur en soutane à la justice des hommes. Mais c’est au nom de traités internationaux politiques étrangers à Dieu qu’il se soustrait à son obligation morale. Conclusion : Ladaria Ferrer est vide de tout principe. Sa doctrine, c’est le néant !

Catégories : Catégorie 0 | Étiquettes : , | Poster un commentaire

Dis, Brigitte, il te faut une carotte dans le cul pour que t’avances ?

Brigitte Jullien, directrice centrale de l’IGPN


Catégories : Uncategorized | Poster un commentaire

D’une forme de « despotisme doux » à une ‘milice républicaine’ criminelle…

« Le 5 janvier, à Toulon, le commandant Didier Andrieux a frappé plusieurs fois des manifestants, au mépris des règles de maintien de l’ordre selon de nouvelles vidéos obtenues par Mediapart. »

Catégories : Politique / Société | Étiquettes : , , , , , , , , | Poster un commentaire

As Sheldon Adelson would say : « shalom ! »

When someone equates Omar with Trump, we must call it out ! When some politician exposes one of his colleagues to an even greater threat, we must call it out !

Thou shalt show thy ثدي, Jeanine. For showing thy ثدي shall set thee free !

red stick

Catégories : Catégorie 0 | Poster un commentaire

Catégories : Musiques | Poster un commentaire

P. Blanchard & associates

No attempt to recover the women’s identities or contact their descendants was made by the authors of the picture book.

Catégories : Catégorie 0 | Poster un commentaire

Out of the mouth of babes comes truth…

The past two years have left the Republic devastated. Not a single one of its institutions – not even the Supreme Court – has been spared by the relentless gothamization of U.S. political discourse. In every possible field of political activity, ethics has been turned upside down methodically. Yet, none of this should matter when it comes to the Mueller report…

Let us put aside for a moment the fact that no one but the newly-appointed AG and his entourage has yet been allowed to read the report in extenso. Let us even imagine Barr’s 4-page memo somehow manages to faithfully render the substance and nuances of Mueller’s 300+-page brief. How could any sane adult ever consider this entire exercise of collective psychology, which laid the ground for a cathartic regeneration, a palingenesis even, could ever be disconnected from the political context in which it was conceived ?

Ensor, The Intrigue (1890)

After hearing Trump gloat about “total exoneration”, Monica Lewinsky was among the first to react to the anti-climactic ‘news’ that must have, by signaling the end of the extended barking session, triggered Rachel Maddow’s biggest existential disappointment. Replying to another tweet, she basically regretted Janet Reno proved to be much less of a Golem than William Barr, implying that if Clinton’s AG had kept the Ken Starr report to herself, there would probably have been no impeachment procedure at the time. In other words, she depicts Barr’s decision as being essentially politically motivated, which it is of course. But she could have gone much further…

Whether the resurgent – mainly ‘Democratic’ – McCarthyism surrounding the Mueller investigation, which could ultimately have led to a direct confrontation between two superpowers, was an exciting development is not the issue here. The issue is whether it was reasonable to expect for the investigation, its conclusion and its timing to center only around this single question : is Trump guilty of “collusion” with “the Russians” or not ?

On both sides of the new McCarthyist divide, people seem to acknowledge, despite the aforementioned caveats, the question – and that question alone – has been answered. Indeed, those who saw in Robert Mueller the providential father figure that would make everything right and resuscitate the status quo ante – which is in itself a contradiction they were never eager to confront –, while, to some extent, persisting in their denial still, are slowly but surely initiating a sag vertical curve. Similarly, those who, for various reasons, expressed serious doubts about the special counsel’s integrity nonetheless feel vindicated by the conclusion made public not even by the ‘not-so-trustworthy’ investigator himself, but by his improvised spokesperson, their logic being : had the latter drifted away from the former’s findings too much, then the latter (a.k.a. the former) would certainly have rectified the former (a.k.a. the latter)’s ravings, wouldn’t he ?

Both sides are now bowing down before Mueller’s authority; none seems to bother to add the broader political context to the equation. All are now acting as if, in Gotham of all places, the platonic idea of Truth had triumphed. Isn’t this need to believe, one way or another, simply fascinating ?!

Before the report was finalized, the Democratic leadership knew all too well that if Mueller were to reach conclusions that would be too damning for Trump, they would have no choice but to launch an impeachment procedure, with everything that would entail in the current political climate. In that regard, through the shutdown and the fabricated national emergency, Number 45 has made crystal clear to what lengths he would be willing to go to remain in office. And that doesn’t even take into account the possibility of a Bolton-ish diversion by means of war, which would de facto dissolve the Democrats into a ‘sacred union’ at a (post-midterm) time when they might be less inclined to let that happen, let alone contribute to it.

In the best-case scenario – that is to say : with a Trumpian reprisal limited to domestic politics –, an impeachment procedure would certainly not have led to any such union, but it would nonetheless have crystalized oppositions in Congress, with a deadly standstill and a new blow to Washington’s credibility (that cocoon where people are obsessed with themselves and their trivial little feuds) as a result, which would not only have torpedoed any upcoming bipartisan initiative such as the Senate’s recent Yemen resolution, but would also have dissuaded large segments of a much-needed electorate from partaking in the decisive 2020 beauty pageant. It is undoubtedly with all that in mind and mindful of the fact that going against the Republicans’ senate majority would make any destitution attempt look like a game of Russian roulette that, on March 11th, Nancy Pelosi stated that Trump wasn’t “worth impeaching”

For months, ‘news’ pundits had been expecting and announcing Mueller’s report. Yet, not until March 22nd was it submitted to Barr. Is this a coincidence or could Pelosi’s statement be interpreted as a dog whistle ? Couldn’t Mueller, even on the fringes of the perimeter of his investigation, really have found incriminating evidence against Trump and/or some of his closest relatives ? Couldn’t he at least have pushed his investigation a little further ?

When Starr went after Clinton, the then-Congress Republicans, who had the majority in both House and Senate, supported him all the way. Whatever the outcome, the institutions of the Republic were not threatened back then, even if, by the very nature of that scandal, their honor was quite – shall we say – stained. Today, on the contrary, those same institutions are on the verge of collapse.

Are we supposed to believe those considerations – the actual state of the Union, Pelosi’s red light, hence the very real threat of adding to an already all-encompassing institutional confusion, the unpredictable impact of a clear-cut decision on democracy itself – played no part whatsoever in the way Mueller wrapped up his tedious chore ? Whatever one’s position on the merits of any given investigation, can Platonic ideas really trump politics when the stakes are that high ? And, when they are, can John 8:31-32 really be taken for granted ?

Provided his client and Trump are not a single entity, the devil’s advocate is asking you the following question, in a purely speculative way : If you yourself, being in Mueller’s shoes, were brought to choose between two equally valid principles, both of which you pledged allegiance to – the truth and nothing but the truth on the one hand, the integrity of the institutions of the Republic on the other hand –, knowing hiding said truth would go against the spirit of said institutions and therefore imply corrupting them (a little more), whereas telling it would mean remaining faithful to their spirit but, at the same time, given the context, potentially harming them decisively, which would you choose ? And which choice would be most worthy of a statesman ? Devil aside, perhaps the wisdom of French philosopher Gabriel Marcel, who, in concrete situations, distinguished between being in truth and telling the truth, might be of some assistance…

As much as it is necessarily one of ethics, Mueller’s handling of the final phase of his long intercourse with Trump is a (complex) matter of politics, to which telling the truth (some inconveniencies, at least) but discretely agreeing to bury it for The Greater Good might be the key. To convince those who doubt that – or feign to –, Lewinsky might soon secrete another tweet : “if. fucking. only. Schumer. had. been. Lott”. Without the love of guns, of course…


April 19, 2019 follow-up :

By no means do I intend to interrupt a party, Glenn.

But there is the possible obstruction-of-justice issue.

There is the matter of the destroyed evidence.

And then there’s this :

… which, instead of stating “Robert Mueller […] obliterated [the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories]”,  should lead any rational mind to conclude said theories have only been “obliterated” (due to lack of evidence) as far as the 2016 campaign and the three years prior to it are concerned, with respect to potential Trump dealings in Russia :

Earlier potential dealings with Russian entities on U.S. soil without any direct link to the Russian government but which said government – at whichever level – might have acquired knowledge of and found valuable to use later against an unlikely future president were left out of the scope of this investigation.

Steve Buscemi (Boardwalk Empire)

Of course, many of the foreign-policy decisions made by the current administration since its hawkish U-turn tend to indicate they ran contrary to the Russian government’s interests, but shouldn’t they be examined more closely ?…

Once again, don’t let me interrupt you…

But, however you decide to qualify this episode, I’m sure detective Columbo would have found it particularly awkward…

Russia – US summit, Helsinki (Finland), July 16, 2018

Does that imply Russian influence is so much worse than U.S. meddling in foreign countries’ affairs ? Of course not…

Catégories : Politique / Société | Étiquettes : , , , , | Poster un commentaire

Chicken dance…

Catégories : Catégorie 0 | Poster un commentaire

There’s the ACTUAL collusion (the one that trumps all others)…

An American soldier surveys a pile of corpses outside the Buchenwald crematorium.

the Schumer bitch

Catégories : Catégorie 0 | Poster un commentaire

Tectonique des plaques d’égout…

Moi, une pute ? Comme Rugy, Pompili, Jadot bientôt, sans même parler de Cohn ?

Allons… C’est le bilan écologique de « l’océan de sagesse » à matraque qui m’incite à m’engager à ses côtés :


> l’incroyable progrès de la cause animale :


> la lutte énergique contre les pesticides de synthèse :


> le refus téméraire de toute procrastination en matière de transition énergétique :


> l’approche visionnaire de la problématique des déchets nucléaires :


> la démarche résolument progressiste dans laquelle s’inscrivait la taxe carbone :


> la remise en cause du grand transbahutage mondial, si générateur de pollution (quoique si favorable au commerce de noix) :


J’en passe, et – si tant est que ce soit possible – de meilleures.

Mais, en tant qu’ancien député Greens Efa, ce qui, dans mon souci de bâtir des passerelles contre-nature avec Guy Verhofstadt au sein du parlement européen, m’a définitivement convaincu, c’est ça…

Catégories : Politique / Société | Étiquettes : , | Poster un commentaire

Créez un site Web ou un blog gratuitement sur