Jamais ne sera vaincu

A newly leaked CIA report prepared earlier this month (.pdf) analyzes how the U.S. Government can best manipulate public opinion in Germany and France -- in order to ensure that those countries continue to fight in Afghanistan. The Report celebrates the fact that the governments of those two nations continue to fight the war in defiance of overwhelming public opinion which opposes it -- so much for all the recent veneration of "consent of the governed" -- and it notes that this is possible due to lack of interest among their citizenry: "Public Apathy Enables Leaders to Ignore Voters," proclaims the title of one section.

But the Report also cites the "fall of the Dutch Government over its troop commitment to Afghanistan" and worries that -- particularly if the "bloody summer in Afghanistan" that many predict takes place -- what happened to the Dutch will spread as a result of the "fragility of European support" for the war. As the truly creepy Report title puts it, the CIA's concern is: "Why Counting on Apathy May Not Be Enough"

The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters, Glenn Greenwald, 27 mars 2010

La moustache

Du temps où il était le correspondant du New York Times à Jérusalem, Thomas Friedman était mon idole journalistique, un raconteur hors pair capable de nous faire voir, sentir, entendre et comprendre la vie et la politique en Israël et dans les territoires palestiniens.

Rencontre avec Thomas Friedman, Richard Hétu, 27 mars 2010

QUESTION: Is there a reason why American reporting has improved? Does it reflect a change in attitudes either among the American public or elite?

CHOMSKY: I think it's a mixture. For one thing there are a couple of good reporters there. I was very pleased to see that The New York Times withdrew Thomas Friedman. That made it possible for some good reporting. They sent John Kifner, who is a very good professional journalist. When they send John Kifner somewhere it's because they want the story to come out, not because they want it to be covered up. Friedman's job is to cover it up. Similarly in the [Washington] Post there was good reporting. The Boston Globe had, perhaps, the best reporting of all.

On Trip to Middle East: Noam Chomsky interviewed by Burton Levine,
Shmate: A Journal of Progressive Jewish Thought, 20, Été 1988

la droite, la gauche

It’s the unthinkingness of the Anglo reaction that’s embarrassing : there’s a niqab-clad woman in the story ? Oh, she must be the good guy. That’s Chapter One of Multiculti For Dummies, right ? In the Quebec coverage, you at least get the sense they’re thinking through the questions. I dislike Islamic body bags and regard them as a form of degradation and an act of self-segregation. I say “Islamic,” but in fact as a mandatory expression of piousness they barely date back to the disco era. The niqab should command no more cultural respect than a guy walking into class in Darth Vader’s getup and demanding the women be removed from his line of vision. Except in the ROC they’d call in the Mounties over that. We would never for a moment view with equanimity large numbers of masked men on our streets. But how quickly we’ve got used to walking around, say, Tower Hamlets in East London and seeing more fully covered women than you do in Amman. Mme Ahmed’s views may be sincerely held, but, if so, they mean she can never be a functioning member of a pluralist Western society in any meaningful sense of the term. Given that the Quebec government is paying for her francization lessons, it is not unreasonable for them to reach that conclusion.

I am with the ’intolerant’ Quebecers, Mark Stein, 26 mars 2010 via Vigile

En commentaire, Joël Cuerrier, qui se définit comme 'zioniste néo-conservateur' (de droite, donc):

Canadian identity is very unclear. Frenchmen were always Canadian, while Anglos were British. We had a proper identity, inhabiting this land, there was no confusion. The Anglo-Canadian identity is barely 50 years old. The Canadien/Québécois identity is 400 years old, it’s not really French in any significant way. Your flag remained the Union Jack, the hymn remained God Save The Queen. For as long as this was the case, the identity we called Canadian was mostly seen as the Habitants. The ones we now call the Quebecer defined the identity… that is now considered antithetic to your fictitious Canadian one. If you can’t see Canada as a French country, you’re not thinking this through. That is why, in the long run, I’d bet on my side to remain a strong presence in America… not the Anglos who call us fascists, talibans, racists, sectarian, etc. It’s quite ironic how those media keep incriminating themselves of the things they accuse us of. This story is not only about the Niqab, it’s about a system that is bent on ostracizing Quebecers no matter what.

[...]

You understand it in your minimal nomenclature. What I meant was that being Canadian meant being French, all the way to 1960 basically. Then, you turned us into French-Canadians and figured, finally, you were Canadians.

Before then, you were British, not Canadian. Get this nuance yet? Ask someone 100 years ago who is a Canadian and they will tell you: A Frenchman. The hockey team is called «Les Canadiens» for a reason. Then, what Canadian meant was not to be English, period. That was understood. That is why your identity is a fabrication. It is no more than 50 years old, before then you were refering to yourselves as British. For as long as you had no anthem nor flag, your identity remained foreign.

Your flag, your anthem, all you stand for, we had to shove it down your throat. English-Canadians are not the ones who won the war, they are mostly the ones who fled the American Revolution. Don't even try. Your past is cowardice. And don't claim pride for this past so much, you can't be proud of those Monckton and Amherst.