TODAY IS INTERNATIONAL CAPS-LOCK DAY!! THIS IS THE DAY WHEN WE CAN YELL, SCREAM, HOLLER IN ALL-CAPS ALL WE WANT. YEAHHH!!!!! TODAY WE FUCKING VENT OUR SPLEEN! GO AHEAD, WRITE EVERYTHING IN ALL-CAPS, YOUR BLOG POSTS, YOUR E-MAILS, YOUR HOMEWORK, YOUR FUCKING GROCERY LISTS GOD DAMMMIT!!! ANY OTHER DAY IN THE YEAR IT IS RUDE, IT'S A BLATANT DISREGARD OF GOOD MANNERS CONTRARY TO ALL ELEMENTARY RULES OF NETIQUETTE, BUT TODAY IT IS OKAY, GO AHEAD AND GET WILD!
AH, SHIT, WHY STOP THERE? I DECREE THIS DAY OCTOBER 22ND TO BE FROM NOW ON INTERNATIONAL BOLD TYPE DAY ON TOP OF CAPS-LOCK!!! AND FUCK THIS, ARE WE GONNA BLOW IT OFF OR WON'T WE!!!??! BOLD-FACE TYPE, ALL-CAPS, AND ON TOP OF ALL THIS INTERNATIONAL EXCLAMATION POINT DAY!!!111!!111!! AND WHAT THE HELL, I ALSO DECREE THIS DAY TO BE INTERNATIONAL UNDERLINE, RED, AND IN 36 FUCKING POINTS FONT-SIZE!!!1111!!!111111!!!! CUM ON FEEL THE NOIIIIIISSE, WE GET WIIIIIILD WIIIIILLLD WIIIILLD!!!!!11111!!11!!11111
I WANT YOU TO GET UP NOW, I WANT YOU ALL TO PRESS YOUR CAPS-LOCK KEY, I WANT THE LITTLE GREEN LIGHT ON YOUR KEYBOARD BLINDING EVERYONE IN THE ROOM!!111!! I WANT YOU TO TYPE ALL OF YOUR SENTENCES WITH A MINIMUM OF 5 EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!111?!??111! I WANT YOU TO GO TO THE WINDOW, OPEN IT, STICK YOUR HEAD OUT AND SCREAM AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M WRITING EVERYTHING IN CAPITAAAAAAAALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I WANT YOU TO I WANT YOU ER, I WANt you to... oh damn, too late, it's midnight, the day is over, now now, calm down. Try again next year.
And quit yelling like that, dude, what the hell is wrong with you, come on, where have you been raised?
October 23, 2011
October 6, 2011
March 26, 2011
My electoral program
Originally published March 3, 2007
It is with no small amount of pride and joy that I officially declare my candidacy for the upcoming canadian federal elections. And I'm proud as well to announce the formation of my new party, Your Party, of which I'm the only member so far but which I'm sure you will not hesitate to join in great numbers, as it is a party with novel ideas proposing concrete solutions for building a better Canada, and even a better world.
You are probably thinking "yeah, sure, a new party, but the same old promises yet again". Well yes, you will hear promises, but this time, there really is a new angle: these promises will be made by you. That's right, my fellow electors, this party is Your Party, and its promises will be your promises!
Your Party will make health one of its topmost priorities: you will therefore solennelly pledge to exercise more, to try not to eat so much junk food, and to quit smoking: together, you will contribute to alleviate the burden on our overcrowded emergency wards.
Education is another important preoccupation of Your Party. Your program will promote culture and reading, endorse the arts and will take an active part in our youth's education; you promise to once in a while watch something else than reality tv or soaps, and to make an effort to expand your musical tastes beyond the 800 or so available titles at Wal-Mart or Canadian Tire. You pledge to keep yourself informed on history as well as current news, for at Your Party you find it intolerable that a people who ignores the causes of World War I or fails to point Iraq on a map can consider itself fit to self-govern.
Your Party is also concerned about the environment: concrete measures will be adopted to improve air quality, such as the purchase of a less energy-consuming vehicle and changing your driving habits in favor of more responsible ones. Your Party will put everything in its power to end the reign of the automobilist-king, and from then on will quit looking to the car as a status symbol, a toy for overgrown brats or a compensation aimed at soothing some psychological complex of a sexual nature. The valuable contribution of pedestrians and cyclists towards a green society will finally be recognized for its full value, and you will from now on yield them priority no matter what the indications are. Never you will hold the "delinquent cyclist" type of rhetoric anymore.
Finally, Your Party will grab the bull by the horns to restore the economy, and will spare no effort to reduce the public debt. You pledge to never again purchase any product or service you can not pay in cash, to get rid once and for all of everyone of your credit cards, and to stop placing your properties on mortgage. You at Your Party have fully understood that no state will ever be able to balance its budget as long as its population remains up to its neck in debt.
Your Party proposes new ideas, new solutions that call upon you: it rejects the old backwards ideas, and from now on refuse to listen to demagogues, those peddlers of easy solutions and cheap providers of ready-made scapegoats. Thanks to Your Party, you will at last be able to proclaim "We the State", for democracy means power of the people, and the people is Your Party. With your efforts and your leadership, Your Party will finally form the real providence state.
I wish you and Your Party the best of luck, but I'll be honest, I ain't gonna vote for you. I know you voters all too well, you never hold your promises.
It is with no small amount of pride and joy that I officially declare my candidacy for the upcoming canadian federal elections. And I'm proud as well to announce the formation of my new party, Your Party, of which I'm the only member so far but which I'm sure you will not hesitate to join in great numbers, as it is a party with novel ideas proposing concrete solutions for building a better Canada, and even a better world.
You are probably thinking "yeah, sure, a new party, but the same old promises yet again". Well yes, you will hear promises, but this time, there really is a new angle: these promises will be made by you. That's right, my fellow electors, this party is Your Party, and its promises will be your promises!
Your Party will make health one of its topmost priorities: you will therefore solennelly pledge to exercise more, to try not to eat so much junk food, and to quit smoking: together, you will contribute to alleviate the burden on our overcrowded emergency wards.
Education is another important preoccupation of Your Party. Your program will promote culture and reading, endorse the arts and will take an active part in our youth's education; you promise to once in a while watch something else than reality tv or soaps, and to make an effort to expand your musical tastes beyond the 800 or so available titles at Wal-Mart or Canadian Tire. You pledge to keep yourself informed on history as well as current news, for at Your Party you find it intolerable that a people who ignores the causes of World War I or fails to point Iraq on a map can consider itself fit to self-govern.
Your Party is also concerned about the environment: concrete measures will be adopted to improve air quality, such as the purchase of a less energy-consuming vehicle and changing your driving habits in favor of more responsible ones. Your Party will put everything in its power to end the reign of the automobilist-king, and from then on will quit looking to the car as a status symbol, a toy for overgrown brats or a compensation aimed at soothing some psychological complex of a sexual nature. The valuable contribution of pedestrians and cyclists towards a green society will finally be recognized for its full value, and you will from now on yield them priority no matter what the indications are. Never you will hold the "delinquent cyclist" type of rhetoric anymore.
Finally, Your Party will grab the bull by the horns to restore the economy, and will spare no effort to reduce the public debt. You pledge to never again purchase any product or service you can not pay in cash, to get rid once and for all of everyone of your credit cards, and to stop placing your properties on mortgage. You at Your Party have fully understood that no state will ever be able to balance its budget as long as its population remains up to its neck in debt.
Your Party proposes new ideas, new solutions that call upon you: it rejects the old backwards ideas, and from now on refuse to listen to demagogues, those peddlers of easy solutions and cheap providers of ready-made scapegoats. Thanks to Your Party, you will at last be able to proclaim "We the State", for democracy means power of the people, and the people is Your Party. With your efforts and your leadership, Your Party will finally form the real providence state.
I wish you and Your Party the best of luck, but I'll be honest, I ain't gonna vote for you. I know you voters all too well, you never hold your promises.
February 25, 2011
December 24
Originally published September 11, 2010
If I say the name John Hinkley Jr, would you recognized it? Name rings a bell, but you're not sure? Now, how about Lee Harvey Oswald... yeah, much more famous, right? Naturally you've all identified the man who shot JFK, but on the other hand I suppose that those among you who recognized the name of the would-be assassin of Ronald Reagan are not too many. What strikes me the most is the fact that both of them perpetrated the same deed and so should be enjoying a similar level of notoriety; the only real difference between them is that one of them succeeded where the other failed. And yet of the two only Oswald can be considered a household name.
It's true for the general public, and it seems to also be the case among conspiracy theorist circles: if it's about impossible to cross the street without tripping on a conspiracy thesis on the assassination of Kennedy, you have to dig to find one regarding Hinkley's shooting of president Reagan in 81. A Google search gives about 2 million results, but the links' relevance drops like a stone starting on page four. This is certainly not due to any lack of suspicious elements and strange coincidences, starting with the fact that Hinkley came from a family that was close to the Bushes: when you think that George H.W. Bush was vice-president at the time, and would have been slingshoted president in the event of Reagan's death, c'mon, I mean seriously, ain't just this stuff writing itself out? We ought to expect at least an Oliver Stone movie on that, and libraries filled to the brim with one best-seller after another all offering "shocking revelations" based on "previously undisclosed evidence" finally telling the "true story" behind this "historical tragedy". As it is, if 70% of americans continue today to declare in polls that they believe in a plot behind the Kennedy assassination, I'm positively sure that if we were to ask them the same question about the Reagan shooting, 70% of them would answer something along the lines of "No clue". And I strongly suspect that the few who do get interested in it are only doing so because it involves the Bush family; the Reagan conspiracy seems in fact to be nothing more than a footnote in the interminable 911 truthing saga.
It gets better: in 1994, four algerian extremists hijacked an Air France airliner with the intention of suicide-crashing it in Paris, presumably on the Eiffel Tower. The terrorists' plan failed, mainly because they made the mistake of making a stopover instead of flying straight towards their target. This is not a small thing: we are talking about a September 11 before the time, the WTC replaced by the Eiffel Tower, Ground Zero on the Champs-de-Mars. Imagine for a moment that they succeeded: imagine the shock, the trauma, think of the reactions (I can hear Bill Clinton solemny declaring "Today, we are all french"). Try to visualize Balladur, "the axis of good and evil", "you are either for us or against us", the attack being used as a justification for an invasion of Algeria – no wait, that doesn't make any sense, the terrorists were all algerian; let's say Morrocco. Or perhaps Belgium (No reason, it's just to make the french laugh. For some reason it always makes them laugh when someone mentions Belgium).
There's no doubt that we would have been witnesses to the major event of the decade, if not the entire second half of the 20th century, the kind that defines a generation, of which everyone say they remember where they were and what they were doing when it happened. In this parallel universe, you only have to pronounce the words "december 24" to get the emotion taps a-flowing.
And there's no doubt either that this would have spawned countless theories diverging from the official version, an entire subculture of conspiracy accusing everyone and his grandmother of having been part of the plot. However as things stand now, if anyone took upon him to slap together a plot theory accusing the french government to have pulled an inside job, he probably didn't put it online cause I haven't found anything.
Maybe we are beginning to glimpse a fundamental aspect of the peculiar psychology of conspiracy theorists. You would need to be naive to the point of idiocy to believe that there's no such thing as a conspiracy; it seems that the drive to plot against one's fellow person is firmly embedded in human nature. From co-workers gossiping behind their superior's back with the unavowed intent of stealing his position, to extremist groups plotting government overthrows, daily life as well as history is replete with plots and conspiracies either successful or not, and all have inspired numerous authors and scriptwriters. The disposition towards conspiring is written in undeletable letters in our collective unconsciousness.
But those mundane conspiracies are not enough for the conspirationnist; he has to raise the bar to impress his peers, he needs the Conspiracy of conspiracies, THE all-encompassing plot of ages, universal, penultimate, that controls everything. Freemasonry, Illuminati, Bildeberg, trilateral, cosmoplanetary order of the lizards of the Temple of Zurich, farmers wives club of, all this and more somehow all builds up towards some grand old Universal Plan.
After some thought, it's becoming obvious that it would be impossible for mere humans to organise such a monster: we are talking here of some super-organisation gathering everything that human society can muster in elite power-gifted individuals, and that managed all through the eons to control the world without getting noticed, and all the while succeed in avoiding the pitfalls of the Peter principle, the Snafu principle, the theorem of the five apes, that miserable exercice in meanness and mediocrity that we usually refer to as 'petty office politics', in short of all those organisational cancers that plague all agencies and hierarchies and turn them into those pathetic, bloated and ridiculous monsters burdened of all those incompetent, career-seeking and fundamentally useless buffoons swarming in all businesses and governments, and end up degenerating in those pachydermic bureaucracies that are the plague of our societies and that we know all too well.
Clearly we are dealing with individuals far above the norm, whether on intelligence, determination and especially an unconditionnal devotion to a common cause. The kind of people – or creature even – that would for instance choose not to have anything to do with four clueless dolts likely to commit such a gross tactical error as to land with an hijacked plane, thereby putting themselves at the mercy of law enforcers. The kind also who, endeavouring to scheme out the assassination of a president, would certainly manage to find better than some confused whacko armed with a .32 purchased in a pawn shop who fired six bullets at point blank and still managed to miss the target on all shots, only owing his single hit on the president to a lucky ricochet on the limousine's bumper.
There's little merit in umasking plots fomented by klutzes and fatally vowed for failure; search 'pope conspiracy' on Google and you will find more pages on the death of John-Paul the 1st than on the assassination attempt on John-Paul the 2nd; there's no doubt in my mind that this would be a far different case if Ali Ağca hadn't miss. For the conspirationist perpetually craving for personal self-esteem, it is much more gratifying to uncover plots from age old organisations formed of supra-geniuses, and better still to publish his findings on the web in all impunity, without fear of reprisals from the hyper-powerful: "they are the greatest minds of all time, and I am smarter than them".
All is left to do now for the conspirationists is to seize power themselves, if they're so smart: isn't this their secret fantasy anyway?
If I say the name John Hinkley Jr, would you recognized it? Name rings a bell, but you're not sure? Now, how about Lee Harvey Oswald... yeah, much more famous, right? Naturally you've all identified the man who shot JFK, but on the other hand I suppose that those among you who recognized the name of the would-be assassin of Ronald Reagan are not too many. What strikes me the most is the fact that both of them perpetrated the same deed and so should be enjoying a similar level of notoriety; the only real difference between them is that one of them succeeded where the other failed. And yet of the two only Oswald can be considered a household name.
It's true for the general public, and it seems to also be the case among conspiracy theorist circles: if it's about impossible to cross the street without tripping on a conspiracy thesis on the assassination of Kennedy, you have to dig to find one regarding Hinkley's shooting of president Reagan in 81. A Google search gives about 2 million results, but the links' relevance drops like a stone starting on page four. This is certainly not due to any lack of suspicious elements and strange coincidences, starting with the fact that Hinkley came from a family that was close to the Bushes: when you think that George H.W. Bush was vice-president at the time, and would have been slingshoted president in the event of Reagan's death, c'mon, I mean seriously, ain't just this stuff writing itself out? We ought to expect at least an Oliver Stone movie on that, and libraries filled to the brim with one best-seller after another all offering "shocking revelations" based on "previously undisclosed evidence" finally telling the "true story" behind this "historical tragedy". As it is, if 70% of americans continue today to declare in polls that they believe in a plot behind the Kennedy assassination, I'm positively sure that if we were to ask them the same question about the Reagan shooting, 70% of them would answer something along the lines of "No clue". And I strongly suspect that the few who do get interested in it are only doing so because it involves the Bush family; the Reagan conspiracy seems in fact to be nothing more than a footnote in the interminable 911 truthing saga.
It gets better: in 1994, four algerian extremists hijacked an Air France airliner with the intention of suicide-crashing it in Paris, presumably on the Eiffel Tower. The terrorists' plan failed, mainly because they made the mistake of making a stopover instead of flying straight towards their target. This is not a small thing: we are talking about a September 11 before the time, the WTC replaced by the Eiffel Tower, Ground Zero on the Champs-de-Mars. Imagine for a moment that they succeeded: imagine the shock, the trauma, think of the reactions (I can hear Bill Clinton solemny declaring "Today, we are all french"). Try to visualize Balladur, "the axis of good and evil", "you are either for us or against us", the attack being used as a justification for an invasion of Algeria – no wait, that doesn't make any sense, the terrorists were all algerian; let's say Morrocco. Or perhaps Belgium (No reason, it's just to make the french laugh. For some reason it always makes them laugh when someone mentions Belgium).
There's no doubt that we would have been witnesses to the major event of the decade, if not the entire second half of the 20th century, the kind that defines a generation, of which everyone say they remember where they were and what they were doing when it happened. In this parallel universe, you only have to pronounce the words "december 24" to get the emotion taps a-flowing.
And there's no doubt either that this would have spawned countless theories diverging from the official version, an entire subculture of conspiracy accusing everyone and his grandmother of having been part of the plot. However as things stand now, if anyone took upon him to slap together a plot theory accusing the french government to have pulled an inside job, he probably didn't put it online cause I haven't found anything.
Maybe we are beginning to glimpse a fundamental aspect of the peculiar psychology of conspiracy theorists. You would need to be naive to the point of idiocy to believe that there's no such thing as a conspiracy; it seems that the drive to plot against one's fellow person is firmly embedded in human nature. From co-workers gossiping behind their superior's back with the unavowed intent of stealing his position, to extremist groups plotting government overthrows, daily life as well as history is replete with plots and conspiracies either successful or not, and all have inspired numerous authors and scriptwriters. The disposition towards conspiring is written in undeletable letters in our collective unconsciousness.
But those mundane conspiracies are not enough for the conspirationnist; he has to raise the bar to impress his peers, he needs the Conspiracy of conspiracies, THE all-encompassing plot of ages, universal, penultimate, that controls everything. Freemasonry, Illuminati, Bildeberg, trilateral, cosmoplanetary order of the lizards of the Temple of Zurich, farmers wives club of, all this and more somehow all builds up towards some grand old Universal Plan.
After some thought, it's becoming obvious that it would be impossible for mere humans to organise such a monster: we are talking here of some super-organisation gathering everything that human society can muster in elite power-gifted individuals, and that managed all through the eons to control the world without getting noticed, and all the while succeed in avoiding the pitfalls of the Peter principle, the Snafu principle, the theorem of the five apes, that miserable exercice in meanness and mediocrity that we usually refer to as 'petty office politics', in short of all those organisational cancers that plague all agencies and hierarchies and turn them into those pathetic, bloated and ridiculous monsters burdened of all those incompetent, career-seeking and fundamentally useless buffoons swarming in all businesses and governments, and end up degenerating in those pachydermic bureaucracies that are the plague of our societies and that we know all too well.
Clearly we are dealing with individuals far above the norm, whether on intelligence, determination and especially an unconditionnal devotion to a common cause. The kind of people – or creature even – that would for instance choose not to have anything to do with four clueless dolts likely to commit such a gross tactical error as to land with an hijacked plane, thereby putting themselves at the mercy of law enforcers. The kind also who, endeavouring to scheme out the assassination of a president, would certainly manage to find better than some confused whacko armed with a .32 purchased in a pawn shop who fired six bullets at point blank and still managed to miss the target on all shots, only owing his single hit on the president to a lucky ricochet on the limousine's bumper.
There's little merit in umasking plots fomented by klutzes and fatally vowed for failure; search 'pope conspiracy' on Google and you will find more pages on the death of John-Paul the 1st than on the assassination attempt on John-Paul the 2nd; there's no doubt in my mind that this would be a far different case if Ali Ağca hadn't miss. For the conspirationist perpetually craving for personal self-esteem, it is much more gratifying to uncover plots from age old organisations formed of supra-geniuses, and better still to publish his findings on the web in all impunity, without fear of reprisals from the hyper-powerful: "they are the greatest minds of all time, and I am smarter than them".
All is left to do now for the conspirationists is to seize power themselves, if they're so smart: isn't this their secret fantasy anyway?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)