Le site Bellaciao: coloré, multiple, ou le meilleur cotoie fort heureusement le pire, mélangé, bizarre, picabien et dadaîste, explorant toutes sortes de registres et de régimes rhétoriques, drole et polémiqueur, surréaliste: rencontre d'un parapluie et d'une machine à coudre sur une table de dissection, têtes de Lénine sur le clavier d'un piano Steinway ou Bosendorfer...
Senal en Vivo
with Bellaciao
Bellaciao hosted by
To rebel is right, to disobey is a duty, to act is necessary !
Bellaciao  mobile version   |   Home  |   About us   |   Donation  |   Links  |   Contact  |   Search
Baudrillard "Sacred Europe" (translated online thanks a blog)

by : orphee
Sunday May 29, 2005 - 01:49
1 comment

On saturday 28th (sorry of my bad English-just at the top)

Here below is the article of Baudrillard published two weeks ago in "Liberation". This Saturday in Le monde 2-the weekly magazine of the daily Le monde-, photographic autoportrait of Baudrillard cover and long interview more explicative and more radicalized about the vote "No", on European referendum and on the question of Europe. He says that No it was as a silent local dissent at first BUT then it was a reflected dissent based on a reading of the constitution, giving a real thought of the information by the people themselves, and at last it was a global cognitive thought on symbolic common questions (collective as French to collective European) to edify the decision-as a tribute from one European people to other European people-, regarding here and there a possible common idea of common dissent front of the lost individual and collective sovereignty (more the help of Left Europeans signing the petition to support the No of the French left): a fight of the democracy.

So I have found this EN version online of the first article fo Liberation. I’m not sure of the translation; I got it here and send my virtual thanks to whom has translated it (no email contact linked):



A blog whrere there is more a following discussion...

"Since I couldn’t find an English version of the Baudrillard piece to link to, here (in my best imitation-y2karl, it’s -not-really-long-if-it’s-tiny style) is one made by loving hands at home. mefi’s Gang of Four Give Or Take A Few (I mention no names) should really cream in their coffee over this one. Consider it an early Christmas present from jfuller."

Sacred Europe: "No" is a defiant response to a hegemonic principle imposed from above.

By Jean BAUDRILLARD Tuesday May 17 2005

The game is rigged. If the No vote carries this time, they’ll make us vote again and again until Yes wins, as they did in Denmark and Ireland. (Thus, might as well go ahead and vote Yes right now...).

This leaves us at liberty to wonder at the blaze of No in April and at the reasons for this tenacious, silent dissent. Because only that is remarkable. The rebound of the Yes vote being nothing but an inexorable return to normality, only the No is a mystery. A No which is not at all that of its political defenders, whose political argumentation is just as ill-assorted as that of Yes. Moreover, the No never would have had enough political inspiration to set the polls aflame, and it is that [the tenacious, silent dissent, I think he means —ed.] which slowly ebbs under the pressure of Yes.

The most interesting, the only exciting thing in this phony referendum is the No which hides behind the official No, the No beyond political rationalization, because it is that which resists, and it must be a risky objective indeed that thus mobilizes all the energies, all the powers assemblled for the defense of Yes. That panicky abracadabra is a clear sign that there’s a skeleton in the closet.

This No is obviously a reflex reaction, instinctive, to the ultimatum which has stood there since the very beginning of the referendum. Reaction against that coalition of good conscience, of Divine Europe, that which pretends to universality and infallible evidence, reaction against that categorical imperative of Yes, against which the promoters did not suppose for a single instant that a challenge might arise and need to be countered. This is thus not a No to Europe, it is a No to Yes, on unchallengeable evidence.

No one can tolerate the arrogance of an assumed victory, for no matter what reasons (which, in the particular case of Europe, are nothing less than virtual). The game is decided in advance, and all we need is a roar from the crowd. Oui au Oui, Yes to Yes: behind that increasingly banal formula hides a terrible mystification. The Yes itself is no longer exactly a Yes to Europe, nor even to Chirac or the liberal order. It became a Yes to Yes, to consensual order, a Yes which is no longer an answer, but the main content of the question.

What we are forced to undergo is actually a test of Euro-positivity. And this unconditional Yes, by a reaction at once prideful and defensive, spontaneously generated an equally unconditional No. For my part I say the true mystery is that there has not been a more violent reaction, a still larger majority, for No and against that Yes-ification.

One need not even be politically aware to have this reflex: it is automatic return-fire against the coalition of all those on the side of Universal Good, the others being cast back into the dark shadows of History. What the forces of Yes overlooked was the perverse effect of this supercilious Goodness, and on that unconscious insight that tells us never to admit the rightness of those who already know they’re right. Already, at the time of Maastricht and of April 22nd, the forces of political correctness, whether of the right or the left, did not want to know about this silent dissent.

Because this No is not, fundamentally, the effect of a "work of negation" or of critical thought. It is a response of defiance pure and simple, defiance of a hegemonic principle which descends from a great height and to which the consent of the people is only an indifferent consideration, even an obstacle to be overcome. It is obvious that for this Europe, designed following an abstract model which must be made real at any price and to which everyone is expected to adapt himself, for this virtual Europe, certified image of a world power, the people are only a mass to be manipulated, which one must harness to the project, willingly or by force, to serve as an alibi. And the powers everywhere are quite right to be wary of referenda and of any direct expression of political will which, in a framework of true representation, might very well turn out badly for them. It is thus the parliaments which, most of the time, will be charged with whitewashing the operation and endorsing Europe on the quiet.

But we are accustomed to this embezzlement of opinion and political will. Not very long ago, the war in Iraq took place thanks to an international coalition of powers against the expressed will, massive and spectacular, of all the populations. Europe is being built on exactly the same model. In fact I am astonished that the partisans of No do not make use of this striking example, of this great First Prize in total contempt for the voice of the people.

All this goes far beyond the episode of the referendum. It means bankruptcy of even the principle of representation, insofar as the representative institutions no longer function in the "democratic" sense, that is to say, of the people and of the citizens confronting power; just the opposite, of power towards underlings, by a feigned consultation and a circular charade of question and answer, where the question does nothing but reply Yes to itself. Yes to Yes.

There it is, in the heart of the political: the bankruptcy of democracy. And if the electoral system, already undermined by non-voters, must be saved at all cost (even before answering Yes, the categorical imperative is to vote at all cost), it is because it functions as the reverse of true representation, as the imposition of decisions taken "in the name of the people" even if, secretly, each of the the people thinks the opposite.

There is thus, behind the immediate abreaction to the "single thought" of Europe, incarnated by Yes, the liberal thought of a Europe which, even without making up any more rules for the game, has but one destiny: to expand and increase by successive annexations towards the image of a world power. There is thus, in the No of which we speak, in the refusal of this image of Europe, a foreshadowing of a liquidation much more grave than the intrusion of market forces and supranational institutions: liquidation of any true representation, at the end of which the populations will be assigned a the role of a figurehead, which is asked now and then for rubber-stamp approval.

As for the final result, a certain suspense remains: if all is well, in all liklihood the insolent hegemony of Yes which sufficed to generate the revulsive awakening burst of No, the recrudescence of the campaign in favor of Yes should logically generate a reinforcement of No. But it is not certain that this No, arisen from the depths of what one could formerly call the silent majority, can stand up against mass intoxication. It is a very good bet that we will once again set out toward rule by consensus, under the spiritual authority of the powers that be.

Whatever other results there may be, this referendum, jammed between Yes and No as between the 0 and 1 of numerical calculation, is only one adventure. Moreover, Europe itself is only one more adventure on the way to a much graver expiration date, that of the loss of collective sovereignty on the horizon of which another image beyond that of the passive or manipulated citizen takes shape: the citizen-hostage, the citizen taken hostage by the powers, that is to say, hostage-taking having become the face of terrorism, a democratic form of state terrorism.

P.S. from yr. translator, I am pretty confident I have rendered the essence of what J. B. wanted to get across; but as for the details of expression, Ghod what fog. Whatever happened to clairté? Racine this dude isn’t. We asserts that the translation is distinctly more Augustinian and French than the original. Oh well, it’s good practice for our next project, rewriting Huis Clos in Alexandrines. posted by jfuller at 10:23 AM PST on May 22

Moreover, the No never would have had enough political inspiration to set the polls aflame, and it is that [the tenacious, silent dissent, I think he means —ed.] which slowly ebbs under the pressure of Yes.

[and so on-see the link]

The French article


Le non est une réponse en forme de défi à un principe hégémonique venu d’en haut. L’Europe divine


par Jean Baudril-lard philosophe et écrivain.

mardi 17 mai 2005

De toute façon les jeux sont faits puisque si le non l’emporte cette fois, on nous fera revoter jusqu’à ce que le oui l’emporte, comme on l’a fait pour le Danemark et l’Irlande (donc, autant voter oui tout de suite...).

Ceci nous laisse toute liberté pour nous interroger sur la flambée du non en avril et sur les raisons de cette dissension tenace et silencieuse. Car cela seul a fait événement. La reprise en main du oui n’étant que celle d’une normalisation inexorable, seul le non fait mystère. Un non qui n’est pas du tout celui de ses défenseurs officiels, dont l’argumentation politique est aussi hétéroclite que celle du oui. D’ailleurs, le non d’inspiration politique n’aurait jamais suffi à faire flamber les sondages, et c’est lui qui régresse lentement sous la pression du oui...

Le plus intéressant, la seule chose passionnante dans ce référendum en trompe l’oeil, c’est ce non qui se cache derrière le non officiel, ce non d’au-delà de la raison politique, car c’est celui-là qui résiste, et il faut qu’il y ait là quelque chose de bien dangereux pour que se mobilisent ainsi toutes les énergies, tous les pouvoirs confondus pour la défense du oui. Cette conjuration panique est bien le signe qu’il y a un cadavre dans le placard.

Ce non est bien évidemment une réaction automatique, immédiate, à l’ultimatum qu’a été dès le début ce référendum. Réaction à cette coalition de la bonne conscience, de l’Europe divine, celle qui prétend à l’universel et à l’évidence infaillible, réaction à cet impératif catégorique du oui, dont les promoteurs n’ont même pas supposé un seul instant qu’il pouvait constituer un défi ­ et donc un défi à relever. Ce n’est donc pas un non à l’Europe, c’est un non au oui, comme évidence indépassable.

Personne ne supporte l’arrogance d’une victoire a priori ­ quelles que soient ses raisons (lesquelles, dans le cas précis de l’Europe, ne sont rien moins que virtuelles). Le jeu est fermé d’avance, et tout ce qu’on sollicite, c’est le consensus. Oui au oui : derrière cette formule devenue banale se cache une terrible mystification. Le oui lui-même n’est plus exactement un oui à l’Europe, ni même à Chirac ou à l’ordre libéral. Il est devenu un oui au oui, à l’ordre consensuel, un oui qui n’est plus une réponse, mais le contenu même de la question.

Ce qu’on nous fait subir, c’est un véritable test d’europositivité. Et ce oui inconditionnel génère spontanément, par une réaction à la fois d’orgueil et d’autodéfense, un non tout aussi inconditionnel. Je dirais pour ma part que le vrai mystère, c’est qu’il n’y ait pas une réaction plus violente, plus majoritaire encore, pour le non et contre cette oui-trification.

Il n’y a même pas besoin de conscience politique pour avoir ce réflexe : c’est le retour de flamme automatique contre la coalition de tous ceux qui sont du bon côté de l’universel ­ les autres étant renvoyés dans les ténèbres de l’Histoire. Ce sur quoi les forces du oui et du Bien se sont trompées, c’est sur les effets pervers de cette supériorité du Bien, et sur cette sorte de lucidité inconsciente qui nous dit qu’il ne faut jamais donner raison à ceux qui l’ont déjà. Déjà, lors de Maastricht et du 22 avril, les forces politiquement correctes, qu’elles soient de droite ou de gauche, n’ont rien voulu savoir de cette dissidence silencieuse.

Car ce non en profondeur n’est pas du tout l’effet d’un «travail du négatif» ou d’une pensée critique. C’est une réponse en forme de défi pur et simple à un principe hégémonique venu d’en haut, et pour lequel la volonté des peuples n’est qu’un paramètre indifférent, voire un obstacle à franchir. Il est évident que pour cette Europe conçue selon un modèle de simulation qui doit être projeté à tout prix dans le réel et auquel chacun est sommé de s’adapter, pour cette Europe virtuelle, copie conforme de la puissance mondiale, les populations ne sont qu’une masse de manoeuvre qu’il faut annexer de gré ou de force au projet pour lui servir d’alibi. Et les pouvoirs ont bien raison de se méfier partout du référendum et de toute expression directe d’une volonté politique qui, dans le cadre d’une véritable représentation, risquerait de tourner mal pour eux. Ce sont donc les parlements qui, la plupart du temps, seront chargés de blanchir l’opération et d’avaliser l’Europe en douce.

Mais nous sommes habitués à cette malversation de l’opinion et de la volonté politique. Il n’y a pas si longtemps, la guerre d’Irak a eu lieu grâce à une coalition internationale de tous les pouvoirs contre la volonté exprimée, massive et spectaculaire, de toutes les populations. L’Europe est en train de se faire exactement sur le même modèle. Je m’étonne d’ailleurs que les partisans du non ne fassent pas usage de cet exemple éclatant, de cette grande première dans le mépris total pour ­ la voix des peuples.

Tout cela dépasse de loin l’épisode du référendum. Cela signifie la faillite du principe même de la représentation, dans la mesure où les institutions représentatives ne fonctionnent plus du tout dans le sens «démocratique», c’est-à-dire du peuple et des citoyens vers le pouvoir, mais exactement à l’inverse, du pouvoir vers le bas, par le piège d’une consultation et d’un jeu de question/réponse circulaire, où la question ne fait que se répondre oui à elle-même.

C’est donc, au coeur même du politique, la faillite de la démocratie. Et si le système électoral, déjà miné par l’abstention, doit être sauvé à tout prix (avant même de répondre oui, l’impératif catégorique est de voter à tout prix), c’est qu’il fonctionne à l’envers d’une véritable représentation, dans l’induction forcée de décisions prises «au nom du peuple» même si, secrètement, celui-ci pense le contraire.

Il y a donc, derrière l’abréaction immédiate à la «pensée unique» de l’Europe, incarnée par le oui ­ pensée libérale d’une Europe qui, faute d’inventer une autre règle du jeu, n’a d’autre solution que de se dilater et de s’agrandir par annexions successives (à l’image de la puissance mondiale), il y a donc, dans le non dont nous parlons, dans le refus de cette Europe-là, le pressentiment d’une liquidation bien plus grave que l’emprise du marché et des institutions supranationales ­ la liquidation de toute représentation véritable ­, au terme de quoi les populations seront définitivement assignées à un rôle de figuration, dont on sollicitera de temps en temps l’adhésion formelle.

Quant au résultat final, un certain suspense demeure : si c’est bien, selon toute vraisemblance, l’hégémonie insolente du oui qui a suffi à générer le sursaut révulsif du non, alors la recrudescence de la campagne en faveur du oui devrait logiquement engendrer un renforcement du non. Mais il n’est pas sûr que ce non venu des profondeurs de ce qu’on a pu appeler jadis les majorités silencieuses, résiste à une intoxication massive. Il y a fort à parier que nous allons repartir vers une régulation consensuelle, sous l’autorité spirituelle de tous les pouvoirs.

Quel que soit le résultat d’ailleurs, ce référendum, coincé entre le oui et le non comme entre le 0/1 du calcul numérique, n’est qu’une péripétie. L’Europe elle-même n’est qu’une péripétie de plus sur la voie d’une échéance bien plus grave, celle d’une déperdition de la souveraineté collective ­ à l’horizon de quoi se dessine un autre profil que celui du citoyen passif ou manipulé : celui du citoyen-otage, du citoyen pris en otage par les pouvoirs, c’est-à-dire ­ la prise d’otage étant devenue la figure même du terrorisme ­ une forme ­ démocratique ­de terrorisme d’Etat.

Leave a comment
Print this article

Commentaires de l'article

> Baudrillard "Sacred Europe" (translated online thanks a blog)
Sunday May 29 - 23:54 - Posted by bfcee33ce6ae91a8...

Yeah, sure. Let’s keep Europe weak. I think you fall in the trap of American/British financed "fear" campaigns. It is also interesting which countries and institutions finance "Attac".

It is a very sad day: Europes way back to small state thinking.

Let’s run into the Anglo/American economic and antic social schema.

Fear, fear and more fear...

The poor man from GKP
Thursday 24 - 14:00
The poor man from PIPIGANJ gkp
Thursday 24 - 13:58
The poor man from PIPIGANJ
Thursday 24 - 13:55
Lord Energy: the mysterious company linking Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood
Thursday 24 - 12:39
by Michael Lewis
Wednesday 23 - 08:47
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Report
Global banks blacklist disgraced real estate developer Eric Arnoux
Tuesday 10 - 16:58
by Francis Kendrick
1 comment
The words I will never hear
Monday 2 - 13:34
by Surprised
Eric Arnoux, the dark horse of property development
Tuesday 6 - 16:48
by Roger Moses
New Italian left-wing initiative launched: Potere al Popolo/Power to the People
Wednesday 28 - 10:25
by Roberto Ferrario
Saturday 10 - 05:44
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
Weinstein affair: Celebrity lawyer JEFF HERMAN also accused of rape
Wednesday 7 - 17:50
Russia caught "Red Handed"
Friday 26 - 20:45
by BenAMarine
Jeff Herman’s demise: When money and fame take over
Thursday 25 - 16:32
Saturday 20 - 00:36
by David R. Hoffman
Thursday 18 - 01:55
Sunday 14 - 20:08
The Bill of Whites
Friday 12 - 14:56
by Arty Kraft
Visa brings war on poor people to eateries doorsteps
Wednesday 10 - 11:10
by Anthon Lewis
Celebrity attorney Jeff Herman accused of rape by a former employee
Friday 29 - 17:44
by VincentT
Friday 22 - 00:06
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
Out of jail Eric Arnoux lands in Dubai
Friday 15 - 12:03
by Kerim
Trump uses Jews to get pedophile elected
Sunday 10 - 12:45
by Eaton
Wednesday 6 - 18:40
Saturday 18 - 01:38
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
Friday 10 - 15:13
Sorry, Ain’t got cash. God bless you, too.
Wednesday 8 - 09:22
by Bailey Anderson
Monday 30 - 19:43
Tuesday 17 - 23:07
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Report
Tuesday 10 - 23:14
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Report
Catalonia referendum: 90% voted for independence, say officials (video)
Monday 2 - 09:55
Catalonia referendum: ’Spanish authorities are the criminals’ (video)
Monday 2 - 09:47
If I was truly evil
Tuesday 12 - 14:22
Yves Bouvier Faces Swiss Tax Investigation
Saturday 9 - 03:27
by lishk
The Polisario front suspected of double-play around humanitarian aid hijacking
Friday 8 - 21:44
by NathanT
The Polisario front suspected of double-play around humanitarian aid hijacking
Friday 8 - 21:37
by Nathan Taylor
Sunday 27 - 20:02
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Report
What happend to Soraya and Hussein Khashoggi?
Friday 25 - 20:38
by Perseus
The falling Max Ehrich
Thursday 17 - 19:40
by celbbetty
Wednesday 16 - 01:44
by David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Report
Overplaying your hand
Thursday 10 - 12:36

home | webmaster

Follow-up of the site's activity
RSS Bellaciao En

rss FR / rss IT / rss ES

Bellaciao hosted by DRI

Organize, agitate, educate, must be our war cry. Susan B. Anthony
Facebook Twitter Google+
I, European citizen, won’t let refugees be rejected in my name
Thursday 10 March
©Olivier Jobard/Myop I, European citizen, won’t let refugees be rejected in my name THE RIGHT TO ASYLUM IS A RIGHT In the phrase « right to asylum », every word matters. Under the law, every person who is persecuted because of his or her political opinions or because of his or her identity, every person that is endangered by violence, war or misery has a RIGHT to seek asylum in another country The aim of this petition is to collect (...)
Neo-Nazis and far-right protesters in Ukraine 3 live-stream
Friday 24 January
The far-right in Ukraine are acting as the vanguard of a protest movement that is being reported as pro-democracy. The situation on the ground is not as simple as pro-EU and trade versus pro-Putin and Russian hegemony in the region. When US Senator John McCain dined with Ukraine’s opposition leaders in December, he shared a table and later a stage with the leader of the extreme far-right Svoboda party Oleh Tyahnybok. This is Oleh Tyahnybok, he has claimed a "Moscow-Jewish mafia" (...)
Hugo Chavez is dead (video live)
Wednesday 6 March
by : Collective BELLACIAO
1 comment
President Hugo Chavez companeros venezueliano died after a long battle with cancer.
International initiative to stop the war in Syria Yes to democracy, no to foreign intervention!
Thursday 13 December
Your support here: http://www.peaceinsyria.org/support.php We, the undersigned, who are part of an international civil society increasingly worried about the awful bloodshed of the Syrian people, are supporting a political initiative based on the results of a fact-finding mission which some of our colleagues undertook to Beirut and Damascus in September 2012. This initiative consists in calling for a delegation of highranking personalities and public figures to go to Syria in order to (...)
Monday 12 November
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
At first glance, the results of America’s 2012 election appear to be a triumph for social, racial, and economic justice and progress in the United States: California voters passed a proposition requiring the rich to shoulder their fair share of the tax burden; Two states, Colorado and Washington, legalized the recreational use of marijuana, while Massachusetts approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes; Washington and two other states, Maine and Maryland, legalized same-sex (...)
Sunday 28 October
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
In a 2004 episode of Comedy Central’s animated series South Park, an election was held to determine whether the new mascot for the town’s elementary school would be a “giant douche” or a “turd sandwich.” Confronted with these two equally unpalatable choices, one child, Stan Marsh, refused to vote at all, which resulted in his ostracization and subsequent banishment from the town. Although this satirical vulgarity was intended as a commentary on the two (...)
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART II PART III If there is one major inconsistency in life, it is that young people who know little more than family, friends and school are suddenly, at the age of eighteen, supposed to decide what they want to do for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, because of their limited life experiences, the illusions they have about certain occupations do not always comport to the realities. I discovered this the first time I went to college. About a year into my studies, I (...)
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART II PART IV Disillusioned with the machinations of so-called “traditional” colleges, I became an adjunct instructor at several “for-profit” colleges. Thanks largely to the power and pervasiveness of the Internet, “for-profit” colleges (hereinafter for-profits) have become a growing phenomenon in America. They have also been the subject of much political debate and the focus of a Frontline special entitled College Inc. Unlike traditional (...)
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART III PART IV Several years ago, a young lady came into the college where I was teaching to inquire about a full-time instructor’s position in the sociology department. She was advised that only adjunct positions were available. Her response was, “No thanks. Once an adjunct, always an adjunct.” Her words still echo in my mind. Even as colleges and universities raise their tuition costs, they are relying more and more on adjunct instructors. Adjuncts are (...)
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART II PART III PART IV When The Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution over two hundred years ago, Americans were blessed with many rights considered to be “fundamental.” One conspicuously missing, however, was the right to an education. This was not surprising given the tenor of the times. America was primarily an agrarian culture, and education, especially higher education, was viewed as a privilege reserved for the children of the rich and (...)
Monday 30 July
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
If there is one universal question that haunts all human beings at some point in their lives, it is, “Why do we die?” Death, after all, is the great illogic. It ultimately claims all, the rich and the poor, the mighty and the small, the good and the evil. Death also has the capability to make most human pursuits—such as the quest for wealth, fame and power—vacuous and fleeting. Given this reality, I have often wondered why so many people are still willing to (...)
Thursday 28 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
How much corruption can a “democracy” endure before it ceases to be a democracy? If five venal, mendacious, duplicitous, amoral, biased and (dare I say it) satanic Supreme Court “justices”—John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy—have their way, America will soon find out. In several previous articles for Pravda.Ru, I have consistently warned how the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision is one of the (...)
Tuesday 12 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
1 comment
Imagine, if you will, that the United States government passes a law banning advertisers from sponsoring commercials on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show or Rupert Murdoch’s Fox (Faux) “News” Network. On one hand, there would be two decided advantages to this ban: The National IQ would undoubtedly increase several percentage points, and manipulative pseudo-journalists would no longer be able to appeal to the basest instincts in human nature for ratings and profit while (...)
Thursday 7 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Pravda.Ru Legal Editor
LIVE, from the State that brought you Senator Joseph McCarthy, Wisconsin voters now proudly present, fresh from his recall election victory, Governor Scott Walker! At first glance, it is almost unfathomable that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have voted to retain Scott Walker as Wisconsin’s governor. This, after all, is a man who openly declared he is trying to destroy the rights of workers through a “divide and conquer” strategy; who received 61% of the (...)
Tuesday 13 March
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
A question I’ve frequently been asked since I began writing for Pravda.Ru in 2003 is, “Why did you become disillusioned with the practice of law?” This question is understandable, particularly since, in most people’s minds, being an attorney is synonymous with wealth and political power. I’ve always been reluctant to answer this question for fear it will discourage conscientious and ethical people from pursuing careers in the legal profession—a (...)