#news de formule 1

[actus-football]

Carlos Sainz : renseigne-toi sur son transfert chez Williams Racing

Fan de Formule 1, que penses-tu du transfert de Carlos Sainz ? Il vient de signer un contrat de deux ans avec Williams Racing, ce qui promet de secouer la compétition !

Credits : XaviYuahanda de Wikimedia Commons / ATTRIBUTION - PARTAGE DANS LES MÊMES CONDITIONS 4.0 INTERNATIONAL (CC BY-SA 4.0)

[magics-neptunes-things]

Historia de Amor 2

Hello everyone!

This is the Part 2 of "Historia de Amor" with Ona, I had a few people asking to have a second part so here is it :)

TW : Jealousy, a hint of sadness and so much love.

PART 1 IS HERE and BONUS CHAPTER HERE

First Jealousy

It’s been almost a year now since you and Ona met and you are dating. After spending a summer shared between Villassar de Mar with Ona's family (that you appreciate very much) and Menorca only the both of you, you are back in Manchester.

The weeks pass and over time, you realize that Ona’s new teammate who is also a teammate of her national team is taking more and more place in her life. When Ona informed you of her arrival, she explained that she wanted to help her to integrate as quickly and easily as possible into the team. Having been there at that time, having Ivana take her under her wing had helped her a lot and she wanted to do the same in her turn.

You didn’t think anything bad for a second about your girlfriend’s idea, you know how good she is and her tendency to want everyone to feel the best possible. And you know in your heart that Ona never thought a single second wrong either.

Yet, you find yourself tonight after a day organized by the girls of the team with a strange feeling in the stomach. The players' boyfriends or girlfriends being accepted, it's quite naturally that Ona offered to you to accompany her. And you agreed, enjoying spending time with the United's girls.

But the way the new one had to constantly seek Ona’s attention throughout the day ended up drawing your attention and certainly not in the right way. She didn't hesitate to interrupt you several times while you were in discussion with Ona, she hurried to settle on the other side of Ona during the meal and you simply couldn't have a single second with the brunette without the other being stuck to her sneakers.

And then there’s also the way she looks at your girlfriend that makes you half crazy.

Of course, Ona is beautiful to die for. Even if she is just as beautiful internally, you must admit that Ona's beauty is the first thing you noticed the first time you saw her. But only you would have the right to look at her that way. Not to mention the hands she tends to leave lying on Ona’s arm or back when she talks to her or seeks her attention.

Your mood deteriorated throughout the day and in the middle of the afternoon you finally asked Ona if you could go home. She accepted, searching for your eyes, probably to see what was going on. But you just looked straight ahead before following her to say goodbye to her teammates. You stayed a little longer with Leah Galton who was the host today to thank her and you went to Ona’s car.

You were relieved to get her out of the claws of the one you named in your head "The Leech", but you knew on the other hand that you would receive several questions. Usually, you are more of the type to enjoy every minute of this kind of moments and it's Ona who decide when it's time to go home.

"Are you all right?" asks Ona nicely as she close her door.

You simply nod and hum, tapping on the car screen to put music on.

"You’ve always been a terrible liar, Hermosa"

You sigh softly and look up at Ona, who is watching you as good as she can while keeping her attention on the road.

"I just…" you start to trying to formulate your thoughts coherently, in vain. "It’s nothing, Love."

"You’re starting to worry me"

The worry is indeed audible in Ona’s voice and you bite your lip. When she puts her hand on your thigh, adding a comforting pressure, you let yourself go against the seat back and look at her.

"Your new teammate… Does she only knows you?"

"No, why?" asks Ona frowning lightly.

She seems to have trouble making the connection between your mood and your question and it adds a little guilt to the jealousy and discomfort you feel.

"She hasn’t left you all day, so I was wondering"

You shrug and look outside your window. The sun was shinning today, blessing you with late good weather.

"We play together for Spain, it may reassure her to be with someone who speaks Spanish"

You just hums without stoping to look at the landscape. You don’t believe it for a second. Despite her behavior with Ona, she seemed rather comfortable with others.

"Well, next time you’ll tell her to keep her hands in her pockets" you mumble as the car stops at a fire.

"What are you talking about?"

Again, Ona’s surprise is completely sincere. You know she probably didn’t realize that the physical touches of "The Leech" were invasive, both being Spanish there’s probably nothing to surprise Ona. But you, you saw that the intentions were other than friendly.

"She won't stop touching you"

Ona’s incredulous little laugh makes you shift your attention to her and frown. The car restarted, but you didn’t really notice it, focused on the face of the Latina.

"Are you making fun of me?"

"Of course not, but you just imagine things. There is nothing but friendship between her and me"

"For you maybe, not for her. Leah must have pulled out the mop to wipe the drool she left on the floor from looking at you"

"You talk nonsense"

You let out a sarcastic snort and cross your arms on your chest before looking out again. So not only are you not believed for a second, but also not especially reassured by Ona who must take you for a fool.

"Yeah, sure." you mumble, clenching your claw.

No screams were exchanged between the two, but the icy silence that reigns in the car for the rest of the trip testifies to the tension born between you two. And still, you didn’t mention everything you felt. No need to pass for crazier than that.

Arriving at Ona’s apartment, you take refuge in her bedroom. No other words were spoken and this will be the case for the rest of the day. Ona stayed in the living room and turned the TV on, it seems to you on the sports channel. You don’t know what else she’s doing, but there’s no way you’re taking the first step.

After dark, you realize Ona is probably thinking the same thing. You hesitate a few seconds between two possibilities but you end up opting for a shower. You could have gone home too, but the fear of Ona not reacting to your departure is too present. Coward? Most certainly.

The hot water allows you to relax a little and you may stay there a little longer than usual, but you needed it. After your routine after shower, you decide to go to bed. The sound of the TV still rings in the living room and you don’t even know if Ona saw you go from her bathroom to her bedroom in pajamas.

You roll yourself in a ball under the sheets of your girlfriend, slightly reassured by her smell that is everywhere. Lost in your thoughts, you lose a little sense of time. Some time later, Ona gently opens the bedroom door, also showered and dressed for the night. And, still without a word, she slips under the sheets, next to you.

You feel your heart getting heavy, you and Ona never went to bed angry. The times you’ve had an argument can be count on the fingers of one hand since the beginning of your relationship and it has never been so deep.

You let time pass again, your eyes fixed on the wall facing you. Ona doesn't move next to you and you finally realize that she must have fallen asleep. A few more minutes pass before you decide to get up. Gently pushing away the sheet, you leave the room and quietly close the door of the room behind you. You find refuge on the balcony, sitting on one of the chairs you used to occupy when you both remake the world while looking at the stars.

Except that today you feel lonely and your nightwear doesn’t keep you warm. You soon find yourself shivering, but you decide not to worry about it at the moment. This argument broke your heart and before you realize it, warm tears roll down your cheeks. Crying make you feel better, you feel like the steel hand around your heart is loosening a little.

To keep some body heat, you stick your legs to your chest and put your arms around them. Your chin rests on your knees and you get lost in the observation of street lamps and the noise of Manchester night traffic.

Your tears had stopped when you feel a blanket resting on your shoulders, but your eyes are red and swollen. You didn't hear Ona’s hesitant steps coming looking for you, she was far from sleeping too. You turn slightly and for the first time in (too) many hours, you cross the chocolate look of your girlfriend.

Ona’s uncertain gaze becomes tinged with guilt when she realizes that you cried, but that’s not what you want either. So you return to your starting position, enjoying the comforting warmth of the plaid.

"Come in, you’ll catch cold" whispers Ona.

Not trusting your voice, you shake your head negatively to refuse her proposal. She sigh softly and sit on the chair next to you. Without saying a word, you give her a piece of the blanket. You may be angry, but that doesn’t mean you want her to get sick.

She accepts it and wraps herself in it with you, turning towards the street too. A few minutes pass, but without the unbearable tension that existed in the car earlier.

"I shouldn’t have told you you were talking nonsense"

Ona’s voice finally breaks the silence and you turn mechanically in her direction. You don’t know if she cried, either, but she looks tired and sad. She turns her attention to you too and you simply nod.

"I’m sorry Y/N"

How can you resist her? You know she is and that it isn't her fault. Taking a big breath, you let yourself go against her, laying your head on her shoulder. You close your eyes in relief as you feel her arm slide around your waist. Reconciliation seems to be on its way.

"I wasn’t accusing you of anything."

Your voice is on the same tone as that of Ona, a slight murmur. You obviously had time to reflect on the conversation you had and the events of the day, since the time you returned. So precision seems important to you.

"I know you don’t think badly for a second and I trust you. But even in hindsight, I’m pretty sure she’s crazy about you. And I can’t stand the idea."

Ona remains silent for a few moments, stroking your hip. You look up at her to observe her, understanding in her gaze that she is reflecting.

"I’ll talk to her, okay?"

You nod softly, looking back over the balcony gate. A few more seconds pass before you feel Ona move and she gently raises your face in her direction, two fingers under your chin. Her look is soft, tender. The one that make you melts, like vanilla ice cream in the Spanish's sun.

"I love you. I will always do everything to make you feel the best with me. I’m really sorry that I didn’t listen to you earlier and that I got so worked up. It just seems so implausible to me that I might be interested in someone other than you… I only see you."

You smile while your heart is flying somewhere near your throat.

"I love you too. More than anything."

She smiles back and with her fingers under you chin, she approach your face next to hers. After caressing your lips with hers, she offers you the most sweat and loving kiss ever.

First Separation

It was on one of the birthdays of one of Ona’s teammates that you heard the news. It’s been several days that your girlfriend's thoughts seems elsewhere and busy, you asked her some questions but she answered each time that she preferred to talk about it later. You accepted this answer, while making sure that everything was fine and that it didn't affect in any case the feelings she could have for you. Even if it was reassuring, you can’t help but wonder what’s going on. You may have a little idea, but you’d rather not get your head screwed for nothing.

During this evening Ona's mind seems to you once again elsewhere. She was smiling while listening to others speak, without speaking. Her behavior drives you to be extremely clingy with her, but the Latina doesn’t seem to be bothered by that. You didn't expect to find her place on the sofa empty after a short time in the kitchen to reserve you a drink.

Caught in a Mario Kart game, the others don't seem to have noticed her absence. This allows you to go looking for her quietly and it's finally on the balcony that you find her. Leaning against the embankment with both hands, looking at the city. You hesitate to join her, not wishing to disturb her, but you end up delicately closing the door behind you to go towards her. Gently putting a hand in her back, you put yourself at her height after having laid a kiss on her cheek.

"I really like this city" made Ona thoughtfully without leaving it with her eyes.

You leave her face you were watching with attention to look at your turn the city. This is where you grew up, so you’re used to her figure. You let it go for a few seconds, before asking her timidly, without having the courage to look at her.

"Are you ready to talk to me about what’s been bothering you these days?"

Ona sighs softly and you see her move a little, turning her silhouette in your direction. On your side, you let your eyes slide on the headlights of the cars on the main road, a few hundred meters from you. Her hesitation makes you realize that what you’re thinking is probably what’s going on. And that terrifies you.

"You’re leaving" you end up whispering, still without looking at her.

"I have to go home"

You knew that Ona’s contract with Manchester was coming to an end and that Barcelona finally realized the potential of your girlfriend. But you preferred to bury your head in the sand and hope that time stops. You know perfectly well Ona’s desire to return home, to go back to her country, her family and the team she carries in her heart. She never hid it from you.

"Barcelona made you an offer?"

Your voice is always whispered, the knot in your throat prevents you from speaking properly.

"They’re offering me a contract until 2026. I’ve already accepted. I’m sorry."

What’s the answer to that? Nothing, obviously. So you remain silent, fighting against the sadness that invades your body a little stronger with each second passing. The silence stretches and it is finally Ona who takes the floor.

"Can you say something por favor?"

"What do you want me to tell you, Ona? I am extremely proud of you and happy that your dreams come true. You deserve it, sincerely. But I’m gonna miss you so much."

"I’ll miss you too"

Her hand which she places on yours makes you turn your gaze in her direction and you stick to her, seeking a source of comfort to this announcement. She gladly pass her arm around you, keeping you close to her.

"I’m leaving Manchester, but I’m not leaving you. I’m sure we can make it work. I’ll come see you whenever I have free time and you can come whenever you want."

You stay silent for a little time, but maybe too much for Ona who turn your face in her direction. She looks stress and a little sad, too. You know that it wasn't an easy move for her to make.

"Hermosa please talk to me. I have to know what you're thinking or I'll go crazy"

"What if you find someone else?"

As always, your fear to lose her is the biggest. You never claimed to consider her yours, knowing perfectly well that love isn't commanded. So you don't feel safe from losing ither one day and this geographical distance will probably not help this fear.

You see Ona leaning her head to the side, a slight air of annoyance displayed on her face. You have already had this conversation several times and she has always found the right words to reassure you. But there, a new parameter is added to the equation. So you try to explain yourself.

"You will be far from me, there are probably thousands of women who would like to be in my place and there are probably as many who have more in common with you than me. Starting with your native language and where you will live."

Gently taking your face in her hands, Ona looks into your eyes. You have always found her eyes particularly expressive and you sometimes still have as much difficulty to support her gaze. But this time you strive to do it, feeling that you need to impregnate yourself with the words she will say.

"I don’t care Y/N. I love you and I only want you. Before, now and after. Nothing or no one will change that in anyway."

First Homecoming

Ona seemed happier than never since she's in Barcelona. You can see it on the picture in FC Barcelona's Instagram, her smile shinning like the Spanish sun. You know that she miss you though, jumping in an plane every time she can to come back to you. You made the journey to Barcelona twice too, but it's not enough for both of you. Every time you have to say goodbye break your heart a little more.

Ona’s old teammates stayed in touch with you, much to your surprise. Not all of them, but you often meet Ella or Millie for coffee during the week. You know that the first of the two is as lost as you have since her best friend left for Arsenal.

"You should go find her" Ella once made you, over her hot tea.

"I can’t this weekend, I have copies to correct for Monday and an exam to prepare" you sighed softly.

You're working as a literature teacher for teenagers. It’s not always easy, but you have the vague hope of getting a few of them interested, fighting as hard as you can against TikTok. (While watching edits from your girlfriend on the same app, but it's another story.)

"I know. What I’m saying is that you should go find her, for good. Moving to Barcelona."

Your movements stop and you look at the other girl as if the ears of Martians had just pushed on her head. Obviously, you thought about it. But Ona never mention it.

"I’m not sure Ona wants me there. She didn’t offer to follow her when she told me she was leaving."

"Because she knows your whole life is here. Your family, your job… It cost her a lot to leave Barcelona for Manchester and she didn’t want to impose that choice on you."

"How do you even know that?" you asked, frowning.

"She told me. You both are as stupide as the other."

Oh. That’s news would probably have changed a lot if you had the courage to ask Ona directly. Again, fearing a negative answer from her, you preferred bury your head in the sand. Smiling as you saw your brain start up again, Ella had left you to your thoughts.

It only took you two days to make your decision, return the keys to your apartment and resign. When you told Ella, she cheered the same way she did when she scored, promising to save the surprise for Ona.

*********

Now that you’re in Ona’s apartment, you’re wondering if this was really a good idea. The Spanish girl doesn’t know you’re here, gone to training as usual. You had the help of Ona's mother to enter, the Batlle happier than ever to learn that you were coming in Spain.

You know Ona’s apartment for having come here twice already, but you go through it, looking for some changes while waiting for her return. The Spanish architecture is very different from the one you have always known in England, but the light colors and brightness offered by the sun is not unpleasant. And the fact that the perfume of your girlfriend floats everywhere in the air is particularly great.

You enter the last room not yet fully furnished, which Ona had thought of turning into a guest room. It's also where she stored the things she wants to get rid of or what she has not yet had the courage to go down to her cellar. You smile while looking at her old trophies, promising yourself to get her to put them somewhere on a shelf in the bedroom.

"¿Quién está ahí?" ("Who's there?")

You hear Ona’s voice, startling you violently. You drop your phone which makes an atrocious noise when falling on the light wooden floor. You hurry to pick it up and get out of the room, having noticed a hint of anxiety in the brunette's question. Well, arriving home realizing that someone else is there when you live alone can cause concern.

"It’s me"

Your answer is simple and Ona may have seen you before you spoke, but you blame yourself for scaring her. That said, seeing Ona looking at you wide-eyed, her training bag still attached to the shoulder is worth it.

"Y/N?"

"It’s not Hermosa anymore?" you ask without hiding your amusement.

It takes a few more seconds for Ona to realize that she’s not dreaming, but after the thud her bag makes when she drops it, the next thing you know is that you finally find the warmth of her arms. Her hair are still wet from the shower she took at the end of her training, but that doesn't prevent you from plunging your face into the hollow of her neck to breathe in her smell.

You feel your feet leave the ground when she squeezes you even harder against her, despite the fact that you are the higher of the two. But it makes you laugh and take your face off her neck so you can look at her. Her eyes are sparkling and her smile is bigger than ever.

Some kisses exchanged later, your feet find the ground, without taking your arms off from her. It’s not exactly like she’s in a hurry to release you either.

"What are you doing here? I thought you couldn’t come this weekend?"

"No, I couldn't" you answer with a shrug and a smile.

Ona’s frown and you can not resist the urge to put your lips between her eyebrows to deride her. Taking you by the hand, she takes you to the living room and to the sofa.

"I don’t understand. Were you able to free yourself?"

You gently bite your lip looking at her, thinking about the best way to tell her what you did.

"I quit" you finally confess.

"What? But why?"

"I also gave my apartment back…"

Well, your apartment. Ona came to live with you after a year of relationship and she spent a lot of time there too.

"… and I thought maybe it would be better to find a job and an apartment elsewhere. For example in Barcelona?"

Ona looks stunned and blinks several times, as if to put her ideas back in place. Her silence makes you stress and you hurry to add

"If you don't want me here I can always take an apartment not too far from yours, I will understand, you have already installed everything as you wanted. And in addition I -"

"Stop rumbling" says Ona, putting a hand on your mouth to shut you up. "You’re telling me you dropped everything you had in Manchester to come here?"

"To come to you" you answer, your voice muffling by her hand, before she remove it. "I realize that Manchester isn't home anymore. Because you're not here. Home is where you are."

It takes some seconds to Ona to digest the information and you didn't leave her face with your eyes. When it clicked and maybe she realize at last that you're not joking or this is real life, she mumble how much she loves you before kissing you so hard that you lose your balance and fell on your back on the couch.

Some hours later, you were both fully naked in her (your?) bed, cuddling. You were half-laying on here while she plays with your fingers.

"Where are all your stuff?" Ona asked

"I take some of the things I need first in my wallets, but the other will come after. I had to send them with DPD or something."

Ona hums, kissing your fingers one by one, making you smile. You are convinced that you will never be tired of her or the sensations she gives you. It’s been three years, and you haven’t once seen a decrease in the strength of your feelings. Quite the contrary.

"Do I have to look for an apartment though?" you smile.

"No way" Ona frowns, even if she knows you're joking. "You made me feel home when I was in Manchester. I will make you feel home here, don't you dare going somewhere else."

"Your accent is heavier than when you left" you smile again, making her roll her eyes.

"I only speak English with Keira and Lucy here. Even Ingrid asked me to talk to her in Spanish even if she answer in English."

"Well that's hot."

"Answering in English?"

"No" you laugh. "I always find it hot when you speak Spanish"

Your girlfriend smirk at you, drawing you against her so she can kiss your lips, before quickly stop it.

"Wait. When I speak Spanish or when people speak Spanish? 'Cause if it’s hearing Spanish that’s doing something to you, we’re gonna have a serious problem"

"Only you" you laugh, getting back to your kiss.

[petite-phthora]

Thank you...

[DP x DC fic]

[Love at first... murder? - part 10]

<< Prev | Next >>

Part 1

Ao3

---

Private chat nicknames:

ImBaby= Danielle/Dani/Ellie

MiddleChild= Danny

---

Danny rubs his eyes and stares at the laptop in front of him as he’s trying to focus. He’s currently at a table he claimed in his school’s library, and he’s been staring at his screen for a solid 25 minutes by now.

He currently has a free period, just before his last class of the day, so he decided to try and get some homework done now since he has less time after school today.

Because of his date.

He’s going on a date!

Due to the excitement, Danny can’t quite stop himself from grinning like a loon. To be perfectly honest, he hasn’t been able to stop grinning and blushing even since Red Hood had sent that last message.

It’s a date.

Red Hood had confirmed it’s a date!

The buzzing of his phone as he receives a message draws his attention away from his schoolwork even though it wasn’t on that anyway but on a certain kind and handsome vigilante.

Danny picks the device up and takes a look. Seeing Ellie had messaged him, he raises an eyebrow. Assuming it to be another one picture of her standing on some monument in human form in spaces humans without powers shouldn’t be able to get to, like a horse on a roof, he opens the chat.

Though…

That’s not a selfie on top of El Ángel de la Independencia in Mexico, he muses as he reads the text with a slightly confused frown.

---

Private chat

~ ImBaby changed their name to SirEllieOfTheInfiniteRealms ~

~ SirEllieOfTheInfiniteRealms changed the name of MiddleChild to HisMajesty ~

SirEllieOfTheInfiniteRealms: once nightfall has cometh upon us, and the world has been plunged into darkness, though blood may be shed, be assured brother o mine, thine honor shall be guarded. i have formulated various challenges most onerous to confirmeth whether the helmed knight in red is righteous enough to court thee. for now, i will have to wish thee adieu, brother mine, as I will need to maketh some preparations for these mentioned challenges before I can enact them. as for the outcome of the trials i have set, i shall visit thee within the following fortnight bearing the news. until such time, i giveth thou farewell. ancients be with ye.  o7

HisMajesty: ???

HisMajesty: have you swallowed an encyclopedia again? 🤨

HisMajesty: didn’t know it would actually work with teaching you new words 🤔

HisMajesty: would’ve been good to know when I still had Lancer’s English classes 😔😔

HisMajesty: what does even this mean? 🤔🤔

HisMajesty: what are you planning??

HisMajesty: Ellie?

HisMajesty: no seriously, like

HisMajesty: have you been hanging out with CW lately?? 👀👀

HisMajesty: cause this is exactly the sort of cryptic shit I’d expect coming from him 😕😒

HisMajesty: not you

HisMajesty: …usually 😔

HisMajesty: unless he told you to tell me this??? 🤨 🤨

HisMajesty: but then again, he prefers to use his sticky notes to leave me cryptic messages..

HisMajesty: Ellie? 😟

HisMajesty: what are you doing????

HisMajesty: where even are you right now?? 🤔

HisMajesty: last I heard you were in Mexico 🇲🇽

HisMajesty: are you still there?

HisMajesty: Ellie

HisMajesty: please answer me 🙏🙏

HisMajesty: Ellieeeeee ☹️

HisMajesty: Elle

HisMajesty: Els

HisMajesty: Ella

HisMajesty: Elski

HisMajesty: Elleroonie

HisMajesty: Ellexandro

HisMajesty: Eljamin

HisMajesty: Ellodore

HisMajesty: 🥺

---

Danny stops messaging her when he realizes she’s not going to read any of his texts any time soon. He lets out a weary sigh.

What has she gotten herself into this time?

---

Red Hood came to pick Danny up at his apartment at 12.50. He rang the doorbell this time. Before Danny can do so much as greet him, Red Hood hands him a box. Danny looks at it confused before moving his gaze onto Red Hood with the same expression.

“Here, for you” He grunts.

Danny looks back down at the box and under the stare of the helmed vigilante, that Danny can’t quite see due to the helmet. Danny takes it and opens it gingerly. Inside are what seem to be some kind of chocolate squares.

“It’s chocolate fudge. Homemade. Wasn’t quite sure what you would like…” Red Hood explains.

Danny looks back up and beams at him, cheeks turning slightly pink.

“Oh no, this is great! Thanks!”

He tries one out, under the watchful eye of Red Hood and Oh Ancients, they are delicious. Which Danny then also proceeds to verbalize.

“Oh my Ancients, these are amazing. Thank you so much!”

Danny gives him a quick hug, even lifting him slightly off the ground which does things to Red Hood (not that Danny noticed), as Red Hood lets out a soft “No problem” before letting go as he remembers something

“Oh wait! Before we go, I also have something for you as well!” Danny blurts out, quickly darting back into his apartment to get something, putting the box of chocolate fudge down on his counter.

He guesses Red Hood hadn’t quite expected that, as he was still frozen into place when Danny came back with his own gift for his date.

Danny hands over a small inconspicuous white box. Red Hood takes it and opens it before carefully taking out the sleek silver watch and turning it over.

As he’s looking it over, Danny starts talking again.

“Okay, okay, so I’ll explain what it does in a minute. First off though, put it on!” He says, jittery from nerves and excitement

He really hopes Red Hood will like it.

Red Hood silently does as he says and puts on the watch.

“Now turn to the wall and press that button right there!” Danny continues, pointing out a small button on the side of the watch.

---

What Jason had expected to happen when he pressed the button on the watch, was for it to light up or turn on or something, maybe play a little tune or a nice message.

What Jason hadn’t expected to happen, was for a toxic green laser to shoot out of the watch and blast the wall in front of him, leaving behind a black scorch mark.

Stunned, Jason drops his gaze back onto the, now slightly smoking, ‘watch’ before turning his wide-eyed gaze back onto Danny. Danny, who seems to be practically vibrating in excitement and is eagerly awaiting his reaction.

“Do you like it? It’s the Fenton Watch Ray! I modeled it after the Fenton Wrist Ray, but I decided to make the design more sleek and inconspicuous. When pressing the button, it’ll release a highly pressurized ectoplasmic energy blast.

“You see, it takes in ambient ectoplasm from the surrounding area as fuel! So it won’t run out of energy and you don’t need to charge it! The ectoplasm it’s infused with also makes it more resistant, so it’s harder to break and you’ll be able to take it out on patrol with you if you need it!

“Don’t worry though! While it may look a little dangerous, it’s actually quite harmless to living humans! The most it’ll do is knock them down, or even out on some occasions. And there’s no lasting after-effects!

“Oh! And this button,” Danny pauses as he points out a button on the other side of the watch, “shows you the time!”

Danny pushes the button and, sure enough, the screen of the ‘watch’ lights up, showing it is currently 12.56 pm.

During the entire rant, Jason just stares at Danny through his helmet in stunned silence. He didn’t quite understand everything that was just word-vomited at him, but he got the general gist of it.

‘Marry me,’ is what he wants to say.

“Thank you” is what he says instead, in the softest tone known to man with blushing cheeks and a lovesick smile on his face.

---

Taglist:

@i-always-say-yea   @uraniumwizard    @why-must-i-be-like-this   @griffinthing

[thissying]

Interesting to know ahead of this, if you didn't already, is that GP was Christijan Albers' race engineer back in the day and the conversation he refers to was last Sunday judging by this in the footage:

I hadn't listened yet to this week's De Telegraaf Formule 1 podcast but did now because of that post about Christijan Albers speculating on Christian Horner preferring Daniel as Max's team mate which is kind of 'News at 11', but still. But at 16m10s the conversation spun away from Daniel to who else would be a good team mate and:

CA: Maybe someone like Lewis but they will never be team mates because that's really... When you feel that... I spoke to GP this weekend-- I'm surprised at the animosity there still is between those two teams. That's seriously like oil and water.

EvH: Even with someone as neutral as GP.

CA: Unbelievable! And then you see-- They can't be objective at all any more. They can't be objective. I have discussions with GP, about what happened in Silverstone for example. Everyone has their own viewpoint on that but it can turn into such a heated conversation!

EvH: Yeah but we even saw that when Hamilton got pole in Hungary that on that Saturday it all came back a little even though they knew they were going to be dominant on Sunday. You saw it with de Vries too. Horner and de Vries didn't get on because Horner saw him as the Mercedes driver. Weird how you can't let that go, right?

CH: Yeah. There's a certain frustration, bad blood there... I don't know what it is but I was actually surprised again, like: my gosh, how can you suddenly become so fierce again? And our conversation was actually quite mellow but you notice it runs pretty deep. It really hurt them. It really was a battle.

[frenchcurious]

Calendrier de Formule 1 2024 - Un nombre record de vingt-quatre Grands Prix. - source F1 Old and New.

[hourglassfish]

On Season 1, Episode 7 : Part One : I Expect More: Syd and Carmy's Relationship

So I think this is gonna end up being in a few chunks - I think I want to talk about context leading up to the episode:

I Expect More: Syd and Carmy's relationship,

I know you'll be listening: Marcus, McDonald's and Freedom

Risottogate

Hiring New Fucking Broads: Syd, Richie and conflict;

"That's Not You" The Moment Syd Walks Out

So I'm late on this obvs - and I'm sure the whole world and his dog has already said what needs to be said about this episode, but I wanted to think about it anyway. There's a post on here somewhere that says that episode 7 doesn't have a three act structure, that it captures a moment of stress and tension, and that's it - but this isn't quite how I read it, I believe that it does both. How obvious this is all depends on how you frame it.

There's a central feint to The Bear that I come back to often - that you think 'a stranger comes to town' and that that stranger is the return of Carmy, made strange by his time away. Nah! The stranger is Sydney. The show doesn't really start until she arrives, (we know that Carmy's been in Chicago for two weeks, but our story doesn’t start there. There's a reason for this!) she is a force that is shaking things up and providing dynamism. This is not to say Carmy isn't the protagonist, obvs, nor that he is passive, very much not. But it is often her presence, her drive and determination and belief in Carmy, a belief she is unafraid to unabashedly express, which moves him, and moves everyone around him. When she is around, and Carmy lets himself lean into their connection, he is able to articulate - and action - what he wants, to ‘let it rip’.

I say this in relation to episode 7, cus if your focus is Carmy, then it's one minute in time, a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day. But if you focus in on Sydney, it is the story of how she came to quit. Whenever someone is like 'She's a brat! She's arrogant! it was her fault!' - I'm like OK sure - if you want to completely identify with Carmy at his worst, we can do that, and if you want to ignore how the rest of the staff respond to what happens, sure, we can do that too. We can do that. But the show is really clear on the framing of what happens.

So let's begin with the context of where this day comes from.

There is an ambiguity to Carmy and Sydney's working relationship which very much works in his favour. Very much.

In the week that she staged, Syd quickly finds herself as sous, because she has to. The kitchen is not functioning, and Carmy does not have the emotional skills, or at least the emotional bandwidth, to navigate the grief and anger and dysfunction they are all engaged in, to get the kitchen to a place where it can work. There was a reason Kitchen Nightmares made such compelling TV, and it was because behind bad food, ugly decor and terrible profit margins were almost always a bunch of people that were hurting. Carmy may be Gordon Ramsay here, but its Syd who's the hard working, behind the scenes producer, doing the actual graft that pulls it all back together.

She then spent her time away from work essentially formulating a business plan (she proposes first! way before 1:8) to make the restaurant profitable. We know Carmy is bad at this. Richie articulates as much ; 'you've been here two weeks and we've had money problems for two weeks'. Sydney's able to not only see the problems in a week but also suggest practical fixes. This is where they overspend i.e. its the delivery on the flour, not the material itself - and this is how to fix it - Marcus drives to pick it up. Instantly actionable. She has skills from Sheridan that are better suited to running a business like the Beef than the skills and tastes that Carm has from being Chef De Carmy* at Eleven Madison Park or Noma. It will never not be funny to me that she presents this to him in episode 2, and that in episode 3 he says 'I'll dial business, you do everything else' - my guy she has already done it!!! You are not slick!

She's does a lot of the emotional labour of getting the brigade into shape: the shitty, endless nagging, being the bad (or at least annoying) guy over and over again, despite clearly being one of the youngest there, and the newest member of staff. She does this without the authority of being an owner, or a member of the family. I'm gonna try and avoid referring to gender and race explicitly here - like the show does, LOL - but like... it's there. We all know it's there.

We know she is brilliant in a crisis: in Sheridan Carmy tells her they can't afford to lose a single service, so when the electricity goes and the gas goes, she sets up a fucking BBQ from found building materials outside. It's kind of incredible, and they all know and acknowledge it. (Sheridan, Review and The Bear are three different stories of crisis management, and thinking about them that way is really useful)

She is in! 100%. All of her energy and creativity and care and patience have gone into The Bear, it flourishes under the love that is still looking for a home following Sheridan Road’s demise. They are fucking so lucky to have her, and to have her at this specific moment in time.

What exactly does she get back from Carmy for that? There's her wage, of course. She's working well beyond what she's being paid, but you know, it's her job. There's a bunch of stuff we could say about the satisfaction of doing a job well - but that's not what she gets from him.

She supposedly gets a boss that listens to her, she gets to not have some psycho stood behind her pushing and screaming. But this is conditional. He may not scream at her (up until episode 7) but he'll 'cut her down to size' if he needs to - the conversation about stock/jus/demi-glace in episode 3, mentioning that he sought out references and slapping her with a bunch of unanticipated feedback from all her former employers when he essentially wants her to shut up about the risotto/short rib, lots of co-ercive 'are we good chef?' business (straight out of the Donna playbook, I am not, and I cannot emphasise this enough, a fan).

The main thing she gets is to be close to him and learn from him, which we know was really important for her. I think he knows it too. JAW plays it as though he knows she lied about coming to the Beef every Sunday. She’s up front on knowing who he is, so it’s not a stretch to believe that he also knows that she's there for him. She plays her cards close to her chest on all this for a reason: that same admiration has the potential to set up a very specific power dynamic, one where she simply wants to be in the presence of his 'greatness'. ***

That's the exchange, for so, so, so much labour. It's not really equitable, and I think this is a tension throughout the show**, and why I'm never fully on board with sydcarmy stuff, even whilst being able to see the vision. Like... you should be staring at her with adoration, fam, and you should be fucking terrified that she’ll leave! She's carrying a lot of this shit! Carmy knows that, even if you don’t! You don’t make an offer like the one at the end of S1 unless you really want to hold on to that person - be that romantic, platonic, or purely pragmatic (she’s a good worker). In Hands he explicitly tells her that it’s much more work than he can pay her for.

(I'm still quietly horrified by the fact that Syd is deferring her wages for six months... but not getting a profit share? fam. FAM! Looked at through a race and gender lens? In Chicago? It is no coincidence that the people that most explicitly tells her to be cautious are her father and another Black woman)

I want to make sure I've clearly said that none of this is intended as a blistering criticism of Carmy. I feel immense sympathy for him. He is grieving, and having arrived late*****, he has missed much of the communal grieving processes, like funerals, and sorting through people's stuff, that people really need to do together. He's absolutely burnt out and the role he is in requires a skill set he does not yet have (it is poignant that Syd is like ‘why are you buying farmer’s market produce?’ - Tina is right to point out that it’s not Noma, Richie and Michael’s system will have had its strengths). I'm not sure if anyone at The Beef truly knows the extent of his panic/anxiety, nor do I think he is getting treatment. I imagine he must be in flight/fight mode 24 hours a day, which, as anyone who has experienced this knows, feels like you're literally about to die. Always. Always. We are not designed to feel like that for so long.

I don't think he's some machiavellian mastermind extracting her labour from her. I think she is a lifeline and he clings. She offers, and he takes. We know from 2:9 's panic attack, that her seeing him, really, truly, *seeing* him was a deeply meaningful moment for him, that her making the choice to be at the Beef with him before she truly knew him was affirmative and transformative, and her staying, even after watching Richie bully and undermine him, even more so. I rewatched Hands today, and when she hands him the portfolio and tells him he needs help… his little face! Carmy is moving from crisis to crisis, but Syd’s head is just a little bit above the parapet, and she can think differently. He needs that, and no one deserves to feel alone with all the problems he is carrying with The Beef.

That said, I also think he can buy into his own hype, (it’s a good thing, that your sister doesn’t think you’re a genius fam), enjoys when Syd buys into it too and struggles when she does not. This is understandable. The only other person who really understands his success is Pete, who is bottom of the pecking order. He got very successful, very young. He worked hard for that but he also has the expected ego (we’ll return to this!) regardless of the fact that he is a decent guy. Syd is often negotiating this ego. He listens to her, depends on her and needs her, but he also gets to hold her to his unspecific 'higher standard',**** and 'expect more' when they clash or disagree, to wield small mistakes over her like a thunderstorm, to remind her that they both come from a cooking world where abuse is casual and accepted in pursuit of excellence.

This lack of clarity is such a fertile breeding ground for abuse. When you live in a society that is built on abusive dynamics, abuse isn't something that only evil monsters do, it's a clear and constant danger that anyone can slip into at any moment in time. That is why clear, well communicated boundaries are so important.

Everything that happens in episode 7 is a result of this messiness that has been coalescing around The Beef from the start of the series. The ambiguity of this specific dynamic, so central to the restaurant and the show itself, is one of the cornerstones of that.

Carmy can change up the dynamic of their relationship at any moment. He can be her 'mentor' when he wants to cut her down to size, he can be her 'partner' when he needs work from her, he can be a romantic and sensitive 'friend' (that looks like Jeremy Allen White) when he needs her to stay. She can never quite find her feet.

In episode 7, their dynamic changes multiple times. Are they going to be partners that solve this problem together? She tries for that, but she is swiftly, and brutally, ejected from the expo, a role that she has been in pretty much consistently, since the moment she gets the job. The team defers to her, as they've become used to, right up until the moment he screams at her to move. As in Brigade, with the stock, she is being humiliated again.

Will he be her friend, with their connection being the motor for everything else? Ehhhhn, she tries twice to talk about his clear frustration about the risotto review, he is it not having it!

Perhaps he will be her mentor here, who will model best practice in the face of a crisis they deal with together? Well… he certainly models something.

The pre order option being left on is a small mistake. Easily done, a box was ticked or unticked. Small, like leaving a packet of cigarettes near a burner while you scrub the floor, or spilling a bottle of Xanax in a children’s drinks cooler. Much less dangerous too. An easy mistake to make, and the show as a whole is very permissive about mistake making. A huge part of Uncle Jimmy’s narrative role is to make it so that mistakes don’t really stick! The show does not punish fucking up.

Maybe if they had gotten Richie set up on the tablet earlier, they'd have noticed it then. Maybe if Carmy, who was ‘dialling business’ while Syd did everything else had been training Richie, he would have clocked it instead. We’ll never know. What we do know is that there is no perspective around this, Syd’s mistake, and that when the time comes to solve it, both men ignores the skills that they know she has, and dismiss the good faith she should have accrued from months of dedication. Any warmth, respect, gratitude and care that Carmy has had for Syd up until this point dissipates, almost instantly. It's a deeply destabilising moment for the whole kitchen, but for their relationship especially.

It's hard to say much more without referring to the next sections. So...

More next time!

*I know it's Chef De Cuisine, but Chef De Carmy or Carmy De Cusine is more fun to say

**and in a bunch of work places, tbh, where a white male 'genius' is surrounded by a group of POC and women working their arses off while him and his mates dip in and out... OH NO I WENT THERE

*** I think this drives a lot of Carmy's absenteeism as well. It's weird to watch season one post season two, and see how often the team is split, for good and bad reasons. In Hands, Syd and Richie are both doing Carmy's head in, and he jumps at the chance to send them to get caulk. There’s the infamous Al Anon run in Brigade, followed by him sort of lolling about in the office (I know he’s bookkeeping), in Sheridan he does the meat run to Nat/Pete's, in Dogs they're doing the kids bday party, in Ceres for a large chunk of the day he's in the office... it's not the same as his abandoning of Syd with the menu, but you can see how scattered he is from day one, between the demands of the Beef and the demands of his family. I dunno how Michael did it, tbh. Well he couldn't, could he. That's the tragedy.

**** truly cringe to listen to a white man tell a Black woman he holds her to a different standard, as though the world is not already doing that to her. I remain, a sydcarmy safe space but ooooof. I dunno. Like I don’t need or want the Shonda ‘twice as hard, half as much’ speech to be in the show, but the women, especially the WOC, in this show don’t half put up with some shit.

***** convinced this will be a plot point next season, btw. There will be a reason why he wasn’t there and it’ll come up around Marcus’s mom’s funeral, or palliative care.

[thepastisalreadywritten]

By Nicolás de Cárdenas

26 July 2024

The motto of the modern Olympic Games, “Faster, Higher, Stronger,” was coined by French Dominican friar Louis Henri Didon (17 March 1840 – 13 March 1900), who became friends with the founder of the modern Olympic Games, Baron Pierre de Coubertin (1 January 1863 – 2 September 1937), five years before the 1896 Athens Games.

Baron Pierre de Coubertin is known as the Father of the Modern Olympic Games. 

The motto, originally formulated in Latin as “Citius, Altius, Fortius," was used before the modern Olympic movement at St. Albert the Great School in Paris, where the Dominican friar was the principal.

Born on 17 March 1840, Didon entered the Rondeau Minor Seminary in Grenoble, France, beginning at the age of 9.

During his youth, he stood out for his ability as an athlete.

After visiting the Carthusian monastery in Grenoble, he decided to follow a religious vocation and took the habit of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans) at the age of 16.

Six years later, after a period of formation in Rome, he was ordained a priest at age 22.

Military chaplain, prisoner, and refugee

Didon soon gained fame as a preacher.

During the brief Franco-Prussian War, which broke out in July 1870, he was a military chaplain and for a time was held as a prisoner.

When he fell ill, he ended up as a refugee in Geneva, Switzerland.

From there, he was sent to Marseille, where he resumed his sometimes controversial preaching activity, which led to his being sent to Corsica in 1880. 

A decade later, he was appointed principal of St. Albert the Great School in Paris where he established sports as part of the school’s educational program and promoted sports competition.

This decision was the result of the belief in the value of sports and the contact he had with Pierre de Coubertin since 1891.

In the first race they organized, the Dominican decided to embroider on the school flag the famous motto, which would become an Olympic motto during the first Olympic Congress held in Paris in 1894.

Two years later, Athens hosted the first Olympic Games, which have since been held every four years.

It was interrupted only three times due to World Wars I and II (1916, 1940 and 1944) and postponed from 2020 to 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

—

This story was first published by ACI Prensa, CNA’s Spanish-language news partner. It has been translated and adapted by CNA.

[adarkrainbow]

A long time ago (well, more like two months ago) I made a post about this recent live-action movie called "Les Nouvelles Aventures de Cendrillon" (The New Adventures of Cinderella), a spin-off of recent humoristic Aladin movies. You can look at my post here. At the time I hadn't seen the movie, so I just talked about the context and the general opinion about it (though I did find a full set of behind the scenes pictures for the sets, right here). However I finally saw it! And so I can give my opinion about this... this very divisive piece, to say the least.

Let's begin by a brief reminder of what the audience as a whole thought: complete shit. When you look at the reviews, you see that everybody absolutely hated this movie, and described it as some sort of puss-filled boil symptomic of the morbid decay of French cinema in recent decades. Some people got angry at this movie simply being utterly stupid and a waste of way (and of people's money). Others were offended at what they deemed an insulting and discriminating piece. However I was a tiny bit wary of this mass-wave of hatred for a few reasons.

A) Today everybody believes every new French movie is garbage. Literaly when you show French people any type of movie that is about to be released today, every say "It's shit I won't bother watching". It's the trend, you know, to say that today cinema is dead.

B) This movie is part of a line which covered the "Aladin" and "Alad'2" movies - movies which were also reviled by the critics and considered garbage by the masses... and yet were enormous successes and made a lot of money, showing that clearly while those who talked hated it, there was an enormous silent community that loved it.

C) While some reviews were very well-formulated, others were just "Oh, X actress dare play in this? She's a whore." Like literaly they were Youtube and Facebook comments like that, and when someone else answered "Why are you insulting a woman like that, just because she took a role in a movie?" the answer was "You're a bitch too." So we see how low was the level of the people behind those comments.

As such I want to give my own opinion on the movie. Since I will have a lot to say, it will be under a cut but if you ask me...

Is the movie as bad as people make it out to be? No. Honestly, all those reviews presented this movie as an irreedemable monster, as some sort of repulsive garbage that would make one regret the hour of life they wasted on it. I don't think the movie is that bad. There are tons of much worse movies out there, especially when it comes to fairytales - and there's for example American movies that are WAY much worse and yet are more beloved just because they're *explosions* AMERICANS *explosions*.

That said, is it a bad movie? Oh yes, it is a bad movie. Or rather... I can't fully say it is a bad movie, because here is the thing. The thing that doesn't make this movie infuriating but... sad. The thing is: it could have been a good movie. It is a "bad" movie in the sense that you can feel it is a wasted potential of a movie.

Because there are very good elements in this movie. I was surprised myself, because the trailer and the beginning promised me something between the bad and the mild, but... the closer we get to the end, the more we have here some acting, here some scenes, here some ideas, that are actually great - from the point of view of a fairytale parody, or of a Cinderella adaptation. You see the outline of a cool movie, you see the fragments of a funny movie, you see the shadow of a project that once could have fully worked in a solid way... But it was diluted, buried and scribbled all over by a lot of bad and useless stuff, which indeed are very symptomatic of... something. Something I can't quite get a name for, but maybe you'll see better as describe my grievances and enjoyments.

I will try my best to alternate the good points and the bad points to give a complete and fair view of this movie.

Good point number 1: There was a real visual effort, and it was great. The sets are gorgeous. There's a very good use of both natural landscapes and actual real-life castles. There was a costume effort to evoke a sort of anachronistic, simplified Middle-Ages as a child would imagine it, mixed with a parody of Disney's Cinderella not too obvous so that they wouldn't sue. Now do all the costumes work... It depends. It is these kind of costumes that weirdly can look good under some angle and shots, and yet will look very cheap under another lighting or camera? Pretty weird. And they did something I absolutely hate with modern French cinema, but that everybody is doing in recent movies to avoid spending too much money: a friggin' AMERICAN NIGHT! You know, a "blue night" - you shoot in broad daylight, then put a blue filter over it. It is a ugly, the trick is so obvious, it is cliche and... arrg I hate it. But outside of that, the rest of the movie does look good - I notably loved sharing the behind pictures of the sets, and there's some fascinating ideas in there: such as having the real-life narrator's studio being an under-roof appartment, very typical of big cities like Paris, that yet mirrors perfectly the attic Cinderella is forced to live in.

Bad point number 1: What's the audience?

This is not a question the movie asks, but one that I ask. What is the audience for this movie? I know it is the same as the "Aladin" movies but... How can I explain this? When I watched this movie, due to a huge discrepancy in tone and content, I couldn't know if this movie was a failed attempt at conciliating adult and child audiences in an "for all ages" movie, or if it was written by very, very immature men. (And I insist on men because there's a gender problem I'll get to in a minute). This movie could have honestly worked as a childre comedy. As a funny, extravagant, over-the-top kid movie. The whole film feels like it was aimed at being that primarily, and some of the most efficient moments are literaly the most childish of them. There was notably a true effort to bring a "slapstick cartoon" feel to the piece, and it manage to bring back some Looney Tunes feel. For example how the wicked stepmother appears at first as this regal Lady Tremaine-like character - but is played for humoristic discrepancy as this sort of silly, vulgar character that literaly head-butts Cinderella for speaking up to her. The sequence of the chase between the lustful prince and Cinderella, throughout the empty halls of the castle, to the sound of "Chick Habit" also works very well! You see throughout the scenes the glimpse, the outline of an hilarious children movie...

Except... EXCEPT! The movie is filled to the brim with adult jokes. Sex jokes to be exact. And that's a huge problem. In fact, since the movie begins with a lot of jokes clearly aimed at a mature audience, you get the feeling this is meant to be an adult comedy - but then, as you go act after act you realize... Wait, shit, it's a children movie! It's not for adults at all! And that's the discrepancy I talks about, and that is without a doubt the biggest and most uncomfortable flaw of this movie. I honestly couldn't say if this was originally conceived as a children movie but somehow producers or directors decided to add adult elements because they were too afraid or unwilling to do a full children production... Or if whoever made this movie sincerely believes children nowadays are into sex jokes. Which would be extremely frightening. A third possible option is that this movie was aimed at teenagers, and they failed very hard because it rather comes of as "It's for little children and bawdy adults" instead of "It's for teens". Because in their mind a teen is a sex-obsessed child?

Bad point number 2: An awful character, and gender problems.

Kind of a continuation of the discrepancy above... Another problem of this movie is the character of the Prince. Now, if you recall what I said in my previous post, the movie is presented as a story-in-story. Cinderella's tale has a narrative frame taking place in the real-world, and the Prince of the fairytale is meant to parallel the character of Marco, that the storyteller pins for. She is in love with him, wants to become his girlfriend, while being blind to the fact he is a jerk to everybody. As such, the Prince is meant to be the deconstruction of the Prince Charming character. The entire movie is about him being depicted as a complete idiot, as a self-centered jerk, as a lustful sexist ; and in turn Cinderella's chance at finally meeting him and talking to him at the ball turns out into her just being disappointed and bored by his vileness. It is an interesting idea... Too bad it was badly executed.

Badly executed as in: there is a difference between a character well-written to be a jerk, and a character who is badly written to be a jerk. And I am not speaking of a character meant to come off as a villain or asshole but turns out to be the most likeable character, oh no. I am rather speaking of the difference between a character written to be an asshole but who is still funny to the audience, and a character who is written to be a jerk but in such a way there is nothing funny at all about him. That's the Prince. His jokes are some of the worst of the entire movie, his character is painfully unfunny, and they really went way too much into the whole idea of making him look like a slimy buffoon, to the point it removes anything interesting about him in the first place. He is just cringy and painful to look at.

And around the prince there is an entire configuration of elements that did made various women jump out in disgust upon watching this movie. I remember one particular review that was infuriated with how "degrading" this movie was to women. Now I am going to nuance this later but it is true that the Prince's sexist nature, which is meant to be depicted as bad, seeps into his context and the humor of his scenes so much the writers and movie-makers come off as themselves misogynistic to the audience. Mostly because of how there is a lot of cheap jokes and nasty shots at women's physiques. A good example is the "speed-dating" sequence - the "ball" turns out to be a medieval speed-dating, not a ball at all, and the prince finds something wrong or repelling within each candidate. And each joke is more insulting than the next - he gags because a woman has armpit hair, he claims a princess is a "man" because she is a muscular barbarian, he disdains a girl who is interested in Shakespeare because she's a nerd, he just straight up rejects those that do not look conventionally attractive... It makes him look like an asshole, right, because his character is a superficial prick. The problem however lies in the fact these jokes are presented as if they are supposed to make the AUDIENCE laugh too. The way the scene is shot seems to encourage the audience to burst out laughing just because a girl has a lot of body hair or has weird eyes. Aka, when you look at this scene, it seems the audience is meant to be a bunch of misogynistic men. And that's very off-putting.

This clearly extends into the sex jokes of the movie which are all about objectifying women. This movie is a huge male-gaze movie with a specific focus on boobs. Cinderella seduces the prince because she has big boobs ; the fairy godmother offers big boobs to those she blesses ; the Prince mistakes another peasant girl for Cinderella because she has boobs ; the Prince only talks to the girl's boobs instead of looking at her in the face ; and at one point in an alternate timeline (I'll come back to that), Cinderella doesn't lose her shoes but her bra... It is a puerile, vulgar and exhausting. And Cinderella's "dance" to seduce the Prince? On one side I will admit it is impressive in terms of choreography and body movement, and yes it pays homage to the famous choreographies of Madonna and Beyoncé... But it is still Cinderella stripping down for the prince, and making a sexually-charged dance with even twerking at one point. And that's for a kid audience? There's something truly slimy that seeps at several points in this movie...

... and yet...

Good point number 2: The good acting and characters

... and yet there are passages that clearly are excellent feminist commentaries, and that are definitively conscious of a problem of female representation within fairytales and its derivative media, and don't hesitate to denounce in interesting way some historical realities. Not only that, but despite a whole bunch of characters condensing in them a slimy, sleazy, pervert feeling, the rest of the cast actually offers strong, interesting, truly renewed views of the dynamics between the characters.

It is quite a mystery how this movie can be so bad and so interesting at the same time - and it kind of parallels the way the story is "created" in-universe. This Cinderella tale is told by a modern, disappointed, frustrated girl to a little boy. The girl tries to bring new twists, modern elements and complete reinventions to the tale - only for the little boy to complain about the story "not going that way" or something not being "realistic", and having demands that the young woman rightly describes as "conservative censorship" and "reactionary opinions". As such, the story-teller has to work with the boy's exceptations while still trying to tell her "new tale". And it is quite fun to see this kind dynamic reversed, where it is the young generation that wants traditional, sexist, cliche fairytales opposed to an adult generation who wants things completely out-of-the-box and reinvented. But after watching the movie I almost feel like this is something that happened in real-life in the staff room as they were making the movie. This film shares to me a bit of the "dual vibe" of Terry Gilliam's "The Brothers Grimm". You know, Gilliam wanted to make a dark, poetic fairytale tragedy, the Weinstein brothers wanted to make a sexy supernatural action-packed blockbuster, and the result of their feud was a half-and-half that satisfied nobody? This movie feels the same way, as if it had been torn apart by a sincere care and devotion for the Cinderella tale, and another force who wanted to make a vulgar sex comedy.

Because the character of Cinderella is actually great in this movie! Marilou Berry does an excellent job at playing the character, and the way she is written really works. Because the idea is to bring a strong-headed, more independant, more assertive female character into the traditional story - but while also keeping the sweet, gentle, kind Disney-like character we can love and sympathize with. And they did an excellent job doing that. I have to similarly praise Josiane Balasko as the wicked stepmother. Now, Balasko is a good actress we all know that - and the poor woman has to deal with some unfunny and bad material... But when she interacts with Cinderella, suddenly the character of the wicked stepmother goes from uninspired caricature to something really, REALLY interesting. In fact, the wicked stepmother character only truly shines when interacting with Cinderella. (It greatly helps that they are mother and daughter in real-life).

An excellent sequence, is the way the wicked stepmother tries to prevent Cinderella from going to the ball. In this version, after the ball is announced, Cinderella shows up in the living room of the house wearing the only thing left of her mother's, a simple blue dress she hopes to wear for the party. The stepmother does look displeased, but she says nothing and let's it be. Because she does trust that it is one of her own daughters that will win the Prince's heart - cause they are cleaner, more well-dressed, etc, etc... It is only after she checks out her magic mirror (a la Snow-White) and discovers Cinderella has more chances to win the marriage than her own daughter that she decides to prevent her from going... By secretly burning the dress during the night. And in the following morning she makes her believe she is truly sorry about the accident, while adding "But if the dress burned, it means you forgot to smother the fire, you must admit it...". And that's what works with this version - they make the abuse of the stepmother more realistic and logical because Cinderella knows she is a bad person, but the stepmother performs her schemes and manipulations in secret, and puts on a kind facade afterward, so that Cinderella can prove nothing. And while she does cry over her burned dress, Cinderella doesn't give up - she immediately starts sawing and creating a second dress identical to the first one (showing she is still a determined and strong-willed character who WILL get ready for the ball). Only for the stepmother to come in, and while praising her craft, pointing out "Oh but look, you must be more careful, if you pull a tad bit here... *rips the dress apart* You should really put more work into it, because it won't hold for the ball". And finally, there is this very cool element added: since Cinderella immediately goes back to work, and the stepmother understands destroying the dresses will do nothing to convince her to abandon her projects, she plays fully the card of the "good mother" by sending her to a former seamstress of the castle who sells beautiful dresses for cheap, even giving her some money to buy the dress in time... but of course the "fabulous" seamstress lives in the middle of the dangerous and deadly dark-forest. However, Cinderella, precisely because she is a kind and trusting girl (but not naive), buys into it due to truly believing her stepmother took pity on her.

And it works at showing her character. It even lands a quite conventional but efficient joke when she is later told the seamstress doesn't exist: "What? You mean... my wicked stepmother who enslaves and abuses me, this cold and heartless woman who insults and beats me day and night... would have LIED to me?", all with a sincerely crushed and betrayed look. [I will even dare say that... I truly believe it was not the movie's original intention, but it accidentally works as a great commentary on the fairytale logic of the Grimm version of Cinderella - pointing out violence and physical abuse is something conventional and accepted, but the real crime in this bizarre world is lying and deceiving.]

Speaking of the Grimm fairytale - the other most excellent sequence between the wicked stepmother and Cinderella takes place at the end, as the prince is about to arrive at the house, and it is such a good sequence I almost don't want to spoil it. But I still need to explain its genius: because while so far we have played on the Disney Cinderella and various French traditions, as the prince is about to arrive, the stepmother goes full Grimm and takes old-fashioned clippers to cut off her daughters' toes. I was not expecting them to do a Grimm throwback and it made me smile. Not just that, but they used this element to highlight the good nature of Cinderella: she betrays her secret and reveals that she is the mysterious woman of the ball to protect her stepsisters from the mutilation. That's a very good way to show her character under an heroic light, while playing with the conventional fairytale tropes. And then we are led to believe we are going to have a softer ending since the stepmother goes "I knew there was something supernatural about her..." (to which Cinderella notes: "It was just me without the dirt.") and adds "Okay, it was a fair game, nice move. I can respect that." And then, they go completely Grimm cartoon-hilarious Looney Tunes as the stepmother decides: "So I'm not going to cut off my daughter's toes... But I'm rather going to cut off your leg and saw it to one of my daughters!" (with a lot of other hilarious lines as the stepdaughters refuse to play along, "She spends her times scrubbing the floors - if she looses one foot it won't prevent her from working!"). These are really excellent segments with witty dialogues, and it feels a bit of a shame that they were wasted on this movie...

Bad point number 3: So heavy...

The problem with this movie is that it has good jokes and funny lines, but... it is all delivered in such heavy and unsubtle ways. "Heavy humor" is the best way to describe it, as it truly weighs down the movie and ruins what are overwise clever little pieces of wit. It is like the Prince's character - he is supposed to be a jerk, okay, but they play him so much like a jerk it destroys the joke entirely. A good example of the heaviness of it all is the character of the fairy godmother. The fairy godmother is an homage/joke centered around Jacques Demy's Peau d'Âne, and Jacques Demy's cinematography in general and how it is one of the big symbols of gay cinema in France. Because this fairy godmother is actually an homosexual man (or male fairy) who wears a masculine dress clearly based on the Lilac Fairy's outfit from Demy's Peau d'Âne. And one of the jokes is that the godmother lives in a swamp. She is the "godmother of the swamp". Which I admit is a funny idea because "Le Marais", "The Swamp" is the famous gay neighborhood of Paris. But... they could have just thrown the line "She lives in the swamp", and called her "the godmother of the swamp" and shown her living in a swamp, and that would have been enough. The audience is intelligent enough to get it ; and if the audience doesn't get it, its okay they do't lose anything. But they have to insist so much upon their own joke it becomes truly heavy. There's even a short musical number that truly makes it painfully obvious the swamp is supposed to be a parallel to the gay neigborhood. Like... throw your subtle wordplay in a few lines, we don't need a whole musical number, damn it!

[Also, as an aside, the treatment of homosexuality in this movie is... a bit weird. The bizarre, dual, empowering-sexist depiction of women is the more obvious, but there's also something unclear about gay jokes in this movie. For example the fairy godmother's true nature is foreshadowed when Cinderella is rescued from the dark forest by the seven dwarves, who turn out to not be regular dwarves but tall, muscular, handsome young men. Beyond a visual joke - and probably a jab at how people like to replace the dwarves with sexy love interest actors - Cinderella is truly confused about the dwarves not being dwarves, and they explain they were turned into these shapes by a godmother living nearby, and she refuses to turn them back because she "prefers them that way". Given the godmother's cast was not announced and she doesn't appear on the promo pictures, it led the audience into believing she was just a lusty old woman, only to later reveal she was just a gay man or drag-queen all along. When Cinderella reaches the godmother, they decide to play on with the idea first foreshadowed of this godmother not being the idealized Disney-like godmother, returning to the more selfish and manipulative character from Demy movie. This godmother keeps making nasty comments about Cinderella's looks, clearly doesn't perform well magic (her first attempt at turning a pumpkin makes it explode, but Cinderella naively believes it was on purpose just to show her powers, and the fairy plays along), and there's a line about a tribunal decision preventing her from approaching the dwarves precisely because of what she did to them. This all plays into a flawed, not so kind character... But at the same time we are given lines about how nice she is, about how sad how someone so happy and joyful than her ("so gay", ahha, get it... sighs, so unstuble) lives in an isolated swamp. And its confusing because... do you want to play the character as a sympathetic lonely gay man, or as a "depraved" bitchy gay? Take a pick, don't try to do both at once.

(There's other stuff to say but given this post is getting WAAAYY too big I'll move on)

Good point number 3: Fascinating structures

There is one thing I can give to this movie, it is its structure. The way the plot is structured is really nice and well done. As I said there is something that shows in how Cinderella evolves and interacts with the other character. I talked before about how the Stepmother's character is... between "okay" and "meh" on her own, but truly shines and becomes great when she interacts with Cinderella ; and there's something similar with the prince's brother. Oh yeah, I haven't talked about him before: the whole thing is that the jerk prince has a nice brother who Cnderella ends up falling in love with (paralleling the narrator's own unconscious love for the sweet brother of her selfish crush). The brother's whole gig is that he wants to be a comedian, an humorist, but he is very bad at jokes and unfunny. And his budding romance with Cinderella precisely relies on that: bad humor. And it works, god-damn! There's this scene where Cinderella, fleeing the jerk prince, goes down a hall with the former kings' portraits, and she insults each of them with very childish names (again there is this "movie for children" side with those insults, like "Fart face" or "Butt head") - only for the prince's brother to come out, point out she is insulting his ancestors... and then playing along. I hate childish humor like that, I truly hate it - but the actors make the sweetness and chemistry of the two characters work. The same thing occurs when Cinderella tries to escape before midnight, and she encounters the brother, who manages to calm her panic with bad jokes - the actors really manage to make us believe in a charming relationship between the two.

But the structure I really, really liked, was the evolution of the little boy's character. The story is told by the narrator (Cinderella's real-life equivalent) to a little boy - and when the story begins, we have a really interesting play on the oral nature of the tale, as the narrator tries several "beginnings" to fit the little boy's concerns and demands. When the narrator (I keep using this term because I forgot her name, sorry Xp) begins, she has this sweet, idyllic romance scene - only for the little boy to point out, if Cinderella is a dirty servant, the prince wouldn't just randomly fall head over heel for her. And then, when there are people searching for a fight, the narrator has Cinderella use her martial arts skill to defeat them... only for the little boy to say "Girls can't fight, she can't beat up men!", and the narrator quite annoyed at the little boy's misogyny being forced to have the prince confront the men instead of Cinderella... And the third "hiccup" happens when the narrator wants to twist things up and have Cinderella actually be very dominating towards her submissive stepmother, only for the boy to insist Cinderella must be the quiet abused one in the family. The "failed beginning, let's try again" structure is quite classic, but it always work - however the "good structure" part really comes in when, during the midnight chase, there is a beautiful "fourth wall-breaking" scene in which the narrator and the little boy freeze time and enter into the scene, walking among a frozen Cinderella and Prince, and commenting the situation. This scene is especially touching because the little boy's growth is highlighted - unlike his early misogynistic comments, here he wonders "Why doesn't she want the prince to see her without the spell? Why would it change anything?". So the little boy, through Cinderella's story, comes a bit closer to being more open and understanding about women - and that's why I say that here they truly explored the structure of their movie... Too bad the rest of the movie actually doesn't support this nice structure. And this leads us to the last bad point (because unfortunately the bad points overwhelm the good ones)

Bad point number 4: Useless stuff

This movie... could have been cut into two. Because half of what happens in it is useless. I am not even saying it is just not plot relevant, no: it is literaly useless. For example, in the beginning, during the "alternate beginnings", we are introduced to the fact it is outlawed to sing in the kingdom, due to the king's personal feud with a singer who stole his wife away from him. It is a very interesting idea, it does work within the context of a Disney parody, it introduces some conflict especially since there are several songs in this movie... And yet past the "alternate beginnings", this fact is just dropped. Everybody forgets about it, as we see people sing or learning to sing as if it was a regular thing, with no consequences whatsoever. They literaly forgot about this detail.

But the most jarring and baffling example of useless stuff comes with the prince's brother. In the final part of the movie, as his romance with Cinderella starts, he is a good character that works, and the preparation of his character does pay off... But before he interacted with her, by all the gods was he an insufferable character! Just like with the prince, they forget that making a character unfunny in-universe doesn't mean making him unfunny for the audience - but here's where it truly wounds the movie... The king prefers the Prince to his brother, to the point of offering the Prince the throne. The brother, who doesn't want the throne but is fed up with his father's neglect, decides to scare the latter a bit by pretending he might claim the crown as his... Only for the king to organize a set of failed assassination attempts on the brother, to make sure the crown will befall the prince. A very interesting subplot that probably has a lot of plot possibilities, right? WRONG! Because mid-way through the movie, before Cinderella's story is even really started, the brother tells his father it was all a joke, and the king stops trying to kill him and... and that's it. This whole assassination subplot, which took like a dozen of scenes, leads nowhere, bears no impact on the rest of the movie's plot, and could have been cut out without influencing the movie in any way...

Then why was it here? Who knows. But it also kind of reflects the very bizarre underlying... misogyny maybe? hiding within this movie - because, for the sake of a useless plot, the first half of the movie spends more time with male characters (King, prince, brother) than with Cinderella, the actual title-character. As in the movie-makers feared that a movie all centered around female characters wouldn't attract people, and so they packed the beginning with masculinity just to make sure people would... stay for the rest? Mind you, it seems that some material was cut - because the trailers and promos have lines and visuals not present in the final movie... But still, when you have a subplot that is useless to such an obvious point, and you still leave it in...

Conclusion: I wrote way too much. And this movie is baffling. Puzzling. It is a bad movie, for sure, and yet it has the remnants of a good movie and really funny thing... but just hidden under all the bad stuff like a beautiful tree covered in a diseased choking ivy.

[tmarshconnors]

New World Order.

1773 - Mayer Amschel Rothschild assembles twelve of his most influential friends, and convinces them that if they all pool their resources together, they can rule the world. This meeting takes place in Frankfurt, Germany. Rothschild also informs his friends that he has found the perfect candidate, an individual of incredible intellect and ingenuity, to lead the organization he has planned – Adam Weishaupt.

May 1, 1776 – Adam Weishaupt establishes a secret society called the Order of the Illuminati. Weishaupt is the Professor of Canon Law at the University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria, part of Germany. The Illuminati seek to establish a New World Order. Their objectives are as follows:

1) Abolition of all ordered governments

2) Abolition of private property

3) Abolition of inheritance

4) Abolition of patriotism

5) Abolition of the family

6) Abolition of religion

7) Creation of a world government

July, 1782 – The Order of the Illuminati joins forces with Freemasonry at the Congress of Wilhelmsbad. The Comte de Virieu, an attendee at the conference, comes away visibly shaken. When questioned about the "tragic secrets" he brought back with him, he replies: “I will not confide them to you. I can only tell you that all this is very much more serious than you think.” From this time on, according to his biographer, "the Comte de Virieu could only speak of Freemasonry with horror."

1785 – An Illuminati courier named Lanze is struck by lightning, and killed while traveling by horseback through the town of Ratisbon. When Bavarian officials examine the contents of his saddle bags, they discover the existence of the Order of the Illuminati, and find plans detailing the coming French Revolution. The Bavarian Government attempts to alert the government of France of impending disaster, but the French Government fails to heed this warning. Bavarian officials arrest all members of the Illuminati they can find, but Weishaupt and others have gone underground, and cannot be found.

1796 – Freemasonry becomes a major issue in the presidential election in the United States. John Adams wins the election by opposing Masonry, and his son, John Quincy Adams, warns of the dire threat to the nation posed by the Masonic Lodges: “I do conscientiously and sincerely believe that the Order of Freemasonry, if not the greatest, is one of the greatest moral and political evils under which the Union is now laboring.”

1797 – John Robison, Professor of Natural History at Edinburgh University in Scotland, publishes a book entitled “Proofs of a Conspiracy” in which he reveals that Adam Weishaupt had attempted to recruit him. He exposes the diabolical aims of the Illuminati to the world.

1821 – George W. F. Hegel formulates what is called the Hegelian dialectic – the process by which Illuminati objectives are achieved. According to the Hegelian dialectic, thesis plus antithesis equals synthesis. In other words, first you foment a crisis. Then there is an enormous public outcry that something must be done about the problem. So you offer a solution that brings about the changes you really wanted all along, but which people would have been unwilling to accept initially.

1828 – Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who finances the Illuminati, expresses his utter contempt for national governments which attempt to regulate International Bankers such as him: “Allow me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who writes the laws.”

1848 — Moses Mordecai Marx Levy, alias Karl Marx, writes “The Communist Manifesto.” Marx is a member of an Illuminati front organization called the League of the Just. He not only advocates economic and political changes; he advocates moral and spiritual changes as well. He believes the family should be abolished, and that all children should be raised by a central authority. He expresses his attitude toward God by saying: “We must war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed.”

Jan. 22, 1870 – In a letter to Italian revolutionary leader Giuseppe Mazzini, Albert Pike – Sovereign Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry – announces the establishment of a secret society within a secret society: “We must create a super rite, which will remain unknown, to which we will call those Masons of high degree of whom we shall select. With regard to our brothers in Masonry, these men must be pledges to the strictest secrecy. Through this supreme rite, we will govern all Freemasonry which will become the one international center, the more powerful because its direction will be unknown.” This ultra-secret organization is called The New and Reformed Paladian Rite. (This is why about 95% of the men involved in Masonry don't have a clue as to what the objectives of the organization actually are. They are under the delusion that it's just a fine community organization doing good works.)

1875 – Russian occultist Helena Petrovna Blavatskyfounds the Theosophical Society. Madame Blavatsky claims that Tibetan holy men in the Himilayas, whom she refers to as the Masters of Wisdom, communicated with her in London by telepathy. She insists that the Christians have it all backwards – that Satan is good, and God is evil. She writes: “The Christians and scientists must be made to respect their Indian betters. The Wisdom of India, her philosophy and achievement, must be made known in Europe and America.”

1884 – The Fabian Society is founded in Great Britain to promote Socialism. The Fabian Society takes its name from the Roman General Fabius Maximus, who fought Hannibal's army in small debilitating skirmishes, rather than attempting one decisive battle.

July 14, 1889 – Albert Pike issues instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the world. He reveals who is the true object of Masonic worship: “To you, Sovereign Grand Instructors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine.”

1890-1896 – Cecil Rhodes, an enthusiastic student of John Ruskin, is Prime Minister of South Africa, a British colony at the time. He is able to exploit and control the gold and diamond wealth of South Africa. He works to bring all the habitable portions of the world under the domination of a ruling elite. To that end, he uses a portion of his vast wealth to establish the famous Rhodes Scholarships.

1893 – The Theosophical Society sponsors a Parliament of World Religions held in Chicago. The purpose of the convention is to introduce Hindu and Buddhist concepts, such as belief in reincarnation, to the West.

1911 – The Socialist Party of Great Britain publishes a pamphlet entitled “Socialism and Religion” in which they clearly state their position on Christianity: “It is therefore a profound truth that Socialism is the natural enemy of religion. A Christian Socialist is in fact an anti-Socialist. Christianity is the antithesis of Socialism.”

1912 – Colonel Edward Mandell House, a close advisor of President Woodrow Wilson, publishes “Phillip Dru: Administrator”, in which he promotes "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."

Feb. 3, 1913 – The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, making it possible for the Federal Government to impose a progressive income tax, is ratified. Plank #2 of “The Communist Manifesto” had called for a progressive income tax. (In Canada, the income tax is introduced in 1917, as a “temporary measure” to finance the war effort.)

1913 – President Woodrow Wilson publishes “The New Freedom” in which he reveals: “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

Dec. 23, 1913 – The Federal Reserve (neither federal nor a reserve – it's a privately owned institution) is created. It was planned at a secret meeting in 1910 on Jekyl Island, Georgia, by a group of bankers and politicians, including Col. House. This transfers the power to create money from the American Government to a private group of bankers. The Federal Reserve Act is hastily passed just before the Christmas break. Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. (father of the famed aviator) warns: “This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this act the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation, will be legalized.”

1916 – Three years after signing the Federal Reserve Act into law, President Woodrow Wilson observes:“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

1917 – With aid from Financiers in New York City and London, V. I. Lenin is able to overthrow the government of Russia. Lenin later comments on the apparent contradiction of the links between prominent capitalists and Communism: “There also exists another alliance – at first glance a strange one, a surprising one – but if you think about it, in fact, one which is well grounded and easy to understand. This is the alliance between our Communist leaders and your capitalists.”(Remember the Hegelian dialectic?)

May 30, 1919 – Prominent British and American personalities establish the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England and the Institute of International Affairs in the U.S. at a meeting arranged by Col. House; attended by various Fabian socialists, including noted economist John Maynard Keynes.

1920 – Britain's Winston Churchill recognizes the connection between the Illuminati and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. He observes: “From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman, this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played a definitely recognizable role in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century, and now at last this band of extra- ordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads, and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”

1920-1931 – Louis T. McFadden is Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Curency. Concerning the Federal Reserve, Congressman McFadden notes: “When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by International Bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is – the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here, and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will.” Concerning the Great Depression and the country's acceptance of FDR's New Deal, he asserts: “It was no accident. It was a carefully contrived occurrence. The International Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as the rulers of us all.”

1921 – Col. House reorganizes the American branch of the Institute of International Affairs into the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (For the past 60 years, 80% of the top positions in every administration – whether Democrat or Republican – have been occupied by members of this organization.)

December 15, 1922 – The CFR endorses World Government in its magazine “Foreign Affairs." Author Philip Kerr states: “Obviously there is going to be no peace nor prosperity for mankind as long as the earth remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states, until some kind of international system is created. The real problem today is that of world government.”

1928 – “The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution” by H. G. Wells is published. A former Fabian socialist, Wells writes: “The political world of the Open Conspiracy must weaken, efface, incorporate, and supersede existing governments. The Open Conspiracy is the natural inheritor of socialist and communist enthusiasms; it may be in control of Moscow before it is in control of New York. The character of the Open Conspiracy will now be plainly displayed. It will be a world religion.”

1933 – “The Shape of Things to Come” by H. G. Wells is published. Wells predicts a second world war around 1940, originating from a German-Polish dispute. After 1945, there would be an increasing lack of public safety in "criminally infected" areas. The plan for the “Modern World State” would succeed on its third attempt, and come out of something that occurred in Basra, Iraq. The book also states: “Although world government had been plainly coming for some years, although it had been endlessly feared and murmured against, it found no opposition anywhere.”

Nov. 21, 1933 – In a letter to Col. Edward M. House, President Franklin Roosevelt writes: “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government since the days of Andrew Jackson.”

March 1942 – An article in “TIME” magazine chronicles the Federal Council of Churches [which later becomes the National Council of Churches, a part of the World Council of Churches] lending its weight to efforts to establish a global authority. A meeting of the top officials of the council comes out in favor of: 1) a world government of delegated powers; 2) strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty; 3) international control of all armies and navies. Representatives (375 of them) of 30-some denominations assert that “a new order of economic life is both imminent and imperative” – a new order that is sure to come either “through voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy or through explosive revolution.”

June 28, 1945 – U.S. President Harry Truman endorses world government in a speech: “It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for us to get along in a republic of the United States.”

October 24, 1945 – The United Nations Charter becomes effective. Also on October 24, Senator Glen Taylor (D-Idaho) introduces Senate Resolution 183, calling upon the U.S. Senate to go on record as favoring creation of a world republic, including an international police force.

Feb. 7, 1950 – International financier and CFR member James Warburg tells a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it - by conquest or consent.”

Feb. 9, 1950 – The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee introduces Senate Concurrent Resolution #66 which begins: “Whereas, in order to achieve universal peace and justice, the present Charter of the United Nations should be changed to provide a true world government constitution.”

1952 – The World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government draws up a map designed to illustrate how foreign troops would occupy and police the six regions into which the United States and Canada will be divided as part of their world-government plan.

1954 – Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands establishes the Bilderbergers: international politicians and bankers who meet secretly on an annual basis.

1961 – The U.S. State Department issues Document 7277, entitled “Freedom From War: The U.S. Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.” It details a three-stage plan to disarm all nations and arm the U.N. with the final stage in which “no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force.”

1966 – Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University, authors a massive volume entitled “Tragedy and Hope” in which he states: “There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims, and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”

April 1972 – In his keynote address to the Association for Childhood Education International, Chester M. Pierce, Professor of Education and Psychiatry in the Faculty of Medicine at Harvard University, proclaims:“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our founding fathers, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being. It's up to you, teachers, to make all of these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.”

July 1973 – International banker and staunch member of the subversive Council on Foreign Relations, David Rockefeller, founds a new organization called the Trilateral Commission, of which the official aim is “to harmonize the political, economic, social, and cultural relations between the three major economic regions in the world” (hence the name “Trilateral”). He invites future President Jimmy Carter to become one of the founding members. Zbigniew Brzezinski is the organization's first director.

There are three major economic areas in the world: Europe, North America, and the Far East (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.). If, under the pretext of having to join forces to be able to face economic competition with the two other economic regions, the member countries of each of these three regions decide to merge into one single country, forming three super-States, then the one-world government will be almost achieved. Like Fabian socialists, they achieve their ultimate goal (a world government) step by step.

This aim is almost achieved in Europe with the Single European Act (Maastricht Treaty) that was implemented in 1993, requiring all the member countries of the European Community to abolish their trade barriers, and to hand over their monetary and fiscal policies to the technocrats of the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium.

In January, 2002, all these European countries abandoned their national currencies to share only one common currency, the “Euro”. Moreover, the Nice Treaty removed more powers from countries to give them over to the European Commission. What begun innocently in 1952 as the EEC (European Economic Community, a common authority to regulate the coal and steel industry among European nations), finally turned into a European super-state. Jean Monnet, a French socialist economist and founder of the EEC, had this in mind when he said: “Political union inevitably follows economic union.” He also said in 1948: “The creation of a United Europe must be regarded as an essential step towards the creation of a United World.”

As regards the North American area, the merger of its member countries is well under way with the passage of free trade between Canada and the U.S.A., and then Mexico. In the next few years, this free-trade agreement is supposed to include also all of South and Central America, with a single currency for them all. Mexico's President Vucente Fox said on May 6, 2002, in Madrid: “Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union.”

1973 – The Club of Rome, a U.N. operative, issues a report entitled “Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System.” This report divides the entire world into ten kingdoms.

1979 – FEMA, which stands for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is given huge powers. It has the power, in case of “national emergency”, to suspend laws, move entire populations, arrest and detain citizens without a warrant, and hold them without trial. It can seize property, food supplies, transportation systems, and can suspend the Constitution.

Not only is it the most powerful entity in the United States, but it was not even created under Constitutional law by the Congress. It was a product of a Presidential Executive Order. An Executive Order becomes law simply by a signature of the U.S. President; it does not even have to be approved by the Representatives or Senators in the Congress.

A state of “national emergency” could be a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, or a stock market crash, for example. Here are just a few Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years, and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

# 10995: Right to seize all communications media in the United States.

# 10997: Right to seize all electric power, fuels and minerals, both public and private.

# 10999: Right to seize all means of transportation, including personal vehicles of any kind, and total control of highways, seaports, and waterways.

# 11000: Right to seize any and all American people and divide up families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place the Government sees fit.

# 11001: Right to seize all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private.

# 11002: Right to force registration of all men, women, and children in the United States.

# 11003: Right to seize all air space, airports, and aircraft.

# 11004: Right to seize all housing and finance authorities in order to establish “Relocation Designated Areas”, and to force abandonment of areas classified as “unsafe”.

# 11005: Right to seize all railroads, inland waterways, and storage facilities, both public and private.

# 11921: Authorizes plans to establish Government control of wages and salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions.

1991 – President George Bush Sr. (father of the current U.S. president) praises the New World Order in a State of the Union Message: “What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea - a new world order... to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind... based on shared principles and the rule of law... The illumination of a thousand points of light... The winds of change are with us now.” (Theosophist Alice Bailey used that very same expression – “points of light” – in describing the process of occult enlightenment.)

June, 1991 – World leaders are gathered for another closed door meeting of the Bilderberg Society in Baden Baden, Germany. While at that meeting, David Rockefeller said in a speech: “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

Oct. 29, 1991 – David Funderburk, former U.S. Ambassador to Romania, tells a North Carolina audience:“George Bush has been surrounding himself with people who believe in one-world government. They believe that the Soviet system and the American system are converging.”

May 21, 1992 – In an address to the Bilderberger organization meeting in Evian, France, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declares: “Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”

July 20, 1992 – “TIME” magazine publishes “The Birth of the Global Nation,” by Strobe Talbott, Rhodes Scholar, roommate of Bill Clinton at Oxford University, CFR Director and Trilateralist (and appointed Deputy Secretary of State by President Clinton), in which he writes: “Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single global authority... All countries are basically social arrangements... No matter how permanent or even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary... Perhaps national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all... But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government.”

1993 – A second Parliament of World Religions is held in Chicago on the 100th anniversary of the first. Like the first convention, this one seeks to join all the religions of the world into “one harmonious whole,” but it wants to make them “merge back into their original element.” Traditional beliefs of monotheistic religions such as Christianity are considered incompatible with individual “en- lightenment”, and must be drastically altered.

July 18, 1993 – CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in the “Los Angeles Times” concerning NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement): “What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system...a first step toward a new world order.”

1994 – In the Human Development Report, published by the UN Development Program, there was a section called “Global Governance for the 21st Century.” The administrator for this program was appointed by Bill Clinton. His name is James Gustave Speth. The opening sentence of the report said: “Mankind's problems can no longer be solved by national government. What is needed is a world government. This can best be achieved by strengthening the United Nations system.”

May 3, 1994 – President Bill Clinton signs Presidential Decision Directive 25, and then declares it classified so the American people can't see what it says. (The summary of PDD-25 issued to members of Congress tells us that it authorizes the President to turn over control of U.S. military units to U.N. command.)

Sept. 23, 1994 – The globalists realize that as more and more people begin to wake up to what's going on, they have only a limited amount of time in which to implement their policies. Speaking at the United Nations Ambassadors' dinner, David Rockefeller remarks: “This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long... We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

March 1995 – U.N. delegates meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss various methods for imposing global taxes on the people of the world.

Sept. 1995 – “Popular Science” magazine describes a top secret U.S. Navy installation called HAARP (High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) in the state of Alaska. This project beams powerful radio energy into the earth's upper atmosphere. One of the goals of the program is to develop the capability of “manipulating local weather” using the techniques developed by Bernard Eastlund. (The program has been underway since 1990.)

September 27, 1995 – The State of the World Forum took place in the fall of this year, sponsored by the Gorbachev Foundation located at the Presidio in San Francisco. Foundation President Jim Garrison chairs the meeting of who's-who from around the world, including Margaret Thatcher, Maurice Strong, George Bush, Mikhail Gorbachev, and others. Conversation centers around the oneness of mankind and the coming global government. However, the term “global gov- ernance” is now used in place of “new world order” since the latter has become a political liability, being a lightning rod for opponents of global government.

1996 – The United Nations' 420-page report “Our Global Neighborhood” is published. It outlines a plan for “global governance,” calling for an international “Conference on Global Governance” in 1998 for the purpose of submitting to the world the necessary treaties and agreements for ratification by the year 2000.

2003... The world is on the verge of another global war, the “state of emergency” looked for by the one-worlders to impose martial law and the universal microchip under the skin... But with enlightened peoples help, they will not have the last word!

2017... It may sound like an Orwellian nightmare, but the technology to implant RFID chips into human beings and track their every move has been there for years.

RFID stands for radio frequency identification, and uses electromagnetic fields to automatically identify and track tags attached to objects, including an implanted chip

[certainwoman]

"We may now formulate one of the central problems of the emergence of deviant political minorities in the following way:

(1) When new political movements come into existence, it is a matter of critical importance whether they are legitimized publicly within the "political" category, or de-legitimized by being assigned to the "deviant" category. Deviant groups and individuals may be sick, disadvantaged, corrupted by others, led astray, or subject to social disorganization: but they are not exploited. Consequently, they can be made well again (therapeutic), isolated from contagion (segregated), or supported (welfare state)-but they cannot organize or dissent.

(2) Under certain circumstances, legitimate political minorities are subjected to severe "status degradation" ceremonies, and are lumped with the more marginal groups. They are then subject to quite different forms of public opprobrium, stigmatization, and exclusion. They have been symbolically de-legitimated.

In general terms, then, the line between social deviance and minority political militancy is disappearing. The alliance between some types of social deviance and political marginality has been strengthened: politics has become more "deviant" with respect to social norms, and deviancy is progressively politicized. The latent political content of the deviant process and the deviant element in radical politics now emerge together as a single phenomenon. "As this happens, political dissent by deviant means will become subject to the types of repression that have been a traditional response to social deviance" (Horowitz and Liebowitz 1968) ."

Stuart Hall, Deviance, Politics, and the Media

[science-criticaltheory]

Karl Mannheim Key Concepts Part 2

Read Part 1

Relativism is a product of the modern historical-sociological procedure which is based on the recognition that all historical thinking is bound up with the concrete position in life of the thinker [Standortsgebundenheit des Denkers]. But relativism combines this historical-sociological insight with an older theory of knowledge which was as yet unaware of the interplay between conditions of existence and modes of thought, and which modelled its knowledge after static prototypes such as might be exemplified by the proposition 2 x 2 = 4. This older type of thought, which regarded such examples as the model of all thought, was necessarily led to the rejection of all those forms of knowledge which were dependent upon the subjective standpoint and the social situation of the knower, and which were, hence, merely "relative".

A modern theory of knowledge which takes account of the relational as distinct from the merely relative character of all historical knowledge must start with the assumption that there are spheres of thought in which it is impossible to conceive of absolute truth existing independently of the values and position of the subject and unrelated to the social context.

What is intelligible in history can be formulated only with reference to problems and conceptual constructions which themselves arise in the flux of historical experience. Once we recognize that all historical knowledge is relational knowledge and can only be formulated with reference to the position of the observer, we are faced, once more, with the task of discriminating between what is true and what is false in such knowledge.

The non-evaluative general total conception of ideology is to be found primarily in those historical investigations, where, provisionally and for the sake of the simplification of the problem, no judgments are pronounced as to the correctness of the ideas to be treated. This approach confines itself to discovering the relations between certain mental structures and the life-situations in which they exist. We must constantly ask ourselves how it comes about that a given type of social situation gives rise to a given interpretation. Thus the ideological element in human thought, viewed at this level, is always bound up with the existing life-situation of the thinker. According to this view human thought arises, and operates, not in a social vacuum but in a definite social milieu.

Today, there are too many points of view of equal value and prestige, each showing the relativity of the other, to permit us to take any one position and to regard it as impregnable and absolute. Only this socially disorganized intellectual situation makes possible the insight, hidden until now by a generally stable social structure and the practicability of certain traditional norms, that every point of view is particular to a social situation.

It may indeed be true that in order to act we need a certain amount of self-confidence and intellectual self-assurance. It may also be true that the very form of expression, in which we clothe our thoughts, tends to impose upon them an absolute tone. Conflicting intellectual positions may actually come to supplement one another.

It is imperative in the present transitional period to make use of the intellectual twilight which dominates our epoch and in which all values and points of view appear in their genuine relativity. We must realize once and for all that the meanings which make up our world are simply an historically determined and continuously developing structure in which man develops, and are in no sense absolute. At this point in history when all things which concern man and the structure and elements of history itself are suddenly revealed to us in a new light, it behooves us in our scientific thinking to become masters of the situation, for it is not inconceivable that sooner than we suspect, as has often been the case before in history, this vision may disappear, the opportunity may be lost, and the world will once again present a static, uniform, and inflexible countenance.

This first non-evaluative insight into history does not inevitably lead to relativism, but rather to relationism. Knowledge, as seen in the light of the total conception of ideology, is by no means an illusory experience, for ideology in its relational concept is not at all identical with illusion. Knowledge arising out of our experience in actual life situations, though not absolute, is knowledge none the less. The norms arising out of such actual life situations do not exist in a social vacuum, but are effective as real sanctions for conduct. Relationism signifies merely that all of the elements of meaning in a given situation have reference to one another and derive their significance from this reciprocal interrelationship in a given frame of thought.

Such a system of meanings is possible and valid only in a given type of historical existence, to which, for a time, it furnishes appropriate expression. When the social situation changes, the system of norms to which it had previously given birth ceases to be in harmony with it. The same estrangement goes on with reference to knowledge and to the historical perspective. All knowledge is oriented toward some object and is influenced in its approach by the nature of the object with which it is pre-occupied. But the mode of approach to the object to be known is dependent upon the nature of the knower.

In order to be transmuted into knowledge, every perception is and must be ordered and organized into categories. The extent, however, to which we can organize and express our experience in such conceptual forms is, in turn, dependent upon the frames of reference which happen to be available at a given historical moment. The concepts which we have and the universe of discourse in which we move, together with the directions in which they tend to elaborate themselves, are dependent largely upon the historical-social situation of the intellectually active and responsible members of the group.

It has become extremely questionable whether, in the flux of life, it is a genuinely worthwhile intellectual problem to seek to discover fixed and immutable ideas or absolutes. It is a more worthy intellectual task perhaps to learn to think dynamically and relationally rather than statically.

In our contemporary social and intellectual plight, it is nothing less than shocking to discover that those persons who claim to have discovered an absolute are usually the same people who also pretend to be superior to the rest. To find people in our day attempting to pass off to the world and recommending to others some nostrum of the absolute which they claim to have discovered is merely a sign of the loss of and the need for intellectual and moral certainty, felt by broad sections of the population who are unable to look life in the face.

It may possibly be true that, to continue to live on and to act in a world like ours, it is vitally necessary to seek a way out of this uncertainty of multiple alternatives; and accordingly people may be led to embrace some immediate goal as if it were absolute, by which they hope to make their problems appear concrete and real. But it is not primarily the man of action who seeks the absolute and immutable, but rather it is he who wishes to induce others to hold on to the status quo because he feels comfortable and smug under conditions as they are.

We are faced with the curiously appalling trend of modern thought, in which the absolute which was once a means of entering into communion with the divine, has now become an instrument used by those who profit from it, to distort, pervert, and conceal the meaning of the present.

When the empirical investigator glories in his refusal to go beyond the specialized observation dictated by the traditions of his discipline, be they ever so inclusive, he is making a virtue out of a defense mechanism which insures him against questioning his presuppositions.

Every bureaucracy, therefore, in accord with the peculiar emphasis on its own position, tends to generalize its own experience and to overlook the fact that the realm of administration and of smoothly functioning order represents only a part of the total political reality. Bureaucratic thought does not deny the possibility of the science of politics, but regards it as identical with the science of administration. Thus irrational factors are overlooked, and when these nevertheless force themselves to the fore, they are treated as "routine matters of state."

[juristique]

Modèles de formules de condoléances lors du décès d’un proche

New Post has been published on https://www.juristique.org/courriers/modeles-formules-condoleances-deces-proche

Modèles de formules de condoléances lors du décès d’un proche

Sommaire

1 Sur quel support écrire une formule de condoléance ?

2 Exemples de formules de condoléances

3 Foire aux questions (FAQ) sur les condoléances pour une personne décédée

Une formule de condoléances est une expression de sympathie ou de compassion envers une personne qui vient de perdre un être cher et qui est en deuil. Elle peut être écrite (mail, texto, ou carte de condoléance) ou verbale.

Il est important de choisir des mots sincères et de montrer de la compassion et de l’empathie lorsque l’on présente ses condoléances à une personne. Cela est généralement une période difficile pour la personne en deuil. Il est alors essentiel de lui montrer que vous êtes présent pour elle et que vous la soutenez dans cette épreuve.

Sur quel support écrire une formule de condoléance ?

Il existe plusieurs supports sur lesquels vous pouvez écrire une formule de condoléances :

Une carte cartonnée qui sera remise habituellement lors de l’enterrement et sur laquelle vous écrivez votre formule de condoléance. Il s’agit du support à privilégier,

Un message électronique (e-mail) : Cela peut être une bonne option si vous ne vous trouvez pas à proximité de la personne en deuil ou si vous préférez envoyer un message de manière plus rapide et plus discrète,

Un courrier : vous pouvez envoyer une lettre manuscrite par la poste pour exprimer vos condoléances. Cela peut être une bonne option si vous souhaitez montrer que vous avez pris le temps de réfléchir à ce que vous vouliez écrire et si vous préférez envoyer quelque chose de plus personnel,

Un message sur un réseau social : si la personne en deuil a un profil sur un réseau social, vous pouvez lui envoyer un message privé pour exprimer vos condoléances. Cela peut être une bonne option si vous êtes déjà en contact avec la personne sur le réseau social et si vous souhaitez lui envoyer un message de manière rapide et facile,

Un texto ou un message vocal : si vous préférez envoyer un message de manière plus rapide et plus discrète, vous pouvez utiliser votre téléphone pour envoyer un SMS ou un message vocal. Cela peut être une bonne option si vous êtes en voyage d’affaires ou si vous n’avez pas accès à un ordinateur ou à un téléphone fixe.

Il est important de choisir le support qui vous convient le mieux et qui convient le mieux à la personne en deuil. Si vous hésitez entre plusieurs options, vous pouvez demander à un ami ou à un membre de la famille de la personne en deuil ce qui serait le mieux pour elle.

Formules de condoléances lors du décès d’un proche

Exemples de formules de condoléances

Voici quelques modèles de formules de condoléances que vous pouvez utiliser :

« Je suis profondément désolé de perte de votre <Père, mère, frère, sœur, enfant, etc.>. S’il vous plaît, acceptez mes plus sincères condoléances. »

« J’ai appris le décès de votre <Père, mère, frère, sœur, enfant, etc.>. Mes pensées vous accompagnent en ces temps difficiles. »

« Ayant appris, le décès <Père, mère, frère, sœur, enfant, etc.>, je suis de tout cœur avec vous en cette période difficile. »

« Je vous offre toutes mes condoléances et mes pensées les plus sincères en cette période de deuil. »

« Je suis navré pour la perte de <Père, mère, frère, sœur, enfant, etc.>. S’il vous plaît, acceptez mes plus sincères condoléances. »

« Je suis navré(e) d’apprendre la nouvelle du décès de <Nom et prénom>. S’il y a quoi que ce soit que je puisse faire pour toi, n’hésite pas à me le demander. »

« Je tiens à te présenter mes sincères condoléances. Tu es dans mes pensées. »

« Je suis de tout cœur avec toi en cette période difficile. »

« Je suis vraiment désolé(e) pour ton deuil. Si tu as besoin de parler ou de te confier, je suis là pour toi. »

« Je suis navré(e) pour ta perte. S’il te plaît, sache que mes pensées et mes prières sont avec toi en cette période difficile. »

« Je suis attristé(e) d’apprendre la nouvelle du décès de <Nom et prénom>. S’il te plaît, accepte mes condoléances les plus sincères. »

« Je tiens à te présenter mes condoléances les plus sincères. Tu es dans mes pensées et mes prières. »

Pour utiliser et personnaliser ces modèles de formules de condoléances, il vous suffit de faire un « Copier & Coller » du texte de condoléance dans votre traitement de texte (Microsoft Word ou Writer d’Open Office) ou logiciel de messagerie.

Foire aux questions (FAQ) sur les condoléances pour une personne décédée

"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","@id":"https://www.juristique.org/courriers/modeles-formules-condoleances-deces-proche","mainEntity":["@type":"Question","name":"Comment écrire un texte de condoléances ?","acceptedAnswer":"@type":"Answer","text":"Pour écrire un texte de condoléances, il vous suffit de faire un « <em>Copier-coller</em> » du texte d’une formule de condoléance proposée dans l’article dans votre traitement de texte ou logiciel de messagerie et de personnaliser le message selon votre interlocuteur.","@type":"Question","name":"Comment adresser une formule de condoléance ?","acceptedAnswer":"@type":"Answer","text":"Le support idéal pour une formule de condoléance est la carte cartonnée remise le jour de l’enterrement, mais vous pouvez aussi adresser vos condoléances par SMS, mail, lettre ou via les réseaux sociaux.","@type":"Question","name":"Quel message envoyer à une personne qui a perdu un proche ?","acceptedAnswer":"@type":"Answer","text":"Il est important de choisir des mots sincères et de montrer de la compassion et de l'empathie lorsque l'on présente ses condoléances à une personne qui a perdu un proche. Vous pouvez utiliser les formules de condoléance proposées dans l’article et les personnaliser selon le contexte.","@type":"Question","name":"Comment souhaiter bon courage après un décès ?","acceptedAnswer":"@type":"Answer","text":"Il est important de montrer de la compassion et de l'empathie lorsque vous souhaitez bon courage à quelqu'un qui vient de perdre un être cher. Voici un exemple de formule de condoléance :<br>\"Je <em>suis de tout cœur avec toi en cette période difficile. Si tu as besoin de parler ou de te confier, je suis là pour toi</em>.\"","@type":"Question","name":"Quels conseils pour rédiger un texte ou un poème sur une personne décédée ?","acceptedAnswer":"@type":"Answer","text":"Ci-dessous nos conseils pour rédiger un texte ou un poème pour exprimer vos émotions et votre affection envers une personne décédée que vous appréciiez. Voici quelques conseils pour vous aider à l'écrire :<br>- Avant de commencer à écrire, prenez le temps de réfléchir à ce que vous voulez dire dans votre texte. Quelles émotions souhaitez-vous exprimer ? Qu'est-ce que vous appréciiez chez la personne décédée ? Quels souvenirs voulez-vous partager ?<br>- Choisissez un style et un rythme : il existe de nombreux styles et rythmes différents que vous pouvez utiliser pour écrire un texte. Vous pouvez opter pour un style formel, comme un sonnet ou un haïku, ou pour un style plus libre, comme la prose poétique. Essayez différents styles et rythmes pour trouver celui qui vous convient le mieux.<br>- Utilisez des métaphores et des images : les métaphores et les images peuvent être une excellente manière de rendre votre texte plus poétique et de transmettre vos émotions de manière plus subtile. Tentez d'utiliser des comparaisons et des descriptions pour créer des images dans l'esprit de votre lecteur.<br>- Prenez le temps vous relire et de le peaufiner. Corrigez les fautes d'orthographe et de grammaire, et assurez-vous que votre texte a un sens et que les mots et les phrases utilisés sont appropriés.<br>Enfin, n'oubliez pas que l'écriture d'un texte ou un poème peut être un moyen très personnel et émotionnel de faire le deuil d'une personne que vous appréciez. Prenez le temps dont vous avez besoin et n'hésitez pas à demander l'aide d'une personne si vous en ressentez le besoin."]

Comment écrire un texte de condoléances ?

Pour écrire un texte de condoléances, il vous suffit de faire un « Copier-coller » du texte d’une formule de condoléance proposée dans l’article dans votre traitement de texte ou logiciel de messagerie et de personnaliser le message selon votre interlocuteur.

Comment adresser une formule de condoléance ?

Le support idéal pour une formule de condoléance est la carte cartonnée remise le jour de l’enterrement, mais vous pouvez aussi adresser vos condoléances par SMS, mail, lettre ou via les réseaux sociaux.

Quel message envoyer à une personne qui a perdu un proche ?

Il est important de choisir des mots sincères et de montrer de la compassion et de l’empathie lorsque l’on présente ses condoléances à une personne qui a perdu un proche. Vous pouvez utiliser les formules de condoléance proposées dans l’article et les personnaliser selon le contexte.

Comment souhaiter bon courage après un décès ?

Il est important de montrer de la compassion et de l’empathie lorsque vous souhaitez bon courage à quelqu’un qui vient de perdre un être cher. Voici un exemple de formule de condoléance : « Je suis de tout cœur avec toi en cette période difficile. Si tu as besoin de parler ou de te confier, je suis là pour toi. »

Quels conseils pour rédiger un texte ou un poème sur une personne décédée ?

Ci-dessous nos conseils pour rédiger un texte ou un poème pour exprimer vos émotions et votre affection envers une personne décédée que vous appréciiez. Voici quelques conseils pour vous aider à l’écrire : – Avant de commencer à écrire, prenez le temps de réfléchir à ce que vous voulez dire dans votre texte. Quelles émotions souhaitez-vous exprimer ? Qu’est-ce que vous appréciiez chez la personne décédée ? Quels souvenirs voulez-vous partager ? – Choisissez un style et un rythme : il existe de nombreux styles et rythmes différents que vous pouvez utiliser pour écrire un texte. Vous pouvez opter pour un style formel, comme un sonnet ou un haïku, ou pour un style plus libre, comme la prose poétique. Essayez différents styles et rythmes pour trouver celui qui vous convient le mieux. – Utilisez des métaphores et des images : les métaphores et les images peuvent être une excellente manière de rendre votre texte plus poétique et de transmettre vos émotions de manière plus subtile. Tentez d’utiliser des comparaisons et des descriptions pour créer des images dans l’esprit de votre lecteur. – Prenez le temps vous relire et de le peaufiner. Corrigez les fautes d’orthographe et de grammaire, et assurez-vous que votre texte a un sens et que les mots et les phrases utilisés sont appropriés. Enfin, n’oubliez pas que l’écriture d’un texte ou un poème peut être un moyen très personnel et émotionnel de faire le deuil d’une personne que vous appréciez. Prenez le temps dont vous avez besoin et n’hésitez pas à demander l’aide d’une personne si vous en ressentez le besoin.

En complément, les articles sur des modèles d’avis de décès pour une parution dans la presse et des modèles des formules de remerciement pour des obsèques.

[theam-cjsw]

The AM: November 28, 2022

Some groovy excursions on this week's episode, including throwbacks to the legendary Bernard Estardy and the less prolific but still great Aril Laury, and new gems from folks like Kutiman, Kit Sebastian, Miszczyk, and more. Plus a solo selection from Air's Nicolas Godin, meditative moments from Bitchin Bajas and Max Cooper, dreamy pop courtesy of Alvvays, Living Hour, and Carla dal Forno—all the soothing sounds you need to start your week on the right note.

Folks seemed to particularly like this episode, so if it’s been a while since you tuned in, this might be a good one to catch up with.

Stream at CJSW.com

Soundcloud

Spotify playlist

Other streaming links

Image is "The Last Man In Europe" by Niall Naessens

Hour One:

Amorpha Bitchin Bajas • Bajascillators

Up is Good Nils Frahm, Arthur Jeffes • 1+1=X

Terminal Lucidity Where`s The Other • Relaxology

to all the plants i loved s e r é n a t e • caso de estudio

Dust Loom Hamish Lang • Seasons

A Model of Reality Max Cooper, featuring Kotomi • Unspoken Words

a-O’ Various Artists, featuring a-souvenir x O'Haara • Forest City Series, Vol. 5

Corporation Meditation Key Puncher • Gravity

II Christopher Sleightholm • Intermission Musics EP

Hour Two:

Seeland - MF Tomlinson Remix Group Listening • Clarinet & Piano: Selected Remixes Vol. 2

Bach Off Nicolas Godin • Contrepoint

Antiblue Étamine • Single

Monsieur Dutour Bernard Estardy • La Formule du Baron

Autoscopie Bernard Estardy • La Formule du Baron

Over Tage Svaneborg Kardyb • Over Tage

Moody Aril Laury • Escape from Synth City

Ben Anna Butterss • Activities

The Ecstatic Dance MISZCZYK, featuring Bile Sister • Thyrsis of Etna

Road Song Various Artists, featuring Hair Control • Ear Worms: Live Sessions From CJSW 90.9 FM

Hour Three:

Jennifer Hindsight Peel Dream Magazine • Pad

Uma Canção a Mais Orquestra e Côro Som Livre • Semideus

Tresor Gwenno • Tresor

Stay Awake Carla dal Forno • Come Around

Tugboat Carla Sagan • Observer Bias

Tile By Tile Alvvays • Blue Rev

Fresh Haze Kutiman • Open

Hayat Kit Sebastian • Single

Alone Again (Naturally) Scanner • Jayemme

Fugue Milk • Mattress Ranch

Something to Behold Gloria de Oliveira, Dean Hurley • Oceans of Time

Hold Me In Your Mind Living Hour • Someday Is Today

[lennart11412]

Logos

Philo:

In the philosophy of Alexandria, of which Philo was an illustrious exponent, the two phases were combined, and Hellenistic speculation was united with Hebrew tradition for the purpose of showing that the Old Testament taught the true philosophy and embodied all that was highest in Greek reflection. In Philo the two streams meet and flow henceforth in a common bed. The all-pervading Energy of Heraclitus, the archetypal Ideas of Plato, the purposive Reason of Aristotle, the immanent Order of the Stoics are taken up and fused with the Jewish conception of Yahweh who, while transcending all finite existences, is revealed through His intermediatory Word. As the result of this Philonic synthesis, an entirely new idea of God is formulated. While Philo admits the eternity of matter, he rejects the Greek view that the world is eternal, since it denies the creative activity and providence of God. At the same time he separates Divine energy from its manifestations in the world, and is therefore compelled to connect the one with the other by the interposition of subordinate Powers. These Divine forces are the embodiment of the ideai, of Plato and the aggeloi, of the Old Testament. The double meaning of Logos--thought and speech--is made use of by Philo to explain the relation subsisting between the ideal world existing only in the mind of God and the sensible universe which is its visible embodiment. He distinguishes, therefore, between the Logos inherent in God (logos endiathetos), corresponding to reason in man, and the Logos which emanates from God (logos prophorikos), corresponding to the spoken Word as the revelation of thought. Though in His inner essence God is incomprehensible by any but Himself, He has created the intelligible cosmos by His self-activity. The Word is therefore in Philo the rational order manifested in the visible world.

Some special features of the Philonic Logos may be noted: (1) It is distinguished from God as the instrument from the Cause. (2) As instrument by which God makes the world, it is in its nature intermediate between God and man. (3) As the expressed thought of God and the rational principle of the visible world, the Logos is "the Eldest or Firstborn Son of God." It is the "bond" (desmos) holding together all things (De Mundi, i.592), the law which determines the order of the universe and guides the destinies of men and nations (same place) . Sometimes Philo calls it the "Man of God": or the "Heavenly man," the immortal father of all noble men; sometimes he calls it "the Second God," "the Image of God." (4) From this it follows that the Logos must be the Mediator between God and man, the "Intercessor" (hiketes) or "High Priest," who is the ambassador from heaven and interprets God to man. Philo almost exhausts the vocabulary of Hebrew metaphor in describing the Logos. It is "manna," "bread from heaven," "the living stream," the "sword" of Paradise, the guiding "cloud," the "rock" in the wilderness.

These various expressions, closely resembling the New Testament descriptions of Christ, lead us to ask: Is Philo's Logos a personal being or a pure abstraction? Philo himself seems to waver in his answer, and the Greek and the Jew in him are hopelessly at issue. That he personifies the Logos is implied in the figures he uses; but to maintain its personality would have been inconsistent with Philo's whole view of God and the world. His Jewish faith inclines him to speak of the Logos as personal, while his Greek culture disposes him to an impersonal interpretation. Confronted with this alternative, the Alexandrian wavers in indecision. After all has been said, his Logos really resolves itself into a group of Divine ideas, and is conceived, not as a distinct person, but as the thought of God which is expressed in the rational order of the visible universe.

In the speculations of Philo, whose thought is so frequently couched in Biblical language, we have the gropings of a sincere mind after a truth which was disclosed in its fullness only by the revelation of Pentecost. In Philo, Greek philosophy, as has been said, "stood almost at the door of the Christian church." But if the Alexandrian thinker could not create the Christian doctrine, he unconsciously prepared the soil for its acceptance. In this sense his Logos-doctrine has a real value in the evolution of Christian thought. Philo was not, indeed, the master of the apostles, but even if he did nothing more than call forth their antagonism, he helped indirectly to determine the doctrine of Christendom.

[adalidda]

Découvrez l'Excellence Naturelle : Gum Karaya Premium du Kenya et d'Éthiopie 

Sahel Agri-Sol est fier de vous offrir le Gum Karaya, un ingrédient naturel d'exception provenant des paysages préservés du Kenya et de l'Éthiopie. Avec sa pureté inégalée et ses multiples applications, notre Gum Karaya répond parfaitement aux besoins des industries alimentaires, pharmaceutiques, cosmétiques et techniques à travers le monde. 

Pourquoi choisir Sahel Agri-Sol ?

Qualité premium : Une sélection rigoureuse pour un produit répondant aux normes internationales. 

Approvisionnement éthique : Un sourcing durable, soutenant les communautés locales et l’environnement. 

Partenaire de confiance : Des chaînes d’approvisionnement fiables et un accompagnement personnalisé. 

Valeur ajoutée pour votre entreprise : Performances élevées à des tarifs compétitifs. 

Un Ingrédient Polyvalent aux Applications Innovantes 

1. Pour les Industries Alimentaires 

Fonctionnalités exceptionnelles : Un émulsifiant, épaississant et stabilisant idéal pour les produits de boulangerie, les sauces et les produits laitiers. 

Clean-label : Un ingrédient naturel en phase avec la demande croissante pour des produits sains et sans additifs. 

Efficacité économique : Simplifie vos formulations et réduit vos coûts. 

2. Pour les Fabricants de Boissons 

Texture parfaite : Améliore la viscosité des jus, sirops et boissons énergétiques. 

Stabilité prolongée : Limite la séparation des phases et améliore la conservation. 

Tendance naturelle : Idéal pour répondre aux attentes des consommateurs clean-label. 

3. Pour les Applications Pharmaceutiques et Cosmétiques 

Agent liant naturel : Parfait pour comprimés et capsules. 

Soins premium : Utilisé dans les crèmes et lotions pour une texture douce et stable. 

Respect de l’environnement : Biodégradable et durable, un choix responsable pour vos formulations. 

4. Pour les Usages Industriels 

Polyvalence : De la fabrication d’adhésifs naturels aux solutions de revêtement écologique. 

Performances fiables : Une solution robuste pour des industries exigeantes. 

Un Choix Naturel pour Vos Projets d'Innovation 

Avec le Gum Karaya de Sahel Agri-Sol, vous ne choisissez pas seulement un produit ; vous optez pour un engagement en faveur de la qualité, de l’éthique et de la durabilité. Que vous soyez importateur, fabricant ou industriel, ce gum d'origine africaine vous aide à : 

Répondre à une demande mondiale croissante. 

Améliorer vos formulations avec un produit 100% naturel. 

Soutenir une chaîne d’approvisionnement respectueuse de l’environnement et des communautés locales. 

Boostez votre compétitivité dès aujourd’hui !  Contactez Sahel Agri-Sol pour garantir votre approvisionnement en Gum Karaya premium et bénéficier d’une expertise dédiée à la réussite de votre activité. Ensemble, bâtissons un avenir durable et prospère. 

Photo: Gomme Karaya de qualité alimentaire (Sahel Agri-Sol / Adalidda / domaine public)

Lisez la suite à https://sahelagrisol.com/fr/news/661eaf26a78aa911e7ef8954

[frenchcurious]

Championnat du Monde de Formule 1 - 2022 : Aston Martin termine 7éme du championnat avec 55 points. - source F1 Old and New.