Speech of Roger Waters at the United Nations, 8 February 2023

Speech of Roger Waters at the United Nations, 8 February 2023

https://www.pressenza.com/2023/02/roger-waters-full-speech-at-the-un-security-council/

 

https://worldbeyondwar.org/fr/vidéo-roger-waters-discours-des-nations-unies/

 

 

Roger Waters, co-founder of  Pink Floyd, addressed the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting today, Wednesday 8, 2023 in New York.

 

Madame/Mr President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen.

 

I feel profoundly honoured to be afforded this singular opportunity to brief your excellencies today. With your forbearance, I shall endeavour to express what I believe to be the feelings of countless of our brothers and sisters all over the world, both here in NY and across the seas. I shall invite them into these hallowed halls to have their say.

 

We are here to consider possibilities for peace in war-torn Ukraine, especially in light of the increasing volume of weapons arriving in that unhappy country. Every morning when I sit down at my laptop, I think of our brothers and sisters, in Ukraine and elsewhere, who, through no fault of their own find themselves in dire and often deadly circumstances. Over there, in Ukraine they may be soldiers facing another deadly day at the front, or they may be mothers or fathers facing the awful question how can I feed my child today, or they may be civilians knowing that today the lights will go out, for sure, as they always do in war zones, knowing that there is no fresh water, that there is no fuel for the stove, no blanket, just barbed wire and watch towers and walls and enmity. Or, they may be over here, in a big rich city like NY, here brothers and sisters can still find themselves in dire straights. Maybe, somehow, however hard they worked all their lives, they lost their footing on the slippery tilting deck of the neo-liberal capitalist ship we call life in the city and fell overboard to end up drowning.. Maybe they got sick, or maybe they took out a student loan, maybe they missed a payment, the margins are slim, who knows, but now they live on the street in a pile of cardboard, maybe even within sight of this United Nations building. Anyway, wherever they are, all over the world, war zone or not, together they make up a majority, a voiceless majority. Today I shall endeavor to speak for them.

 

We the people wish to live. We wish to live in peace in conditions of parity that give us the real opportunity to look after ourselves and our loved ones. We are hard workers and we are ready to work hard. All we need is a fair crack of the whip. Maybe that’s an unfortunate choice of idiom, after five hundred years of imperialism, colonialism, and slavery.

 

Anyway Please help us.

 

To help us you may have to consider our predicament, and to do so you may have to take your eye off the ball for a moment, to put your own goals momentarily to one side. What are your goals by the way? And here maybe I direct my inquiries more to the five permanent members of this Council. What are your goals? What is in the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Bigger profits for war industries? More power globally? A bigger share of the global cake? Is mother earth a cake to be gobbled up? Does not a bigger share of the cake mean less for everyone else? What if today, in this place of safety, we were to look in another direction, to look at our capacity for empathy for instance, to put ourselves in other’s shoes, like, right now, for instance, the shoes of that chap on the other side of this room, or even the shoes of the voiceless majority, if they have any shoes that is.

 

The Voiceless Majority is concerned that your wars, yes your wars, for these perpetual wars are not of our choosing, that your wars will destroy the planet that is our home, and along with every other living thing we will be sacrificed on the altar of two things, profits from the war to line the pockets of the very, very, few and the hegemonic march of some empire or other towards unipolar world domination. Please reassure us that that is not your vision for there is no good outcome down that road. That road leads only to disaster, everyone on that road has a red button in their briefcase and the further we go down that road the closer the itchy fingers get to that red button and the closer we all get to Armageddon. Look across the room, at this level we’re all wearing the same shoes.

 

So back to Ukraine. The invasion of Ukraine by The Russian Federation was illegal. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms. Also, The Russian invasion of Ukraine was not “unprovoked”, so I also condemn the provokateurs in the strongest possible terms. There, that’s got that out of the way.

 

When I wrote this speech yesterday, I included an observation that the power of veto in this council only lay in the hands of its permanent members, I was concerned that that was was undemocratic and rendered This Council toothless…. This morning I had a revelation……..TOOTHLESS! maybe toothless is in some ways a good thing……..If this is a toothless chamber……..I can open my big mouth on behalf of the voiceless without getting my head bitten off……. How cool is that. I read in the paper this morning, some anonymous diplomat quoted as saying, “Roger Waters! To address the Security Council? Whatever next?….. Mr Bean! Hwah! Hwah! Hwah! For those of you who don’t know, Mr Bean is an ineffectual character in an English comedy show on TV. So it’s a penny to a pound the anonymous diplomat is an Englishman, Hwah! hwah! hwah! To you too Sir! Ok, I think it’s time to introduce my mother, Mary Duncan Waters, she was a big influence on me, she was a school teacher, I say was, she’s been dead for fifteen years. My father, Eric Fletcher Waters, was a big influence on me too, he too is dead, he was killed on the 18th of February 1944 at Aprilia near The Anzio Bridgehead in Italy, when I was only five months old, so I know something about war and loss. Anyway back to my Mum. When I was about thirteen I was struggling with some knotty adolescent problem or other trying to decide what to do, it doesn’t matter what it was, I can’t remember anyway, but my mum sat me down and said, “Listen, you’re going to be faced with many knotty problems during your life and when you are here’s my advice, read, read, read find out everything you can about whatever it is, look at it from all sides, all angles, listen to all opinions, especially ones you don’t agree with, research it thoroughly, when you’ve done that you will have done all the heavy lifting and the next bit is easy, “Is it? Ok mum what’s the easy bit?”…….”Oh, the easy bit is, you just do the right thing.“ Hmm!

 

So speaking of doing the right thing brings me to human rights.

 

We the people, want universal human rights for all our brothers and sisters all over the world irrespective of their ethnicity, religion or nationality. To be clear, that would include but would not be limited to the right to life and property under the law for, for instance, Ukrainians, and for instance Palestinians. Yup, let that sink in. And obviously for all the rest of us. One of the problems with wars is that in a war zone or anywhere where the people live under military occupation, there is no recourse to the law, there are no human rights.

 

Today our brief is the possibility of peace in the Ukraine, with special reference to the arming of the Kiev regime by third parties.

 

I’m running out of time so,

 

What do the Voiceless millions have to say?

 

They say

Thank you for hearing us today

We are the many who do not share in the profits of the war industry.

We do not willingly raise our sons or daughters

To provide fodder for your cannons.

In our opinion

The only sensible course of action today

Is to call for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine.

No ifs, no buts, no ands.

Not one more Ukrainian or Russian life is to be spent.

Not one.

They are all precious in our eyes.

 

So, the time has come to speak truth to power. You all remember the story of the Emperor’s new clothes? Of course you do. Well the leaders of your respective Empires stand, in one degree or another, naked before us. We have a message for them. It is a message from all the refugees in all the camps, a message from all the slums and favelas, a message from all the homeless, on all the cold streets, from all the earthquakes and floods, on earth. It is also a message from all the people, not quite starving but wondering how on earth to make the pittance they earn, meet the cost of a roof over their head and food for their families. My mother country England is, thank god, an Empire no more, but in that country now, there is a new catch phrase “Eat or Heat?” you can’t do both. It’s a cry echoing round the whole of Europe.

 

Apparently, the only thing the Powers that Be think we can all afford is perpetual war. How crazy is that?

 

So, from the four billion or so brothers and sisters in this Voiceless Majority who together with the millions in the international anti-war movement represent a huge constituency, enough is enough! We demand change.

 

President Biden, President Putin, President Zelenski,

USA, NATO, RUSSIA, THE EU, ALL OF YOU.

PLEASE CHANGE COURSE NOW,

AGREE TO A CEASEFIRE IN UKRAINE TODAY.

 

That, of course, will only be the starting point. But everything extrapolates from that starting point. Imagine the collective global sigh of relief. The outpouring of joy. The international joining of voices in harmony singing an anthem to peace! John Lennon pumping the air with his fist from the grave. We have finally been heard in the corridors of power. The bullies in the schoolyard have agreed to stop playing nuclear chicken. We’re not all going to die in a nuclear holocaust after all. At least not today. The powers that be have been persuaded to drop the arms race and perpetual war as their accepted modus operandum. We can stop squandering all our precious resources on war. We can feed our children, we can keep them warm. We may even learn to cooperate with all our brothers and sisters and even save our beautiful planet home from destruction. Wouldn’t that be nice?

 

Your Excellencies,

 

I thank you for your forbearance.

 

Roger Waters

The speed of science

In the face of the wave of misinformation and emotionally charged arguments that have overwhelmed Western societies and their followers in various parts of the world, it was difficult to find a rational response, and one was tempted to restrict their opinions and advices to themselves.

However, when the decision was taken worldwide to vaccinate children, at the end of 2021, this self-centered attitude was not viable anymore. Children are different.

I was, literally speaking, the only person in my children's entire environment, who was opposed to their covid vaccination. The other elders in our family, in their extended family, their teachers, their classmates, all were already vaccinated and asking my children what they were waiting for, with an air of responsibility and moral superiority.

My authority and credibility as a father was reduced to zero. Just speaking was useless.

When I realised, because she was still in bed late in the morning, that one of my daughter had taken the day before one shot of covaxin at a vaccination camp organised in her school - exceptionally open for vaccination, even as it was still closed for teaching - and furthermore, when I realised that I was the only person whom she kept in the dark, my world collapsed. I decided to to do what I should have done much before: 

Follow the scientific method.

As my daughter was in bed for 3 days, too weak to get up, I asked her, on the 3rd day when she was better, to collect covid, vaccination and population data from 3 government websites:

1) Cowin Portal:

https://www.cowin.gov.in/

2) State-Wise Covid Status:

https://www.mygov.in/corona-data/covid19-statewise-status/

3) Census of India:

https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/

She took screenshots of each state number of vaccinations (1 and 2 doses) from the Cowin dashboard, and wrote down the figures in an excel sheet. She then wrote the number of covid cases and covid deaths of each state, in a different column, as per the State-wise Covid Status. In the next column she wrote the population of each state, as per the Census.

Then, dividing the number of vaccinations and number of cases and deaths by the population of each state, she obtained the numbers per capita.

She then sorted the columns by number of 1st dose per capita, and put the result in an x-y graph.

The result is below:

I then asked my daughter if she could see in this graph any relation between the number of vaccinations and the number of deaths. She was hesitant. It was not very clear, she said. There were very high variations between states. But there was a slight correlation: Higher the number of doses, higher the number of deaths. I then asked her, is it clear from the government data that vaccinations reduce the number of deaths? She said, "No. It is rather the opposite".

By the time she reached this conclusion, after 4 hours of tedious work, her  younger brother and elder sister had joined us and were also observing the data.

She decided to not go to school for the second dose. She would return to school only when the classes would restart. Her brother and sister also decided to not go to school get their shot. Their main worry was what to tell to their friends and to their teachers. But they felt confident they would be able to say something and to face them.

I am not sure what had the more influence, my daughter experiencing bad side effects (for more than a week) or assembling and studying government data. But to this day, my kids are the only ones in their entire school to not have been vaccinated.

It took 4 hours of boring, tedious clerical job: making screenshots, saving them in folders, writing the values in the excel sheet. 

4 hours. The speed of science?

Links to my daughter's files:

spreadsheet

screenshots

Zaporozhie, France, November 1969

 

Pierre Fournier, 17 November 1969 in l'Hebdo Hara-Kiri

Ukraine War: the New Gold Rush

One thing is guaranteed: a new gold rush of “defense” spending is a disaster in the making for all of us not in that complex.

https://tomdispatch.com/the-new-gold-rush/

Berliner Zeitung - Guerre d'Ukraine

Guerre d'Ukraine

Une lettre ouverte demande à Scholz d'arrêter les livraisons d'armes à l'Ukraine

Une lettre ouverte signée par Daniela Dahn et Konstantin Wecker appelle à l'arrêt des livraisons d'armes à l'Ukraine.

 

BLZ/kuri, 22 avril 2022 - 11h21

 

Compte tenu de la pression croissante exercée sur le chancelier Olaf Scholz pour répondre à la demande de livraison d'armes lourdes à l'Ukraine, un groupe de personnalités de la science, de la politique, de la culture et d'autres domaines de la société civile ont écrit une lettre ouverte au chancelier.

 

Dans ce document, ils ont appelé à l'arrêt des livraisons d'armes aux troupes ukrainiennes et à encourager le gouvernement de Kiev à mettre fin à la résistance militaire contre les promesses de négociations sur un cessez-le-feu et une solution politique.

 

Les soussignés critiquent le fait que l'Allemagne et d'autres pays de l'OTAN se sont érigés en belligérants en fournissant des armes et mettent en garde contre une escalade nucléaire.

 

Les livraisons d'armes et le soutien militaire de l'OTAN prolongeraient la guerre et rendraient une solution diplomatique très éloignée. Indépendamment du succès, le prix d'une résistance militaire prolongée serait plus de villes et de villages détruits et plus de victimes parmi la population ukrainienne.

 

Par leur initiative, les signataires veulent également envoyer un signal aux membres du Bundestag, qui devraient discuter de nouvelles livraisons d'armes à l'Ukraine dans la semaine à venir. Voici le texte intégral de la lettre ouverte.

 

 

Cher Chancelier Scholz,

 

nous sommes des gens d'origines, d'attitudes politiques et de positions différentes vis-à-vis de la politique de l'OTAN, de la Russie et du gouvernement fédéral. Nous condamnons tous profondément cette guerre injustifiable menée par la Russie en Ukraine. Nous sommes unis pour mettre en garde contre une escalade incontrôlable de la guerre aux conséquences imprévisibles pour le monde entier et pour nous opposer à une prolongation de la guerre et des effusions de sang avec des livraisons d'armes.

 

En fournissant des armes, l'Allemagne et d'autres pays de l'OTAN se sont, de facto, érigés en partie belligérante. Ainsi, l'Ukraine est également devenue le champ de bataille du conflit entre l'OTAN et la Russie sur l'ordre sécuritaire en Europe, qui s'intensifie depuis des années.

 

Cette guerre brutale au cœur de l'Europe se déroule aux dépens du peuple ukrainien. Dans le même temps, la guerre économique qui a maintenant été déclenchée met en péril l'approvisionnement en personnes en Russie et dans de nombreux pays pauvres à travers le monde.

 

Les rapports sur les crimes de guerre s'accumulent. Bien que difficile à vérifier dans les conditions qui prévalent, on peut supposer que dans cette guerre, comme dans d'autres avant elle, des atrocités seront commises et que la brutalité augmentera avec sa durée. Une raison de plus pour en finir rapidement.

 

La guerre recèle un véritable danger d'escalade et d'escalade militaire qui ne peut plus être maîtrisée - semblable à celle de la Première Guerre mondiale. Des lignes rouges sont tracées, qui sont ensuite franchies par les acteurs et les joueurs des deux côtés, et la spirale continue un pas de plus. Si des personnes responsables comme vous, cher Monsieur le Chancelier fédéral, n'arrêtent pas ce développement, la fin sera une autre grande guerre. Seulement cette fois avec des armes nucléaires, une dévastation généralisée et la fin de la civilisation humaine. Eviter de plus en plus de victimes, de destructions et une nouvelle escalade dangereuse doit donc avoir la priorité absolue.

 

Malgré les rapports de succès de l'armée ukrainienne entre-temps : elle est bien inférieure à l'armée russe et a peu de chances de gagner cette guerre. Le prix d'une résistance militaire prolongée, quel que soit son succès éventuel, sera davantage de villes et de villages détruits et davantage de victimes parmi la population ukrainienne. Les livraisons d'armes et le soutien militaire de l'OTAN prolongent la guerre et rendent la solution diplomatique encore plus lointaine.

 

Il est juste de demander « A bas les armes ! » principalement à la partie russe. Mais en même temps, de nouvelles mesures doivent être prises pour mettre fin au plus tôt possible aux effusions de sang et aux déplacements de population.

 

Aussi amer qu'il soit de se retirer de la violence qui viole le droit international, c'est la seule alternative réaliste et humaine à une guerre longue et épuisante. La première étape, et la plus importante, serait d'arrêter toutes les livraisons d'armes à l'Ukraine, combinées à un cessez-le-feu immédiat à négocier.

 

Nous appelons donc le gouvernement allemand, l'UE et les pays de l'OTAN à cesser de fournir des armes aux troupes ukrainiennes et à encourager le gouvernement de Kiev à mettre fin à la résistance militaire - contre la promesse de négociations parle d'un cessez-le-feu et d'une solution politique - pour en finir. Les offres à Moscou déjà discutées par le président Zelenskyi - éventuelle neutralité, accord sur la reconnaissance de la Crimée et référendums sur le futur statut des républiques du Donbass - offrent une réelle chance de le faire.

 

Les négociations sur le retrait rapide des troupes russes et la restauration de l'intégrité territoriale de l'Ukraine doivent être soutenues par les propres propositions des pays de l'OTAN concernant les intérêts de sécurité légitimes de la Russie et de ses pays voisins.

 

Afin d'arrêter le plus rapidement possible de nouvelles destructions massives des villes et d'accélérer les négociations de cessez-le-feu, le gouvernement fédéral devrait suggérer que les villes actuellement assiégées, les plus menacées et jusqu'à présent largement épargnées, telles que Kiev, Kharkiv et Odessa, deviennent "villes non défendues", le Premier Protocole additionnel à la Convention de Genève de 1949. Grâce au concept déjà défini dans la Convention de La Haye sur la guerre terrestre, de nombreuses villes ont pu empêcher leur dévastation pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

 

La logique de guerre dominante doit être remplacée par une logique de paix courageuse et une nouvelle architecture de paix européenne et mondiale doit être créée, incluant la Russie et la Chine. Notre pays ne doit pas rester sur la touche, mais doit jouer un rôle actif.

 

Sincèrement,

 

Dr PD Johannes M. Becker, politologue, ancien directeur général du Center for

Recherche sur les conflits à Marburg

 

Daniela Dahn, journaliste, écrivain et publiciste, membre du PEN

 

docteur Rolf Gössner, avocat et publiciste, Ligue internationale des droits de l'homme

 

Jürgen Grässlin, porte-parole fédéral DFG-VK et Aktion Aufschrei ‒ Arrêtez le commerce des armes !

 

Joachim Guilliard, publiciste

 

docteur Luc Jochimsen, journaliste, rédacteur TV, député 2005-2013

 

Christoph Kramer, chirurgien, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War IPPNW (section allemande)

 

Prof. Dr. Karin Kulow, politologue

 

docteur Helmut Lohrer, docteur, conseiller international, IPPNW (section allemande)

 

Prof. Dr. Mohssen Massarrat, politologue et économiste

 

docteur Hans Misselwitz, Commission des valeurs fondamentales du SPD

 

Ruth Misselwitz, théologienne protestante, ancienne présidente d'Action Réconciliation

services de paix

 

Prof. Dr. Norman Paech , expert en droit international, ancien membre du Bundestag allemand

 

Prof. Dr. Werner Ruf, politologue et sociologue

 

Prof. Dr. Gert Sommer, psychologue, ancien membre du conseil d'administration du Center for

Recherche sur les conflits à Marburg

 

Hans Christoph Graf von Sponeck, ancien secrétaire général adjoint de l'ONU

 

docteur Antje Vollmer, ancienne vice-présidente du Bundestag allemand

 

Konstantin Wecker, musicien, compositeur et auteur

 

https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/offener-brief-fordert-von-scholz-stopp-der-waffenlieferungen-an-die-ukraine-li.223704

Berliner Zeitung - Ukraine war

 Ukraine war

Open letter calls for Scholz to stop arms deliveries to Ukraine

An open letter signed by Daniela Dahn and Konstantin Wecker calls for a halt to arms deliveries to Ukraine.

 

BLZ/kuri, April 22, 2022 - 11:21 a.m

 

In view of the growing pressure on Chancellor Olaf Scholz to meet the demand for the delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine, a group of personalities from science, politics, culture and other areas of civil society have written an open letter to the Chancellor.

 

In it, they called for a halt to arms supplies to Ukrainian troops and to encourage the government in Kyiv to end military resistance against promises of negotiations on a ceasefire and a political solution.

 

The undersigned criticize the fact that Germany and other NATO states have made themselves war parties by supplying weapons and warn against a nuclear escalation.

 

Deliveries of arms and military support from NATO would prolong the war and make a diplomatic solution a long way off. Regardless of success, the price of prolonged military resistance would be more destroyed towns and villages and more casualties among the Ukrainian population.

 

With their initiative, the signatories also want to send a signal to the members of the Bundestag, who are expected to discuss further arms deliveries to Ukraine in the coming week. Here is the full text of the open letter.

 

 

Dear Chancellor Scholz,

 

we are people of different origins, political attitudes and positions towards the politics of NATO, Russia and the federal government. We all deeply condemn this unjustifiable war by Russia in Ukraine. We are united in warning against an uncontrollable escalation of the war with unforeseeable consequences for the entire world and in opposing a prolongation of the war and bloodshed with arms deliveries.

 

By supplying weapons, Germany and other NATO countries have de facto made themselves a war party. And so Ukraine has also become the battlefield for the conflict between NATO and Russia over the security order in Europe, which has been escalating for years.

 

This brutal war in the heart of Europe is being fought at the expense of the Ukrainian people. At the same time, the economic war that has been unleashed is jeopardizing the supply of people in Russia and many poor countries around the world.

 

Reports of war crimes are piling up. Although difficult to verify under the prevailing conditions, it must be assumed that in this war, as in others before it, atrocities will be committed and that the brutality will increase with its duration. One more reason to end it quickly.

 

The war harbors the real danger of escalation and military escalation that can no longer be controlled - similar to that of the First World War. Red Lines are drawn, which are then crossed by actors and gamblers on both sides, and the spiral continues one step further. If responsible people like you, dear Mr. Federal Chancellor, do not stop this development, the end will be another big war. Only this time with nuclear weapons, widespread devastation and the end of human civilization. The avoidance of more and more casualties, destruction and a further dangerous escalation must therefore have absolute priority.

 

Despite reports of success from the Ukrainian army in the meantime: it is far inferior to the Russian one and has little chance of winning this war. The price of prolonged military resistance, regardless of possible success, will be more destroyed towns and villages and more casualties among the Ukrainian population. Deliveries of arms and military support from NATO prolong the war and make a diplomatic solution a long way off.

 

It is right to make the demand “Down with your arms!” primarily to the Russian side. But at the same time, further steps must be taken to end the bloodshed and displacement of people as soon as possible.

 

As bitter as it is to retreat from violence that violates international law, it is the only realistic and humane alternative to a long, grueling war. The first and most important step would be to stop all arms deliveries to Ukraine, combined with an immediate ceasefire to be negotiated.

 

We therefore call on the German government, the EU and NATO countries to stop supplying arms to the Ukrainian troops and to encourage the government in Kyiv to stop military resistance - against the promise of negotiations talks about a ceasefire and a political solution - to end. The offers to Moscow already discussed by President Zelenskyi - possible neutrality, agreement on the recognition of Crimea and referendums on the future status of the Donbass republics - offer a real chance to do so.

 

Negotiations on the rapid withdrawal of Russian troops and the restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity should be supported by NATO countries' own proposals regarding the legitimate security interests of Russia and its neighboring countries.

 

In order to stop further massive destruction of the cities as quickly as possible and to accelerate ceasefire negotiations, the federal government should suggest that the cities currently under siege, most at risk and so far largely undestroyed, such as Kyiv, Kharkiv and Odessa, become "undefended cities". the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention of 1949. Thanks to the concept already defined in the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, numerous cities were able to prevent their devastation during the Second World War.

 

The prevailing logic of war must be replaced by a courageous logic of peace and a new European and global peace architecture must be created, including Russia and China. Our country must not stand on the sidelines here, but must play an active role.

 

Sincerely,

 

PD dr Johannes M. Becker, political scientist, former managing director of the Center for

Conflict research in Marburg

 

Daniela Dahn, journalist, writer and publicist, PEN member

 

dr Rolf Gössner, lawyer and publicist, International League for Human Rights

 

Jürgen Grässlin, Federal Spokesman DFG-VK and Aktion Aufschrei ‒ Stop the arms trade!

 

Joachim Guilliard, publicist

 

dr Luc Jochimsen, journalist, TV editor, MP 2005-2013

 

Christoph Kramer, Surgeon, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War IPPNW (German Section)

 

Prof. Dr. Karin Kulow, political scientist

 

dr Helmut Lohrer, Doctor, International Councilor, IPPNW (German Section)

 

Prof. Dr. Mohssen Massarrat, political scientist and economist

 

dr Hans Misselwitz, Basic Values ​​Commission of the SPD

 

Ruth Misselwitz, Protestant theologian, former chairwoman of Action Reconciliation

peace services

 

Prof. Dr. Norman Paech, international law expert, former member of the German Bundestag

 

Prof. Dr. Werner Ruf, political scientist and sociologist

 

Prof. Dr. Gert Sommer, psychologist, former board member of the Center for

Conflict research in Marburg

 

Hans Christoph Graf von Sponeck, former Assistant Secretary General of the UN

 

dr Antje Vollmer, former Vice President of the German Bundestag

 

Konstantin Wecker, musician, composer and author

 

https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/offener-brief-fordert-von-scholz-stopp-der-waffenlieferungen-an-die-ukraine-li.223704

Berliner Zeitung - Ukraine-Krieg

 

Ukraine-Krieg

Offener Brief fordert von Scholz Stopp der Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine

Ein offener Brief, der unterzeichnet wurde von Daniela Dahn und Konstantin Wecker, fordert den Stopp der Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine.

 

BLZ/kuri, 22.4.2022 - 11:21 Uhr

 

Angesichts wachsenden Drucks auf Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz, der Forderung nach Lieferung schwerer Waffen an die Ukraine nachzukommen, hat sich ein Kreis von Persönlichkeiten aus Wissenschaft, Politik, Kultur und anderen Bereichen der Zivilgesellschaft in einem offenen Brief an den Kanzler gewandt.

 

Darin fordern sie, die Waffenlieferungen an die ukrainischen Truppen einzustellen und die Regierung in Kiew zu ermutigen, den militärischen Widerstand ‒ gegen die Zusicherung von Verhandlungen über einen Waffenstillstand und eine politische Lösung ‒ zu beenden.

 

Die UnterzeichnerInnen kritisieren, dass mit der Lieferung von Waffen sich Deutschland und weitere Nato-Staaten de facto zur Kriegspartei gemacht hätten und warnen vor einer atomaren Eskalation.

 

Waffenlieferungen und militärische Unterstützung durch die NATO würden den Krieg verlängern und eine diplomatische Lösung in weite Ferne rücken. Der Preis eines längeren militärischen Widerstands wären ‒ unabhängig von einem möglichen Erfolg ‒ noch mehr zerstörte Städte und Dörfer und noch größere Opfer unter der ukrainischen Bevölkerung.

 

Mit ihrer Initiative wollen die UnterzeichnerInnen auch ein Signal an die Mitglieder des Bundestages senden, die kommende Woche voraussichtlich über weitere Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine beraten werden. Hier der offene Brief im Wortlaut.

 

 

Sehr geehrter Herr Bundeskanzler Scholz,

 

wir sind Menschen unterschiedlicher Herkunft, politischer Einstellungen und Positionen gegenüber der Politik der NATO, Russlands und der Bundesregierung. Wir alle verurteilen zutiefst diesen durch nichts zu rechtfertigenden Krieg Russlands in der Ukraine. Uns eint, dass wir gemeinsam vor einer unbeherrschbaren Ausweitung des Krieges mit unabsehbaren Folgen für die gesamte Welt warnen und uns gegen eine Verlängerung des Krieges und Blutvergießens mit Waffenlieferungen einsetzen.

 

Mit der Lieferung von Waffen haben sich Deutschland und weitere NATO-Staaten de facto zur Kriegspartei gemacht. Und somit ist die Ukraine auch zum Schlachtfeld für den sich seit Jahren zuspitzenden Konflikt zwischen der NATO und Russland über die Sicherheitsordnung in Europa geworden.

 

Dieser brutale Krieg mitten in Europa wird auf dem Rücken der ukrainischen Bevölkerung ausgetragen. Der nun entfesselte Wirtschaftskrieg gefährdet gleichzeitig die Versorgung der Menschen in Russland und vieler armer Länder weltweit.

 

Berichte über Kriegsverbrechen häufen sich. Auch wenn sie unter den herrschenden Bedingungen schwer zu verifizieren sind, so ist davon auszugehen, dass in diesem Krieg, wie in anderen zuvor, Gräueltaten begangen werden und die Brutalität mit seiner Dauer zunimmt. Ein Grund mehr, ihn rasch zu beenden.

 

Der Krieg birgt die reale Gefahr einer Ausweitung und nicht mehr zu kontrollierenden militärischen Eskalation ‒ ähnlich der im Ersten Weltkrieg. Es werden Rote Linien gezogen, die dann von Akteuren und Hasardeuren auf beiden Seiten übertreten werden, und die Spirale ist wieder eine Stufe weiter. Wenn Verantwortung tragende Menschen wie Sie, sehr geehrter Herr Bundeskanzler, diese Entwicklung nicht stoppen, steht am Ende wieder der ganz große Krieg. Nur diesmal mit Atomwaffen, weitreichender Verwüstung und dem Ende der menschlichen Zivilisation. Die Vermeidung von immer mehr Opfern, Zerstörungen und einer weiteren gefährlichen Eskalation muss daher absoluten Vorrang haben.

 

Trotz zwischenzeitlicher Erfolgsmeldungen der ukrainischen Armee: Sie ist der russischen weit unterlegen und hat kaum eine Chance, diesen Krieg zu gewinnen. Der Preis eines längeren militärischen Widerstands wird ‒ unabhängig von einem möglichen Erfolg ‒ noch mehr zerstörte Städte und Dörfer und noch größere Opfer unter der ukrainischen Bevölkerung sein. Waffenlieferungen und militärische Unterstützung durch die NATO verlängern den Krieg und rücken eine diplomatische Lösung in weite Ferne.

 

Es ist richtig, die Forderung „Die Waffen nieder!“ in erste Linie an die russische Seite zu stellen. Doch müssen gleichzeitig weitere Schritte unternommen werden, das Blutvergießen und die Vertreibung der Menschen so schnell wie möglich zu beenden.

 

So bitter das Zurückweichen vor völkerrechtswidriger Gewalt auch ist, es ist die einzig realistische und humane Alternative zu einem langen zermürbenden Krieg. Der erste und wichtigste Schritt dazu wäre ein Stopp aller Waffenlieferungen in die Ukraine, verbunden mit einem auszuhandelnden sofortigen Waffenstillstand.

 

Wir fordern daher die Bundesregierung, die EU- und NATO-Staaten auf, die Waffenlieferungen an die ukrainischen Truppen einzustellen und die Regierung in Kiew zu ermutigen, den militärischen Widerstand ‒ gegen die Zusicherung von Verhandlungen über einen Waffenstillstand und eine politische Lösung ‒ zu beenden. Die bereits von Präsident Selenskyi ins Gespräch gebrachten Angebote an Moskau ‒ mögliche Neutralität, Einigung über die Anerkennung der Krim und Referenden über den zukünftigen Status der Donbass-Republiken ‒ bieten dazu eine reelle Chance.

 

Verhandlungen über den raschen Rückzug der russischen Truppen und die Wiederherstellung der territorialen Integrität der Ukraine sollten durch eigene Vorschläge der NATO-Staaten bezüglich berechtigter Sicherheitsinteressen Russlands und seinen Nachbarstaaten unterstützt werden.

 

Um jetzt weitere massive Zerstörungen der Städte so schnell wie möglich zu stoppen und Waffenstillstandsverhandlungen zu beschleunigen, sollte die Bundesregierung anregen, dass sich die derzeit belagerten, am meisten gefährdeten und bisher weitgehend unzerstörten Städte, wie Kiew, Charkiw und Odessa zu „unverteidigten Städten“ gemäß dem I. Zusatzprotokoll des Genfer Abkommen von 1949 erklären. Durch das bereits in der Haager Landkriegsordnung definierte Konzept konnten im Zweiten Weltkrieg zahlreiche Städte ihre Verwüstung verhindern.

 

Die vorherrschende Kriegslogik muss durch eine mutige Friedenslogik ersetzt und eine neue europäische und globale Friedensarchitektur unter Einschluss Russlands und Chinas geschaffen werden. Unser Land darf hier nicht am Rand stehen, sondern muss eine aktive Rolle einnehmen.

 

Hochachtungsvoll,

 

PD Dr. Johannes M. Becker, Politologe, ehem. Geschäftsführer des Zentrums für

Konfliktforschung in Marburg

 

Daniela Dahn, Journalistin, Schriftstellerin und Publizistin, Pen-Mitglied

 

Dr. Rolf Gössner, Rechtsanwalt und Publizist, Internationale Liga für Menschenrechte

 

Jürgen Grässlin, Bundessprecher DFG-VK und Aktion Aufschrei ‒ Stoppt den Waffenhandel!

 

Joachim Guilliard, Publizist

 

Dr. Luc Jochimsen, Journalistin, Fernsehredakteurin, MdB 2005-2013

 

Christoph Krämer, Chirurg, Internationale Ärzte für die Verhütung des Atomkrieges IPPNW (deutsche Sektion)

 

Prof. Dr. Karin Kulow, Politikwissenschaftlerin

 

Dr. Helmut Lohrer, Arzt, International Councilor, IPPNW (deutsche Sektion)

 

Prof. Dr. Mohssen Massarrat, Politik- und Wirtschaftswissenschaftler

 

Dr. Hans Misselwitz, Grundwertekommission der SPD

 

Ruth Misselwitz, evangelische Theologin, ehem. Vorsitzende von Aktion Sühnezeichen

Friedensdienste

 

Prof. Dr. Norman Paech, Völkerrechtler, ehem. Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages

 

Prof. Dr. Werner Ruf, Politikwissenschaftler und Soziologe

 

Prof. Dr. Gert Sommer, Psychologe, ehem. Direktoriummitglied des Zentrums für

Konfliktforschung in Marburg

 

Hans Christoph Graf von Sponeck, ehem. Beigeordneter Generalsekretär der UNO

 

Dr. Antje Vollmer, ehem. Vizepräsidentin des Deutschen Bundestages

 

Konstantin Wecker, Musiker, Komponist und Autor

https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik-gesellschaft/offener-brief-fordert-von-scholz-stopp-der-waffenlieferungen-an-die-ukraine-li.223704

collectif des familles unies

https://twitter.com/FamillesDes/status/1503299753500717058?cxt=HHwWhMC95abK5dwpAAAA

https://twitter.com/FamillesDes/status/1503299753500717058?cxt=HHwWhMC95abK5dwpAAAA

https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2022/04/09/monsieur-le-president-ne-laissez-pas-des-enfants-francais-s-eteindre-a-petit-feu-dans-les-camps-syriens_6121339_3232.html

les Durga Puja de Kolkata et l’espace de la ville (mémoire de diplôme architecte DPLG 2002)

mémoire complet sur Research Gate:

Les Durga Puja de Kolkata et l'espace de la ville

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353620952_les_Durga_Puja_de_Kolkata_et_l'espace_de_la_ville

Embracing the mainstream, with Ethos India!

Embracing the Mainstream

 https://ethosinside.wordpress.com/2021/07/29/building-with-a-conscious-mind/

Je sais. C'est dans le journal. (hommage a Greta Thunberg)

Pierre Fournier, Charlie Hebdo 23 novembre 1972

Bandits and heroes, owning, reversal and the need to invent a more real justice

On 25th September in Paris, a woman has been sentenced to pay a compensation to a man she was publicly accusing of sexual harassment. The facts, on the details of which the man and the woman agree, do not constitute sexual harassment according to the court.

There is a bitter taste to this legal victory. Because the damage the man has suffered do not come from the woman's accusation, which was nothing but a sort of long-delayed response to his own words, at a similar level of vulgarity and posture.

The damage was done by society. And it has been harsh. He lost all his clients, many of his friends, his wife, and struggled to explain the event to his children, who were informed by social media.

That he had apologised the next day, that the accusation was done after a 5-year delay, counted for nothing. 5 years after he apologised for his words, society as a whole stood by his accuser's words, no less crude, and put her on a pedestal, and made her feel, not like an unimportant opportunist, but like the crusader of a great cause. So when he asked her, not even to apologise, but to withdraw her accusation, nobody would have understood or supported her if she had done that, even if she wanted. Society would not have accepted it. He went to court.

And now, the court has condemned her for defamation.

Of course, a court of law cannot judge society, whatever harm it has done to a person. It can only judge another person, in the name of society. There is no other way.

But this strange thing happen: There are 2 victims here, the man and the woman, and both are innocent. Or at least, they are the most innocent of us all: The signatories to incendiary calls to crusade, the twitting and re-twitting, the stylish commenters, all those who try to keep themselves clean, who hope to pre-empt accusation by prudent virtue-signaling and safe distancing.

But society is unable to inflict a punishment on a person. The person always escapes unhurt. Society only hurts itself. Machiavelli's famous quote, "It is not titles that honour men, but men that honour titles", inescapably has the opposite consequence: Society does not judge individuals, individuals judge society. History is replete with famous bandits and heroes who illustrated this reversal, including Gandhi who dictated to his judge the sentence he inflicted on him, Edward Snowden who reminded us that "Justice does not defend people, people defend justice", and Julian Assange, who has gradually lost, not only all his supporters, but even the most elementary respect, after he started, years ago, to rot in confinement, after having exposed some terrible crimes of our time. One cannot escape the feeling that our attitude has made him one of the cleanest persons on earth right now.

More simply, Sandra Muller and Eric Brion, by enduring our collective, sub-human, "sexual harassment by procuration", have unwillingly exposed our lazyness and darkness . We owe both of them, an apology.

We need to invent real justice, founded on the strength of the person. It is sprouting already, in many places, we just have to make silence and open our ears to listen to it. We must look at our real heroes, love them, and become so ourselves, day after day, humbly.

We deserve better than the sub-human hate of "twitter".

Brigands et héros, responsabilité, renversement, et le besoin d'inventer une justice plus réelle

Le 25 septembre 2019, une femme a été condamnée à Paris pour diffamation envers un homme qu'elle accusait publiquement de harcèlement sexuel. Le tribunal a estimé que les faits, sur lesquels l'homme et la femme sont d'accord, ne constituent pas du harcèlement sexuel.

Il y a un goût de défaite dans cette victoire. Car ce que l'homme reproche vraiment à la femme, c'est moins son accusation, dont la crudité, après tout, n'était que consécutive à celle de ses propres propos, que les conséquences de cet échange maladroit.

Elles furent dévastatrices. L'homme a perdu tous ses clients, sa compagne, et la femme elle-même reconnait avoir été dépassée par les conséquences, au point qu'elle s'est mise, pour y faire face, "en mode robot". Comme s'il y avait deux victimes. Mais deux victimes innocentes. Cette homme et cette femme sont les premiers innocents de cette affaire.

Au fond, si les mots que l'homme a prononcés ne constituent pas un délit, pourquoi les écrits de la femme, leur faisant écho avec la même vulgarité, en seraient-ils un?

C'est comme si ce procès s'était trompé de cible. La femme n'a ni annulé les contrats de cet homme, ni encouragé sa compagne à le quitter, ni détruit sa réputation auprès de ses enfants.

Qui a fait cela? La réponse se devine bien, mais est difficile à formuler, et chacun doit se poser la question. Il faut essayer de parler, de formuler.

La justice n'est capable que de condamner un individu pour protéger la société. Elle est incapable de condamner la société pour protéger un individu. Sinon elle se détruirait elle-même.

Cette contradiction révèle la superficialité de la société, son incapacité à se fonder sur elle-même, révélée par la phrase de Machiavel, "Ce n'est pas le titre qui honore l'homme, c'est l'homme qui honore le titre", avec pour conséquence logique: "Ce n'est pas la société qui condamne l'individu, mais l'individu qui la condamne". Ce genre de retournement n'est pas rare, dans la littérature ou chez les brigands et héros célèbres de l'histoire, Gandhi qui dicte à son juge la sentence qu'il va lui infliger, Edward Snowden, qui nous conseille de "défendre la justice" au lieu d'espérer qu'elle nous défende, ou Julian Assange, dont il est devenu de plus en plus difficile de trouver, où que ce soit dans le monde, une défense ou un éloge publics, depuis son emprisonnement pour avoir révélé de terribles crimes contemporains.

Ce qui nous mène à ces deux questions: Qu'est-ce qui mérite vraiment d'être défendu? Et: Qu'est-ce qui est vraiment condamné ?

Dans tout jugement, n'est-ce pas la société à qui la peine est infligée? Implacablement et aveuglément, se figurant l'infliger à un individu.

Nous devons inventer une nouvelle forme de justice, fondée sur la personne, sur la force de l'individu. Elle existe déjà. Il nous faut des oreilles fines pour l'écouter, là où elle jaillit, comme les crocus sous la neige. Reconnaissons nos héros, aimons-les, et n'ayons pas peur de le devenir aussi, jour après jour, humblement. Nous méritons mieux que la haine de twitter.

Who really bombed the refineries?

The largest oil refinery in the world, in Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia, is reportedly devastated by fire, and its output capacity reduced by half.

Saudi Arabia is supposed to be protected by the world's 3rd largest military in terms of budget, just behind USA and China. This is by far the highest military spending in the world, both per GDP and per capita. All of its military equipment is US-made, including 5 BOEING AWACS (Airborne early Warning and Control) and 6 battalions of PATRIOT air defense systems, all (AWACS and PATRIOT) manned by US officers.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/468935-saudi-oil-field-drone-attack/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49054323

Yemen has claimed responsibility for the fire, saying it successfully flew a swarm of armed drones 1,000 km into Saudi territory, as retaliation for the Saudi-led bombing campaign it is suffering since 2015.

Yemen, one of the poorest nations in the world, has lost 80,000 of its citizen and most of its infrastructure, is experiencing a humanitarian disaster and a famine, due to the bombing and blockade by Saudi Arabia, the US, UK and UAE, but also from France, Israel and a few other NATO-affiliated countries, started in March 2015 and continuing to this day.

However, from the recent news we gather that drones are not the most difficult targets to bring down. Iran brought down several high-altitude US drones, one of them intact, and the Russians have defeated at least a dozen armed drone attacks against their airbase in Khmeimim in Syria, including a sophisticated one involving Awacs. Syria and Lebanon brought down many armed Israeli drones recently, and Israel also seems reasonably happy with the performance of its own PATRIOT air defense systems, the same that Saudi Arabia has, which it says successfully brings down almost all missiles, planes and drones that have targeted its territory.

So, was Yemen incredibly lucky to drive a dozen drones 1,000 km undetected through Saudi Arabia and devastate its largest refinery?

But there are other ways to reach there. In the Middle East, US-made stealth airplanes like the F-22 operated by the US and the F-35 operated by Israel, have been designed to evade air defenses.

In fact, it is not entirely clear what the PATRIOT, a US-made air defense system operated by US officers would actually do, when detecting a US-made bomber operated by the US or by a US ally like Israel. These systems are "friends" probably on several layers of software.

This was the main argument advanced by the US for cancelling the sale of F-35 to Turkey after they purchased the Russian S-400, and, one would guess, probably the very reason Turkey purchased the S-400 in the first place, after the failed coup in 2016.

Saudi Arabia was also in talks with Russia to purchase the S-400, even before the attack on their refinery.

In a paradoxal way, the US is now defending the notion, via their mainstream media, that their PATRIOT system has LIMITED CAPABILITIES, and is even INFERIOR to the Russian S-400! When did a country claim that the weapons they are trying to hard-sell (just last month, to Turkey and India) are INFERIOR to those of their stated enemy???

https://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/saudi-wealth-and-weaponry-still-can-t-guarantee-oil-s-protection-1.599227

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/04/world/middleeast/saudi-missile-defense.html

So, who really bombed the refineries?

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/09/16/neo-the-strange-case-of-the-burning-saudi-refineries/

1969: Les Halles déménagent du centre de Paris à Rungis

1969: Les Halles déménagent du centre de Paris à Rungis

Pierre Fournier, Hara-Kiri Mensuel No. 92, Mai 1969.

Les Halles de Paris


Les Halles de Rungis


Ce que le meilleur architecte de l'epoque en disait:

https://m.ina.fr/video/I09015223/critique-du-projet-de-renovation-des-halles-par-l-architecte-fernand-pouillon-video.html

Aujourd'hui la resurrection des Halles est complete, on se croirait vraiment au tout dernier terminal de l'aeroport de Roissy. Ou de Doha. Ou Bangalore. Je ne sais plus...

"Le Monde", avec 50 ans de retard, s'inspire de l'image de Pierre Fournier:
http://imagesociale.fr/7823

Emmanuel Macron se compare à Poutine, puis à Louis XVI… mais Bloomberg ne retient que Poutine!

Mais n'êtes-vous pas capable de rêver d'autre chose, monsieur le président?

https://in.reuters.com/article/france-economy-macron/in-versailles-macron-vows-to-reform-to-avoid-kings-fate-idINKCN1PF1I2

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-28/gilets-jaunes-do-a-big-favor-for-emmanuel-macron

Mais non monsieur le président, vous n'êtes pas Louis XVI, héritier réformiste de l'ancien régime mort il y a 230 ans, et si vous vous cherchez des comparaisons historiques, ne pensez pas non plus à Vladimir Poutine.

https://sputniknews.com/world/201804181063668959-macron-putin-twitter/

Non, ne vous bercez pas d'illusion, pensez plutôt à Nicolas Ceaucescu, le "Danube de la Pensée", mort il y a 30 ans, comme vous enfant chéri des réseaux atlantistes, comme vous photogénique et brillant chef d'état à 39 ans! Ou bien Victor Yanukovich, soutien de l'OTAN et contributeur à l'invasion de l'Irak, soudainement lâché par l'OTAN lorsqu'il a voulu l'indépendance de son pays, l'Ukraine.

Si Bloomberg vous lâche en vous comparant, insulte suprême, à "Poutine", c'est un signe clair. Mais, mais...

Si, en même temps, malgré tout vous vous accrochez et vous reposez de plus en plus, comme Ceausescu, sur la police, vous le faites probablement avec la permission, voire la discrète bénédiction des banques.

Serait-ce une stratégie du pourrissement, visant à briser les reins en profondeur à cette traditionnelle arrogance française qui persiste à se prétendre "libre" et "révolutionnaire"?

Bloomberg ne propose qu'une alternative: les "libertariens". C'est en effet ce qui va arriver si la violence et le chaos s'aggravent. On a déjà "l'état islamique" (qui l'a sonne, celui-là?) qui menace ouvertement les gilets jaunes, va-t-on voir bientôt arriver les snipers de l'OTAN sur les toits, l'Ukraine à Paris?

Votre franchise, monsieur le président, est poignante. Louis XVI, on sait comment il a finit.

S'il vous plait, osez rêver à autre chose. Aucun français ne veut vous guillotiner. Rejoignez les Gilets Jaunes! Soyez un Thomas Sankara qui a réussi! Ayez ce courage. Vous mourrez peut-être assassiné, comme lui. Mais mieux vaut périr assassiné comme Thomas Sankara que comme Louis XVI, non? Et nous, les Français, vous protégeront. Ni guillotine, ni violence, ni coup d'état "libertarien". Mettez fin aux violences policières. Nous vous aiderons à devenir un Thomas Sankara qui réussi. 

Nous avons confiance en nous. Ayez confiance en vous.
Ayons confiance en la France!

Le calme d'Océan

Cher Océan, je ne vous connaissais pas jusqu'à hier. J'ai lu un article dans le media citoyen Panamza 

https://www.panamza.com/041118-angot-giesbert-ocean/

racontant votre "lynchage" à la télé, puis j'ai regardé le passage sur youtube, 

https://youtu.be/dbRcXlmPD3s?si=AvkmFD_mL1-chIAC

(à partir de 2:40)

et finalement j'ai lu votre tribune en défense de Houria Bouteldja dans Libération. Belle, simple, et claire.

Votre réaction à la télévision, admirable de spontanéité et tellement magnanime face à une attaque imprévisible mais préméditée (comme Christine Angot le reconnait froidement) m'a touché. Vous n'avez rien lâché sur le fond, et vos adversaires (auto-déclarés) ne méritaient pas la grâce avec laquelle vous les avez protégés de leurs propres émotions.

Une phrase résume à mes yeux leur numéro de duettistes: "Il n'y a pas de point de vue", affirme Christine Angot, reprise par Franz-Olivier Giesbert, qui agissait en parfaite symbiose mais sans prendre d'initiative, comme un chien d'attaque perçoit les sentiments de son maitre.

C'est la même phrase avec laquelle l'armée israélienne justifie d'avoir écrasé Rachel Corrie sous un bulldozer blindé: "le soldat ne l'a pas vue". Effectivement, il n'a probablement pas vu Rachel Corrie. Il n'a pas vu un être humain, mais une cible. C'est l'attitude du médecin nazi qui examine les dents de Primo Levi comme s'il n'était pas un être humain mais un animal (Si c'est un homme). C'est le sentiment qui habitait les européens obsédés par "la question juive" il y a presque 100 ans, et leurs héritiers aujourd'hui, obsédés par d'autres fantasmes, mais sacrifiant les mêmes victimes. Car les victimes sont toujours les mêmes, seul leur nom change. Ce sont toujours celles et ceux dont la parole n'est pas légitime, dont le point de vue n'existe pas, car "il n'y a pas de point de vue", disent leurs oppresseurs.

Cet épisode fait partie de ces moments de vérité, qui révèlent aux yeux de tous que nous ne pouvons jamais éviter d'agir selon nos valeurs, selon ce que nous croyons vraiment, même lorsque nous essayons de nous les cacher. Vos agresseurs refusent de comprendre car ils ne sentent que trop bien que votre phrase les met à nu, mais ils n'ont pas le courage de comprendre pourquoi. "Il n'y a pas de point de vue" répètent-ils. Ils voudraient être transparents, "neutres", ainsi il n'y aurait pas besoin de regarder disent-ils, "les choses sont la", comme elles sont. Pas besoin de faire un effort. Mais vous avez le courage de regarder, non seulement avec les yeux mais avec le cœur, comme disait Saint-Exupéry.

La grâce de votre spontanéité et de votre calme restent une leçon pour moi.

Laurent Fournier

http://www.panamza.com/041118-angot-giesbert-ocean/

https://www.liberation.fr/debats/2016/05/30/qui-a-peur-de-houria-bouteldja_1456167

Note (16-11-2018): les media israeliens sont beaucoup plus francs, beaucoup moins hypocrites que les francais, si typiquement representes par les deux comparses cites plus haut. Lisons Uri Avneri, Yeshayahu Ben-Aharon, Yeshyahu Leibowitz, qui vivent (vivaient) en Israel, et qui acceptent (aient) pleinement les risques et la responsabilite de leurs actes, contrairement a un editorialiste suffisant se donnant en spectacle en "tremblant" sur un plateau tele a Paris, et jetant de l'huile sur le feu d'un conflit dont il ne court pas le risque de souffrir. Mais pour qui se prend-t-il? Connais-t-il le prix d'etre un journaliste en Palestine?

Lisons particulierement Uri Avneri, et son dernier article, publie 2 semaines avant sa mort cet ete:
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/08/07/who-the-hell-are-we-uri-avnery/

Yeshayahu Ben Aharon:
http://www.academia.edu/1056459/A_Revolutionary_Son_of_a_Revolutionary

Ben Aharon dit franchement que la toute premiere condition pour que la paix soit possible est qu'Israel cesse de se considerer comme le poste avance de la colonisation occidentale - Il est donc bien d'accord avec Ocean, non?

Yeshayahu Leibowitz (lu ce matin):
https://www.rt.com/news/443954-judeo-nazis-chomski-leibowitz/

‐---------------

Post-scriptum 23-04-2024

Le numéro de duettistes de Angot et Giesbert a mal vieilli. Je ne sais pas s'ils ont honte aujourd'hui. Peut-être pas. Mais il est presque sûr qu'ils n'oseraient plus. Ce que cela révèle (et l'indifférence de la salle) c'est moins la méchanceté ou la bêtise des personnes, que l'épaisseur gluante de la culture identitaire, de l'instinct politique de groupe, dans lesquels Angot et Giesbert, comme tellement d'autres, sont englués jusqu'au cou.

Il faut relire Eichmann à Jérusalem de Hannah Arendt. Le monde est peut-être prêt maintenant, après 61 ans, à lire ce livre avec honnêteté et humilité. 

Fin de la guerre?

Fin de la guerre?

Les 4 acteurs exterieurs de la guerre de Syrie sont reunis a Istanbul: Poutine, Erdogan, Macron, Merkel.

Apres cette reunion, l'attaque chimique d'Idlib ne peut plus avoir lieu, et Idlib peut etre liberee.

Silence radio complet dans Le Monde, Liberation, et en fait, dans toute la presse francaise. Silence qui en dit plus long que bien des reportages.

Alors lisons la "propagande russe" (selon Emmanuel Macron), qui est la seule aujourd'hui, parmi les media de langue francaise, apparemment, a considerer qu'une visite du president francais a Istanbul pour parler de la Syrie... vaut la peine d'etre rapportee!!!

https://francais.rt.com/international/54923-syrie-erdogan-merkel-macron-poutine-reunis-istanbul

https://fr.sputniknews.com/international/201810271038667835-poutine-macron-syrie-istanbul/

The Co-wife by Munshi Premchand, and can the ego be a word?

The co-wife, René Girard, Jacques Derrida, Novalis, can the ego be a word?   …and again the co-wife.

In his short story, "the co-wife", Munshi Premchand tells the story of a married couple where the husband chooses a "co-wife", pretending this decision to be an almost normal, entirely manageable affair. Absorbed in his new love, he neglects not only his first wife but all his duties, leaving her with no choice, for the sake of her own survival, to leave her own home, which has become an utter mess. The new couple, incompetent in managing their life, quickly runs into an economic and health disaster, while the first wife, forced to live on her own, thrives. Eventually, the husband becomes ill and dies, and on his death bed, asks his first wife for forgiveness. She forgives him, takes the helpless co-wife in her home, and they both live happily together ever after.

This short story starts like a moralist tale and ends like a fairy tale. The irruption of the "co-wife" turns out to be not only manageable indeed, but even lovely, but at the cost of the life of the person who wanted it.

The "fairy tale" aspect is in the way the ending unites with the beginning: The "co-wife" was not a bad idea in itself, but not at all in the way it was imagined by the husband, the person who wanted it. On one hand, it could not have happened if he did not want it, but on the other hand, it could also not happen if the other person, the first wife, who never wanted it, had not eventually accepted it and turned a complete disaster into a success. But for that, the first person, the husband, had to disappear completely. And the second person, the wife, had to accept not only reality - the presence of the co-wife- but even to acknowledge the role of the first person in bringing about this reality, and forgive him. So the second person, the wife, has the capability to turn imposed realities of life into a success because she lives in complete acceptance of others, while the first person, the husband, destroys his own life because he is unable to accept what does not conform with his desires.

This can be experienced in different ways, including in many examples of our own lives: Nothing would ever happen if we did not have desires, but desires striving for exclusive purity run invariably into disasters, and nothing good would come out if these desires did not die, and we eventually accept, a reality that we not only never wanted, but that we could never have imagined.

René Girard opposes, in "the scapegoat", the "myth of the text" which is the implicit worldview that defines the meaning of the action that takes place, of the characters and how they see themselves and of the words they use, to the "myth in the text", which is the story that the text and its characters pretend to tell, the story that the words tell. In "Romantic Lie, Novelist Truth", (deceptively translated as "Deceit, Desire, and the Novel"), he opposes two kinds of literature, the "romantic" where the heroes are unable to escape the destiny of their desires, and the "novelist" where the heroes are "saved" because they are able to live through the death of their desires, and to experience the transformation of their desires into fruits that encompass completely new horizons, that could not be contained into the worldview of the desires that initially set the action in motion.

Jacques Derrida, when explaining what he means by "deconstruction", talks of a "strategy", of a "double gesture", which is dual "in and of itself", and it looks to me like a gesture that could hold Girard's "myth in the text" at arm's length and look at it, and in this process uncover the "myth of the text", by looking at both myths together and at the same time. For Derrida, this process unavoidably involves facing violence, the violence which is embedded in the worldview of the "myth of the text", and which is normally hidden, but uncovered in the process of "deconstruction", and this violent confrontation cannot be avoided. This looks to me like the illness and the death of the husband in Munshi Premchand's novel, "the co-wife". But this involves also sometimes death and violence on a tremendous scale, in wars and revolutions.

Words are not just symbols, or what Francis Bacon called "a currency that we exchange for concepts", they carry a whole world of materiality and living flesh with them. To ignore that reality, to "use" them as a currency, pretending that they are "available" and that their use is sort of "free", is like postponing the necessary hour of disclosure, the moment of deconstruction, when the "myth of the text" inevitably appears naked in its crude violence. Not that "it happens", like... "on its own"! It requires a hard work to do that. But the more it is delayed, the more necessary it becomes.

This violence does not have to be apocalyptic, to be the horrendous end of everything. Novalis had a very different notion of symbols from Francis Bacon. He wrote: "symbols can can be symbolised by what they symbolise. Counter-symbols". Thus, for Novalis, symbols are an act of thought, nothing can be a symbol in and of itself. Like when Alain Badiou says that "1" is really just a number, in other words an action, ("count-as-one"), and not an entity (a hypothetical underlying, ultimate and ever-elusive "unity").

This reversal of the symbol and what it symbolises, this symmetrical relationship, can help us to consider ourselves as words, as words striving to express ideas that we love but that we are only imperfectly able to express, thus bringing about the ideas of patience and of work in faith.

Thinking of words as a "currency" is a violent act. Nothing in the world is a "currency". This tendency can be seen when people insist that everything is "language", or that everything is a "symbol". This inevitably implies that things are subordinated to their meaning. To subordinate something to its meaning is necessarily a violent act. No entity deserve to be reduced to "a language".

Yet the notion of language can be creative. For example, we can think of ourselves not as "subject" (or ego) using words that are available to us, or at our service, but on the contrary, we can think of ourselves as living words at the service of ideas that we love and want to help becoming more real, so that our entire being becomes a living part of these ideas. This can be a way to live deconstruction, not without violence, but in a non-apocalyptic manner, like a continuous process. This is a way to live through the death of the husband in "The Co-wife". We can call this conscious death of desires, which inevitably requires a conscious acceptance of, and confrontation with, the violence of the status-co, non-violence.