Writing: Politics & Philosophy
Denver , December 10th 2006
Democracy & Science
Beside the danger of “dictatorship of the majority” inerrant of the principle of Democracy itself, there is a second important danger that I think has been overlooked so far...
The danger is that a majority can be wrong. If leaders - dictators or otherwise – can be wrong, there’s really no reason to believe that a majority cannot be misled by its own beliefs.
The paradigm of such an issue seems to be embodied by the problem of “global warming” or, more precisely, the problem of the problem of global warming.
This latter issue is much more interesting really.
Here’s the thing; we can’t be cowards anymore. In any other matter – whether it’s war, health care system, education, research & science, we can afford to be cowards. We can say; I don’t know. We have the right not to have any opinion whatsoever and get on with our lives. Let the people “who know better” (yeah right) decide…
I’ve been a coward too I should say. If my voice had to be heard thru the democratic vote and since I’ve never voted once in my life (not even when I was young and stupid / now I’m older). We could easily say that I’m been a citizen / coward. Except for one thing, the absence of vote represents in itself a strong statement; it says, “I don’t recognize your right to ask me to vote for you people”. To sum up, In that particular case, it is not one political party more than another that is being rejected, it is the whole system. The message becomes, “you two – right & left alike – have no legitimacy being here so get the fuck out”
Sure, the message is not clear today but lets wait and see what will happen when a French (or any other) president is elected with 2 percents of the country’s vote…
There’s one reason why politicians insist so much on having all the people vote; without the people; there’s no legitimacy to any form of government; regardless of the party’s political program. The aim, in France, of a new law forcing people to get a voting card when they reach the age of eighteen, underlines the reality of that “threat” for our governments.
Ok, that wasn’t my point anyway…let’s refocus.
Blah blah blah…can’t be a coward anymore. No. Good auld days are gone. Now we know who you are you polluters. You can’t hide. I see you. You have a car? Global warming concerns you. You have a bike? A house with electricity and stuff? Global warming concerns you. You have a job right? Aren’t they using some sort of power or energy like electricity or something? Let me guess; it’s too hot in winter and too cold in summer? I knew it! Those bastards have air conditioning!
Is that a cell-phone in your pocket or you’re just happy to see me?
You can’t hide I’m telling you…so you have to make a choice. You either agree that the current global warming is manmade and represent a threat to our planet or you disagree. No middle ground here. As the French would say; time to put your balls on the block! (that’s mildly vulgar I agree)
Of course there’s a slight problem here…we have absolutely no idea whatsoever what we are talking about.
Son, can’t nail down that problem if you’re “clou less” (send me a mail if you get the joke)
I don’t even know any good geophysicist that could help me on that one. Do you? If I knew one I could at least get a secondhand knowledge and go from there…I don’t even have that. I can turn on my TV and get a third hand knowledge from the news guy I guess…That being said, for any person having a very specific knowledge in one particular area who has ever heard a journalist/ columnist tackling a question that covers that particular area, that person knows that journalist / columnist have know idea what they are talking about…if I may paraphrase the joke; these journalists know they don’t have to outrun the bear as far as knowledge is concerned; they just have to outrun you.
You still have no idea what you’re talking about? Thanks to Al Gore (sorry I just can’t help it) The Internet is there! Let’s “Google”!
“That’s not funny, what are you Googling about anyway?”
Let’s “Google” this: Global Warming Skeptics
We get only 1.5 million responses after all…we’ve since worse.
Let’s “Google” this: Global Warming
24.6 million answers…now we’re talking.
Of course if we type “Sauerkraut Alsatian” then “Sauerkraut” we get the same mount of difference, which is not really helpful.
Don’t know where I’m coming from? Here’s what I’m aiming at.
I don’t know what I’m talking about as far as global warming is concerned. I know you don’t either so let’s stop pretending for one second…
Even if there was only one “Global Warming Skeptic” on the planet, that person could actually be right against all. Science has nothing to do with democratic vote.
An anti-republican joke was printed a few years ago to mock (with good reason) the so-called policy of evenhandedness in the media; “If G.W.B were to say that the earth was flat, newspapers would print something like; “Shape of the earth; views differ”
Allow me to paraphrase Mark Twain this time; “In the beginning of a change, the scientist is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned…”
I always thought that Politics should, as Physicians do, follow what is wrongly known as the Hippocratic Oath; “Primum non nocere. First, do no harm”.
Translation: If you don’t know what you’re doing, then don’t do it.
There’s one good reason why hundreds of well-known scientists are jumping out of the “Global Warming Bandwagon”. It’s not because they don’t have doubt on the subject because I’m sure they do. It is because they understand that if Global Warming (I mean the fact that it actually is both manmade and represents a threat to our lives) is not a myth aimed at manipulating people’s guilt in order to control them (the word you’re looking for here is Christianity) then to avoid the crash would only create even more “unbelievers”. What wall? We never hit any wall! You said we would and I don’t see anything…
I can’t resist asking the philosophical question: How many people would have supported the murder of Adolph Hitler in 1938?
Denver , December 10th 2006
Why not be a Liberal?
Looking at the definition it seems tempting…everybody should be a liberal.
“Free-thinking, open-minded, moderate, tolerant, and noninterventionist”
It’s like candy.
- “Free-thinking”
That, I know I am. Every man is actually. That’s one of the few aspects of our lives that haven’t changed in centuries. No matter how constraining – and restraining - our environment, we are still free to think. We might not have the right information; we might be misled into an erroneous path, but the process by its very nature cannot be hampered…except in a very radical and definitive way.
- “Open-Minded”
I reached a point lately – thanks to a few friends – that everything is a matter of opinion. I’m turning into circles (mostly in my head so it doesn’t show) on the question of absolute and universal these days but I already came to at least one important conclusion; no matter how sure and confident we might be on any possible issue; we (I’m talking in the name of six billion people here nothing less) can not force any individual to follow our beliefs…it doesn’t get better than that as far as open minded really…
- “Moderate”
I might have a problem with that one actually. I wrote a few things supporting the use of extreme measures by the past and I haven’t found any reason to support the use moderate actions more than extreme ones. In order not to contradict the previous concepts found above, the individual should be the only one to pay for the mistake he makes.
The more “extreme” his actions, the higher the price to pay if he is wrong
Except if he “happens to be right” (I hate that phrase) then he gets the greatest reward by choosing the extreme. As I already wrote once I don’t want my surgeon to be “a moderate” in what in does…I don’t want him to be a fan of photography while studying medicine, I don’t want him to have a social life – with booze and pot / jeez I love social life - while studying medicine and I don’t want him to do mechanics, to watch tv, play video games or travel the world…I want him to study freaking medicine for decades before he dare point that ten blades at me while I’m asleep. Here I don’t see why moderation would be any good. I think we were misled into believing that moderation was a key concept because we were never in control of our lives and because we have surrender our power - and the correlative responsibility that goes with it – a long time ago.
-“Tolerant”
Seems a bit redundant with the concept of open-mindedness…they both entail the same action…be and let be.
- “Noninterventionist”
Seems a bit redundant with the concepts of open-mindedness and tolerance…they both entail the same action…be and let be.
That being said, there are so many rightful people around who want to act for my own good by denying pretty much all my rights that it might be useful to restate the concept using different sounds…just in case they are indeed honest and just didn’t get the meaning of one of the words…
So far I’m a hundred percent Liberal. But I’m not a Liberal…and here’s why.
I’m not naïve. I don’t trust people based on their claim…especially politicians.
People are what they do not what they appear to be.
A thief can tell me that he’s a generous person but as far as I’m concerned, as long as he steals money from me, he is a thief, regardless of his claim.
Since when politicians tell the truth anyway?
Europeans are trashing the U.S on a daily basis because G.W.B didn’t ratify the protocol of Kyoto (he did sign it however). Americans, while trashing their own country, are praising Europe for signing it (20 of them I believe but I’ll have to check) and ratifying (14 of them…still have to check).
Nobody seems to be critical enough to ask the obvious question; are they respecting it?
Of course they aren’t. Why would they if nobody cares enough to check the facts?
The biggest danger of democracy is well known: the dictatorship of the majority. The men who wrote the American Constitution knew it. Alexis de Tocqueville knew it too.
That is why I consider socialism to be hijacking democracy. Yes, I am using the word very carefully here and I’m rewriting it “Hijacking”.
There’s nothing easier to do than to make the following statement; “Lets take from the rich and give to the poor”.
For centuries, this – with only a few variations - has been the catch phrase of the leftists everywhere in the world. Why?
Because if you consider that money belongs to those who create it and if you consider that it might not be everybody’s goal to be a millionaire (it is certainly not mine, I couldn’t care less) it become easy to get more than fifty percent of the vote in a national election…even more than that actually depending on the concentration / dispersion of wealth inside the country itself. We can probably say here that eighty percent of all people in the U.S. will see themselves has not being part of the so-called “rich”. I do believe that a certain amount of the people are actually not thieves, that they hold moral values pushing them to ask themselves a very simple question “Is it right?”
The U.S. Constitution says it isn’t. Judges of the U.S. Supreme Court have said it wasn’t several time by the past kicking out most of the laws known has “The New Deal”.
I don’t see myself as a parasite. In a spirit of equality, I must say that I don’t think most people are parasites or see themselves as such. But in their daily predicament some might be tempted to cross the line…Today the U.S. Constitution (or what’s left of it) represent that line.
Those who wish to defend the United States based on the principles of the Founding Fathers should therefore aim at less democracy and more constitutional rights.
Denver , December 8th 2006
Cassandra
During the past few months, I came to realize that the US is becoming a country of Cassandra. Seriously, day after day, the media – TV or newspaper – floods our brain with new implacable proofs of our imminent doom. You don’t believe me? Let’s have a quick look of the main topics here and see what is being said for each of them. We have Iraq obviously, we have the economy, we have the global warming of course and we have – with a more “generic and global kind of fuzzy” meaning – the state of our society which is a topic that might include pretty much anything from the Arts, Education, Research, Culture, Abortion, Gay Marriage, but also Security, Violence, Pornography, Tolerance or Intolerance…basically anything. You have more? Here’s some space; be my guest, please go all out…
…
…
…
Now, of course, we have to be honest and realize that everything is crashing. No need to be in denial. This is it. After all these centuries the time has come. Remember the big line that circles our flat planet with all the ugly monsters waiting for our vessel made of wood? We have reached it! Assalaht! Assalaht! Assalaht! (That’s “Thalassa” in reverse)
Iraq ? We are at brink of civil war. Each day is worse than the previous. Of course we’ve reach the edge for three years now and made many step further day after day after…wait a minute… Does it really make sense? If you think so you better turn around and keep living in denial with the rest of the majority. Just don’t come back.
Economy? I’m telling you; it’s crashing! Oil is getting higher everyday. Job market is crap. House market is down the toilet. Inflation is crazy crazy crazy…no, please, don’t look at the Dow Jones…it’s in denial. The big companies are making profit? There are in denial I’m telling you. Their bank account is getting so big that they’ve reached a point where they have nothing else to do than re-buying their own stocks. There’s really nothing uglier than the sight of a bank account in denial really. Growth of the GDP was again down at a mere +1.8% if you can imagine that. Well no actually +2.2% after revising the numbers three weeks later…sorry. I hope I didn’t scare you. You didn’t sell yet? You know it’s gonna get worse right? Come on! You know it! Stop being in denial! Can’t you see the signs?
Global Warming? That’s it. We’ve been telling you for years but did you listen? No, of course not. You keep buying big cars, turning the A/C of your H2 to the max while sitting at the light on your way to the golf course which happens to be located in a freaking desert! And now it’s too late. We have hurricane hitting our coast everywhere. Every day is hotter than the previous one (not only in Spring I mean)
“ Hannibal ante portas” You don’t believe Cassandra? Believe Cicero !
My dear Cassandra,
Today is the day we must part I’m afraid. I’ve watched you for years and now is the time for a choice. We could argue some more of course but why would we? Don’t you think everything has been said already?
Evidences have been thrown away; some by you and some by me too. To tell you the truth, I am not an economist. I am not a geophysicist either. No. I’m just one citizen among the crowd who is fed up with all the noise around. The place I’m going is not for you alas…This place has been called future, some have called it hope. This place is just called tomorrow really…I know you don’t believe in it and that’s ok. Maybe you are right. Maybe today is the last day. Maybe I should stay here with you and die with you but I just can’t. There’s something in me, a voice it seems. This voice is not giving me orders, it doesn’t scream…it is quiet but constant…it’s a song really, flowing slowly thru my day making me the promise of a new sunrise.
Goodbye & Farewell!
Investment; that’s the name really…
Life is a giant casino. We can choose to bet on tomorrow…or not.
It’s a stock market if you will… You believe or you think you know? Then buy.
I’m buying. I’ve been buying for years now. You don’t believe? Sell me your share of “ “tomorrow”...They are worth nothing really. Today is what is worth? I’ll trade you. Here, you want some more? I’ll give it to you. I have no use for “today” anyway…It’s free; take it, I’ll leave it there when I’m gone…
Someone else wants to sell? I’m buying buying buying and buying some more. Bring it on wussies! Thanks.
By the way. The guy who created the electricity you’re using, the guy who created the computer you’re using, the guy who saved your life when you were three years old and got the sniffles – remember? – These guys all had one thing in common. Not two. They were believers. They believed in that value that you’re selling; tomorrow. Guess what? They were right.
Two percent of the world population owns half of the wealth. It was in the newspaper yesterday. I would throw up reading the comments of the readers…
- “They didn’t get rich while working, that’s for sure…”
- “And these are the same destroying our planet!”
- “A world tax to correct these inequalities? A dream?”
No. Joseph A Lasala and Bill Gates made the same dream once. This dream was about tomorrow. They invested everything they had in that dream. These words would not have been written without their help so…thank you.
Oh, before I forgot. Tomorrow, when my stock are worth something, when my life is worth something and when yours is worth less than this begging look you’re throwing at me hoping that I will let you eat the crumbs I’ve left behind, remember one thing; We had the same knowledge, we had the same genes. We shared the same earth. I even did something for you; I wrote these words. You did nothing for me at the time. Remember that before you die.
Denver, December 7th 2006
On Nature
I wouldn’t want these lines (the one found below that is) to be misinterpreted. My personal belief is that there is indeed an absolute, a universal. This universal is given by Nature itself. From the objectivist point of view: those who deny reality shall perish from their own mistakes. Not because of an unfathomable power, an invisible force hidden somewhere in the ether, enforcing some strange laws beyond our understanding, rewarding a so-called “good” while punishing the “evil” in us…No, this punishment doesn’t come from the Devine but comes from Nature itself and the fact that Men has no choice but to comply to this Nature…which is its own. Francis Bacon’s claim that “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” is rather misleading…not to say a lure. Nature has never been commanded and it will never be. Men, whatever his action, however unpredictable or unforeseeable has never went outside the field of what Nature allows him to do. Even the claim that Men have pushed the boundaries of what Nature somehow had allocated to him is a lure. Men can “cut” has many atoms has he wishes, the very possibility of “cutting” them has been given by nature from the beginning of time. The fact that Men’s knowledge of Nature, and to a lesser extent of himself, has increased during the past four million year does not imply that somehow, his nature has changed or that somehow Nature changed the rules.
The only thing that can be said in that regard is that Men, over the centuries, have increased their knowledge of Nature, using Nature (and obviously themselves) for what they thought, to the extent of their knowledge, was the good of Men. At least some men did....
Other didn’t do anything which is their absolute right. A man can choose to look at a hurricane and decide that it is a pretty sight and choose to remain on the beach while contemplating his own death approaching. Conversely, a man can choose to study hurricanes, learn how damaging they can be, how they move, how they are created and so on…
Equality of Men doesn’t allow neither of these two men to force the other into his belief of how one should lives his life but from “Nature stand point” the attitude of the first man will probably bring his own death while the attitude of the second man will help him sustaining his life. The examples of how to obey Nature can help Men sustaining their lives are endless. The growth of the world population over time coincides well enough with the increase of Men’s knowledge to prove the point. The low level of life-expectancy found in countries dedicating their lives to contemplation is also a good indication.
Equality forces us to accept the fact that a man can freely choose to dissent with others. Regardless of the amount of “proof” we can gather, it would be unwise to try to force our findings into someone else’s throat lest this someone will do the same.
To go back to the example above, the first man might believe that the afterlife is waiting for him (who are we to judge?) and might wish to join his “Creator” for an afterlife party…who knows?
I certainly wouldn’t want that person to force me into his beliefs…”Thanks, but I’ll pass”.
History is full of good intentions and generous Samaritans who whishes to save Men against his will for a so-called “good of all people”…The last one was named Joseph Stalin I believe. For all I care, the next one could be named Al Gore (kind of ridiculous name really) but however numerous the Cassandras might be, however loud they might get, a majority has never represented a scientific proof. Ask Galileo.
Denver, December 6th 2006
Evil & Decadence
These two concepts are linked. In essence, to talk about decadence implies a judgment of value through time. A person – let’s call that person Cassandra for now - making the claim that our society has suffered a decline makes two evaluations of the state of our society; the first evaluation is made some time in the past and the second one further in time; present time for instance. The validity of such claim entails that, from a certain absolute - or at least reference - the second value is “lower” than the first.
In order to establish the validity of Cassandra’s claim, we need to discover the answer of two different questions. First question concerns the moment of the first evaluation; “why chose this particular moment and not a century later or earlier for instance?” Second question refers to the reference that was use for the evaluation. Are we considering an economic decline? A moral decline maybe?
In order to understand the implication of the first question; we need to understand and respond to the second one. Knowing human nature, we can say that Cassandra is up to something while making that claim which means that first the judgment of value was made, then the point in time for such judgment was chosen is order to make the strongest possible point.
To give some practical example we could make the claim that the earth is getting warmer every year or we could make the claim that it is getting colder depending of the moment of time we choose for our evaluation (respectively thirty years ago or seven years ago in this example).
What is the reference used by our Cassandra? She doesn’t say. It is unlikely that those who talk about decadence have in mind an economic decadence or a scientific one. Luckily, science and economics come with their apparatus of self-evaluation, of measurement, and a simple look at those data would give us the assurance that the allegation of “decline” can be safely rejected. The supposed decline has to be either moral or cultural.
Moral decadence.
Morality, outside the context of religion – whether in a society where the doctrinal aspect of religion as been tamed or in a society where several religions are allowed but with some amount of restrictions from the governing institutions – is defined by ethics and by law. Law in itself is not enough. Law is a guide for the individual living inside a civil society. Since there are no ways of enforcing these laws perfectly each time a crime – in the larger sense – is committed, a lawful system always makes the assumption that the biggest part of the society will self-govern itself somehow, without the fear of civic retribution; hence the need for ethics.
I believe the example of France at the time of the revolution of 1789 offers a telling example of what is at stake here. At that time, the fear of god was placed in each individual during his early years of education in order to ensure that the individual would later on govern himself without the need for an army of gendarmes. In pre-revolutionary France, God was the absolute - and infallible - gendarme.
As we all know the French revolution was as much a political struggle as it was a religious one; partly because the power and legitimacy of the kings were given by the church, partly because the people, in their daily predicament started losing faith and wanted to take control over their own lives.
After a certain amount of time, freedom finally became the recompense of those who fought the revolution and at the same time their gift to the future generations. What most people ignored at the time was that freedom – both political and religious - came with an obligation for all citizens; the obligation of a stronger self-governance.
In order for such governance to take place, an individual needs a guideline. The bible played this role before the revolution. What is the guideline for today’s society?
The American Constitution plays that role to a limited extent although it is more a protection against tyranny in the largest sense (including the dictatorship of the majority) than an everyday guideline for our everyday life. Unquestionably, Law provides an answer for most of our problems but again the existence of law certainly does not guaranty its respect by the people it is supposed to govern.
Here we must stop for a minute and see what we know so far…
We know that we have lost something in order to get rid of either religion in its totality or, in some instances, of the doctrinal aspect of religion in our society. We know that we have partially replaced that “something” by a new form of self-governance.
Religious leaders would see decadence where the advocates of individual freedom will see a progress. Again, the question remains; what is the legitimacy of those claims?
Looking at the past thousand years we can agree on at least one thing; Religious system last longer than political ones. Since decadence – or decay – will eventually bring the end of our society or our civilization, it might be valuable to take a look at the attributes of both types of systems: political and religious.
Both systems come with a set of moral values that can be translated into law but, as we have seen earlier, law – though indispensable - is not enough. Both systems have leaders, subjects, hierarchy, rules and goals. They are both – to a certain extent – self-sustainable. They both suffered corruptions. They both were responsible for the greatest discoveries and the ugliest crimes. The one thing that differentiates both systems is the following: God.
Without retracing the numerous studies on the subject, what is the nature (i.e. the most significant attribute) of God? I would answer it is its uniqueness. The idea of God entails one of perfection which itself implies the idea of an “absolute”.
Is there such a thing as an absolute value in our society today? I believe there isn’t. The western world created the concept of the “Rights of Men” but the reality of that concept is that most countries using it disapprove of the use of force in order to enforce these so-called “rights”. This refusal suggest that the term “Right of citizen” would be more appropriate as long as the concept will be limited to the border of the countries which found themselves in agreement at a certain stage of their respective history. There is here a huge discrepancy between the words and the actions and I believe this to be armful to the credibility of the western world. Arguably this is not the only inconsistency in today’s political debate (and unfortunately in the state of today’s philosophy) but it is a crucial one in a world parted between those who are ready to fight a war to enforce their idea of “good” and “evil” and those who oppose such war based on our own lack of legitimacy and on the absence of absolute values.
Beyond the human considerations, the main question posed by the intervention of an American coalition in Iraq was one of interventionism. Again here, the underlying assumption is the same: the assumption that there is such a thing as an absolute.
In other words, if there is an absolute then we can derive a law from it and obviously enforce that law. But conversely, if our values are subjective, there is no legitimacy in enforcing them.
We could certainly blame philosophy for failing to provide the answer to that question. Plato and Aristotle talked about morality without defining what they meant by moral. Philosophers after them took morality for granted as well and failed to answer the question of the absolute…until Immanuel Kant. Kant proposed one under the name of Universal Law. A law that is valid only if all, at the same time, can utter it without creating any contradiction. This proposal was rejected for various reasons and no other philosopher came even close to proposing a beginning of answer to our question.
As we see, we went from a world of absolute value (i.e. The concept of God) to a world of subjectivity and its unfortunate corollary; doubt.
The certitude, the confidence of the past was at the source of intolerance but at the same time led the western world with a common idea of what “should be”. Doubt will certainly bring more tolerance toward those who disagree with the majority but at the same time will certainly hamper innovation and overall the advance of our society.
Whether our future will provide an answer to the question of absolute is anybody’s guess…meanwhile we have to do with the state of our current knowledge and try to make the best of it. In essence I believe that the realization that our conviction were erroneous, that our confidence, our beliefs led us in the wrong direction for a few centuries is a positive event for our society...a least if we understand clearly the extent of our new challenge; how can we live in a world of subjective values?
If individuals are equal and if there is no such thing as an universal and objective value, how do we organize our society?
The first step is obvious; a society of men needs the pre-agreement of each individual before that individual can be considered as being part of the society. To force the individual cannot be an option. Not only because it implies the use of force by the society against the individual (which would assume a hierarchy, hierarchy contradicting the principle of equality) but also because, for lack of objective value, we are to assume the right of every citizen to dissent.
In order for each citizen to remain free, the possibility of entering or leaving the society should always exist. Several recent events show that we are slowly going in that direction. The French president Jacques Chirac recently talked about the possibility of a new law proposing a celebration for all citizens reaching the age of eighteen to welcome them into the society. The goal of such celebration would be to receive a card allowing the individual to vote and would entail the signature of a contract engaging the citizen to respect the French institutions. Several politicians also made their idea clear concerning the relation between citizens and the society, using slogans such as “ France, you like it or you leave it.”
Here we see that the question of the choice of an individual to be, or not, part of a society is slowly – though maladroitly - being asserted.
I have no doubt that this first step will take a while. The exercise of power requires legitimacy which itself requires the support of the people (I believe it is Hannah Arendt who wrote: Power requires legitimacy, violence requires justification). We should assume that our current leaders would not readily concede the right of an individual to live outside society – whether it is a political or geographical “outside”.
The second and most important step concerns the relation between societies that have chosen a different set of moral values. What should (and could) be the nature of their relations? Even the use of language requires the agreement of a standard of values. The fact that individuals can understand each other implies a tacit agreement on the meaning of the words they are using. Without this pre-agreement, no dialogue can take place. We should then accept the possibility that two given societies having chosen very different sets of values might chose not to converse.
Recent events have shown that a country making the choice of removing itself from international talk is often held responsible for “blocking the dialogue” for “obstructing the possibility of a future agreement”, for antagonizing its opponents.
As usual, education needs to be updated to reflect the new implication of the absence of absolute values. The implication being that, in some cases a dialogue – whether between individuals or between two countries – might be impossible. Knowing that during the last decades, the policy of the western world – mostly in Europe for geographical reason during the cold war – was to choose blindly the middle ground in any matters as the “right compromise” between what was always seen as two “extremes”, we still have a long way to go…
Obviously the possibility of having societies holding different values from one another implies that these values might in some case be opposite. The trade between countries of opposite values would certainly be unwise and would certainly lead to the possibility of a country financing its enemies. Arguably it wouldn’t be a first in modern history. Now we understand more clearly why it should be avoided.
So much for the dreams of globalization
Even if some might eventually hold that nature could be the final judge in all matters, they should refrain themselves from the temptation of forcing their beliefs into someone else’s throat. Many philosophers have held that our perception of nature itself was a lure and it would be a mistake to consider this to be an absolute. At the end of the day, an individual can always end a argument by making the claim that everything that is being said during a conversation relates to this world but “what about the afterlife?” Don’t laugh; I was once the witness of such exchange.
As a conclusion on the topic of “Decadence” I would say that the notion implies a judgment requiring an absolute, absolute that does not exist in the state of our knowledge.
Historically, Cassandra(s) have always existed. The end of humanity has always been a good seller. Since humanity made it through the past four million years I would probably not give them much credibility but again, with the absence of absolute, each individual is left alone facing his beliefs and ideas, his needs and desires, his knowledge and intelligence, facing all the attributes that define him, facing himself really, and should act according to his judgment.
There’s not much to say on Evil, except maybe that it died with God a while ago…leaving us with a few questions, and our greatest challenge.
Addendum
As stated above, in the absence of absolute, individuals are called upon to make judgments, judgments that are bound to affect their lives and the life of others, and this, without any lighthouse to guide them. Time, as we perceive it, is a one-way road. I would always reject any claim of decline or decay of humanity, claim of Men having taken the “wrong path” and the like. First because the claim that humanity might not have taken the most direct path to a so-called “goal” would imply a goal and so far nobody has provided one but, beside, there would be no ground for the assumption that the road could have been “straighter”, more direct. At no point in the history of Men there has been such thing as “an alternative to reality”. I am forced to consider that whatever was done, whatever the path followed, that path was the only road and that road was the good one in the sense that it led us here, today.
My personal belief (since it comes down to “believing”) is that my duty, as a part of humanity, is to survive. The corollary of which is that I will fight those who endanger my life and love those who help sustaining it.
I can’t help but noticing that those who are most critical of the United States of America – whether of its founding principle or of its current administration – those are still around, living in the country, financing it, giving it credibility and also legitimacy by their sole presence. Some might be bemused by this contradiction. Those individual would certainly regain some credibility if they were to put their money where their mouth is while choosing a place more fit to their personal beliefs lest they be labeled as “dishonest” or worse…
Denver, July 19th 2006
Too Far
Too Far? What is that mean exactly “Going too far”?
How many dead are needed? What is the correct number? How important a direct threat to yourself, your family, your friends and the people with whom you share a millenary culture before you act?
Those question, lucky us, we do not have to answer. Not anymore…although we did so quite recently. We, westerners, have managed to fight our enemies in the past, coming close to our own total annihilation before we could even think about living next to each other.
It is so easy, well ensconced in our sofa, to watch the images, to read the words hear the sounds and still fail to understand the meaning of all this. Some people do not have that luxury, not yet at least. They still have to answer that question; How much more should I take? How much more CAN I take?
How many dead before I fight back?
Some people are still in the process of defining these boundaries. These limits of acceptance and refusal. Because the West came to an end with its insane ideologies for a whooping sixty years (or at least we've convinced ourselves of it) and even though it required the massive destruction of our own populations, now we dare to point fingers at others calling for a more “moderate” response to terrorism? We dare to call for an open and peaceful dialogue?
What could be the content of such a dialog? More importantly how could that dialogue even take place?
In order to communicate, people use languages. Languages are based on words, which are concepts based – directly or not – on objects of our perception.
This means that only persons who have chosen reason as their value can communicate with each other. People who have chosen to follow their beliefs instead of their knowledge cannot communicate with each other. How could they? In order for an exchange of any kind to take place, the parties in place need a common ground. If language cannot represent it, they have to find other ways. The reason the use of force comes as the logical answer to the impossibility of communication is that it forces the actors to find a common ground; it is easy to ignore reality for religious believers but when it comes to a physical fight, they have no choice but to come back to this side of the universe.
In the past, some liked it so much in here that they actually decided to stay. So much so that the West proudly announced the end of ideologies at the turn of the century.
Why would we get in the way of any other people who want to follow are recent path toward reason and enlightenment is beyond me. What is our legitimacy in that regard?
Denver, July 1st 2006
On Justice
What is it that makes us behave?
At every step of the way, we make choices. Those choices affect others, sometime for the best, sometime for the worst. We, individuals, as part of a civil society, have a responsibility to tell the difference between good and bad, a responsibility to work as hard as we can to acquire the knowledge required by all raised questions; from the smallest most common ones to the most difficult and most challenging.
Where is this incentive come from? When it comes to one individual, the instinct of survival is what drives the individual towards knowledge but when the choices made by this individual affects others, what is the motivation? Why would anyone avoid mistakes when he doesn’t have to pay for the consequences of those mistakes?
During the French revolution, clerics opposed the revolutionaries for this very reason. They believed that God was that force, that incentive. That people would behave in order only to avoid divine retribution and that the suppression of religion in public places would require the placement of a police officer behind every Frenchmen.
Looking at France today, one might easily think they were right.
The solution to this problem is not more cops or stronger sentences for the guilty but more freedom and more responsibility given back to the people. I believe that one of the unfortunate side effects of our political systems is the removal of all responsibilities from the people. Why would I work? The government will pay if I don’t. Why would I take good care of my body? The government will fix any illnesses. Why would I insure my property? The government will pay if anything happens to it…and so on.
No, the government will not pay. Other people will. By paying more taxes, by working more hours they will pay for those people mistakes…until a certain point.
Capitalism provides naturally a solution to that problem. By letting the innate responsibility of every individual – the preservation of his life – upon his own shoulder, this system provides the incentive required by the living of individual inside a civil society.
That being said, for our daily struggles, I believe it is also the responsibility of each individual to judge and condemn the mistakes of others - family members, friends, coworkers and the like depending of his surroundings. Being judgmental is certainly not a flaw; it is both a quality and a duty towards the rest of humanity.
Plurality leading to interaction, leading to choices leading to possible mistakes
If an individual decides to live inside an organized society (not that this society is giving him a choice these days but that is a slightly different problem) he needs to acknowledge the fact that his choices might affect others and that others’ choices might affect him.
It is the responsibility of all citizens to judge and sentence the mistakes of those surrounding him if he, or his property (which is one and the same thing) suffers from those mistakes. Guilt and shame should be the penalty reserved to those who failed to behave, the one whose mistakes have caused prejudice to others. In essence, each individual should assume the divine task by honoring the most worthy as they blame the faulty and the ignorant.
On Religion
“The French Constitution respects all religions”. This statement appeared in a French newspaper earlier this year during was his now known as the “Muhammad cartoon controversy”.
My first objection to that statement would be that, strictly speaking, to “respect” a religion in the French language usually means to “live and subject oneself under its rules”. One could expect the journalist of a renowned newspaper to avoid such an obvious mistake.
My second objection is certainly more important. In order for the statement to be valid, religions need to be compatible and most importantly tolerant to one another. There’s no way a constitution can guaranty that beforehand. What if a religion is intolerant? What if some religious leaders call for the hatred or even the murder of those who have chosen other beliefs?
I can’t resist the pleasure of formulating the question as:
Is tolerance of the intolerable tolerable? Obviously no.
The more I think about it, the stronger my resentment and, I dare say it, hatred about religious followers. I explain:
Religion is based on beliefs. Belief, as far as I’m concerned is just another word for ignorance. When someone knows something, there is no need for this someone to believe in the thing he knows. I don’t believe that the sun will rise tomorrow; I know it. I don’t believe that one plus one makes two; I know it. I don’t believe that the ground will stand in front of my feet when I walk…I know it. To believe is at best a temporary renouncement on knowledge. Which is the acceptance of ignorance.
As I repeatedly stated by the past, knowledge is a requirement of men’s life and comes from its ultimate and most important goal: his own survival. Truth is, men are weak. Men are weaker than the weather, weaker than the biggest mammals, weaker than the smallest viruses. Men are weaker than the ocean, weaker than a small earthquake or tsunami.
As far as his physical ability, men are pathetically frail. They owe their survival thru the past six million years to one thing; their ability to acquire knowledge.
Knowing that, to make the apology of ignorance qualifies as crime against humanity; nothing less.
It would be fair to say that a constitution should ignore all religions equally.
On politics
I’m a Republican. I don’t only say that to piss people off (though I usually can’t get enough of it). No, I say that for one good reason: Republicans are easier to oppose.
Might seem unusual – to say the least - to define myself as something I want to oppose…Maybe I should explain.
For better or for worst, we have the habit of seeing politicians as being either from the left or from the right. With a few variances, a few compromises, usually under the form of an adjective; moderate, extreme, far and the like...
I believe it is Ayn Rand who made the following proposition; the rightist are against the mind, the leftist are against the body.
Historically, it is true that the left has a positive record on high tolerance for ideas, opinions, freedom of speech, religions etc…As far as the mind is concerned, the leftist have always been the champion of tolerance (although it is unfortunately less true every days that goes by: their control of the media is becoming quite obvious now). On the other hand, they have the rather revolting habit of promoting higher tax wages, usually without any justification, just for the sake of it. In that regard, being against the fair reward of men’s work, it is an honest statement to say that they are against the body.
It is also obvious that the opposite is true for the right. They do have a greater respect for men’s property. On the other hand, they have a very poor record as far as freedom of speech is concerned. They are in most cases, religious believers, they tend to fuel nationalism (which I consider to be partly a religion), they tend to increase their control on the media and the education. The recent – fortunately failed - attempt of the republicans to ban the burning of American flags is but one more proof of it.
In that view, and considering that as a citizen it is my duty to fight every attempt of a government to violate my rights, it is legitimate to ask who’s the weaker opponent?
I can very easily disregard any attempt from the right to influence my thoughts. I have no way to fight a government who’s after my wealth, the product of my work. Therefore the choice seems easy enough; I’m a republican.
In the case of the United States in the present time, I have a few things to add. The flagrant bias of the media towards the left shows that the government as no control over the media…whatever the leftists have to say about it, anyone with half a brain who turned his TV on during the two past elections knows that much.
The Democrats passed a law recently banning the smoking in bars in Colorado which is a flagrant violation of men’s right of property.
As for political statement, I wouldn’t burn a flag but I would certainly burn a democrat.
Evil
Denver, January 1st 2006
In the year 2003 the issue of the American intervention in Iraq was discussed everywhere in France and it was rather difficult to avoid it. The most puzzling conversation I had on the subject was with an Egyptian working in a restaurant. What he told me remains intact with me today…”I don’t care about the intervention itself” he said. “Saddam was a murderer…good riddance. But…Where is the evil now?”
I must say I was not prepare for such a comment. Where is the evil?
I believe the reason for my surprise lies in the fact that, unconsciously, I hold Evil to be a objective value. On the other hand, everything around me screams that Evil is a subjective value waiting for the next world war to be redefined one more time. The conflict between these two views was actually the source of my surprise.
I think it’s the redefinition of the concept of evil who had us mistaken. The fact that, for the last centuries, we pretty much have to brace ourselves for the worst every time we open a newspaper led us to believe that the value representing what had been held to be “Evil” the day before was now smaller than we had thought, thanks to a new bloodshed.
The temptation of newspaper to reach for the most extreme adjective to qualify the events didn’t really help us either.
Beyond this, to see Evil has a subjective value would lead us to say that Good is also a subjective value. Therefore, destroying the former would lead the destruction of the latter. Wouldn’t make much sense.
Evil is therefore an objective value. What is Evil then? My dictionary says ”profoundly immoral”. From the objectivist point of view, I couldn’t agree more. If we hold the life of Men as being the most precious of all values, the destruction of lives, whether one or six millions should be regarded as Evil.
One of the Paradox of our societies is that we allow ourselves to punish an Evil by another one….supposedly smaller. Although this latter assumption ultimately can never be proven if the first Evil has been in fact destroyed.
Newly published (i.e. released) notebooks from W. Churchill indicates that he wanted A. Hitler dead whatever the cost in the early 1940s and that this death should be sentenced without trial…Evil? Something to think about.
Third time is a charm
Denver, December 30th 2005
Third time is a charm. Where would this world be without guilt I wonder… It is such an enjoyable and agreeable feeling that some people just can’t get enough of it. I have to admit that the religious leaders who thought that one out deserve our bravo. They would probably deserve the guillotine too but I can ensure you that I’ll be clapping during the show.
So simple and so diabolic at the same time…really, think about it; Take one of the most natural attribute of Man – Let say “sex”, for the sake of example – and control every part of it. No half measure will do so just be crazy. Let’s setup some divine laws that state how to do it and also why. Oh, and when to do it just to be thorough. Now watch…
Since this is part of its nature, Man will have no choice but to do it. Then what you ask? Well, just look at him. Look how ashamed he is... Look how guilty he feels realizing he has broken the law…This poor animal needs to redeem himself after such a crime, no doubt. Otherwise, he will never make it to the holly place with all the good people, no, no, no. He will be punished by the One who loves all men. Let’s go see the lawmakers and ask for their forgiveness…sure they are not bad persons…sure they will absolve me. It’s not my fault after all? Or is it? No I can’t say that; it isn’t right. If I repent I need to me sincere, otherwise…Yes, yes it is my fault. I am guilty. I could have avoided it. I could have done something…nothing I mean. I am bad, Oh, please, forgive me for I have sinned…I will do anything but please wash my sullied soul; my undeserving self. I’ll do anything…
“Well, since you’re asking for it…” says the lawmaker...
Don’t get me wrong. We can’t blame people for being stupid (and not only because that would be a full time job). Still, one would think that, after that, they would get the idea. Well, I have to admit the socialist leaders who thought that one out deserve our bravo. They would probably deserve the guillotine too but I can ensure you that I’ll be clapping even more. So simple and so diabolic at the same time…really, think about it; Take one of the most natural attribute of Man – Let say “his only means of survival” (i.e. the product of his work), for the sake of example – and control every part of it. No half measure will do so just be crazy. Of course eventually, the good people will point at the most brilliant men, the one who carry the world on their shoulders, and they will insult them. Casting stones at these apologizing scapegoats who run out of excuses for having dedicated their lives to better themselves. What a crime indeed. The populace will blame them for all that is wrong, all that goes askew. But who cares really? Who cares if the ability to produce for oneself, and also for others, is mocked? Who cares if those who couldn’t think two thoughts in one day to save their life – literally - are excused and raised to the rank of victims? Victims you know…the same status than the one we used to reserve and carefully grant to the greatest of men; the ones who have lost their lives fighting for the strongest of all ideals; Freedom. One of the most natural attribute of man.
You would think that with at least half a brain one would actually see a parallel…
No wonder the first work of the socialist in France was to get rid of religion in the public affairs…Why would the French republicans replace only the Monarchy at the head of France when they can at the same time replace the Church? So easy really…Only one promise to make; The rich will pay for the poor. Makes sense and there’s not a better way to get the approval of the majority…Never mind the immorality of the whole scam. Never mind the fact that, eventually, those who carry the world and make it turn might get tired of it and fight back. It should last a few centuries anyway. Why would anyone bother to point and laugh? The emperor is naked, so what? As long as nobody’s watching too closely…
What next? Because, ok, true, we’re having fun watching the world parting in two like in the good old times of religious wars but let’s get real; it won’t last. Sure people are stupid and lazy but eventually, either they will see the trick or the smart ones will tell us to go fuck ourselves and will probably start chopping our heads off just to get even. We need something else but what?
Let’s see; we need guilt. How do we convince the people of their guilt one more time? Surely we have to change our scam a little otherwise…what if we were to blame them for the consequences of their actions instead of blaming the source? Causality is such a wonderful principle. Let’s say their actions is destroying their means of survival…let’s say they are destroying their own planet. What do you think? Brilliant no? Of course we can’t really setup a date on the whole thing…let’s pick 2050 for a start and we’ll move the date as we go…2080 after a while. 2100 then…
You really make me sick.
…
2100 was actually the last date I saw in the French newspaper “Le Monde” who didn’t miss the chance during the holidays to write an article on the subject.
- The article was mentioning the possible flooding of the coast…without specifying the extent of that flooding of course.
- The article was mentioning the possible disappearance of some vegetal items in the south without mentioning their probable re-appearance in a northern spot.
Of course the article failed to notice that the earth had known warmer temperature not even ten centuries ago but why bother really? Their temperature indications include a three hundred percent margin of error anyway…just in case someone starts to ask questions. And after all, it’s not like they are trying to convince the smart ones; as usual, the majority will do.
I find some irony in the fact that Europe was celebrating H.C. Andersen during the year 2005. Maybe it is related to the fact that, even though Europe was the loudest advocate of the Kyoto protocol, it turns out that only two European countries will be likely to meet their promises…Maybe it is related to the fact that their newspapers would rather write useless and rather suspicious articles instead of fulfilling their duty. I am not sure. There are so many reasons to point and laugh….I’m just getting tired of counting.
Riots
Denver, November 7th – 9th
I am amazed by the superficiality of the attempts to explain the riots taking place in France today. These attempts seem to focus on the direct, present state of affairs of the rioters in order to find something that could explain, at least partly, the problem. “They are poor; they have no choice but to revolt.” “France didn’t ask the Algerians what they thought when they decided to make Algeria a French department; Now it’s time for pay-back.” “French are nationalist; therefore people in the suburbs feel like second class citizens…”
Sure these are valid arguments but they can only lead to comments such as; “They should go back home (and what would that be I wonder) if they don’t like it here.” “If they live in the country, they should accept the rules/laws of this country”
Valid conclusions I guess…except that stating the obvious will not solve anything in this case.
We actually have to get our hands on a Romanian newspaper to read something interesting on the subject;
Romania Libera
"Even if they benefit from the social model and democratic freedoms", the paper says, immigrants "have built up parallel societies based on values other than the official European ones".
"It is about an anti-European civilization which exists nowhere else than in Europe. However high and noble the European states may be, if they continue to ignore the existence of such parallel civilizations for ideological reasons, the consequences could be disastrous."
Here, instead of blaming the existence of a ghetto on the racism of the people, instead of calling for a stronger punishment of these “thugs” (French interior minister choice of word), we are actually a bit closer to the truth. We look at what these people are (which is a long-term – i.e. more objective – view), not at what they do (or have done during the past few days).
There are two assumptions in these previous comments; two assumptions relying on one another. The assumption that people are free. The assumption that people are responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, we can only call for the responsibility of the people when the people in question are actually free of their actions.
What is the extent of the freedom of a second – or third – generation Frenchman born in the eastern suburb of Paris? Failed education leading to unemployment is the norm. I am sure we can find hundreds of counter examples; the good inhabitant of a poor suburb who broke all the chains and made his way to a successful and happy life. What a touching story in would make…the problem today is not the exception; it is the norm.
Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying that to burn down schools and fire at policemen represents a valid behavior for someone who indeed is free (and therefore responsible). It is not a matter of listing the possible choices, alternatives for such an individual. The problem is that a government cannot ask for responsibility when he has never bothered to put in place the circumstances for such responsibility to appear and thrive.
To believe that people are indeed responsible for their action today is the error we need to avoid if we are to understand the extent of the problem. This is the fundamental reason why governments should advocate freedom – and its numerous corollaries – instead of jumping on every opportunity they get to reinforce their power. Not because they owe it to the people, not because it is the “nice thing to do”, but because it is the only way leading to a society of responsible citizens.
Let us take a look at what happens when Nationalism settles in. Nationalism gathers people in appearance but by reducing their freedom, it eventually creates an irresponsible (in the sense used above) mob…mob that then need more pressure to be ruled. Pressure that will inexorably reduce the freedom of this mob.
That’s the greatest paradox of nationalism; sure it brings a sense of identity to the people, but by reducing their field of research and knowledge – control of the media, control of their belief, control of the system of education – nationalism reduces their capacity of understanding and toleration…therefore really increasing the idea of their differences.
That is why a nationalist doctrine cannot be applied on people with a regular pressure. If it is, it loses its effect. In order to be efficient, the pressure needs to be increased regularly and in this case, eventually, the lies used for propaganda become too obvious.
One tendency of the French newspapers to avoid covering the upheaval in the Parisian suburb (They “forgot” to mentioned the death of a 61 year-old man on November 7, 2005 for instance), focusing instead on the political aspect of the events is not really surprising and could arguably be seen as an attempt not to antagonize the movement. One thing that seems to surprise the French however is the shockwave of these events outside their country. What is surprising is certainly not the existence of ghettos in the outskirt of Paris. All great cities have ghettos. Why not Paris? The surprise of foreign newspapers is relevant because it underlines the discrepancies between the “external image” of the French capital and the reality of it. These discrepancies are but one aspect of the propaganda mentioned above.
What’s next? One more shift to the right first. The government will increase the police force, declare a curfew on the French territory or “send the army” (as it has been requested by a few political figures during the last few days). More probably a combination of these short-term solutions. More pressure. The movement will die off mainly because it has no political goal – no unity - unlike the upheavals witnessed during the past centuries. However, the problem will not be fixed. It will smolder quietly out of the public sight for a few years, a few decades maybe, until it reappears, changed or not. Stronger, surely.
It would be a big mistake to focus too much on the legitimacy of the movement. A revolutionary movement never has “legitimacy”. It appropriates it afterward. To consider that such a movement should make himself heard through legal democratic means is extremely naïve. The French revolutionaries of 1789 did not have any legitimacy. The upheaval taking place in Paris in early 1871 did not have any either. They were led by an incredibly violent minority. The “legitimate” government eventually took its power back by killing more than twenty thousand people in the French capital only – the fight ended in a battle known as the “bloody week”. The outcome of the struggle however was the most influential of the five French constitutions. Several laws, voted by what was seen at the time as the illegal rulers of Paris, are part of the current French constitution.
I agree that the comparison of the historical revolution of the working class in Paris to the riots taking place today might seem far-fetched but it illustrates why the matter of legitimacy and/or majority should be discarded as irrelevant.
Some people tend to think that all problems can be solved (i.e. that there is no such thing as a “dead-end” in all political matters). A French diplomat use to say that most problems can be solved by actually doing nothing (time would solve any problem eventually).
Others will draw a list of more or less short-term solutions in order to fix the problem so it would be useless to do it here[1]. However, what happens when those solutions implies the negation of several decades of specific – and supposedly well-thought – policies? If we are to assume the French politics today are only ripping what they have sown, what has more value; their credibility or the future of the country? With the presidential elections coming in 2007 and already more than twenty declared candidates, the main motivations of both the government’s and opposition’s members seems obvious.
It will seem gloomy to state it as follow but I believe that sometime, societies – or individuals – reach a point in their predicament where it is not worth the trouble to do anything about it. By that, I mean that a lesson needs to be taught and for this lesson to be taught France needs to hit rock bottom. I do not believe they are there yet but I am sure they are heading in the right direction.
[1] More freedom is actually the only valid long-term solution if we are to cure the decease. Any other solutions would only be “treatments” comparatively.
Denver - August 10, 2005
A Daily circle
There’s a major difference between a working day spent in a city like Paris and say Denver, Colorado. The daily life of a Parisian worker is two-pronged; first work then leisure. If he whishes to find happiness, a French worker will have to carefully select his area of work. A repetitive, boring work will never give him the opportunity to thrive, to improve himself, to feed his intellectual needs, therefore, letting his self-esteem perish. One thing about leisure is that, even when it brings instant pleasure, it never gives long term happiness. The reason is well-known; nothing that is worth having comes easily.
Concerning an employee working in Denver, Colorado, things are a bit different. The daily life seems to be parted in three. Work is not expected to bring anything else that what it is primarily supposed to bring; money; that is to say, a means of survival. Only when the work is done, comes the time of self-improvement; physical activities quite often but also intellectual. Leisure only comes third.
One of the external consequences can be seen by visiting any bookshops. In Paris , one third of the shelves are usually dedicated to novels; that is “leisure” books. In Denver however, novels can be found in less than ten percents of the total areas; the rest of the shelves is dedicated to history, science, philosophy etc…
Though it is not the easiest thing of all to familiarize yourself with this three-pronged cycle, it is crucial if one is to find happiness.
Can happiness be found outside self-esteem and personal pride?
This is actually not a rhetorical question. I truly can’t imagine any other way.
Playing a bit with my thesaurus, I find that the following words are synonyms to one another (from left to right obviously):
Happiness, contentment, satisfaction, fulfillment, achievement, success.
If I do the same with the French language, I’m stuck going round and round in a circle of joy, glee and pleasure bringing me back to joy…never seems to reach any achievement.
I wonder if vocabulary carries something that could be seen as a deadly component for the culture it serves and by which it has been modeled.
Denver, August 7, 2005
On freedom of speech
Is freedom of speech an absolute value that should remain unimpaired?
Several countries have recently reduce their tolerance toward freedom of speech for political and/or national security reasons. Those who did so – France, Germany and The Netherlands among others – are countries recognized by all to be the most tolerant in that matter. Still they had to go backward - at least and hopefully temporarily - and decided to pass new laws against those who might fuel terrorism in their speeches whether on purpose or not…. It didn’t take too long for those who feel threaten by these new laws to complain hiding behind foreign equivalent of the first amendment.
Being an apologist of freedom of speech, no use to say that the problem troubles me.
First I think it is important to keep in mind that freedom of speech has never been applied in what we could call a “pure and absolute law”. In Germany, Mein Kampf remains illegal today. In France, half of the work of Louis-Ferdinand Céline is still banned from publication and several anti-racist associations tried earlier this year to shut down a website where the work of the French writer was available. Facing penalties under a so-called “law of digital economy”, all the ISP in France where “asked” to bar the access to the website, located in the US.
England and the United States are today the two last remaining safe haven of what can be regarded as a pure version of the idea of freedom of speech...probably not for long.
If these countries, or others, have to restrain freedom of speech, what margin - if any - do they have?
One of the main comments from those who fight such restriction is actually a very general one; If you are to restrain freedom of speech, how is that make you any different than the people you are fighting against? Very legitimate question indeed.
I think the most important thing to do is to remain objective. What is that mean in the field of History? Well, it’s not always an easy thing to achieve but it is however a very easy thing to conceive; remove yourself from the picture. Historical events can be seen in a very different light if one decides that the life of a person living two thousand years ago has the very same value than the one of a person sitting next to you today. Several thousand people died during the American revolution. Four hundred thousand during the French revolution – the numbers are actually closer to four millions for those who include the Napoleonic Wars as part of the revolution. Today, there’s not one serious historian who would put into question the gain brought by these civil wars (and no, I don't consider Churchill Ward to be either serious or historian).
To see today’s conflicts in the same light, with the same serenity, than two centuries old conflict is to be objective. One of the well-known intellectual in France – Raymond Aron – has frequently been labeled as “cold” because he had – unlike Sartre - this incredible capacity of remaining objective.
The long term idea of what the country represents, of what the people fought for IS what we should keep in mind.
Here’s how I would sum this up; During a war, the nice guy doesn’t win. You might think that God is going to save you, seizing the hand of your enemy at the very last moment…it won’t happen. Napoleon won most of his battles during his first seven years at the head of the French army by plundering every single town his men were passing through (unlike the British army, the French were not carrying any provisions which gave them a great mobility)
The Anglo-American coalition won WW II by bombing cities in France, Germany, Japan and elsewhere using eventually the most deadliest bomb ever created at that point. What makes them different from their enemies is the purpose of their actions. Not the mean but the end.
Objectivity is our only way of understanding this end.
What are we fighting for? At the end it comes that to that question.
Freedom? Being objective, name one country where an artist can sing the following without going to trial:
“Are we really gonna sleep through another century while the rich profit off our blood? True, it may take some doing to see this undoing done but in my humble opinion here's what i suggest we do:
Open fire on Hollywood open fire on MTV open fire on NBC and CBS and ABC
Open fire on the NRA and all the lies they told us along the way
Open fire on each weapons manufacturer while he's giving head to some republican senator…“
“Coming of age during the plague of Reagan and Bush watching capitalism gun down democracy…”
“and we hold these truths to be self evident:
#1 George W. Bush is not president
#2 America is not a true democracy
#3 the media is not fooling me”
These are excerpt of very great songs and it would have been a crime to ban those. Like many I certainly don't agree with what they mean (I'm among those who consider "Capitalism" and "Freedom" to be synonym). What is important to remember is what countries, as far as freedom of speech is concerned, objectively, went that far? The answer is easy. These countries have my support What countries never reached that point after two thousand years? These countries I will not trust.
The fact that the apologist of freedom of speech may have to shelve for a moment – a second really in the span of a country’s life – their ultimate goal in order to win the fight against the greatest enemies of their values is not something that should be seen as a step back.
It doesn’t mean they have forgotten their values. I believe any person who ever had to fight in order to protect something of value that is beyond his personal life can easily understand that.
Denver, August 6, 2005
I read this a few months ago:
“To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love – because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.” Ayn Rand, the virtue of selfishness / The Objectivist Ethics.
This text is essential. It has to be read, again and again.
- Rational man
A sound man. Someone who chose reality as his environment. Here, all idea of spirituality disappears. The world is what it is. A is A. Our senses allow us to evaluate it, to lay an objective eye upon it.
- To love is to value.
To love is primarily to sentence a judgment upon others. Not only on a particular person but upon all ; without exception. In order to achieve that, only one standard is valid and acceptable; one’s own. The rest doesn’t matter.
- Self-esteem
To respect oneself and also to gauge and evaluate oneself; that is to say to judge impartially using the very same standard of value referred to earlier.
A French comedian used to say « intelligence is the only tool that permits men to gauge the extent of his misery ». It’s true but it is also the only tool that permit him to find his place among others; whether they are co-workers, friends or random people.
- Holding Firm
Weakness doesn’t bring anything. Doesn’t solve anything. But wait, here’s more…
- Consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed.
Don’t you ever chose a compromise. A compromise is by definition a bad choice. It is a very common decease than that of a compromise. The “middle of the road” attitude.
When someone lend his car to a mechanic, this someone doesn’t expect the the mechanic to be mediocre or “just ok”. On the contrary, the mechanic is expected to be extremely competent.
When a person brings his kid in an hospital for surgery, this parent expect perfection for the surgeon; nothing less. Why would certain areas of work require excellence and other wouldn’t? The difference is that we are used to consider these two professions has areas of work where the “good” and the “evil” are clearly defined. In other areas however, we unfortunately often consider that there are no good or evil. That things are just a matter of opinion…”If only we had known” has the French often say.
This latter case is especially true in politics, where the word “extreme” was sullied by a pejorative connotation.
The truth is; only those who don’t know where they are going, those who doubt and eventually give up, only those jump on every compromise as a solution to apply to all problems. Why would I take small and torturous back roads when I’m so sure of my destination point? Politicians often make this choice in order to avoid baring the responsibility of their failures. As long as they choose compromises, they avoid the risk of being the target of their people’s hatred. In France, two centuries of this motto have done away with people’s hopes.
The French newspaper “Le Monde” was mocking Google last month because of its motto; “Do no evil”. For the French newspaper, this motto doesn’t make sense because the values of good and evil, of right and wrong, have been lost long ago in France. They are considered to be naïve. In the States however it is not the case. We still consider here that not only both do exist, but that they are perfectly identifiable. How? By means of work, learning and cognition. The very notion of compromise here becomes ridiculous. Who would want a compromise between good and evil? It wouldn’t make much sense.
Denver, July 29, 2005
I found that Nationalism is a lot like a magnet; the farther I get from the source, the weaker its effect on me.
Responsibility of the member of the group.
Individuals, sometime, feel the need to claim their membership to a group. Whether the group is a religious one, a social one or political one doesn't really matter. The reasons are usually always the same; rarely and only under very specific circumstances, it is triggered as a defense mechanism; a protection against a specific oppression. The feeling of membership to the group helps find understanding, compassion. More often however it is for personal gain; the gain of credibility and legitimacy. Sometime the incentive of the individual is the most innocent of all and the only motivation for that claim lies in the lack of self-esteem of the subject. This latter, feeling inferior, can find in the group a sense of identity without going into the trouble of defining himself either by his words or by his actions. In some other case the aim is to share with the group the responsibility of the individual. This latter pattern is particularly true when comes the time to justify actions in the name of the public interest. Socialist leaders did a very good use of it during the 20em century.
I'd like to point out here that I'm not interested by the membership in itself, which is a passive fact (we are obviously all part of a well defined group - gender being the first that comes to mind) but am interested only in the claim, which is a volitional act.
Whenever a person throws at my face his membership to a national group, I try to keep in mind that by doing so, the subject shares the responsibility of the action of the group. Even though his obvious goal is to enjoy a share of the supposedly "good" or historically important gift of this nation to the world, it seems to me important to keep in mind the other side of the medal, which is the sharing of the responsibility of the crime of the very same nation.
As noted above the mechanism is the very same with religion.
The line is a thin one indeed but more than ever I think it is important to keep an eye on it.
Denver, July 27, 2005
I’m always amazed to see how six billion people can be so lonely, struggling for their lives, struggling thru the day to find a tiny reason to live it, hoping to see the next day bring something new; more than often in vain. Their head right above the water, torn between their survival instinct and their desire to see an end to their suffering.
How did we get so lost? When did we lose the path? And even more important than these questions, why can’t we find the strength to stop for a while and think? Lost, like a stubborn driver, too proud to look at the truth, who keeps wandering around, lost somewhere between the knowledge, the certitude even, of being wrong and the hope of seeing some new sign that would rescue him almost against his will.
I believe Religion manipulated us. She blinded us and brought us to that deserted land. She transformed our legitimate doubts into deadly fears. Taking advantage of our innate weaknesses, this whore stole what we would never have given her; Our love and our self-confidence. Sinners, now, afraid of our own shadow, scared of mirrors, terrified of what we might learn about ourselves. I dared to look right at my reflection - better lose my sight than contemplate this lie.
I have left the crowd, ran away, now alone, trying to find back the path, armed, not with faith but with the certitude that there is one genuine reality. One can’t really be lost if one still believes in truth. I shall find back my existence, my dear friend, and say “Hi!” again, as if it was the first time. Life will forgive me this lie; she has this kindness in her.
Denver, April 19, 2005
Without A Trace
It seems strange that we don’t usually think quite often about our own disappearance…
I wonder why? Knowing that it is our only certainty in life…I have the feeling that it should be as meaningless as possible. I mean when the time comes, I want all question to be answered, everything to be said. I don’t want any remains of interrogation, any lingering doubts. Since matter can’t be destroyed, I guess my second best choice would be to scatter the ashes in the wind. No place to remember, to grieve over…just the souvenir of the dust flying away.
In essence, our live doesn’t offer much meaning; we can either be a creator, a destructor or choose to pass on the burden of the quest for meaning to our own children…that’s about all there is.
Whether they acknowledge it or not, whether they choose to be aware of it or not, parents make their choice in order to remove the weight of this great responsibility off their own shoulders. No matter what happens after the first child is born, something will be left…the line won’t be broken.For those - and me among them – without any well defined and well developed talent, it never seems to be a fair choice. In fact, it never seems to be a choice at all. In this perspective, I would almost understand why some choose the destruction of value, the destruction of lives, as a way of defining / concretizing their passage on earth.
The idea of leaving without a trace is for most people unbearable.
In essence I believe all three choices come down to one single tiny and incredibly powerful necessity; to change our environment. To leave something that says; “From now on and only because of me, the world is different”.
The impossibility of ever being sure of the potential influence of what will be left is the fuel that keeps the creator running. This is probably why doubt is the unconditional and most faithful companion of the artist during his life. In the rare cases where certitude settles in, suicide is the only answer. This should not be seen as a very strong statement really…It only means that death was running late.
I do believe that to live without changing our environment – in the largest possible sense – is a contradiction in term.
I wonder if touching the life of others could be form of parenthood…
Denver, April 8, 2005
Open letter to Stanislas Leridon, CEO - Visiware.
The link between an employee and the employer is called a contract. This is a business contract between two reasonable, rational men. That is; two men who have chosen reason as their standard of value to evaluate reality. This contract can be ended by any of the two parties at anytime. The obligation of the party who has chosen to terminate the contract is contractual. There is no such think as a “moral” obligation in a business contract. If there was, it would be part of the contract and then, by definition, would become a contractual obligation. A “non-contractual obligation” is an attempt robbery.
I refuse to participate to this creation, this fantasy of yours, where one of the parties would, somehow, owe something to the other party when the contract has ended.
A contract is the material proof of the acceptance of two parties to an exchange of values. The value of the employer is the salary paid to the employee during the duration of the contract. The value of the employee is the product of his work during the same period of time.
I am told that the experience I acquired should be passed on to someone else before I leave. I disagree. Experience is a by-product of my work, which is the value I sell. The mental process of acquiring knowledge through reasoning and perception is called “cognition”. It is man’s only means of survival. If you were to ask how long does it take to acquire eighteen years of experience, my answer would be; Eighteen years. There is no shortcut to knowledge as there is no shortcut to reality.
I am told that my departure will create “chaos” if it doesn’t fit the whim of the other party and that my will has to be sacrificed for the will of the other party. I do not agree with that. I am told that this “chaos” is mine to avoid by any means for the good of others and that I, alone, shall bear the responsibility of the consequences this so-called “chaos” would create. I resent that accusation. The value that will be missing and the value I was selling are the same. I am aware that the absence of this value will be missed. How much it will be missed IS what defines the value. I resent this useless attempt to use guilt has a means to rob me. Guilt binds the mystics. Only reality binds the rational man.
I’m told that diplomacy is not my strongest quality. I agree. When I communicate with others, I use a common tone of voice to utter common words. When my interlocutor chooses to ignore both me and my message, I speak louder. I don’t give up. When the tone, and / or the words I choose to use reach a certain climax – climax that is mine to define – the strength of the words are only proportional to the deafness of my interlocutor. There’s a time for diplomacy…
As mentioned above, the value I sell is the product of my work. Will this value be missing when one of the parties decides to end the contract? Yes, obviously. Will the value I receive in exchange be missing when one of the parties decides to end the contract? Yes, of course.
To state that the missing value would be greater for one party than for the other is to acknowledge a swindle, a fraud. It is the recognition that the complainant was actually taking advantage of the situation before the contract ended. I wouldn’t expect the plaintiff to be too eager to blame the other party in this particular case…The louder you get, the stronger the recognition of your own fraudulent behavior.
If my employer decides to end the contract, will I miss my salary? Yes. Will this sudden lack of money have consequences on my personal life? Yes. Will my employer take this into consideration when he decides to end the contract? I doubt he will.
Several forces keep both parties together during the duration of a contract. One of them is their own, selfish interest in the value of the other party. This, in essence, implies that both values (i.e. the salary and the product of the work) will be missing when the contract ends. Does it mean that one of the parties should receive compensation for what becomes AFTERWARD a missing value because this party did not trigger the termination of the contract? No, of course not.
I would expect you, among all, to fully understand the meaning and the implication of our contractual relation. I resent your suggestion that I can’t evaluate the value of my own work, only because I choose to create interactive applications instead of selling them. On the contrary, I am well aware of this value. You’re the one who choose to ignore it.
You seem to have this rather outdated idea that an employee should be forever grateful to his employer, and therefore should sacrifice his self-interest to your own good, that is for the good of the company you represent. “Self sacrifice” means “mind sacrifice” for those who choose “thinking” as their means of survival and "reality" as their environment. By asking them to surrender their interests for your own good, you’re condemning them to death. By doing so, you’re actually destroying the source of your own survival. That you would decide to survive inside this obvious contradiction by taking advantage of the important pool of available French unemployed in France, is your choice. That you would think the same attempt could succeed with myself in the US is your mistake.
I could continue this rant for ever. The very fact that you seem unaware or unprepared to accept it, epitomizes the struggle - and in most cases the failure - of the French video game companies.
I believe in the value of my work. I deal with other human beings as trader to trader. I consider altruism, that is the surrender of one’s value for the happiness of others, a sin (rational sense of an act that endangers life, not in the mystical sense). To surrender my values to the will or the whim of others would be the highest treason of my moral. I will never accept that.
Give me liberty or give me death.
David Fernandes
“To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love – because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.” Ayn Rand, the virtue of selfishness / The Objectivist Ethics.
Denver, March 2005
Collapse of the Video Game industry – France 2000 – 2005
(unfinished)
Introduction
Between the year 2000 and 2005 about fifteen French video game companies either closed or went bankrupt. About half of the workers in this industry lost their jobs. Would this have concerned any other industry; the media would have talked about it for months. Unfortunately, the collapse concerned what is still today one of the most under-appreciated form of art of the twentieth century and save for a few articles here and there, most of the development studios were closed as they had lived; in complete indifference.
Several papers already exist on the subject: One was written by Alain LE DIBERDER and Frédéric LE DIBERDER and was a request from the “Conseil supérieur de la propriété littéraire et artistique”. This study entitled “Multimedia And Video Game Creation in France - Situation, problems and prospect” explains the ins and outs of this industry. It acknowledges the existence of a rather important crisis. The aim of this document was to find the economic and politic solutions to help the video game industry. Almost three years afterward it seems obvious that this attempt has failed.
Another document, requested this time by the French department of finance, economy and industry, has been written by M. Fabrice Fries. This latter document is nothing but a joke and its only quality lies in the fact that in was published in December 2003 - too late to have any significant influence. It includes five propositions that could be sum-up has followed: more money, more money, more money, more money and if possible more money. As I explain in this paper, the lack of money has never been an issue; only the most apparent consequences of underlying problems.
The goal of this present document is to sum-up what happened in this industry, what attempts if any have been made to rescue the French companies and finally propose a few solutions that could – if followed - help the few remaining studios. The aim of this document however is not to point finger and cast stones at the ones who are, arguably, more or less responsible for the current state of the video game industry. Not because I wish to protect the one who are more or less guilty but because I don’t think the sole incompetence of few of the actors can explain this predicament and because by nature specific critics make poor cases in point. On the contrary, I do believe that a wider view is necessary to fully understand the situation.
I’m not naïve and I don’t believe this document will have any real impact on this industry. I do believe however that it will help some people to better understand what’s happening around them and therefore help them to find a way to enjoy the show.
Unlike Maldoror, I won’t advise the reader to turn around and run lest the poison of the following lines saturates his soul. These lines are indeed poisonous but the disease has spread and the remedy needs to be as strong and violent as the illness. Since, as it appears, nobody wants to tackle the subject, I’m thinking arsenic is appropriate.
Situation of the industry in 2000
The less we can say about the industry at the turn of the century is that it was thriving. For an external observant, France was one of the leaders of the industry and the so-called French touch was praised whenever the subject was brought-up in the media. Most of the managers were proud, not always without reason, and were held by many as the new paradigm of a much broader industrial landscape. Youngsters discovering the attractive world of video games worshipped names like Loriciel, Titus or Ere, and the numerous newcomers – In-Utero, No Cliché, Polygon Studio, Chaman or Quantic Dream just to name a few - were foreseen to be yet again huge success stories.
Those were the good old days…at least as long as we don’t take a closer look.
Process of creation of a video game in the early 1990s
It is necessary here to understand the process of creation of a video game in the early 1990s. Luckily, it is rather simple and it holds in one word: programmer. That’s about all it took to create a video game in the early 90s. An average game required about three months of hard but exciting work; graphics, when they were not done by the programmer himself, were done by an artist in about two hours. This was also true for what could barely be referred to as “sound effects”.
At this point, the industry was actually everything but an industry; it was only – and I don’t mean that pejoratively - equal to the sum of the work of a few hundred scattered programmers. Communication between them was reduced to the minimum as far as programming was concerned and this at least for one good reason; the diversity of programming languages made it impossible to share any significant piece of source code.
As the years passed by, the complexity of the games increasing, it became necessary to change this – or to actually create a first form of – organization. To put it bluntly: that’s when the whole thing went awry.
Years of technical challenge between the programmers and their machines had created a very talented crowd with one peculiarity: they were thoroughly ungregarious persons. It would be unfair to say that this distinctive feature is always a bad thing. Motivation is one of the main necessary forces involved in the process of the creation of a video game and the competition between programmers created by this distinctiveness is quite often at the source of this motivation.
What is programming?
This title may seem odd. I could easily assumed that the reader of this paper is at least partly interested by the video game industry; hence well aware of what is programming. If only.
Let’s cut to the chase; Here lies one of the most important issue. Most of the people involve in this industry don’t understand what programming is about. Programming is partially about mathematics; everybody knows that. Unfortunately a common and very old mistake is to consider mathematic conceptions as artless; sadly, programming inherited this prejudice (thought it is important to point out here that the study made by the French department of culture on the subject contradicts this popular misconception stating that “the most genuinely creative tasks” were “accomplished by the programmers”.)
Let me try to put an end to the prejudice; programming is, before anything else, a creative process. If you were to take a few thousand programmers asking them to write even the same simplest application in barely an hour, you wouldn’t get twice the same code. A programmer is someone who makes choices; more than choices; compromises; lots of them. Every minute, a tiny, almost innocuous problem is assigned a specific solution; result of a thinking process involving such various parameters as the personal knowledge of the programmer, his personal goals – performance, memory space requirement, planning imperative – and…luck and hazard. No, programmers don’t have control over everything; nobody does. They are humans (in most cases at least) and as such make mistakes. No need to deny it, these mistakes have an influence in the final product since at the very least, they take time out of the planning of development. Since time is a factor and as such reduces the field of research for a particular problem, the first found solution is fairly often the chosen one; it is only fair to say that luck and hazard are at least as responsible as the programmer himself for the appearance of this first solution and that another solution could have came up to solve the very same problem in other circumstances.
Programming is about rules, true – like music and other forms of art – but more than often it’s about breaking these rules; fighting against the plebeian voices advising you to take too common paths leading to well-known destinations. Finding new paths is the creative process.
For those, familiar with the work of Herman Hess, programming is the “Glass Bead Game”; an attempt to find common grounds to distinctive arts. For a programmer, apophenia is not merely a condition; it’s a gift.
Obviously, as the title indicates, what I just described is what programming is; not what programmers are. Like everywhere else, some people work in this industry for other reasons than a genuine passion for video games; whether it is by accident, because of the money or because it sounded like fun back in college. I believe those persons, whatever their personal agenda is and no matter how numerous they are, are not the ones who have defined the path of the video game industry during the previous decades; they are parasites and as such only followers; not leaders.
Most of the programmers can be found in between the two extreme I just described. To sum-up: the more dedicated to their work, the more influent they were.
I used and will use later on the word “art” to qualify the process of creation of a video game and the resultant of this process as a whole; I don’t think it is a misuse of the word even if a video game doesn’t have all the qualities of other forms of art.
Situation of the industry in 2005
It would be easy to find analogies in the recent past in order to describe the devastated landscape of this industry as we celebrate the new year; let’s have a quick look at the numbers: About fifteen hundred jobs were lost. It is doubtful that many were created. Even the companies still alive today are in no state of hiring anyone; Infogrames job cuts totaled about three hundreds and Ubisoft about fifty in France.
These numbers are greater than most studies would acknowledge; the so called “Rapport Le Diberder” published in 2001 numbered the possible casualties at about seven hundreds out of what seems to be a rather low estimation of fifteen hundred involved in the production of video games.
Reasons invoked
In their attempt to find the cause of their predicament, the actors of the industry have always been ready to throw at each other the reasons for their suffering. Let’s take a look at the reasons invoked:
Money
One of the most common causes invoked is money. Money is always a good culprit. “Time” and its direct resultant “Experience” is what we use to differentiate between causes and effects. Since those representing the common audience of our leader’s lamentation are usually bankers and politicians, it was tempting to use their ignorance in the matter of video game production and ask them for always more money.Money has NEVER been the cause of their difficulties. As for all companies regardless of their specialties financial problems are the resultant of a hidden cause. Arguably it can ALSO be the cause but in the last years of the 1990s as well as in the first years of the new millennium, French companies never encountered any problems raising hundreds of millions French francs in order to finance their first games. Media companies – Havas, Vivendi/Canal+ - were always ready to put money on the table just to have their name linked to the “new” industry. They were more than ready to spare a few millions in order to improve their image. Problems started when the products were either incredibly late –often enough one year late or more – or were of really poor quality – and sometime both. One sadly too familiar solution in this circumstance was to start a new development before the end of the current one in order to finance this latter with the fresh money…the financial problem therefore temporarily disappeared before reappearing one year later stronger than ever forcing the companies to increase once again their work force and launch new projects giving the impression for all external observant that the company was growing.
Obviously this could not last forever and eventually most companies collapsed under their own weight.
Mistreatment of the employees
About twelve years ago, numerous attacks were made against a French company and its propensity to have most of its developers working under short-term contracts, firing them every fifteen months to hire cheapest ones.An article, written by a newly hired programmer, published two months ago in the US press stated how unbearable the working condition were at Electronic Arts. Hum…how can I put this nicely? This article was hilarious.
The fact that an employee had to “work” – I will explain later why I’m using quotation marks – ninety hours a week in order to finish a project is not in itself surprising. Only ten years ago, it would have been impossible to find a single programmer who had not spend in a recent past a few nights working sometime thirty five hour straight – what the French would now call a week – to finish his project. Today however it would almost be impossible to find someone who actually did spend even a single night working on his project. Point being that, if anything, the situation has greatly improved. The significant part of this article is that so many people seem surprised. It only shows how unprepared – not to say naïve – the programmers are when they first start working. It underlines an educational problem more than anything else.
It is important here to understand the economic context concerning the late 90s in the United States for a student in engineering. Heaven. This is about the only word that can describe the industry at this time. Students, leaving college in 1996-1998 had heard nothing but good stories about software development and about their future work place in general. There was no need to actually look for a job…companies were looking for you. Fighting for you; offering $70000 to $100000/year; offering flying tickets so you could attend an interview that would inevitably end by these two words; “you’re hired.”
Obviously after such years anything would seems like a decline. It is important to understand that these years are in no case representative of the video game industry and that they represent an exception, not the standard.
I used quotation marks because, as anyone working in this industry for a while would acknowledge, things have greatly improved. A two-hour lunch has replaced the coke and potato chips of auld langsyne and it is rather commonplace to spend hours of work time a week surfing the internet, exchanging emails bitching about how our work sucks and how stressful we are. You can trust me on that; BBS were not that useful to exchange our thought and reflection on political or social matters.
Cultural difference
A video game is a cultural product and as such the question has to be raised; did the French video games suffered from its cultural specificities?
Undoubtedly French artists have their own style that can be differentiated from American or Japanese artists and we all have heard here and there that this “style” was maybe less fit than other for video games. More likely this is because Japanese and American had more impact on our culture and that somehow we are “used to” this graphics. French companies in 2001 made about three quarter of their gross revenue selling their games outside France. Nothing indicates therefore that the cultural difference could be an issue.
· French Economy
Even though the French economy could hardly be hailed for its growth of the past few years, the fact that French companies don’t have any problems selling their video games in other countries indicates a low dependence to their homeland’s economy.
· International condition
If we take a look today at the top recruiters for video game programmers, artists, game designers and the like, we find about sixteen companies based in the United States, thirteen based in UK, six in Australia, three based in Scotland, one in Germany and one in France (French company being Ubisoft hiring people in Montreal, Canada). The situation in France seems therefore unique. However it is obvious that the countries harboring the thriving video game companies have something in common…let’s keep this information in mind.
(should I explain here / or continue with the political specificities????)
It could be easy to put the blame on some external conditions, economic or not. Almost all countries on earth are in many ways nationalist countries. Their respective governments feel the need - and believe that it is their duty - to protect “their” people against foreign enemies - real or more than often imaginary. The reason is simple and well known to our leaders; it is impossible to govern individuals; only masses. Therefore it is necessary for them to create an artificial sense of unity. The logical by-product is that it distances and isolates the country from its neighbors. It is tempting to put the blame on others and quite too often accusations fall on foreign countries.
Misjudgment of the 2002 governmental report…
A closer view (?)
One too common problem during the development of a game is the inopportune intervention of persons external to the project. Feeling that a project – when it’s not several projects – is irreparably going to be out of schedule, technical directors, general managers or even CEOs suddenly have the feeling that the reality is escaping their grips, unable to understand that the cause of the problem has its roots anchored in the very structure of the company, they assume that what they see IS the problem and will try to fix it by jumping in the process, bypassing hierarchy, with a complete disrespect for what has been setup theretofore by the members directly involve in the project.
A wider lens
I don’t believe problems are often specifics, only our point of view is, and mainly because our knowledge, ideas, convictions and finally our judgment are themselves limited to a specific area of competence.
What is the global direction of the world economy? I think it is reasonable to say that the wealthiest countries try to develop their service and make most of their investment in research and development. They take this direction for at least one good reason; to avoid competition from the developing countries. If today a country like France were to base its economy on agriculture and the production of textile instead of focusing on the development of hi-tech products or new energies this country wouldn’t stand a ghost of a chance against countries producing the same goods for less than half the price.
Research and development in a French company
Creating a new company implies taking a chance. Too often, as soon as the fledgling company achieves some kind of success, it transforms itself into the most conservative enterprise, doing everything to preserve and maintain what seems to be a state of success…unfortunately there’s no such thing as a “state” of success; success is not a state, it’s a dynamic. It needs to be feed. Research and Development is what it craves for.
I explained previously that development studios were more than often behind schedule in the delivery of their games to their client - editors or final customers. In itself, there’s nothing really surprising about a development being late and certainly nothing exclusively French about it.
There are not that many reasons why a video game – or any other software for that matter – would be delayed; either it’s because of last minute improvements which is an excuse nobody would buy except if this improvement have been requested by the editor…or because of an error in the original planning.
I explained that programming was a creative process. This means that at the start of a development, part of the work is unknown to the programmer. This is often an attractive quality in this line of work but it has one logical and very important downside; it is impossible to evaluate precisely the time required to do something you never did before. If you open a book about project management, one of the steps in the process of software development requires the separation of what constitute in fact “research and development” and what constitute mere “programming” and usually both tasks are not confide to the same persons. One of the requisite talents of a project manager is to be able to synchronize harmoniously both flux of production so that the main production is never delayed by unforeseen problems in the innovative part of the project.
Beside this advantage, the division of work allows a better sharing and reuse of the research, which in itself help compensate the increased – and usually unplanned - cost occasioned by the belated pieces of code. It also helps the development studios hiring more specific persons for each task, which also help reduce the overall cost (researchers being usually more experienced persons they also cost more).
Research and Development is often seen has a luxury, unessential or useless. It is important to understand that no matter how; the work will have to be done. Whether it is under the responsibility of a team dedicated to R&D or by the team directly linked to the project, the essential part of the project that is “new”, that is “creation”, will have to be completed. The separation allows a better control of the overall cost and more important it allows the apportioning of the extra cost in all developments in progress.
Link between “image”, “elitism thru elitist image”, “importance of appearance” and the increasing importance of the first places in a competitive environment
Research and Development in France
We use, probably more often that we should, the term of revolution. It has been used to qualify the apparition of computers in our world and its implication in our everyday life. It seems to me that we actually missed the most important of all revolutions of the twentieth century. This revolution doesn’t have a name yet. First it would need to be recognized as such. I’m talking here about the enlightenment of the late sixties, early seventies.
It is fundamental to understand the changes triggered by this enlightenment in all companies whatever their size or domain of interests. The relations between the manager of a company and its employees have been changed forever and it always amazes me to see that the fact isn’t yet widely acknowledged. There was a time surely where the manager of some random company had an intellectual superiority over all his employees or at least the advantage of knowledge, experience. Today – and it’s especially true in the small companies involved in the process of software development – the superiority no longer exists. The knowledge of managing a company is different that the one required designing or writing software; it is certainly not superior. The bourgeois notion of enterprise as the old antagonism of master/slave has been destroyed. A relation - whether it’s acknowledged or not – based on complementarity has replaced it. Obviously all companies had - have or will have - to adapt to this new condition; there’s no turning back.
Aspect of the “scientific / computer / media “ revolution; novelty appearing against the old bourgeois notions of “master/slave” “Employer/Employee”
The advantage of capitalistic (i.e. open market / freedom of trade) ideal in its ability to adapt to the new order of things provoked by the previously stated revolution.
A competitive market (?)
…
Proposition
…Conclusion
…
Denver, March 15th , 2005
(I'm not sure where I wanted to go with this one...)
Burden of History. Does France have too much History? The question was raised a few days ago in the French newspaper Le Monde.
It is clear today that the goals fixed in March 2000 by the European council in Lisbon are out of reach. Whether they are economic, social or politic, these goals will have to be revised in a few weeks in Brussels. Why? Is there something endemic, solely specific to Europe that paralyses it and keeps its main countries out of History?
George Steiner timidly answers to the Germans; "it is possible, if I may, that the civilizations who murdered all their Jews can't go back to life…"
I'm not satisfied with the answer. True, Germany and France fit the description as far as the genocide and the economic predicament are concerned but several well-known historians made the case that the United States was guilty of more or less equivalent crimes during its History - past and present. Some of them - Churchill Ward among others - went as far as to consider the strike of 9/11 as a well-deserved - and long overdue - "payback". Even if these comments don't really represent the norm and are more telling about the fanaticism of those who uttered them, I don't see how this (i.e. the murder of a specific people) would prevent any country today to play a significant part in the historical events of the new century.France is facing an incredibly difficult choice; Should France today be part of History and remain a second class country or choose to retire from the international scene and become a third class nation?
Let me explain; the "idea" of France, that is; the perception of what France is has been the result of a very long, bloody and rather chaotic history. Anti-Semitism and extreme nationalism have their place in France as, on the other hand, enlightenment and public expression does. Foreign war, civil war and revolution are part of the History.
History records important facts only: important in the sense of wideness and longevity. Whether the French economy will survive or not the thirty-five hour week reform (or the latest softening of this very same reform) will ever be recorded in History. It does not impact what France is, nor does it have any influence on what French are.If you ask a French man today to name his country's greatest leaders, there's a good chance he will name Napoleon in the top five. The fact that this leader is responsible for the death of three to four million souls will never be of any concern to the French. His actions were recorded by History and this is all that matters. Arguably war is not the only option to be remembered but it is by far the most common as far as France is concern; Philippe August, Henri IV, Napoleon Bonaparte, Philippe Petain and General de Gaulle will be forever remembered for the war the fought (and sometime triggered).
Leaders, whatever how great, don't write History. The control of more or less random collision of innocuous - and seemingly unrelated - international events is out of their reach. However, History always offers opportunities for these leaders to "jump in" and have their names remembered for their actions, whatever the consequences of these actions. Every day that goes by offers a chance to our leaders to act and trigger a change in the flat and boring landscape of our eventless lives.
To participate or not to the American intervention in Iraq is one of the choice that comes to mind. To intervene in Sudan or not, instead of counting the dead wondering if the death of one hundred and eighty thousand qualifies as a genocide, represent an opportunity to jump in. To answer Kathami's bold and despicable threats by at least disqualifying Iran as a WTO's candidate is an historical choice; up to anyone to take a chance. To revolution our industry now instead of waiting fifty years for the end of our reserve of fossil fuel is a choice. To stand up and state that human rights are no longer optional and from now on will be enforced by occidental countries everywhere on the planet is, and will probably remain for a long time, a choice.
Value & Identity
Each country has a specific value. Beyond the value attributed by its own people - whether it is based on historical fact (largest sense - past and present facts) or based on national prejudices, this value - if not defined by - is proportionate to the impact this country has on mankind through History. Today's rules are based on freedom, equality of opportunity, enlightenment and happiness; the more, the better. Whether this represent or not a progress by comparison to the standard of previous centuries is irrelevant here. In a capitalistic world, the value of a country is mainly defined by the sum of what it produces. What a country produces is - or will be for the developing countries - equal to the sum of its people's work. Today, following this idea, we assume that China will be the second world economy in the year 2020 regardless of the billion things that could go wrong between now and then.
Until the ninetieth and even the twentieth century it was widely believed that there was such thing as a German race or a French superiority and that it was these countries' responsibility to "educate" third world nations. French or Germans are not genetically superior to others. What a French writer writes today could be written by any other writers in the world whatever its homeland. What a German scientist invents today could be invented by any other scientist in the world. It's only a matter of time. Freedom is what reduces in the long run the gap between countries.This means that each country faces an ideological journey starting at their current idea of identity and ending at the reality of today's standard regarding their own value. Obviously nationalist countries - and the leaders behind them - have good reason to feel scared and also threatened by the proponents of freedom. Can these leaders change, alone, the standard of today's world? It is rather unlikely. They can try, arguably they are already trying, but this would require not only the incentive of the majority but also a power they don't have. The standard cannot be beaten, he has to fail by itself or succeed.
There's an elephant in the room. Nobody really wants to tackle the subject…let me try.
Modern History was a very comfortable place for Europeans, especially France. Well wedged between the two "extremes" that represent the East and the West, every political and ideological choice was taken by evaluating the stand of the two antagonists of the cold war and aiming at the middle. This was a reassuring position that actually reinforced the belief that France was somehow the representative of moderation, and the very old idea of France as the - moral - center of the world.
With the fall of the Berlin wall and the death of communism, France lost one of its two lighthouses…not to say one of its two pillars. By laziness and comfort, France lost the path of its own identity.
How can France retrieve the old path?The same rules apply for countries and humans; Honesty is the prerequisite of this endeavor. France, as a first step, should find a way to make peace with its own History. It would be long here to list the discrepancies between the reality of the French History and the fiction taught to the French. Treaty of Versailles, Commune of Paris in the spring of 1871, the German occupation of France, the Napoleonic wars; pick your topics. The fact that half of Celine's writings have been outlawed in France (as Mein Kampf in Germany) doesn't bode well as far as the quest for identity is concerned.
As for today it would be impossible for the French to share a single book of History with their British counterpart. France and Germany proudly announced a few days ago that their schools would share a book regarding their modern history…I don't see where is the challenge knowing that they both have the same things to hide.Freud tells us that "nations still obey their passions far more readily than their interests" (thoughts for the times on war and death) - time for France to put aside its pride and its passions.
The second step for France would be to acknowledge its mistake. "Yes communism was a mistake. Stalin a murderer". Of course it is rather difficult to make such statement when the most famous of all French intellectual spent one third of his life stating the opposite calling the enemies of communism; dogs.Well, communism is dead and socialism almost stillborn in 1923. Lenin failed to give birth to this monster…lucky us.
French don't actually make a bad job identifying their problems…they just don't seem to find a way to identity the responsible for their social and economic predicament. Half of the country still thinks capitalism is responsible for their ordeal. They don't seem to understand that capitalism is just an ideological tool. The fact that the French bourgeoisie is handling this tool for its own benefits doesn't make it useless or "bad"…instead of losing interest in politics, the French should on the contrary standup and fight every single day, as Alain recommended a century ago, the government that works fulltime against them.
As a telling anecdote let's remember that the French prime minister ended a strike of the public workers this week by according a raise of one percent…in a country where the annual inflation is always above two percent…
How could the French be so blind? In another article - same newspaper - pointing out the lack of spirit of the French people, their mistrust of the government and their suspicion regarding the necessary reforms animating the political debate of the year - namely; the vote for the European constitution, another writer reached the conclusion that the French no longer cared about politics and that this very fact was the cause of the sullenness of the current political, social and economic climate.
I disagree. French do care about politics. The expression of public opinions regarding the national or international events has been the norm for more than two hundred years and even today you could easily get a French man to talk for hours just by raising general topics such as the unemployment level in France, the American intervention in Iraq or the atonic German economy.
Yes, we did reach ground zero in French politic (degré zéro de la politique) and this doesn't give any incentive to the French people to discuss the endless - and often meaningless and contradictory - reforms they suffered for the past decades but this doesn't mean they don't care about politics anymore; it means they don't care about the only representation of politics they get to see on a daily basis.
Denver, February 27th , 2005
You shouldn't smoke. I wonder why? Right, it's bad...I remember now: bad for my lungs. I miss the part where it’s your problem though. Health care system is ruined because lung cancer is expansive to treat so you want people to stop smoking? Makes sense I guess…in a crazy world. I would rather change the health care system probably but that’s just me. I have this bad habit of fixing problems instead of hiding them. You know what’s bad too? Drinking. It’s really bad I heard. Ruins your liver…you should multiply the tax on the alcohol by ten so people would stop drinking. Fat also is really bad. Who would have thought that eating five hamburgers a day while seating on a chair all day long wasn’t good for your heart? Damn, we should tax food so that people would stop eating so much. What about STD’s? I’m guessing changing partners every single night isn’t the most safe way to have fun…What are you going to do about it I wonder? Preach abstinence? When did my body become yours?
I’m dreaming about a world where people would take responsibility for the way they live, for the way they treat their own body...it just seems more honest.
Denver, January 2nd , 2005
150000 casualties. Still Counting. Pope Jean Paul II addressing “the city and the world” in his public address of December 25th extolled us for more peace on earth…maybe he should have told his boss.
Don’t get me wrong, I do think this was a message from god; addressing us from the other side. Not our other side, mind you, but His own. I think it went like this “I’m dead – you’re on your own – get used to it”. I think it’s ironic that the peoples paying the highest toll after most natural catastrophes are always the most religious ones…It’s rather surprising to see how the world is now working in unison to gather money to help the needy in south center Asia. Though the race for the most generous country is rather ridiculous; first because charity is not something you’re supposed to brag about but also because water is more needed than dollar or euro bills and there’s no way one country could spend the amount of the already gathered money in a week. Even a socialist government couldn’t do it.
Destiny of people always seems unfair when they suffer the faith of a natural catastrophe but when they meet their death by the actions of men; nobody could care less.As usual I spent the holidays working. Not because I had to but because it goes much faster this way. Anyway here’s a Christmas story…kind of:
As I was leaving my work on the evening of December 23rd, someone whished me a merry Christmas then, after a few seconds, she took her words back, added that it would be more politically correct to say “happy holidays”…The day after, on Christmas eve – I spent the evening at Starbucks – just when I was leaving the coffee shop, someone came to me and asked me if I wanted to go to her Church the morning after…I declined for obvious reason but these two “non events” reminded me how much things can be so different in the States.France is allegedly a laic republic. I don’t believe it. People don’t believe in god because it’s fun, they don’t believe in god out of boredom; they believe in god because it’s in them. They have faith because they need faith. To think that the 3rd French republic got rid of this essential need in a population of forty million is ridiculous. Rather I think the republic took the place of the catholic religion in France. When you start seeing things this way it all makes more sense actually. Think about it. Nationalism is the faith of the citizens of the French republic. They believe in their government - blindly most of the time. Every five years they part for a long journey to the Mecca - city hall - and cast their vote hoping things will get better somehow, then wait for the absolution of their sins…which, in a republican world, mainly translate in the suppression of parking fines and the amnesty of small felonies.
I usually couldn’t care less about this matter but I can’t help but wonder how things will go when the French republic will have to deal with other religions (i.e. challengers)
Denver, November 18, 2004
I woke up this morning thinking of the national socialist ideology. An obvious contradiction struck me; how can someone be at the same time apologist of a superior being and a proponent of the use of violence to impose this so-called new man to the world? Even if the world we’re trying to create is just an arena full of gladiators; my point is that by definition this superior being should be able to impose himself alone. Of course that’s because before everything else I’m an individualist. I’m not against the doctrine of the new man as long as the game is open to all and the rules are those of the law - that is those of nature. I would never yield and surrender my freedom, my independence or my free will to any individual or any group of individuals who would try to impose his will by means of force.
Some– mainly communist for obvious reasons - tended to see both National Socialism and Fascism ideologies has being capitalistic. They had been proven wrong long ago but in essence the idea of new-men, of a superior being, can only be expressed in a free – that is capitalistic - environment. I can certainly understand why most countries would be so jealous of the United States. For centuries, empire after empire, rulers of the world have fanned the flame of nationalism using the length of their History, of their experience as a nation and/or as a people, as a means to measure what they thought was their superiority, looking back as far as they could in their past, using faded traces of their insignificant presence as an excuse for mass murder. Should I put names? Napoleon, Hitler, Ceausescu…that’s irrelevant. What is relevant is that the clash should have been expected. How could such countries react seeing the United States pretending that History was nothing? Pretending that hard work and will is worth centuries or millenniums?
Hatred is understandable now that the mask has fallen. Don’t get me wrong; for me there are no such thing has democracy in this world. There are democratic movements but no democratic regimes. I can’t imagine someone being naïve enough to think that he is in control just because he gets to elect which elite is going to fuck him for the next four or five years. Excuse my French…or don’t.
Few weeks ago, a French rapper had to face a jury. The French interior minister had sued him for slander. In his song he was denouncing the “everyday humiliations inflict to him and his like by the police” that the “reports from the interior ministry will never mentioned the hundreds of his brothers killed by the police” adding that the “murderers will never be prosecuted”. Nothing really we’ve never heard before in other countries by other rappers. If this rapper is guilty of anything it is to have stated the obvious. In a country like France it doesn’t take a degree in History to understand just that. I’m everything but an advocate of something that I would never even dare to call music. Rap is just not my thing. But if there’s one thing I hate even more that rap it is the attempt - of what I already consider to be a totalitarian state – to muzzle a musician even when I don’t agree with him. I don’t agree with half of the lyrics of my favorite singer Ani DiFranco and I totally despise someone like Michael Moore; but I understand their work. They are the few who counter-balance the everyday quest for power of our republics' rulers. The verdict will be public in a few days but freedom already lost. France is a country ruled by threat and self-censorship more than by law. The real verdict would be to see tomorrow if the rappers of France will surrender their freedom or dare to fight back.
I realize maybe I wasn’t clear…Yes the French police includes only murderers; whenever the French government needed it; they killed as many civilians as they thought necessary - that is to say by the thousands. They were ordered to kill - and if possible not to take any prisoner - during the revolt of 1871 as well as in 1961 and many times in between. Any government supporting these ignominious acts is an accomplice. Now sue me!
In an article dated July 12th 2004 in the French paper “Le Monde” a journalist was summing up the extant of the control of the current French administration, saying “Jacques Chirac, two years after his re-election at the presidency of the republic, just completed a system that ensure him a total control on all the main powers.” The list of good friends placed at the top of all the bodies of the state was endless...
Scholars have wondered for decades why revolutions are so violent in France. The answer is right there; Government pushing as far as they can, using nationalism and a total control of the French institutions – education being the main but certainly not the only one - as a means to blind the people and keep them asleep. Every now and then, people wake up and open their eyes…
I’m not an advocate of revolution. It’s just not up to me. I have a very precise idea of what freedom is about and I assume that every so-called democracy should tend to the idea of free men. If they go the other way they choose themselves the path to revolution: Their call, not mine.
Denver, November 3, 2004
Laughing already.
So beside the very subtle "all Americans are dumb" line of most of French propagandists - that's how I refer to Parisian journalists now - the question remains; what happened?
Well, first of all the complete lack of character of Kerry is something that most people can't stand. He built his whole campaign by identifying himself by opposition to the outgoing president instead of presenting any clear project for the next four years. He was stupid enough to spend the first months of the year blaming president Bush for the unemployment and the weak economy when everybody could tell that things were improving.
But in spite of all this he could have been the winner. His main problem was really a matter of positioning himself into the political field. President Bush has a really unusual position; He represents at the same time both the "big companies" and "the people" letting only a really narrow window for any other politicians to identify themselves without being too close in the political specter...When I say that he represents "the people" it is in no case only a demagogic stand from him: President Bush got the votes of the wealthiest and the poorest at the same time.
By opposing president Bush by any means he could think of, Kerry made it impossible to overlap any part of his competitor's electorate hence reducing his own "identification window".
This election proved something of great value; despite the incredibly loud anti-Bush campaign that took place during the previous months; people found a way to vote for whom they believed was the best candidate. This anti-Bush campaign had only one real effect; it made the latest polls more difficult to read but as far as the vote was concern, people have remained deaf to all the noise and got to choose their president quietly.
It's funny to see that when Fox News support president Bush it's called propaganda but when other medias (national or international) or public personalities do the same for the opposite candidate, nobody budges.
I heard something yesterday that I think really sum-up the whole issue; A person was asked if she had voted and the response was this; "They're both morons anyway. Why should I care?" - Deep.
I'm still laughing.
Denver, October 29, 2004
I've written before that democratic elections are no longer about voting for a candidate but more voting against one. I found several persons around me making the same comment recently.
Whether it's France in 2002, Spain in Early 2004, or the US in a few days now, the same reflex everywhere for all voters; voting against the candidate they can't stand. I think there are two reasons for that. The first one has to do with the way the medias work and sell their product (i.e. news, not information) bad news is always a good seller and nobody wants to hear someone talking about good deeds from a candidate whatever his political color. The second reason I think has to do with the lack of long-term objectives and with our own expectation in our next president. Even if there are challenges, none of them could trigger a wide-ranging participation and involvement of a majority of voters; War barely gather a significant part of the population anymore - though more for lack of a precisely identified enemy than for humanitarian reason - health, economy, environment and even education became secondary reasons for any voters without being replaced by any real shared interest. Historic circumstances are more responsible for the evolution of these motives than any real action from one political leader or another.
Modern democracies are funny though. People get to vote left or right every 4 or 5 years and most of them seem to content themselves with it. Let me see; you're in the middle of a big empty field; there are two planes; a red one and a blue one. You have absolutely no idea where these two planes are going...ready? Now pick one. Hum, let's see...you are flying for a 5 year journey and pretty much discover the landscape as it pass by your window. Still have the feeling to be in control of anything? Good. Me neither.
I hate people calling for a vote against G. W. Bush - I hate it so much I could actually vote for him if I was allowed to vote. A democratic vote is by essence an egoist choice. A voter who makes his choice because of what he heard from a journalist, a singer, a couple of actors or some politician is a tool and not in any case part of a democratic process. The choice has to be made based on first hand information; First hand knowledge. To cast a vote on second hand information is to cast a vote for the louder candidate. Not for the one who matches your beliefs.
The only question is; What can I expect from this candidate? If a few million people ask themselves the same question then yes, it could work. If you start voting for the beliefs or the needs of others - victims of a blind system - then you're cheating democracy. Want to vote for the poor? For the uneducated? What makes you think they will take into account your own needs when time has come to vote? And if they don't, one reality triggered two votes. You might as well ask cartoon characters to cast their votes too...
There's a huge discrepancy between Democracy in America and the way people cast their votes. Guilt and pity are driving more votes than reason and free will. I still think the United States are far from being the image of extreme capitalism; I happen to think that this version of capitalism is rather moderate actually, but even in this moderate form it is partly based on the principle of Darwinism and it's precisely here that the discrepancy is obvious. Democracy assume that the majority is stronger and from there the policy of the chosen government has to match the needs of the strongest. We might not like it but in any case the majority will decide using its own happiness, its own welfare and its own wealth as the instrument measuring their level of satisfaction in the current administration.
Beyond these general views, what is really surprising in this election is that for the first time there's a "politically correct" stand to take against one specific candidate. To have a public debate and celebrities taking this opportunity to announce their personal choice is obviously nothing new but this time there's a "right" side and an "evil" side. I expected this propaganda - let's be honest, that's nothing else - to have more impact on the public but strangely enough I don't think it had any. Today's poll gives pretty much 49% for both main candidates...That's a good thing. It's interesting to note that the debate has not been limited to the country but instead spread all over the globe. Most countries made their preference known long ago which is rather unusual.
If Georges W. Bush is reelected, I'm gonna laugh just thinking about these desperate celebrities and these political figure fading-out of the international scene and craving for a last minute of television or a few words that could nourish their extinguishing fame.
Denver, October 2004
About the page "Text of the week"; Supposedly, this page should be updated every week. In a perfect world that's true. Unfortunately I have other stupid things to do like work and other stuff so I update it when I can. And I have a social life too (that's how I call the long term relationship I have with a twelve year old scotch strangely named Red Breast). Someone who's always there for you and does not change, ever, is really reassuring to have at your side in time of crisis. I think people who never drink are extremists. I don't like extremists too much. I think one needs moderation in all things. I'm not talking about jumping out of a bridge with rubber bands attached to your feet every morning...just once in a while. Moderation is the key. I never understood how someone could convince himself not to do something, ever.
I keep changing my mind about translation. First I thought translation was a stupid and incredibly boring thing to do. Then for a few months I thought it was the most fascinating thing, a whole new world. Cast into the unknown, between two worlds, the translator has to fight his way through from one to the other endlessly.
The truth is, translation is a very frustrating thing to do. No perfect solution. No straight lines between two languages. Between two simple words; a immense chasm to cross. And beside, how can I even dare to translate something when I have so much respect for the original author? I'm so much in awe of some of them...Few months ago I started to translate a few pages of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". It wouldn't be accurate to say that this book changed my life but instead it actually confirmed my deepest beliefs in freedom and independence. I had my doubts before. Reading this book convinced me that I was right, that the ground I was standing on was the strongest. It convinces me that, yes, right and wrong DO exist. That it is our only duty to learn how to tell them apart. That men are free and not meant to be the slaves of any; their neighbors, their gods or their governments. I always knew it somehow and I believe the search for freedom, for happiness and independence is endemic to human nature. Each man is his own master.
It's actually not to bad to make a first translation; almost literal and then forget about the original and work on the translation to "clean" the whole thing. Cleaning being everything from simple punctuation change to a complete re-ordering of a specific phrase for either grammatical or esthetic reason. As usual I preach something I don't do; the current version (October 2004) is a first draft.I always despised the French Republic. More and more I think this republic holds the true France prisoner and has been doing so for the past one hundred and thirty odd years; since the murderers of the third republic killed the last revolutionaries, the last French men of the true France. I've found my own way to fight back. Hitting where it hurts; money. I stopped financing the very ones who wanted to destroy me. I left. I would encourage everyone to do the same but not everyone is ready; As Morpheus said "...And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it". It's fine. We have time. We've been waiting for so long, by we and beside myself, I mean Louise.Michel, Elisabeth Dmitrieff, Gustave Flourens, Charles Delescluze, Raoul Rigault, Gustave Paul Cluseret and even Louis Rossel. Some politicians are so arrogant that they think they won't have to pay for their crimes. That's insane. Everybody does. The time will come when others will terminate this parody of democracy. This time, as Lenin so well understood, there will be no mercy. And don't ask for any legitimacy. Revolution doesn't need legitimacy. It is its own legitimacy.
Can't wait for the barricade. But watch out reader, we might end up on different sides. No hard feelings but I'm gonna have to terminate you.
I started to work again on the translation of Atlas Shrugged some while ago. Part of it actually; a speech found inside the book under the name "THIS IS JOHN GALT SPEAKING" / CHAPTER VII. It will be available in the so-called "Text of the week" section.
The book is not available in French. I can't even imagine how censorship can be as deeply anchored in the French literary world as to have such a incredible book out of the shelves for several decades knowing that the book was called in the 50s the second most influential book after the bible.
I always found the idea of opposition between the man of spirit and the man of power fascinating. There are a few words on that in Hermann Hesse's novel "The Glass Bead Game : (Magister Ludi)". Or in H. L. Mencken words..."The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are.”
I guess I'm not a romantic after all.
Denver, June 2004
- I tend to see words, written or spoken, as light rays; once uttered, around forever. That’s why we should be very careful with them. But we should never forget that unspoken words always leave us in the dark.
- Each European country has a unique and very personal idea of its own history and its place in today's political landscape that is not shared by any of its neighbors. By going to fast in the building of Europe, they will be caught again in the turmoil of their own shameful past and forgotten deeds. By going too slowly, their people will get tired and bored; it is today's European catch 22.
- Extremist thoughts" is a pleonasm; "Extremist" is redundant
- At best, "National Education" is an oxymoron. In a nationalist country it is synonymous to brainwashing. Education can no longer be anything but international.
- "Education nationale" au mieux est une contradiction dans les termes. Dans un pays nationaliste; un synonyme d'aliénation, de dépendance et de servitude. Aujourd'hui, l'éducation ne peut être qu'internationale.
- All men should have the right to choose his enemies from whatever nation, ethnicity or religion without justifying his choice or criteria. I claim and demand this right and I will be happy to name my enemies those who don’t agree. War has always been the rule; not the exception and I wouldn't trust someone who says otherwise.
Denver, May 29th, 2004
Found this in Evelyn ShuckBurgh's diaries;
"The human body is the only instrument yet invented that makes more noise when it is well oiled" - Rear Admiral Lyman
"The art of diplomacy is to bring nations to the brink of war" - John Foster Dulles
The first one was aimed at a few middle east leaders during the 50s crisis.
Unilateralist.
Here we are again...Still bitching about that? How do you mean important? You know in a way we wanted the same thing. We both wanted the stronger to be the winner. We just don't agree on what defines the stronger. Basically, if I try to understand your point, you think that France, Germany, Russia and China should have "won" and by that I obviously mean, "Bent reality toward their will, whims, principles or ideological goals". May I speak frankly? You lose. Is there an American army in Iraq today? Is that what you wanted? Is Saddam Hussein still President? Is that what you wanted? Did you try to fight against all this? I'm afraid I can't call that a victory then...Why is that from your point of view? Because honestly, you're very loud but your rhetoric is the simplest I ever heard. You know, I wouldn't mind witnessing the total failure of your weak diplomatic attempts; nobody ever expected much from you on this anyway but I, at least, would have liked to see a certain depth in your analysis on the subject. That's where you could make a difference. The truth is; the stronger won but it was not the one you’d expected. You thought being in the majority would be enough to secure your victory? You were awfully mistaken. I wonder; what is this new law you're trying to impose on the world? A new law where the will of a weak majority would be stronger than a strong minority? Where is that coming from? Please do me a favor, try this at home first because last time I checked France was led by a strong minority; not by a weak majority. Isn't that ironic? You're the victim of your own elitism! See? You don't make any sense anymore.
So, you can complain as much as you want but let me say this; For me you're like a stupid kid, realizing for the first time that reality doesn't always match his little whim, that the world doesn't revolve around him. Grow up and quit whining before someone slaps you in the face.
"Spare the rod and spoil the child" is one lesson American and British should remember next time you beg for their help and their money.
You’re confusing yourself with the Messiah; is that because of your name? You’re not the moral center of the world – you never were no matter what Victor Duruy said. Even through their worst ordeal French never ran out of wine and as for the bread, the only thing France recently successfully spread, is her legs to welcome fascism and communism.
Of course you’re scared, you have every reason to be but there’s no use transforming your fright into hatred. And that won’t prevent the little French theater to collapse once the puppeteers get tired of playing their part in front of this ungrateful audience. Don’t you see? You’re alone on the stage, the music has ended and the hall is empty. How sad, how pathetic! So often death has rung the retirement of the most stubborn leaders. Can’t you just go on your own? Nothing noble in letting destiny taking the last decision for you.
Of course they will follow you down the dreadful path, they always do. Faithful servants, they will hate as you do. But then they will hate you, and they will destroy you before fighting their way back home, alone. What a waste of time.
Europe is not the end of France; it is its last means of survival.
"Je suis sur une scène de théâtre et je fais semblant d'y croire. Je fais croire que la France est un grand pays. C'est une illusion perpétuelle." - CDG (prêté à.)
Denver, April 10th, 2004
- Was war justified?
- Wrong question. Why use the past tense?
- Is war justified then?
- Always, but that's irrelevant.
- What's relevant?
- Whether or not it is a good thing is relevant. A good thing for the people, the one who make them, the one who suffer and die, the one who watch passionately, frightened or just curious, the one who comment, sourly.
- So if I understand you well, war could be a good thing ALSO for the people?
- Well actually, it is always a good thing from a certain perspective, very useful indeed.
- War?
- Yes.
- What perspective, if I dare to ask the question?
- For what it brings.
- And that would be?
- A sense of identity. The subjects, the goals, the people involved, these always change through history. They don't matter. Right or wrong has no meaning. In any case History is always right, it doesn't lie. Others have said that the winners write History but I don't like the implication of this statement. In order to declare a winner you would have to stop your judgment at a certain time, and doing so, is a negation of the fact that the most important effect of a war does not appears during the actual time of the conflict but after it's ended. And by that, it concerns much more people than the actors themselves and this, through a longer period of time.
- So, when can we judge?
- Never. It would be useless anyway. Obviously, you can have an opinion. You should actually. But what would you do with your judgment anyway?
- Condemn the guilty for instance. Avoid the mistake in the future.
- Guilty of what? Murder? There are no murderers in time of war and even if History repeats itself, the actors are never quite the same. Take the French revolution. Would you condemn the revolutionary? Take World War II, would you condemn the English for bombing German civilians? The Americans for Hiroshima? Why not also condemn Attila for killing eleven thousand virgins in Cologne?
- Well yes actually, I would. In all cases.
- But you can't enforce your own law.
- In any case this war is different. It's now and we can do something about it.
- Do what?
- Stop it!
- Then people have died for nothing. While in a year, in ten years, the meaning can be different, depending of the outcome. That's how we change the meaning of the past, by acting on the present. Dreaming of an alternative is useless. Any war, any revolution could have been stopped in the middle. But then, it's useless.- So you agree with them?
- No.
- But you don't condemn them?
- No. But I don't mind the ones we do. By opposing it, they find their own way to identify themselves too. Though it's usually better to define yourself by your own actions than doing so by the one you don't do. It's harder but it's more accurate.
- They shouldn't have come in the first place anyway.
- But what would have been the alternative?
- Well, no war!
- How do you know that? There are an infinite number of alternatives to History and we have the right to dream of any of these as much as we want but in any case it remains a game. The only thing that matters is reality.
- And all that for identity?
- It doesn't hurt if there are some material advantages, but yes, identity is priceless. Countries that can't identify themselves, people who fail to unify around a same ideology, can't exist for long. Eventually they die. It's a matter of survival really. Countries need a backbone. Something that defines them through time. For the United States, it's their constitution. Presidents come and go. It doesn't matter. Only the US constitution matters. If a government doesn't respect it, people are legally allowed to overthrow it. That's not only a right but also an obligation. Persia had the same feature thousands years ago. Very useful indeed. One of the most important tools of democracy. But the US constitution doesn't define what people are, only what people can do. The rules. Americans ought to define themselves by their daily behavior. That's probably where these feelings of dynamic, of movement you have, visiting an American city, come from. European nations think that what they see as a lack of identity comes from the young history of the country - at least compare to most of them - but they are mistaken. Nothing will change in this matter for the next two, three or four centuries. It can't. Which is good actually. Since individuals are different, if they are free, they can't define themselves as a group. Actually, you could even evaluate the freedom of a particular people by measuring their differences. By opposition, if they are alike, they are at the order of the majority who defines them. They are slave.
- And that's not true for other countries?
- It could. Maybe one day. For France, it's different. The backbone of France is not the constitution. It's the republican spirit. Constitutions come and go. Governments…well, let just say that France can have fourteen different governments in less than six years. It doesn't matter. It doesn't define French. Republicanism does and has been for more or less two hundred years. But this doctrine not only defines the basic rules under which people live but also what they are. For instance, for long there was no right of the people in the French constitution. Only the right of the citizens. That is, in order to have rights, one had to agree on being a French citizen, part of a laic republic. Even the fifth constitution barely mentions the rights of man. In their case, politic fills the void of religion and by doing so, it does its work. It's actually the other way around for an Islamic country but only because religion comes first. The backbone is Islam. That's the only thing that matters. The country itself can be a republic or a monarchy, and in both cases it can range from the worst dictatorship to the most open democracy. And it can change frequently through time but Islam remains. In most case a leader who wouldn't respect Islam rules would be overthrow in no time. Islam also, not only defines the rules, but also defines what people are. In this, it is actually much closer to the French doctrine. That's partly why they understand each other so well most of the time.
Denver, April 6th, 2004
Here again, fighting the invincible. Fighting myself too. Not knowing if I can help or if I'm actually the one that seems to always be in the way, slowing me down, out of breath; panting, aging, always older than I think. Broken English. Not quite so maybe. Shattered pieces of a precious but broken vase that I wish to see completed before my last hour. First the obvious, biggest pieces; easy, in the front, hit by a direct light. So obvious, nobody would expect them to be missing. Still, I had to go through all of them.
"Hi, how are you?"
From the first clumsy steps to the first inspiration.
Going round. Smallest. Not too obvious now. Faded sometime, inconspicuous pieces maybe. But how can we live without them? Pallid and distorted, quaint surely but essential."Am I still writing in the vernacular?"
Too far already, between two worlds who reject each other. Hidden pieces now.
How? How am I expected to sort them out? Alone? And since most of the pieces are not to be seen, why should I care about the invisible and the unknown?I read; "Photography wrest aesthetic representation from the debilitating consequences of auratic uniqueness, and cultic traditionalism is replaced with a secular reception by the masses who become the agents of speech and criticism."
I already know I won't stop, I always knew it but the question remains; Shouldn't I?
Denver, March 18, 2004
Three days. That was the length of the mourning period of Europe after the murder of two hundred people in Madrid, Thursday 17th March 2004. That’s all it took before the division of the European countries over Iraq exploded in the first page of their newspapers. As usual, French led the way of extremist thoughts by claiming how right their country had been to fight against the intervention in Iraq. Playing their favorite game of finger pointing, this time at the Spanish outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, they linked the bombing in Madrid to the support of Spain in the Iraqi conflict, without any consideration for the consequences of such a claim.
At a time where Europe should have showed a face of unity and strength toward the rest of the world, the French, once more, proved themselves to be the advocacy of division and isolation. By playing the childish game of “I told you so”, telling the world that Spain was victim of terrorism because of its involvement in Iraq (though the choice of word was usually “unconditional support of the United States”) the French politics played twice the game of the terrorist.
Not only, by doing so, they underlined even more the division of Europe which no doubt is one of the goal of the terrorist group responsible for the bombing but more important, they made the first step toward the legitimacy of the strike by acknowledging the link between the occupation in Iraq and the action of the terrorist which is at the heart of their claim.
To say that a country was right to avoid any implication in Iraq in order to avoid the possible threat of terrorist is pure cowardice.
Meanwhile, French failed again to see the big picture, which is the repercussion of the bombing upon the future of Europe. To see the accession to power of the left wing in Spain as “the failure of the Bush administration” is not only ridiculous, it’s dangerous. The radical changes that will take place in Spain in the near future will unfortunately exemplified the influence of terrorist actions in Democracy, sending the message that, yes, terrorism is actually a tool in today’s political landscape.
A few things that French newspapers should remember:
French not supporting the war in Iraq was not a surprise for anybody. France has always failed, no matter the threat, to get involve in foreign conflict, except obviously the one she actually triggered.
In the French symbolism, Americans and Jews are both rootless people and they both share the same interest in money. That the two more anti-Semite European countries happen to be the one opposing the more strongly the United States certainly doesn’t come as a surprise either especially at a time when Europe struggles to hide the resurgence of her hateful and past hatred.
Let’s be clear on one thing, whether a certain number of countries decide or not to put their signature on a document doesn’t and will never give them the right on life or death upon other people. The fact that France, Germany, Russia or China happen to say the same thing at the same time doesn’t make any of them the legitimate advocate of justice; it barely means that the share the same interest at the same time. Nothing more. The bombing of the United Nation offices in Baghdad sent exactly this message. European leaders bare the responsibility of failing to identify this and letting hundreds of employees work in the middle of the battleground without any adequate protection.
Denver, March 7th, 2004
French culture used to be about elitism. Either in Literature or in Philosophy, in Music as in Mathematics, there never have been any rooms for the second place. The artist whose targets were the best of judges had no other goal than excellence. It hardly was a choice; more a matter of survival. Several times in the history of France, artists have been crushed by the elite, even when they were awfully talented, because they were just slightly not at the level they were expected to be or, let’s face it, sometime also because their very talent exacerbated the jealousy of their peers. The human price to pay was high but the result was there; France, in spite of its size and the small number of its inhabitants, rose above most countries, and paved the way to modernity. Recognized by many for her quality in this matter, she became a haven for any artist, scientist or philosopher in search for a peaceful environment during the last two centuries.
In the other hand and during the same period, French politic culture never found the recognition of their foreign counterparts. In their eyes and no matter how ready they are to acknowledge the value of the French culture, France remains a country whose average life expectancy of a republic is about forty-five years, who several times in the history failed to protect her own citizen or failed to keep the promises made to others.
Even the most faithful advocates of democracy need to recognize the terrible impact of the struggle for equality upon Culture. Let’s face it. They win. Culture is now made for everybody. But this victory is a bitter one. The judges of the Art are now the representatives of the mediocrity. Artists are being judge by a crowd of conservators and the motto of this new era could be resumed as follow “Anybody can write music and anybody is qualify to judge it”.
The feeling shared by numerous people that our Culture underwent a decline during the past decades is growing everyday and the feeling of a loss becomes unbearable.
Is this decline the price to pay for democracy or can we find a way to keep the best of both worlds?
Hopefully yes. First, we need to be honest and see the equality of chances has what it is: a means to set a fertile and even creative environment for all but only that. The judgment cast upon the result should remain impartial and unbiased by our guilt of seeing the majority failed.
Another and actually more often acknowledged reason is the impact of the free market on our Culture. To put it simply: what we do is done for money and, in order to make money, needs to be aimed at the majority. To protect French culture is one of the most important responsibilities of our governments, and comes only second to the protection of the people themselves. From this came a policy that French like to call “l’exception culturelle” – exception in the sense that the rules applying for the free market should not apply for Culture in general. Unfortunately, this notion quickly drifted away. French politicians felt that the help and sometime the complete financing of cultural products would not be rewarded if these products were to compete with foreign and more popular products. The result, as we can easily imagine in a country with such a nationalist past, was an official policy to finance what is French…no matter what it is. Hence, in the French popular mind, French culture needs to be protected against everything else. No need to say that these protectionist ideas fed the feelings, already too salient, of the French superiority in all matters and actually missed its purpose for at least one good reason; diversity. Obviously, by stating the fact that what is French is by nature superior, we destroy the very idea of international competition but diversity used to be what French culture was about. Nobody can ignore or deny the positive influence of foreigners on the French culture. Some of them, by the deepest abnegation, came to personify France more than most of the French themselves: Albert Camus, one the brightest French mind on the 20th century was born in Alger. Jacques Brel, who sang about France like no other, was born in Belgium. Others, by their unrivaled talent, have influenced and inspired French culture in an indelible way: René Magritte or Salvador Dali.
To feed nationalist thoughts doesn’t help French Culture; it helps French politics in the way that it reinforces their hold on the people but it weakens and paralyses the French Culture by depriving it of its sources of influence.
French Culture is the first victim of French nationalism.
Denver, March 7th, 2004
General De Gaulle’s first speech after the liberation of Paris the 25th of August 1944 includes the following: “Paris abused, Paris broken, Paris martyred but Paris liberated by her own people, with the help of the armies of France, with the help and support of the whole of France, that is to say of the fighting France, that is to say of the true France, the eternal France.”
This has been called “his vision”; more of a hallucination if you ask me.
To remind France that American and English soldiers freed their country in the mid-forties is wrong; At best it reminds them that their modern history has been built on a lie, at worst it reminds them of their responsibility in the death of millions.
Denver, February 1st, 2004
Evil they said. Strong word if you ask me. How can a human being be called Evil? Genocide. Right. He's responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands. Still. Evil sound unreachable for any living creature. And what would be the opposite? We need one in order to know where we stand…God maybe? I don't think someone could be called God really. I guess they are just trying to convince us that his country, his people would be better off without him. Still. What right did you have to rid them of their leader?
Democratization. That's their excuse. How many time do we have to tell them? You can't force a democracy. You can't free people. They are the only one who can be responsible for their own revolution. The sheer base of the revolution lies on the people and democracy is their goal. This temporary government won't have any legitimacy. No matter what happens the new President will be called a puppet of the Americans. Whatever his skills or his religion. Have you thought of that at least? People of different faiths that will probably not accept him?
Whatever his first successes. How do you think they will react seeing their first Hollywood movies on TV or at the theatre? How do you think they will react when you try to force on them a new economy? A new way to think their own industry? Liberalism? Capitalism? It is not THEIR culture for Christ sake! Who said they wanted yours?
How long do you think it will take? Probably years. And meanwhile what?Bombing.
I'm a soldier. How do I feel about it? What do you think? They've never answered this question. I'm supposedly on the right side but am I? What makes me different? Don't you think I ask myself these questions? Day and night I think about it. Historians will fight over the legitimacy of it but I can't afford to wait twenty years to get my answers. I'm the one who bear the final responsibility, not them.
I can't see them but do you really think it's better? It's not. My mind keeps thinking about the people, the victims and their cries that I could almost hear…Still, I'm told I'm not a killer but where is the difference? Tell me.
The fighting will end. A temporary Government will come. Democratic election and then, the slow process of rebuilding the country with the countless doubts about each decision. The opposition, conservative, nostalgic of the past will fight against every step toward what they will call "Americanization". It will take several decades before we can see the word being replaced by another one; "Democratization" but first a whole new generation has to walk the land of democracy before they can even start to understand the real meaning of such a word.
That wasn't easy. But it worked. You can't say it didn't. That wasn't easy but finally Germans became responsible of their own future and that was our only goal wasn't it?
Denver, January 5th 2004
The Improbable Friendship
Reading French daily newspapers published during the last weeks of the year 2003, one could easily be surprised to discover the new and improbable friendship of France and Germany; The two names just don't go well together and I'm afraid they are a reminder of the worst for both countries. As if it was not enough that France seems to forget her oldest ally in the first months of the year, it also looks like she has forgotten the nature of her archenemy.
First let me clear a few things up; France and Germany are not friends, they never were and I doubt they will ever be at least in a near future. It is rather unfortunate that their respective leaders seem to put their friendship and personal interested above their countries'. To go through a exhaustive list of the differences of these two countries would represent a rather long and poor literature but let me say this: French don't speak German and don't spend their holidays in Germany (Actually, Germany is one of the last European destination for French travelers). French didn't share German's rather personal sense of humor when tourists started to come back to France in the early 50s wearing t-shirts "We're back" though our reaction was not quite as bad as Netherlands' for that matter. Culturally you couldn't think of any European countries with fewer links than these two and the time when one could say that "when French start to think, they think in German" is long gone. French don't watch German movies or TV series; they don't listen to German music (the all relative importance of a so-called German underground electronic scene notwithstanding) To finish on the subject by one of the most important jewel of the French culture let me just say that a German restaurant in Paris would probably drive even less people in than a Bangladesh one.
To sum up it would be safe to say that both countries have nothing in common. We could easily state the fact that France and Germany used to share the dream of a strong Europe (though not at the same time; the Former during the 1800s and the latter at the end of the 1930s) or be tempted to find a resemblance in their respective skyrocketing deficit for the year 2003 reaching for the first time the level of the United States deficit without the excuse of a tax cut or the spending of $1 billion every other week for a rather unpopular war…that would only be bad faith.So, what's happening?
Well, the forced alliance of both countries has two different sources; first economic and secondly cultural.
Yes, cultural. As improbable as it might first seems, the very fact that France and Germany have nothing in common represent for both the safest choice for an ally. The last decades of the 20th century taught us that every economic bound between two countries came with its counterweight; a cultural one. For a country like France who, by a lack of confidence in her own strength as well as a tendency for nationalism, has always been scared to death of any foreign cultural influence, the price to pay is just too high and rather unacceptable. France likes to see herself has an independent country and will always denies the possibility of an external and unwanted influence. It is worth pointing out here that this paranoid fear comes from France own colonial history and not from any reel attempt of any western countries. Unlike French colonialism, Anglo-Saxon colonialism aim has never been about changing the unfortunate people of the targeted country into their own kind. The episode of England in Ghana is quite revealing in that matter as the English troops occupied the south of the country for about 30 years before even noticing the existence of the Africa's richest kingdom living a hundred miles north of their positions. They couldn't have cared less. This represents a quite opposite view on the subject than the one exposed by French politician Jules Ferry in 1885 in his defense and justification of colonialism: "Superior races have a right and the obligation to civilize the inferior ones"The strongest foreign political and social influence to hit France remains communism and, unlike Britain, the United States or most of the Eastern countries of Europe, France never seemed to recognize it as a threat and instead welcomed it blindly to become the second biggest communist country of the free world in the early 50s (right behind Italy) playing (voluntarily or not) the game of the Soviet Union by refusing to sign the European Defense Community Treaty.
As for the economic meaning of this friendship, a quick look at the economic and social situation of both France and Germany tells a lot; While the United States proved themselves capable of coming out of the world economic crisis of the first years on the century with an almost arrogant 8.2% growth during the third trimester of the year 2003, France and Germany showed themselves incapable of reaching any decent growth level and had to revise severely their social promises. Though France seems to be able to maintain her economy (at least from a European point of view) a study published in Le Monde 8th August 2003 reveals that the monthly revenues for more than half of the French are lower than 1160 EURO. Germany's GDP per capita in PPS has been falling down for the past 8 years, bringing Germany to the 14th rank (8th in 1995) in Europe and her situation doesn't seen to have improved in 2003.
This economic downfall meant for both countries some severe cut in their social policy and they both needed to create new alliances in 2003. To be honest, these economic difficulties can't be entirely blamed on their national policy. Surely, the fake tax cut organized by the French government this year didn't help (In French "Impôt" is the word used to refer to the income tax while "Taxes" refers to (but not only) the property tax. French government used this distinction, with the help of a complaisant press from both right and left wing, to communicate ad nauseam on an imaginary "baisse d'impôt" (lower income tax) while increasing the property tax. Obviously the only person who would pay less tax in France in 2003 would be a homeless worker) and the total inaction of Gerhard Schröder during his first years as Chancellor didn't really help Germany either but one the most important explanation of the inability for both countries to get back on the track of a reel economic growth can be found in the European policy, and lies mainly in the hand of the ECB.
Unlike the Federal Reserve who lowered substantially the interest rates in the past three years, the European Central Bank refused to follow this path using the good old excuse of the potential problem of an uncontained inflation...Well, the truth is, and the numbers speak for themselves (GDP per Capita of Greece, Spain as well as Portugal, Ireland and others has shown a very significant increase for the past 8 years), the ECB economic policy was absolutely not intended for France nor Germany. Instead the goal was to reduce the gap between relatively "strong" countries and the so-called "weakest" countries struggling at every European meeting in order to make themselves heard.
Germans' and French interests no longer prevail in today's European policy and until Europe can found a way to balance its economic and social goals with the national interests and specificities of its 24 members, France and Germany will have to find some support elsewhere.After the events of March 2003 and even if it appears to be for all the wrong reasons, France had to turn herself to the East to find new economic partners without - at least French seems to think so - any cultural counterweigh. China, as one of the fastest growing countries (thought to become the second's strongest economy in 2020) was the obvious first choice - and not only for France - during the 1990s and as recent events have shown, Russia is the second choice for France and Germany as they were both quite quick to look the other way in the Chechnya conflict - So quick actually that the HRW organization had to ask Gerhard Schröder to clarify his policy on the subject in an open letter dated Sept 7th 2001.
In order to strengthen direct links with Germany and Russian and to express her disagreement with European policy, France had to loosen her connection with Europe and, for this purpose, used the simplistic but effective solution she had already used in the past; she proposed a Constitution for Europe then append a few unacceptable annexes and waited for the refusal of others…
In order to win the support of the French people as well as to insure and strengthen his position as French President, Jacques Chirac had to play a very dangerous game. The endless criticism of France about the coalition's policy in Iraq as well as the countless attempt to denigrate any success surely serve the interest of the French president but unfortunately had a rather negative effect in the already to strong feeling of national identity in France. A poll published in Le Monde (Dec 9th) reveals that one French out of four support the idea of J.M. Le Pen (the far right leader) and that 28% wouldn't be shocked by the idea of a far right representative governing their region. Nationalist ideas are by no means the privilege of France and the unwillingness of EU to release a report on anti-Semitism in Europe doesn't give us much hope for the year 2004.
With such a policy toward the West and Europe, France will certainly find herself quite isolate in the coming year. Though she already tried to blame the United States for it (see Le Monde Dec 24th) let me just borrow a few words from a speech of the German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer in 1955; "Nobody wants to isolate France; France choose to isolate herself from Europe and the United States". It looks like History repeats itself.