lundi 25 juillet 2011

IBM et la société de contrainte


Un matin, dans Le Monde, une pleine page d’IBM « pour une planète plus intelligente ». Puis de multiples placards au fil des mois, des journaux et magazines, développent ce slogan en longs textes programmatiques par thèmes — la ville, les transports, l’entreprise, la santé, etc. — et vous vous rendez à l’évidence : IBM fait campagne pour un projet techno-étatique global.
Si vous avez quelques réflexes, un peu de curiosité, de sensibilité à la question, vous tâchez de comprendre ; vous remontez la trace d’International Business Machines. Éventuellement vous redécouvrez une vérité énoncée en 1943, lorsque IBM collaborait de toute son ardeur et de toute son expertise à la « solution finale » : « L’ensemble des citoyens du monde est sous la coupe d’un monstre international. » Mais encore ?
IBM, à l’origine de l’essor des nanotechnologies grâce à l’invention, en 1981, du microscope à effet tunnel dans ses laboratoires de Zürich, travaille maintenant à la numérisation du monde grâce aux puces, capteurs et connexions rendus possibles par ces mêmes nanotechnologies. Un projet de pilotage du monde-machine (cybernétique), qui complète celui de l’homme-machine sous implants électroniques. Bref IBM travaille à la société de contrainte.
Si la police est l’organisation rationnelle de l’ordre public, et la guerre un acte de violence pour imposer notre volonté à autrui, cette rationalisation et cette violence fusionnent et culminent dans la technologie, par d’autres moyens. Le nanomonde, ou techno-totalitarisme, est l’une de ces vérités qui ne peuvent se regarder en face. Peut-être parce que ceux qui s’estiment au fait, militants, journalistes, scientifiques, croient aussi n’y rien pouvoir ; et donc ils parlent d’autre chose pour s’étourdir, faire diversion et sauver la face.
Habitant Grenoble, nous n’avons pas ce loisir. C’est ici, en ce moment, que le Musée Dauphinois présente une exposition luxueuse et retorse, à la gloire de Vaucanson et de l’homme-machine, « augmenté ». C’est ici qu’IBM s’est implanté en 1967, dans les locaux de l’Institut de Mathématiques Appliquées (IMAG) et s’acoquine aujourd’hui avec le Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique, dans le plan Nano 2012. C’est Michel Destot, maire de Grenoble, ancien ingénieur au CEA, qui contribue au projet d’IBM de « planète intelligente » et fait l’apologie de la cité-machine de Singapour. Ce papier était en cours de rédaction quand nous avons appris l’arrestation en Suisse de trois anarchistes accusés d’avoir voulu faire sauter un laboratoire d’IBM, à Zürich. Nous ignorons leurs motifs et le détail des accusations, mais une chose reste sûre à nos yeux : quels qu’ils soient, ces révoltés ne se sont pas trompé de cible.
pdf COMPLET:

Proletarians of all nations: caress yourselves!


Founded in 1970, the Homosexual Front of Revolutionary Action brings together more than 4,000 militants in France who have decided to show themselves. Everywhere and by all means. "Class struggle goes through the body."
"Having no reason for being other than desire, homosexuality is the living negation of false values, sacrosanct institutions and all roles. It is the absolute negation of the world such as it is."
"Lesbians and faggots, let's raze the walls. Let us leave the dumps and the ghettoes!"

Every Thursday for the last two years, in a hall at the Ecole des beaux-arts, 300 to 400 young men, several dozen young women, very young for the most part, meet up, recognize each other, speak with each other. Each evening, newcomers, a little lost because they have suddenly been placed outside of their solitude or their province, seek each other out. We are a general assembly of the Homosexual Front of Revolutionary Action (FHAR [Front homosexuel d'action revolutionnaire]). For two hours, and sometimes longer, we don't do anything [special]. Several young men make an announcement or provide information; someone writes a slogan on a board; another passes around photos of the most recent demonstration in which the FHAR participated; yet another get made-up. Such is (or, rather, was) the nocturnal life of the Beaux-Arts this past June [1972]. Because certain waterfront dwellers have signed to petition to ban them, the Thursday general assemblies will no doubt not be convened this autumn, at least, not in the same place. . . .
These open, general assemblies, which recall the smoky general assemblies of May 68, were quite different from the atmosphere of the "dumps" ["boites"] traditionally reserved for homosexuals: ghetto-dumps.[1] Also very different from the Arcadie club, which -- founded 19 years ago by Andre Baudry -- was long the only spot in which homosexuals could get together so as to fight against the conditions that society imposes upon them: today, Arcadie includes 15,000 members, who are involved in its journal and its club, who organize conferences-debates and receive medical benefits and social assistance. At FHAR, there is no membership card, only badges, and quite recently a newspaper produced by a working group. But almost everywhere, in the provinces, in the high schools, FHAR groups are being founded and FHAR descends upon the streets at every demonstration. Several thousand people, scarcely 0.2% of French homosexuals, [this is] a revolutionary fringe, but [also] an international force, because there currently is a liaison between all of the revolutionary homosexuals in the form of the Revolutionary Homosexual International. From 9-11 September [1972], there was a seminar in Denmark on the sexual minorities, and FHAR was invited to attend. On 15 October, on the initiative of the Italian Front, a large meeting took place in Milan to prepare for the 1973 Congress at Paques. An international newspaper, International Politico-Sexual Information Sheet,[2] was founded. This newspaper is a liaison-paper produced in Paris and distributed in a dozen [other] countries. Like the American G.L.F. (Gay Liberation Front[3]), from which it issued, the FHAR participates deeply in the myth and its activists do not refrain from entertaining it, because they have charged themselves with liberating themselves from other myth, a very powerful one, which is that of homosexuality. It is more against received-ideas and the form of society that guarantees them than against the laws that the FHAR decided to struggle, and in this the FHAR goes even further than its sponsors, the G.L.F., by resolutely placing itself outside of all "unionist" or "reformist" perspectives.
Of course, everyone seeks to aid each other and, from the provinces, FHAR receives many appeals in distress. Of course, everyone fights against the institutionalized repression of the "hetero-cops" ("those who erect their heterosexuality as the only form of love and profit by repressing those who do not imitate them") that is manifested by [legislative] ordinances and sub-amendments. The ordinance of Vichy, promulgated in 1942 and confirmed on 8 February 1945 in fact declares that anyone "who commits an immodest act or an act against nature with an individual of his sex, less than 21 years old," will be sentenced from six months to three years in prison, and fined from sixty to fifteen-thousand francs. But the model of the genre remains the Mirguet sub-amendment voted upon by the National Assembly on 30 July 1960, which decreed that homosexuality was "social plague" like alcoholism or procuring for prostitutes. And if the newspaper of one of the political groups (the French section of the Revolutionary Homosexual International [I.H.R.]) took The Social Plague as its title,[4] this choice strangely recalled the Communards' slogan "They are the rabble and, well, so I am"[5].
What in reality is the FHAR? We have posed this question to the activists, the "political ones," the members of the I.H.R., the "spontaneous" (the Gasolines)[6] and the lesbians (the Red Dykes).
The "political ones" participate in "initiatives" or assemble following their affinities into groups numbering between six and 30 people. There are five such groups in Paris (three of them constitute the French section of the I.H.R.) and 15 such groups do the same work in the provinces. Some of these groups publish newspapers: Le doight au cul ["Finger in the ass"] in Nice and The Social Plague by the I.H.R.
Remi, 25 years old, employee (I.H.R.): "Before the FHAR existed, for many of us it was solitude, isolation, and guilt. Before the FHAR, I did not belong to a political group, [because] none of them gave a place to sexuality and wouldn't accept me. What the FHAR provides is the faculty of struggling without compromise for the revolution, without putting sexuality aside, without denying who one is. One of the great strengths of the FHAR is that it mobilizes people who have no need of making an intellectual effort to understand why they fight. All the Leftist groupings need a few workers to fight for them! But we do not need to seek out homosexuals, we are all homosexuals, we are all proletarians!
Alain, 30 years old, graphic artist (I.H.R.): "Our revolutionary ideal is alive and not content with phrases. It isn't because I have read Marx that I have more to soak up! The Leftists who rejected us at the beginning now try to recuperate us, just as they did with the women. . . . But we have already passed the stage of Leftism and we must take a position that is critical with respect to it. Not marching to a cadenced step, like the O.A.J.S. Do not take us too seriously."
For the working group that meets in the IIth arrondissement, the retreat from Leftism is less great.
Rene, 22 years old, student (Group 11): "What we want is to pose the problem of sexuality in the context of a general questioning of society. We are not a union of homosexuals; we address ourselves to the people who are aware of society's problems and want to transform it. One can pose the problem of sexuality as such, but it is necessary that sexuality is relative to a historical situation and that the roles attributed to the different sexes are transformable. The heterosexuals impose on us a neurotic perception of our sexuality and, in fact, they oppress our heterosexuality. At the limit, we can cultivate the homosexuality that we take up as a provocation, but I no longer consider it as a point of departure. We refuse to guarantee a uniquely sexual approach."
How do these groups conceive of their work? Refraining from giving an alibi to the Communist Party or the Leftist groups, they try to find means of expression that are their own and in which they can mock the "irony" of L'Aurore or Minute[7] (which speaks of the "pink" front without recalling that the homosexuals condemned to death by the Nazis were forced to bear a pink triangle on their uniforms in the camps) or the accusations of L'Humanite[8] (which likens homosexuals to perverts and sick people). Addressing itself to "professional revolutionaries," The Social Plague (organ of the I.H.R.) presents the following program.
Several propositions.
1) Homosexuality doesn't exist (only in the heads of those who believe themselves to be heterosexuals or those so-called heterosexuals who have managed to persuade [us] that they are homos).
2) Heterosexuality also doesn't exist; sexuality can only be global and cannot suffer partition or division; any specification is arbitrary and illusory, and behaviors are fixed according to archetypes that our culture has proposed.
3) Any specialization is invented and flattered by the dominant class to favor some to the detriment of others, and vice versa, so as better to impose itself; moreover, transgressions that do not involve a modification of social status are perfectly tolerated.
4) Homos and heteros have equal title to being victims of the system; they are simply utilized, exploited and oppressed in different ways. . . .
5) "Normal" and "natural" are words to be banned; nothing that concerns mankind is natural; by leaving the animal kingdom to become social, the human biped has abandoned everything natural; he/she is freed from nature. Nothing that is specifically human is natural.
6) [We must] Rethink the raising of children in a non-authoritarian way, assuring their free development (nothing in common with the bidon experiments, of either the Freinet or Summerhill types).
7) Destruction of the family as a repressive and hierarchicalized mini-society.
8) Destruction of all roles.
9) Destruction of all "scales of value"; value is a bourgeois notion.
10) Culture is a bourgeois notion.
11) All physical or intellectual domination of one individual by another is a deviation from the sexual instinct (domination of men over women, of adults over children).
12) The goal of the revolution isn't the seizure of power by the "proletariat," it is the destruction of the very ideas of power and proletariat.
13) The concept of "class struggle" is to be completely re-thought.
14) Democracy is a latrine.
15) The generalized self-management of life.

The Gasolines: "Getting made-up is a way of life."
Refusing the "recuperation" of the political groups, refusing all hierarchy and all authority within the FHAR, and having a genius for provocation, the Gasolines (or the "crazy" partisans of spontaneity) within the FHAR are not a political group but a group of "behavior." No structure, no meetings, no newspaper. But they know how to fight; three of them overturned a police car during the confrontations in Charonne after the murder of Pierre Overnay.[9]
Marlene (Alain), 20 years old, student: "I have had it with activist relations! Discussions about the Russian Revolution of 1905 and the short works by Lenin: that's the University! What we want is the total transformation of life. One only makes revolution if one lives it permanently, in everyday life. We are not social revolutionaries; we are revolutionaries of the current moment. We will construct the next barricades in evening gowns."
Zohra, 25 years old, journalist: "We are activists who have problems with the fashions, with coiffure, with make-up. Getting made-up is a way of life, of expressing oneself immediately. Verbal expressions are gratuitous. The gesture is efficacious and in the streets the Gasolines are ingenuous."
Marc, 26 years old, worker at a marketing firm: "We have a communal trunk and we get made-up for all the demonstrations. Obviously those who adore going to Madame Arthur or Alcazar[10] cannot tolerate seeing the same [type of] thing in the streets, which means we are often harassed at the cafes in Montparnasse. . . . But our make-up is neither a travesty nor a provocation."
Daniel: "One doesn't play with madness. One lives it. There is no journal. If there is one, one is behind in one's revolution. Personally, I work in an administrative office. I have a rose in my ear, I call my colleagues 'Dear.' People end up loving us and not only accepting us. Gasoline means 'revolution of the peas.' There is a kind of catharsis or dynamic in finding oneself together and it aids in the liberation of one's workplace and oneself. But what is effective and enriching is what each person does and not what he says here. The FHAR is useful as a forum, as a dimension without dimension. If it was an end in itself, it would be completely stupid. . . ."
The Red Dykes: "The heteros are happy to reproduce us."
As we have said, there are few women in FHAR. (This is striking during the general assemblies.) At the beginning, things weren't this way, but the general assemblies quickly became masculine for two reasons: 1) the difficulty of integrating young women into a group, because they aren't used to it; and 2) the different degrees of oppression that have been lived, double in that it affects them as women and as homosexuals. The Red Dykes say the young women in FHAR assume their physical sexuality but still aren't liberated. They still have a way to go. They are at the stage of self-defense and thus often at the stage of provisionally closing themselves off. They have the courage to respond to aggression with aggression. But they still haven't reached the level of verbalizing with the others.
The Red Dykes (this is the name that homosexuals have given to the group that they constituted within the M.L.F.[11]) have abandoned the general assemblies to work in groups. There are two hundred of them in total. In Nice, Marseilles, Caen, Lille and Lyon, many of them participate in the creation of FHRA groups because, in the provinces, the M.L.F. cannot support them (the M.L.F. is too reformist!). On 13 May 1972, they participated in the Days Denouncing Crimes Against Women by showing up and engaging in debate with the audience:
"There are homosexuals onstage but also in the audience. If we mount the stage, it is because we are no longer ashamed. One has buried us in silence; one has insulted us because we refuse to submit to the laws of the phallocrats and the hetero-cops. We are fundamentally subversive. We are homosexual by choice of pleasure. Our pleasure is neither masturbation for two, nor psychosexual infantilism, nor a caricature of male/female relations. We are creatures of pleasure outside of all norms. We are lesbians and we are happy to be lesbians."
Catherine, 22 years old, student: "Thirty-five percent of women whom one calls heterosexual haven't any sexuality. They practice coitus but feel no pleasure. I have seen heterosexual women who are more anti-male than lesbians. Homosexuality is a myth in the sense that it is a word attached to a practice that is in itself like all the practices, perfectly partial with respect to what the individual is. One cannot say that there exists a homosexual personality, a homosexual social comportment, or a family structure that produces homosexuality.
"The myth creates separate existence, particularity. There are homosexuals who imitate the myth and who use it. Very different in attitude. If one must take up the myth in part, it is only so that the [other] people truly believe in our homosexuality. If it is enough that a young man wears a beard or is accompanied by a young woman for one not to believe that he is homosexual and that this demolishes his discourse and possibilities of action, then it is necessary that he should put a carnation in his hair! The myth is so strong that we are obliged to make use of it ourselves, but as a weapon against the dominant heterosexuality, to destroy people's defenses."
Anne-Marie, 27 years old, administrative executive: "The FHAR, being a homosexual front, is a sexual front. Heterosexuality isn't sexual, it is reproductive. Forced to confront the image of sexuality as pleasure and the blossoming of the individual that we have proposed to it, heterosexuality can only find itself transformed.
"The FHAR is not structured. It is a myth and will remain one, among the small groups of people who continue to maintain that myth. It is more important that this is a myth than a party organized like the others, because homosexuality is itself a myth. It would be quite comic to organize it in a bureaucratic fashion! Any 'structure' of the homosexual movement could only be an inverted world in which the heterosexuals would be 'anormal.' Has someone attempted this? I belong to the movement to liberate heterosexuals! As a frenzied sympathiser. . . .
"It is heterosexuality that feeds us and produces us. But by constituting ourselves politically, we recreate our own forces. But the heterosexuals are happy to produce us! We will raise ourselves and we will raise their children, who will be like us!"
http://www.notbored.org
[signed]
  FRANÇOISE TRAVELET[12]

[Author's] Bibliography[13]

Francoise d'Eaubonne, Eros minoritaire (Balland, 1970).
F.H.A.R.,
Rapport contre la normalite (Champ Libre, 1971).
Daniel Guerin,
Autobiographie de jeunesse (Belfond, 1972).
Phillippe Naboun,
Sexe en prison / Plaisir contre les principes
Special issue of
(Nouvelles editions polaires, 1972) (no billposting and prohibited to people under the age of 18).Partisans: Sexualite et repression (Maspero, 1966).
Reimut Reiche,
Sexualite et Luttle de classes: Defense Contre La Desublimation Repressive (Traduit De L'allemand Par Catherine Parrenin Et Franz Josef Rutten) (Maspero, 1971).
Maria Sylva Spolato,
Les Mouvements homosexuels revolutionnaires (1971).

(First published in French in Gulliver, #1, November 1972. Translated by NOT BORED! 31 May 2008. All footnotes by the translator.)

[2] English in original.
[3] English in original.
[5] See the song "L'Eveil de la classe ouvriere," words and music by J. Darcier and J.B. Clement (1871).
[6] The "Gazolines" splintered off from the Homosexual Front for Revolutionary Action in 1972. Folded in 1974. Among their members were Marie-France, Helene Hazera and others. Known for dressing in drag and playing upon madness, the group also engaged in confrontational behavior, including overturning a police car during a demonstration against the destruction of les Halles.
[7] French rags.
[8] Communist Party rag.
[9] Young Maoist shot dead by security forces at Renault in 1972.
[10] Presumably ghettoized gay hot spots.
[11] Women's Liberation Movement.
[12] Best-known for her books about the French anarchist musician, Leo Ferre.
[13] We have corrected the many typos in this list and have filled in publication data when missing.

dimanche 24 juillet 2011

Techno, le son de la technopole


Technopoles, habitat des nouvelles élites, ingénieurs, techniciens, chercheurs ; parcs des nouvelles technologies, robotique, biotech, informatique. Partout, depuis les années 1980, prolifèrent les colonies de la cyberville globale, postes avancés du techno-monde unifié. A cette époque triomphale de l’histoire du machinisme, et à ces hommes-machines si bien de leur temps, il fallait nécessairement une bande-son, expression et célébration de cette fierté machinale, du besoin de donner la cadence et d’y régler leurs organismes, et peut-être de celui de s’éclater, se défoncer, se déchirer, afin de fuir dans la possession leur mécanique condition post-moderne. Sans blague. Entre techno-musique et technopole, il y a bien davantage qu’un préfixe.


Le prélude est à télécharger ci-dessous en PDF.

Prélude

Février 1968. « La France découvre qu’elle a une métropole de l’an 2000. Grenoble, c’est Brasilia », s’enflamme Paris Match1. Un coup de pub monstre, que la ville doit aux Jeux olympiques d’hiver. Le pays découvre le « laboratoire grenoblois », que les sociologues et économistes à gages n’ont cessé depuis d’ériger en modèle, et qui fait la fierté des élus locaux. Ce « mythe grenoblois », c’est la technopole, cette « métropole de l’an 2000 » fondée sur l’alliance entre la recherche, l’université, l’industrie et les pouvoirs publics, civils et militaires, et dont l’innovation, à la fois moteur et but perpétuel, impose ses lois au territoire et aux habitants.
Grenoble, c’est Brasilia – voyez le monolithe de béton qui lui sert d’hôtel de ville – c’est « la Silicon Valley française », la capitale des ingénieurs et techniciens, pionnière inter pares de la technification du monde. De la « houille blanche » domestiquée par Aristide Bergès en 1869, aux laboratoires de robotique et aux technologies convergentes de Minatec, NanoBio et Clinatec – nanotechnologies, biotechnologies, informatique, neurotechnologies ; de l’Association des producteurs des Alpes françaises des années 1920 au pôle de compétitivité mondial Minalogic de 2010, elle a fourni le mode d’emploi de la technopole, aux avant-postes de la modernité et du Progrès triomphants, prête aujourd’hui pour la « planète intelligente », interconnectée, numérique, cyberpilotée.

En 2008, la ville de Grenoble se porte derechef candidate à l’organisation des Jeux d’hiver de 2018, décidée à réitérer son « bond en avant » de 1968 grâce à la manne étatique, à coups de rocades urbaines, de gratte-ciel et de technologies de pointe. Afin de séduire le Comité national olympique français, la municipalité organise pour deux millions d’euros des « Jeux de
[NDE : Le Dauphiné libéré] neige » en pleine ville, avec compétition de snow-board sur neige naturelle transportée par camions et grande fête techno sur la colline de la Bastille, site emblématique de la ville. « Une formidable vitrine », explique la mairie aux Grenoblois qui renâclent à ces dépenses. Le Daubé [NDE : Le Dauphiné libéré], partenaire de l’événement, interroge avec une impertinence inédite la vedette locale – à la renommée internationale – de la soirée électro, le DJ The Hacker : « L’événement “Jeux de Neige”, c’est de la com’ ? » Réponse de l’intéressé : « Je m’en fous. J’aurais pu faire la fine bouche il y a quelques années. Maintenant, pour une fois qu’il y a une bonne grosse soirée électro à Grenoble, je ne vais pas cracher dans la soupe.2 »

samedi 23 juillet 2011

Un pays tranquille

 Le vrai visage de la Norvège ?
«Les gens doivent savoir ce que les merveilleuses doctrines multiculturalistes ont fait à l'Europe : la destruction systématique de la chrétienté européenne, des traditions, de la culture, de l'identité nationale, et de la souveraineté»
Fameux penseur ce bisounours norvégien nourrit au biberon de la rente pétrolière, ancien diant-diant en business   et plein de haine confuse, un pur produit de son époque...

"...Le père d'Anders Breivik, divorcé de la mère du suspect peu après la naissance du garçon, explique dans un quotidien norvégien avoir perdu contact avec son fils depuis 1995, lorsque celui-ci avait 15 ou 16 ans. "Nous n'avons jamais habité ensemble, mais nous avions quelques contacts durant son enfance", explique le retraité norvégien. "Lorsqu'il était plus jeune, c'était un garçon ordinaire, mais renfermé. Il ne s'intéressait pas à la politique à cette époque." 

Le père biologique et sa nouvelle femme, qui habitaient à Paris, ont alors demandé la garde du garçon, mais ils ont été déboutés par la justice norvégienne. "J'ai eu une bonne relation avec lui et sa nouvelle femme jusqu'à mes 15 ans", écrit le meurtrier présumé, qui dit leur avoir rendu de fréquentes visites en France..."

To Jean-Pierre Baudet and Jean-Francois Martos

9 September 1987
Dear Jean-Pierre, Dear Jeff:
 
Since you have asked for my opinion of your anti-EdN[1] text (and I think, as you do, that its weaknesses will surely be exploited to the limit by such adversaries), I advise you, without the least hesitation, to renounce its publication in this form. Certainly the epigraphs and at least half the text constitute a very exact demonstration of many of the adversary's faults, if not all of them. But the general tone, the sequencing, a certain lack of clarity, and an air of obvious discontent that nevertheless strives to remain moderate seriously condemns the ensemble. It would be necessary to discard half of the development (I do not even speak of the illustrations, which are unworthy of a subject that does not make one laugh).
I will define the essential this way: if this was a polemic with people of good faith, on an external and important subject, then certainly your position would be quite clearly expressed and would be sufficient to relocate the subsequent discussions to the most profound and serious bases. But the very subject of your intervention, the occasion that has caused this necessity, is precisely the fact that these are not[2] people of good faith; and that no discussion is possible and that it is this fact that you wish to indicate: the dazzling contrast -- perfectly visible since December [1986] -- between all that they claim and all that they actually are. You could very well abandon this debate, because each of you currently has better things to do with your personal efforts, but if you desire to continue it, then there is no other manner of doing so than in the truly radical line of what was evoked in the letter (by Jean-Pierre) of 3 July: the denunciation of an imposture. That is to say, it is completely vain and even ridiculous to pursue a polemic on this subject with people who have written what they have written to do. It is necessary to come to definitive conclusions.
So as to be in conformity with the excellent rule of Clausewitz, "never critique a means without indicating another," I can easily evoke for you clear conclusions, which are very possible and of which the superiority is obvious. (This is, of course, very summarized, and does not at all constitute a plan). First of all, I believe that the title must instead be The Encyclopedia of Powers.[3]
1) Everyone begins to be disappointed, remarking that the EdN, after a very brilliant beginning, has visibly turned in a circle for the last few issues: not clearly showing what it wants to become; and even seeming unconcerned with knowing where its circular repetition of generalized blame (which certainly the era merits) leads. One begins to see why, by discovering the manner in which it envisions the least intervention into practice. The occasion that was given by the movement of the high-school students in November [1986] and the EdN's strangely impassioned judgment of a detail in these struggles.
2) The EdN is nothing other than a literary exercise. It is a matter of treating, for as long as this monotony can be maintained, a theme that is actually quite rich: the multiform poverty of the epoch, which -- naturally and by postulate -- is treated from above. This is the only goal. Thus, it is not necessary to identify this group too much with the Bakuninist reveries of the "Hundred International Brothers," but instead with certain tactics of the surrealist group on the terrain of galleries of paintings or certain journalists. (And the attempt of the EdN to regroup anti-nuclearists, since the old "anti-nuclear Left" is -- fortunately -- annihilated, resembles the intervention of the surrealists in the anti-fascism of 1934 ("Counter-Attack"), which was at the origin of the unfortunate Popular Front![4])
3) Through an interposed person, ([Guy] Fargette -- and you have already very well developed this aspect of presence/absence through the medium of F.) -- this band has acted just like the journalists of the moment: flattering the high-school students (by appealing to them to remain students) for all that they have not known and all that they have not done; in short, for not falling into the "archaic" error of wanting to restart [19]68 (of which the students are ignorant, while the EdN knows it by heart). If the movement of 68 had succeeded, there would not have been a place for the EdN (terrible impression of retrospective menace from the "writers," who thus feel a little like inhabitants of Versailles). And if 68 was only a little better known by the young rebels, it would no longer have had a place in the discourse of the EdN, which in no way envisions a new departure for the revolution, but which only makes abstract critiques of the Restoration, quite modernized in the accumulation of repressive procedures, but not at all new in theory after 68. The EdN wanted to be -- and was effectively until now -- the owner of the sub-critique of such an epoch of Restoration. (In the political meaning of the word, they are indignant liberals, who pretend to discover unexpected and unheard-of excesses.)
4) Above all, this group sought the old public of the pro-situs, who were always their commensals, by playing them music that they love. The fantastic number of plagiarized phrases in the EdN makes it the precise anthology of this style (and thus truly extremist on this point).
5) Furthermore, what is this group really? Who exactly is an Encyclopedist? There is an aspect of central-intelligence maneuvering through people whom one can always disavow, and an aspect of [publishing] on the author's account: like the publications of "The Universal Thought of the Nuisance," in which everyone can in sum pay to have his little work printed (or even to be relieved of this task by belonging to the mysterious Encyclopedist Club).
6) Furthermore, this is an Encyclopedia in which there is no new critical idea. It repetitively pronounces on all of the aspects of current society -- with good reason, furthermore, but also with much facility -- the same condemnation. As for individual polemics, if it is true that it is truly a novelty to see them now fulminating against the rioters (no doubt by using the style of an authority on the subject), they are most often devoted to plagiarizing from ridiculous "mediatic" cadavers, always the same ones (find the truly obsessional list). In sum, they kill again their [5]rivals who are better-known, but also quite a bit more discredited, in the "representation" of the epoch.
7) Incontestably, this literary enterprise has talent, although it is very clumsily repetitive in the continual and justified blaming of the current society, seen from above. But it has much less talent when it writes about subjects that concern it more directly: see the maladroitly Jesuitical and completely ridiculous tone of their attempts at justifications. Up against the wall[6] of practice, even if it is a question of a quite common practice, the real genius, the talent, is no longer present. Many of those whom they were about to dupe will lose their illusions all at once, simply because of the awkwardness with which they [the Encyclopedists] are suddenly allowed to "speak frankly."
8) The goal is principally to hold power over public opinion -- of which one will make use . . . -- and this by systematically plagiarizing all the other, more mediatic powers of the current period. Severe with those who do not even want to know them, they become very indulgent towards anyone in their meager [personal] associations. And you see how, even before attaining the least power, they imprudently employ -- enunciating after ripe reflection upon the official truth adopted by an unknown Council or by some loyalty to one-knows-not-what dynasty? -- the tone of power and authority. But who recognizes these things in them? Furthermore, they do not practice the ideas that they have adopted. And since it is practice that allows one to create ideas, they have no ideas.
This concerns the strategic sphere (but I repeat that this is not a plan; it is a vague set of directions and a general fashion of speaking that is adapted to the subject). It was also written very quickly and without being re-read. See what you can do with it. And this means mixing these remarks into the very many paragraphs of your text in which there is nothing to change or only a word or two [to change] so as to unify them, by placed them into such a "grid." In case you finally do so, I add several simple counsels on the tactical level.
a) It will be necessary to sign your names and not [sign it] "ex-Committee of 5 December." This polemic has lasted too long and thus make a pitiful rivalry between two organizations!
b) It will be necessary to summarize in 10 or 15 lines the activity of an ephemeral group, improvised so as to do what could be done in the course of the unexpected movement of the high-school students and the railroad workers (which greatly worried the government and resounded in Spain and China); and by not quoting from any document.
c) The center of the entire affair is the occupation of the Sorbonne. Here you should cite, in a brief narration, one or two phrases from your appeal.
d) It will be necessary to say that Fargette masperized[7] various documents. And to note that this was not even disavowed by those who were thus his accomplices (at least by their "informal leadership").
e) It would be indispensable to publish in extenso the letter signed by[8] Sebastiani. It is the clearest confession that they felt completely compromised by Fargette and that they have brought up the heavy artillery of authority and prestige. (What would they thus do with glory, if they have it?) And it would also be necessary for you to say that this letter has a tone that would horrify any individual who has a really anti-bureaucratic and anti-hierarchical personality.
I will stop here. This is already quite long, but I know well that this is not a matter of a small incident. I summarize: it is necessary to keep quiet or sound the bell about this illusionist enterprise. No one dares to say that "the King is naked," but the proper discourse of this monarch has cruelly emphasized his extraordinary lack of clothes.
Best wishes to both of you. See you soon.
Document-post-situ-1
Remarks concerning recent declarations

[1] The Encyclopedia of Nuisances.
[2] See letter to Debord dated 3 July 1987.
[3] Instead of The Last Things of an Encyclopedia. See letter from Debord to Baudet dated 11 July 1987.
[4] See Georges Bataille, "Popular Front in the Street," Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927-1939 (University of Minnesota, 1985).
[5] There is no English equivalent for the French word used here, which is mediatique. Rather than render it as "media," "mediated" or "mediatized" -- none of which capture this word's particular meaning -- we have used genetique (genetic) as our model.
[6] Au pied du mur, literally, "At the feet of the wall."
[7] Editions Maspero was a publishing house in the 1960s and 1970s that the situationists condemned for butchering the texts that they published.
[8] See letter dated 30 May 1987.

(Published in Jean-Francois Martos, Correspondance avec Guy Debord, Le fin mot de l'Histoire, August 1998. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! September 2007. Footnotes by the translator.)

vendredi 22 juillet 2011

"Ben Laden, storytelling et démocratie"

  Le nouveau documentaire de ReOpen911 

 

Oussama Ben Laden est officiellement mort le samedi 1er mai 2011. « Justice a été faite », selon Barack Obama.  La date est symbolique et pourrait passer pour un message électoral qui a permis de faire bondir la côte de popularité du Président des Etats-Unis, ou bien encore pour un message politique au monde :  La NAVY est une fois encore mise en scène pour affirmer la domination militaire mondiale des USA.

Le 1er mai 2003, George Bush avait mis officiellement fin à la seconde guerre d’Iraq depuis l’USS Abraham LINCOLN ancré au large de la Californie, citant la Normandie et Iwo Jima.  Et le lendemain du 1er mai 2011, Ben Laden allait finir ses jours dans un linceul immergé depuis le porte-avion USS Carl VINSON au large du Pakistan.

Mais oublions les mises en scène.  De quel Ben Laden a-t-on ressuscité la mémoire ce 1er mai 2011 ?  En l’état actuel des déclarations de l’Exécutif américain et des informations vérifiées dont nous disposons, peut-on en toute objectivité affirmer qu’il est bien mort ce jour là  ?

D’autre part, son exécution sommaire dans des conditions non éclaircies à ce jour laisse la question de ses aveux publics et de son procès en suspens.  Rappelons qu'il ne fut jamais inculpé par les autorités américaines pour les attentats du 11 septembre 2001.  Dans ces conditions, sommes nous bien certain qu'il était l’auteur-commanditaire de ces attentats ?

Autant de questions centrales auxquelles ce nouveau documentaire ReOpen911 tente de répondre, se basant sur des images d'archives des grands médias.  La deuxième partie du documentaire propose une réflexion sur le fonctionnement de nos médias et l'évolution de nos démocraties au travers du prisme Ben Laden.
"Ben Laden, storytelling et démocratie" est libre de droits, conformément à notre éthique, et produit bénévolement par notre association. 

source



Lexique Marxien progressif

Voici le ba-ba du Jargon employé par les marxiens de la "Théorie de la Valeur"  tel que le donne le site: http://critiquedelavaleur.over-blog.com
Marx éxotérique/ Marx ésotérique: Par ces deux appellations, on entend distinguer deux interprétations différentes de l'oeuvre du vieux barbu, l'une étant celle traditionnellement admise (exotérique), reposant principalement sur un point de vue qui se fait à partir du travail et dont l'objet d'étude est surtout la lutte des classes. Cette interprétation traditionnelle se focalise sur le mode de distribution. L'autre, et c'est celle qui nous intéresse ici, est bien moins connue (ésotérique). Elle se fait non plus cette fois du point de vue du travail mais plutôt de la possibilité de son abolition. Le Marx ésotérique est celui qui critique aussi bien le mode de distribution que le mode de production capitaliste en partant de l'analyse des catégories historiquement déterminées que sont la valeur, la marchandise, l'argent, le travail, le capital.

Travail: Il ne faut surtout pas entendre le travail ici comme l'activité, valable à toute époque, d'interaction entre l'homme et la nature, comme l'activité en générale. Non, le travail est ici entendu comme l'activité spécifiquement capitaliste qui est automédiatisante, c'est à dire que le travail existe pour le travail et non plus pour un but extérieur comme la satisfaction d'un besoin par exemple. Dans le capitalisme le travail est à la fois concret et abstrait.

"Critiquer le travail n'aurait aucun sens si on l'identifie avec l'activité productive en tant que telle, qui, bien sûr, est une donnée présente dans toutes sociétés humaines. Mais tout est différent si on entend par travail ce que le mot désigne effectivement dans la société capitaliste : la dépense auto-référentielle de la simple force de travail sans égard à son contenu. Ainsi conçu, le travail est un phénomène historique, appartenant à la seule société capitaliste et qui peut être critiqué et éventuellement aboli." (Anselm Jappe in Crédit à Mort, Ch "Politique sans politique". Ed Lignes.)


Travail concret/ travail abstrait: Pour saisir la dualité du travail dans l'analyse de Marx, il faut la comprendre comme historiquement déterminée dans ses deux dimensions. Disons que le travail concret se réfère à "l'activité de peine"(comprise qualitativement) et le travail abstrait se réfère à la fonction de médiation du travail dans le capitalisme (comprise quantitativement). La spécificité du travail dans le capitalisme est qu'il médiatise les interactions humaines avec la nature, aussi bien que les relations sociales entre les gens.  Travail abstrait et concret ne sont donc pas deux types de travaux différents mais bien deux aspects du travail sous le capitalisme.


Marchandise: la marchandise n'est pas un simple objet. Elle est en fait pleine de "subtilités métaphysiques". Contrairement au simple produit, elle a une nature double : à la fois valeur d'usage et valeur. Ce qui fait qu'elle peut être utiliser ou consommer est ce qui détermine sa valeur d'usage, ce qui fait qu'elle peut être échangée contre n'importe quelle marchandise ou simplement vendue signifie qu'elle possède une valeur sans rapport avec ses qualités particulières d'objet. Elle est une matérialisation du temps abstrait.


Valeur d'usage: L'une des deux "faces" de la marchandise, elle est comme le support de la valeur. Un verre a, par exemple, comme valeur d'usage le fait de contenir un liquide qui peut être bu. Cette valeur d'usage, contrairement à la valeur, ne peut être comparée quantitativement à une autre valeur d'usage, elle est une qualité incommensurable et elle rentre ainsi, pour ainsi dire, "en conflit" avec l'autre face de la marchandise qu'est la valeur qui est par essence quantifiable. Il serait pour autant ridicule de partir d'une défense de la valeur d'usage comme base à une théorie de l'émancipation. En effet, elle est une des catégories historiquement déterminées par le capitalisme.

Fétichisme: Marx compare le rapport des individus face aux marchandises au sein de la société capitaliste à celui des sociétés primitives face aux totems ou autres fétiches. En accordant une puissance extérieur à sa propre production, l'être humain se soumet à une forme de non-conscience. Le caractère fétiche de la marchandise implique une inversion du rapport sujet/objet si bien que les individus se retrouvent dominés par les objets qu'ils produisent.
La logique d'accumulation abstraite de la valeur (la valorisation de la valeur) engendre un double mouvement: d'une part, une chosification des personnes et de leurs relations (réification) et d'autre part, une personnification des choses.
Le fétichisme capitaliste se retrouve dans le fait d'attribuer un caractère naturel aux catégories capitaliste que sont le travail, la marchandise (de même que la proportion dans laquelle elles s’échangent semble appartenir à leur nature, de la même manière que les propriétés chimiques du carbone ou de l’hydrogène déterminent la forme d'un corps), le marché ou bien l'Etat.
Dans ce monde réellement renversé, les rapports entre les hommes prennent la forme de rapports entre les choses.

jeudi 21 juillet 2011

Fukushima and Capitalism




This article was originally published in: Streifzuege March 2011 http://www.streifzuege.org/2011/fukushima-kapitalismus and is translated on the Internet.

The shock and horror are unending. Fukushima is the 9/11 of the fossil- nuclear energy system. The horror of a world that knows only profit and capital condensed in a nightmarish way in this nuclear reactor and its invisible deadly radiation. The pictures and news from Japan are like a disaster film. It was as though our ideas of the destructive energy indwelling capital had materialized. We can imagine destruction and mass suffering more than life in a world of sharing, carefulness and community. The world appears as we conceive and imagine it to the end of time because it appears that way.
Capitalism and its countless horrors seem more credible to us than an alternative. We believe in capital, the deadly promise of endless growth. We cynically pay it tribute as though the rule of people over people and nature were something dignified. If we didn’t have capitalism, the productive powers would not have developed so enormously, we hear everywhere. If we didn’t have capitalism, we would still be living in dark stone shacks and slaving away on meager fields. If we didn’t have capitalism, there would be no cell phones and no Internet. If we didn’t have capitalism, we could not treat the cancer caused by the radioactive radiation of its reactors. If we didn’t have capitalism, people infer, everything would be much worse.
A world of sharing, carefulness and community is obviously nonsense. Still this nonsense has a system.
Tasteless Riches
Comparing the supposed achievements of capital with the incredible suffering that it has caused, is causing and will keep causing until it is overcome is tasteless but necessary. The technical possibilities released by the human spirit, exploited by ruthless capital against concrete needs and ecological limitations and brought into play to our harm cannot be ascribed to capital.
Inventors and inventiveness always operate where people team up. The completely senselessend-in-itself and ruthless machine of money-making for the sake of money-making can be ascribed to capital, subordinating everything in its way as soon as money becomes the dominant form of “riches” – a word hardly expressed in this world that models itself according to money. Money together with the market economy becomes the undisputed form of “riches,” the seemingly inescapable way that people organize their life but is really the cause of enormous, unnecessary suffering and the obstacle to an alternative.
That is the reality of capital. Some must sell their labor power because otherwise they would have nothing from which they could live. Others buy their labor power because they own the means of production, the machines, factories, raw materials and the land. Buying and selling, money and market constitute its context. Market and capital are two aspects of a system. The market is the sphere in which capital rakes in its profit through honest sales and can appropriate the objects of its exploitation without revolts through harmless purchases: natural substances, human material, metals, energy, land and labor power.
The state guarantees that nothing changes in this: through so-called social benefits so wage-earners surrender to their fate and find everything all right, through the periodic deployment of the police and army when people rebel, through a growing control to nip unrest, resistance and alternatives in the bud when the state cannot bind them in its machine. The state is not only police, military, administration of justice and government but the whole conglomerate of unions, educational institutions, economic associations, newspapers, television stations, NGOs, parties and all the other organizations of the status quo whose function is to prevent the abolition of capitalism with fear and incentives.
A Tale of Woe
The devastation (named capital) is planted in these social conditions from the very start in the members. Its elements are: the expulsion of farmers from their land in western Europe since the beginning of the modern age; in state-capitalist states of the so-called command socialism into a catch-up modernization that has cost millions of lives; their forcible resettlement and expropriation in former colonies after formal independence; the removal of whole harvests vital for millions for the consumption of the arising working class; the mass enslavement of Africans; the intensified subordination of women through the obliteration of their freedom possibilities, knowledge assets, and power positions taken by men; the ransacking of colonies, racist branding of their inhabitants and their state privatization for the needs of capital; the targeted destruction of the crafts in Europe and the colonies; the forcing of people into the army, workhouses, prisons, psychiatric wards, schools and planned cities and the wiping out of those who absolutely could or would not join, rebelled and began something different, a hu7man society of sharing and community.
The devastation continues wherever capital settles: in its constant crises and phases of prosperity that only increases the force of the next crisis and opens up a deceptive prosperity of goods consumption to some wage-earners that should compensate for the lack in self-determination and pay them for their service to the capitalist system, in the impoverishment of those washed up by capital, in the slums, sweatshops and factories and in the wars and military campaigns of destruction waged by capital and its state. One time this was calculated coolly as in the 1973 neoliberal coup against Allende in Chile and another time at the limit to madness as in Richard Nixon’s madman-tactic toward the end of the Vietnam war or at the front lines of the First World War when masses of people ran into the no man’s land of mines and grenades with the prospect of death and finally in the zone of sheer madness in Nazi Germany toward the end of the Second World War when the murder of Jews was subordinated to the rationality of warfare.
The global catastrophe that capital represents is not yet visible to the whole extent. Much of what most contemporaries impute to capital as “progress’ and “blessing” has a deadly legacy whose true face will first appear in the coming years, decades and centuries: climate change, nuclear waste, poisons, genetically-changed organisms, purged landscapes, dead parts of the ocean and an infrastructure together with the production runs, human passions and institutions that depend on a life-threatening energy system.
This energy system must adjust anyway to pure resource shortage. Nuclear power is part of this system that can make life on earth into an inescapable hell – if we don’t turn it off.

From Hiroshima to Fukushima
Japan relied on development of nuclear power because the land passed through a capitalist modernization and lacks sufficient possibilities of energy production on its territory. At the beginning of the Second World War, boycott by the US threatened Japan. Japan feared above all being cut off from oil deliveries that were the foundation of the expanding system of capital, market and state at that time and responded with a brutal strategy of imperialist expansion. At the end after the unspeakable suffering of the world war, nuclear energy was used by the US for pure annihilation devoid of the abstruse logic of military necessity connected with the names Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was a beginning of the development of a civilian nuclear industry that with great hesitation has been vigorously underway since the 1980s and provided Japanese capital and the lifestyle of wage-earners with more and more energy.
What began with Hiroshima did not inevitably end with Fukushima. While the suffering made intolerable because it was man-made catches one’s eye and makes one speechless, Fukushima will only be a picture for a landscape of horror and devastation that capital prepares for us if we don’t remove it. The Fukushima in northeast Honshu in Japan will be followed by a coal-Fukushima intensifying climate change even more which nevertheless is zealously praised by defenders of the system as a “clear alternative” to nuclear power. This is already accompanied by the bio-fuel-Fukushima which robs a multitude of people of their life foundations in a global conquest and settlement that can hardly be imagined and holds ready “endless green energy” for the defenders of the system. A raw material-Fukushima looms on the horizon that could encourage the development of renewable energy systems which according to the opinion of many supporters should feed the immense energy-hunger of capital: exploitation of the earth to the last gram of metal, destruction of living conditions up to the last sanctuary and destruction of alternatives to complete mental emptiness. The catastrophe that capital represents becomes the media infinite loop. The public is horrified and nods apathetically.
Fukushima is Everywhere. Fukushima is Capitalism
An alternative would end capital, market and the state. This alternative opens up and develops the world of sharing and community – the foundation of human society as long as it will exist. Human society will only be able to exist in the long run when this world of sharing and community gains the upper-hand. This must happen quickly.

mercredi 20 juillet 2011

To Paolo Salvadori


18 September 1978
Dear Paolo:

I was happy to read your letter of 2 September: given the general circumstances at the moment, I was worried when I did not receive news from you.
I was also very happy with your analysis of the [Aldo] Moro affair. It suffices that this said, so that no one can support another hypothesis with the least appearance of logic. As this analysis is already quite rich, I will make precise these two nuances:
1) The most profound question is, indeed, that of the management of society in the era of the contested spectacle. And this is a worldwide affair, in which Italy finds itself in the avant-garde, but it is not alone in this. For example, just about everywhere there is an extraordinary progress of the lie of power, which goes even further than Goebbels, because the socio-material conditions of the reception of the lie have evolved since 1930. I consider the assassination of Baader[1] to be a very significant turning point. The dazzling absurdity of the "governmental truth" -- this time -- is not a fault in the execution of the operation. I think that the intention was to register on such a basis the formal accord of everyone (that is to say, all those who can speak in the spectacle) with this purely unbelievable version of the facts, but which must be registered just the same. Thus, one openly measures the engagement in the program (the most trivial reality that has become perfectly inverted) of the authorities that affirm themselves to be democratic (Giscard d'Estaing) and also the definitive cowardice[2] of all of the marginals whose opinions one wants to cite (Cohn-Bendit). In this case, the strategy that commanded the Moro affair has its recognized place, and is certainly sustained, in an international struggle, although there is no doubt a real Italian "Censor" who played this card, and not the CIA or the German [secret] services.
2) When I say that the Italian Stalinists are accomplices [in the murder of Moro], I do not believe that they themselves participate in pseudo-terrorism. They are accomplices, all the same, at the same time that they are victims, in that they do not want to really denounce pseudo-terrorism, because there are -- being what they are and what they have become -- inconveniences in denouncing it and advantages in not doing so. Nevertheless, one of the principal elements of their own game is exactly the threat of denouncing all of it, if one goes too far against them: from whence comes their terrifying allusions at certain moments. You have sent me several very remarkable quotations of their threats from 4-5 May [1978]. At that time, I had only seen a quotation of four or five words in the French press. And soon after I concluded that "now Moro will die." Because it was clear that the Stalinists had, from the beginning, accepted the necessity of Moro's death, but suffered enormously from the blackmail that was prolonged the entire time that he was condemned but not executed. By making such threats, the Stalinists immediately made the enemy realize that it had reached "the culminating point of the offensive." This type of allusion is exactly comparable to nuclear "dissuasion" in the pseudo-war of our epoch: all are de facto allies and none want to nor can actually start a conflict, and simultaneously the attitudes of each of the allies are still slightly hostile and often very hostile on several points, so that -- every time that it is necessary to do so -- each ally saves itself by issuing the reminder that it is not permitted to push too far an advantage without seeing all of the rules of the game collapse, to the absolute detriment of all the associated powers. Consider as well how the current state of the world, surrounded by lies that change from one day to the next, permits this: in 1870, a war began because someone did not receive an ambassador with politeness. Today, after being [continuously] threatened with total destruction, one continues to be linked through commerce and the police. Likewise, in a political party such as that of Lenin, one could only hold on to one's militants after having said what the PCI[3] said at the beginning of May; fortunately for it, it no longer has militants but "vitelloni spettatori."[4] This is also its misfortune.
Do you think that the text that you sent me could be the basis for a book, which would have great importance, even if it were quite short? It would bring together a complete explication of this [Moro] affair, officially so mysterious, with the very theory that explains it. The revolution expounding its most advanced theory by showing that it alone can clearly write the history of its adversaries -- this is the method of The Class Struggles in France/The 18th Brumaire,[5] and nothing so striking has been attempted in this genre in our epoch. I am convinced that no Italian publisher would want it, but Champ Libre could publish it in French and, based on this, there would surely be a pirate edition in Italy.
Can you come see me, for four or five days, around 20 October? I am in the mountains of Auvergne, but I must leave here to take several short trips. Write to this address.
Tell me if you are thinking of coming by train or by car and, accordingly I will explain the route to follow.
Best wishes. Transmit them to Elvio, etc.

P.S. The last "leader" of the B.R.s[6] to be arrested does not fit the image of a skillful practitioner of clandestinity: he lived in the midst of an arsenal and a stack of documents; one says that he was a "model worker" up to 1974; he had a permit for military conduct, as well as police entry-permits!
Anarcharsis Cloots,[7] a Prussian baron, was the most extreme man in the bourgeois revolution in France. An internationalist who wanted to exterminate all the tyrants as far away as China and to make Paris the capital of the world; "the personal enemy of Jesus Christ," etc. Such historical contradictions, which he could not see, caused him to be guillotined by Robespierre insofar as he "exaggerated" and was probably "an agent of the Mikado and Wall Street" (back then one said "Pitt and Cobourg"). He was systematically forgotten by the historians, but only for less than two centuries. I will ask Champ Libre to send you the book [that it published]. Perhaps it can be translated into Italian.
I do not know who Michael Borgia is (anything is possible where [Raoul] Vaneigem is concerned), but until now I only knew the misery detective stories that he has written with [Mustapha] Khayati, in the manner of the "Black Series," published by Lattes, etc., under the pseudonyms Bastid and Martens.

[1] Translator's note: Andreas Baader, one of the leaders of the German group "The Red Army Factor," was shot to death while in prison during the night of 18 October 1977.
[2] Translator's note: that is to say, a "Machiavellian" industrialist and/or political leader.
[3] Translator's note: Italian Communist Party.
[4] "Lazy spectators."
[5] The Class Struggles in France (1850) and The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852) by Karl Marx.
[6] Translator's note: The Red Brigades.
[7] Translator's note: The following two points seem to have been made in answer to specific questions that Salvadori asked.

(Published in Guy Debord Correspondance, Vol 5: Janvier 1973-Decembre 1978 by Librairie Artheme Fayard, 2005. Translated from the French by NOT BORED! April 2007. Footnotes by Alice Debord, except where noted.)


mardi 19 juillet 2011

Operation Green Rights


Anonymous a décidé de s’en prendre aux géants de l’énergie qui causent du tort à la planète. Enel a été la cible d’une attaque DDOS et a été indisponible aujourd’hui. General Electric a aussi fait les frais d’une attaque DDOS avant Enel. La prochaine cible est EDF. Anonymous a décidé de lancer cette opération après l’explosion de la centrale de Fukushima pour pointer du doigt les responsabilités des géants de l’énergie dans la conservation de l’environnement:

Les énormes limites de la technologie et de la science constatées dans le cadre des évènements dramatiques de Fukushima suite au tremblement de terre désastreux, confirment la nécessité de changer le modèle de développement global en investissant davantage dans la recherche et la connaissance.
 Aussi, depuis l’aube de ce drame nous sommes aussi en droit d’espérer certaines contributions majeures de la part de la communauté scientifique mondiale. En effet, ces dernières semaines, de nombreux chercheurs à travers le monde ont animé de nombreux débats avec beaucoup d’application une fois de plus, afin de démontrer l’extrême richesse de notre extraordinaire planète, malheureusement humiliée et souillée par des politiques d’investissements aveuglées ces dernières années par la course au profit.
 Nous avons besoin de plus d’efficacité dans notre action de défense de la nature, et le signifier fermement aux  grandes institutions étatiques en attaquant ces dernières ; notamment le conglomérat nommé Ritem demeure certainement l’arme la plus importante dans les mains des partisans de l’immobilisme absolu. Nous savons que nous avons les moyens de mettre en place une politique énergétique propre et mondiale à l’échelle de la planète. Nous savons également que ce n’est pas dans l’intérêt des lobbys et des Etats, dont les comptes en banques ne peuvent se passer des pétrodollars.
 Or aujourd’hui, la science s’occupe aussi bien de l’énergie, que de sa production et jusqu’à sa distribution (dont nous savons à quel point elle est impactante pour le sort de la planète).
L’objectif est de rappeler à la Communauté Scientifique qu’elle détient entre ses mains le fruit de milliers d’années de travail collaboratif et de découvertes personnelles et collectives et qu’elle se doit par conséquent de mettre son travail au service de l’Humanité. Cela implique qu’elle place l’éthique bien avant le besoin de rentabiliser les investissements de ceux qui l’emploie dans l’ordre de ses priorités. Jusqu’ici les chercheurs et inventeurs, hésitent encore souvent à perturber leur carrière, en se rendant par-delà complices de la régression de la qualité de vie de la planète…Et donc des gens la peuplant eux-mêmes.
Nous voulons croire que la communauté scientifique est déjà détentrice des solutions répondant aux problèmes énergétiques majeurs auxquels le monde est aujourd’hui confronté ; nous voulons croire qu’avec elle, nous battrons les puissantes multinationales de l’énergie non contrôlée et dangereuse mise à mal à Fukushima. Nous voulons croire que les impératifs financiers ne prendront plus le pas sur les impératifs humains.
L’attaque contre General Electric s’explique par la participation de cette dernière à la construction de la centrale de Fukushima:
Nous savons que le réacteur utilisé à Fukushima était de type Mark 1, fabriqué par General Electric. Dale G. Brindenbaug et d’autres ingénieurs ont construits le réacteur Mark 1, mais nous savons que Dale G. Brindenbaugh et deux de ses collèges à General Electric (GE) ont quittés leur travail après être de plus en plus convaincus que le réacteur nucléaire Mark 1 n’était pas capable de supporter l’immense pression qui résulterait d’une perte de pouvoir de refroidissement du réacteur. Le désastre
Les énormes limites de la technologie et de la science constatées dans le cadre des évènements dramatiques de Fukushima suite au tremblement de terre désastreux, confirment la nécessité de changer le modèle de développement global en investissant davantage dans la recherche et la connaissance.
 Aussi, depuis l’aube de ce drame nous sommes aussi en droit d’espérer certaines contributions majeures de la part de la communauté scientifique mondiale. En effet, ces dernières semaines, de nombreux chercheurs à travers le monde ont animé de nombreux débats avec beaucoup d’application une fois de plus, afin de démontrer l’extrême richesse de notre extraordinaire planète, malheureusement humiliée et souillée par des politiques d’investissements aveuglées ces dernières années par la course au profit.
 Nous avons besoin de plus d’efficacité dans notre action de défense de la nature, et le signifier fermement aux  grandes institutions étatiques en attaquant ces dernières ; notamment le conglomérat nommé Ritem demeure certainement l’arme la plus importante dans les mains des partisans de l’immobilisme absolu. Nous savons que nous avons les moyens de mettre en place une politique énergétique propre et mondiale à l’échelle de la planète. Nous savons également que ce n’est pas dans l’intérêt des lobbys et des Etats, dont les comptes en banques ne peuvent se passer des pétrodollars.
 Or aujourd’hui, la science s’occupe aussi bien de l’énergie, que de sa production et jusqu’à sa distribution (dont nous savons à quel point elle est impactante pour le sort de la planète).
 L’objectif est de rappeler à la Communauté Scientifique qu’elle détient entre ses mains le fruit de milliers d’années de travail collaboratif et de découvertes personnelles et collectives et qu’elle se doit par conséquent de mettre son travail au service de l’Humanité. Cela implique qu’elle place l’éthique bien avant le besoin de rentabiliser les investissements de ceux qui l’emploie dans l’ordre de ses priorités.
Jusqu’ici les chercheurs et inventeurs, hésitent encore souvent à perturber leur carrière, en se rendant par-delà complices de la régression de la qualité de vie de la planète…Et donc des gens la peuplant eux-mêmes.
 Nous voulons croire que la communauté scientifique est déjà détentrice des solutions répondant aux problèmes énergétiques majeurs auxquels le monde est aujourd’hui confronté ; nous voulons croire qu’avec elle, nous battrons les puissantes multinationales de l’énergie non contrôlée et dangereuse mise à mal à Fukushima. Nous voulons croire que les impératifs financiers ne prendront plus le pas sur les impératifs humains.
Les critiques adressées par enel sont propres à l’Italie qui a une situation particulière:
En 1987, soit un an après la catastrophe de Tchernobyl (Ukraine), il fut décidé par référendum de la sortie du nucléaire civil en Italie. Les quatre centrales nucléaires présentes en Italie furent arrêtées, la dernière en 1990.
Un moratoire sur la construction de nouvelles centrales, initialement voté de 1987 à 1993, a depuis été prolongé indéfiniment.
L’Italie importe de l’électricité nucléaire (notamment de France), et la société italienne Enel SPA investit dans la construction de réacteurs nucléaires en France et en Slovaquie, ainsi qu’au développement de la technologie de l’EPR.
En mai 2008, le nouveau gouvernement de Silvio Berlusconi a annoncé le retour à l’énergie nucléaire dans les cinq ans. Le gouvernement italien se propose de poser la première pierre d’un premier EPR d’ici à 2013, pour une mise en service en 2018.

Archives du blog