J'aime pas! (1)

Les municipales approchent, on va revoir les mêmes têtes à claques pendant les semaines à venir. Parmi elles, je retrouverai celle de Pierre Lellouche qui s'était fait connaître (un tout petit peu) il y a 5 ans comme le seul politique français à soutenir l'invasion américaine de l'Irak. Quelles pouvaient être ses motivations?

1° Lellouche est marié à une artiste (sculpture) Américaine.

2° Il est juif sépharade né en Tunisie avec un total alignement sur Israël.

3° Non seulement il était pour l’engagement de la France dans la guerre d'Irak mais il le faisait savoir un peu trop bruyamment. Il s’était fait remettre à sa place par J. Monod, le missi domini de Chirac il y a cinq ans, venu lui dire de la fermer.

4° Il était allé protester à l’ambassade américaine à Paris en juillet 2006 contre l’emprisonnement de Judith Miller mais n’avait pas été reçu, contrairement à la fois où il était venu soutenir l’intervention américaine en Irak. Il en pleurait toutes les larmes de son corps sur LCI…

5° Le grand homme a commis un papier dans Libé il y a 18 mois (8 sept. 2006, à l'occasion de la rencontre du candidat Sarkozy avec Bush) qui reprenait tous les poncifs des néo-cons avec un registre lexical qui dit tout ce qu’il y a à comprendre des motivations du personnage. “…des porte-plume de la haine anti-Américaine”, “l’Amérique honnie”, “certaines élites françaises", "se plaît à cultiver l’anti-Américanisme comme religion nationale”, ”ce climat qui rappelle plus les belles heures de la guerre froide et du «US go home»”, “mauvais nationalisme des imbéciles”...

Ce qui est sidérant avec ce genre d'accusations c'est qu'elles ne sont jamais, au grand jamais, étayées par de quelconques références vérifiables. Où y a t-il de la haine anti-Américaine? Qui en fait une religion nationale? Quelles certaines élites françaises? (avec un petit fumet démago/populiste des années 30). Eh ben on ne le sait jamais puisque c'est la technique de l'homme de paille qui est ici utilisée plein pot. Notre homme évoque d'imaginaires antagonistes pour se donner le beau rôle de celui qui dénonce turpitudes et sombres remugles.

Ce type me débecte total! Invité récurrent de Serge Moati le dimanche après-midi sur la 5 (proximité confessionnelle on va dire) il n’a de cesse de prendre des allures martiales dès qu’il est question de politique internationale, terrorisme etc. Il s’est fait moucher il y a 2 ans par un historien universitaire qui lui a suggéré de mettre en veilleuse ses effets de tribune quand il lui adressait la parole. Il l’a bouclé le Lellouche.

Comme disait une couverture de Charlie-hebdo il y a quelque 30 ans à propos de Lecanuet: Lellouche, une gueule qu’on aimerait écraser à coups de tatanes!

(Bon, cela dit, c'est perso, il a droit à ses opinions. N'empêche, il me débecte grave...)

American heat.

In this year of presidential election in the US, There's something that doesn't fail to surprise me when reading the American newspapers or the numerous blogs that American citizens devote to their domestic politics: the ferocity each side seems to have in store for the opposite camp.

Whaow! Looks like there's no lost love between the Dems and the Republicans.

One may think it's quite normal that on this particular field when points of view diverge there's some heat to be expected but really, to this point of antagonism...

Of course, as a Frenchman what do I know about American politics? But if I try to compare with the traditional opposition between right and left in Europe, only far leftists would be so vindictive against far rightist, and conversely.

But these two extremes amount to about 10% of the voters in France whereas Democrats and Republicans make about, say, 90% of the voters in the US.

Is this virulence a good and faithful image of the American national mentality when it comes to debating and exchanging ideas? Or more simply is the pattern of thoughts so different that no comparison can be made between the way Europeans and Americans deal with their respective domestic concerns?

The day I felt embarrassed.

All along the 60s the space race really enthralled me. Gagarine, (yes, I was there...) the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. What a hell of excitement that was for a teenager then!

It is said most of us remember where we were the night the Eagle landed on the moon. For my part, I was in Germany during this month of July 1969, but this is another story...

After their feat, the three Americans who made history were on a world promotion tour. And then they arrived in Paris to be introduced live on French television from the Palais de Chaillot, on October the 8th of 1969.

Man! And you thought they'd performed the hardest part of their mission... How wrong you were!

They had to endure a one hour long speech by no other than Maurice DRUON, of the French Academy. Why was this man chosen to welcome the American astronauts will for ever remain a mystery.

I still can vividly remember the three stoic men standing in row behind the talkative peacock and I couldn't help thinking what their thoughts might have been...

"Boy, they didn't warn us back home that the French leg would be that painful!"


No, really, I was so embarrassed that these men would be given such a cogent confirmation of what the French are renowned for among Americans: pretty good at making lengthy speeches and totally impotent when push comes to shove...

And Druon would go on and on and on and I was saying to myself: "Will he ever shut his big mouth?".

I had to admire the patience and fortitude of Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin for keeping a permanent smile floating on their lips while this buffoon was making a fool of himself. And to be polite and courteous enough to nonetheless thank him when their ordeal had come to an end.

Every time I remember this sinister episode of French stupidity I hope someone at least came to them and apologize for the despicable show they were dragged into.

38 years later, I still feel embarrassed...

Tronches de cake.

Ils étaient 3, fin décembre 1972, à présenter la troisième chaîne de télévision française, en couleurs. Le PDG, le Dir. Général et un troisième ponte. La honte! Pas vraiment rock' n roll les garçons... Genre l'amicale des fossoyeurs. On revoit les images de temps à autre...

Avaient-ils jamais été jeunes ces vieillards? ont-ils eu 25 ans et même 12 ans dans un temps improbable?

C'est la réflexion que je me fais souvent en voyant interroger tel ou tel PDG ou cadre sup. Des types de 50 ans et plus dont on se demande à quoi ils pouvaient bien ressembler étant jeunes. Sont-ils encore capables de sortir du rôle que le costard et la fonction leur imposent?

Les décideurs le sont-ils de tous temps, étaient-ils destinés à cette vie formatée ou est-ce à force d'en assumer les responsabilités qu'ils se sont peu à peu éloignés des autres jusqu'au point de non-retour?

Mais je rêve là. Ces types, pour un certain nombre sont issus du vivier de la bourgeoisie qui les prépare depuis l'enfance à perpétuer les structures sociales dont ils forment l'ossature. Et ceux qui n'en émanent pas n'aspirent qu'à y accéder. Faut pas compter sur eux pour introduire de l'imaginaire dans les rouages du système dont ils sont aussi les prisonniers au fond. Mais ce ne sont pas les plus malheureux non plus...

Plus pertinent peut-être qu'une lecture en termes de classes sociales, c'est tout simplement le Pouvoir qui vous modèle et transforme son bonhomme.

Echoes of early times.

I was in the metro the other day where I could see the promotion posters for the latest film with Will Smith. "I am legend" is the original title but what struck me was the emphasis put on the underlying theme: "The last man on earth".

And it dawned on me that I have seen the same sort of catch title for many films during the last decades, be they with S. Stallone, C. Eastwood or some other Hollywood star. "The last cop", "The survivor", "The last hero", whatever...

This recurrent notion of the last one cannot be without some meaning in the end. Wasn't there "The last of the Mohicans" 200 years ago?

There seems to be a certain American anxiety here that translates into this sort of Hollywood production. Like the audience probably is receptive to the idea that this situation isn't totally unfamiliar, and even bears some likeliness.

And maybe do we witness some echo in the History of America when the colonists and later, the settlers of the American frontier had to confront a wild nature as well as the native Indians.

We were talking survival then and this insecurity feeling may have lasted up to now. Like a red thread in the American psyche.

Don't know, just asking.

(For some reason I know my English is worse on this post that it usually is... My apologies to all.)

Tarring and feathering.

Last month I've read two books by Mark Twain (Huckleberry and Life on the Mississippi) in which he twice refers to a form of punishment well known to Europeans through the famous cartoon character Lucky Luke. But what is less known is that there's nothing specifically American in this practice since it has been imported from England where it had been in use at least since the Middle Ages.

All the same, there doesn't seem to have been that many cases of tarring and feathering as compared to another English import: the lynching, which, incidentally was far more serious since it was a death sentence.

Both practices were never official punishments of the US but spontaneous acts of revenge emanating from the mob. Which also helps to remind that since the early years of the colonists, the American population was made up of peasants, not exactly known for their level of sophistication, as opposed to people from the cities (which is also very relative given the times). It also is a reminder of the hardship it had been to develop and install a reliable system of laws and regular jurisdictions in the US.

Hence probably, the emphasis that is given to said rule of the law in America as the ultimate symbol of a regular State. This is also probably the reason why this theme is so prevalent in so many films and serials made in the USA. To an extent that is always surprising to non-Americans.

Morosité.

Quand jour après jour, les médias, essentiellement les télés, vues par des millions de personnes, reviennent nous persuader que ça va mal, que ça va très mal et que ça va aller encore plus mal… étonnez-vous que rapidement le pays soit imprégné d’une morosité dont on ne sache pas comment se libérer. A chaque augmentation du prix de l’essence, des timbres ou des cacaouettes en sachet on nous gratifie d’un reportage sur le terrain -micro-trottoir qu’ils disent- où on a droit depuis que je suis en âge de regarder la télé (longtemps) aux habituelles pleurnicheries des “On paye assez d’impôts comme ça”, “Tout augmente, j’y arrive plus” (en faisant le plein de son 4×4) etc. 

Quand une entreprise licencie, le journaliste de service ira toujours trouver le plus ancien, la plus ancienne des employées, qui expliquera que c’est dégueulasse, qu’elle a donné 30 ans de sa vie à son employeur (donné? Elle n’a donc pas été payée pendant 30 ans?). Par parenthèse, on voit des reportages tournés chez les licenciés, dans leur gentil pavillon de province (sympa le pavillon) entre leurs deux bagnoles (pas des 4L d’occasion) entourés de leur télé écran plat 90cm plasma, magnétoscope, sèche-linge, congélateur et tout à l’avenant… Pas vraiment la misère tout de même… 

Une usine Flodor appartenant à un groupe italien a fermé sa porte il y a 2 ans environ dans le nord de la France; Évidemment ils sont allés chercher le gars qui avait passé 32 ans sur la ligne de production des flocons d’avoine et qui venait de se voir proposer la responsabilité de la ligne de production des croûtons! La flèche! Une carrière! Avec à la clef, en permanence, un discours misérabiliste et victimisant auquel les masses ne peuvent que souscrire et s’identifier. Non pas que les problèmes n’existent pas mais les médias ne parlent que de ça sans équilibrer, sauf exception, avec des infos positives.

Les journalistes ont ceci de commun avec les politiques et les magistrats que ce sont eux qui déterminent leurs propres règles déontologiques…. On n’est pas tiré d’affaires…

titre désactivé (trop de visiteurs déçus...)

When former President François Mitterrand’s funeral was held, his wife and two sons attended the burial as you would expect. However, his mistress and his daughter (born out of wedlock), also attended. This young woman is now part of the Parisian intelligentsia and she’s a writer (what else in France?). The picture of the funeral is regularly presented in the American media as evidence that the French are different, verging on immorality, which makes them probably somewhat unreliable. And one must concede they’re on to something here. Isn’t adultery basically a breach of confidence?

Nothing new here, mind you. Just consider the case of another French President, Félix Faure, who died in the arms of his mistress in 1899 at the Elysée Palace.

Want some more? Take, for instance, Jacques Chirac, our former president whose love conquests are too numerous to be numbered, yet his wife, Bernadette, is perfectly well aware of this state of affairs.

The same goes for former President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who was caught by the police one very early morning on the streets of Paris in 1976 because he was involved in a car crash. He was on his way back to the Elysée Palace from a nightly visit to a “friend”. Giscard went so far as to publicly confess that he often thought, during the Council of Ministers, how Mme. X, then Minister for Higher Education, looked like when…

You might think, only presidents? Wrong you are.

It doesn’t stop there. The current French Minister of Interior, Mme. Alliot-Marie, who is divorced, has been engaged for over 15 years in a relationship with a French deputy. They still aren’t married.

Of the two contenders for the second round of the presidential election last year, both had an unusual marital status. On the left, Segolene Royal had been living unmarried with the father of her 4 children for over 20 years. On the right side, Nicolas Sarkozy’s second marriage nearly went on the rocks after his wife left him for 6 months (no, not to live in seclusion in some kind of monastery…). While separated from his wife, Mr. Sarkozy took a mistress...

And now, the President of France aiming at a third marriage, is a divorced man with children from 2 beds, whose former spouse is also a divorcee from a (prior) TV entertainer. He won the presidential race over an unmarried woman who has been living in sin for over 20 years.

And you know what? The French simply don’t care. They don’t care to a point that probably can hardly be imagined by our American friends.

Do you think someone could ever be elected President of the US in the forthcoming years under the same sinful circumstances? Bill and Monica anyone? Gary Hart? And in the end, does it really matter what politicians do with their private lives?

(It is said American President F.D. Roosevelt died with his mistress on his side.)

Note: The painting is "Jeune fille résistant à Eros" by W. Bouguereau.

As everyone knows, things have dramatically changed since last year:

Segolène Royal has split from her former partner because he had a mistress!

Nicolas Sarkozy, the now president of France, has divorced from his second wife (see Lesly Stahl) but has engaged within three months with a former top-model.

Some things never change on the other hand: The French don't care about all these personnal affairs but we're really, really tired to be informed about what we don't want to know.

And I was wondering how our American friends could not believe there must be some truth in the cliché of the French as serial womanizers and their general liberal attitude regarding all things related to sex...

Aftermath.

We’re nearing the 5 year term of the second longest war the US has ever fought (with no end in sight) and it seems the relationship between France and America has cooled down and is back on its regular track.

Was France right or wrong to oppose the American led war in Iraq (She was right)? But never mind. This episode of our stormy common history is but another instalment of a unique bound that links our two countries.

Thanks to the American media in general and the Bush administration in particular, about all Americans know what the position of France was regarding the sombre decision to invade a Middle East country. But how many know what Germany’s position was? Or Russia’s and China’s ones? The same as the French but it’s mainly France and the French (notwithstanding Chirac!) which are reminded.

You’ll tell me it won’t change any American’s perception of France, save for a tiny minority of “apostates”… and you’re right. There were those who’ve always considered the French as ungrateful, treacherous, unreliable “allies” and those who’ve always looked at them as a wise, sophisticated, historically minded lot. And both groups will be sure to have been proven right!

What matters in the end is that, more than any other country, France stays apart in the collective mind of many Americans, for better or worse. But this particular relationship is a part of each country’s history and identity and that’s fine with me. Isn’t it more entertaining than the relations between Portugal and Canada for example?

Did Joan of Arc sail aboard the Mayflower?

When Leonard Cohen wrote a song called Joan of Arc in 1970, I was a bit puzzled that an English speaking Canadian would be interested in this rather distant French historical figure.

For sure, Joan of Arc isn't exactly an everyday object of interest in America, no more than it is in France for that matter, but nevertheless, the few opportunities I've had to meet this character mentioned in the American press or books, it looks like there's some sort of sympathy -if not mild fascination- with this 19 year old maid who contributed decisively to oust the English out of XVth century France.

Ousting the English out of some territories... Hmmm... Is that music to American ears?

Also, Joan, from the very beginning of her self appointed mission, never failed to recall she heard divine voices telling her to deliver France and that God was always her inspiration. This religious component of her story certainly contributes to the interest and respect she may enjoy among such a religious people as many Americans are.

And who would have expected the great American writer, Mark Twain, to write an imaginary biography of the French national heroin?

Now, when I come across Joan of Arc when speaking with English people or when her name is mentioned in the British literature, I can feel some uneasiness, to say the least. The less she's talked about, the better it seems.

And I was wondering if Americans in general don't make a connection between the story of Joan of Arc and their own experience of English intolerance which eventually led their ancestors to leave England and settle in the new world.

Foules.

«Chaque homme porte en lui un monde composé de tout ce qu’il a vu et aimé, et où il rentre sans cesse, alors même qu’il parcourt et semble habiter un monde étranger.»

Voyage en Italie
Chateaubriand

Nous portons tous en nous un univers fait de souvenirs, d’émotions, de fantasmes, de projets et d’imaginaires de toutes sortes. C’est l’Esprit issu de la Matière. Immatériel univers tout à la fois unique et multiple, singulier et partagé.

Voir rassemblés des milliers, des dizaines et centaines de milliers d’individus en foules me fascine véritablement. Que ce soit dans des stades ou des lieux consacrés, la réunion de ces multitudes cumulées et pourtant individuelles me donne carrément le vertige.

Ce monde parallèle installé au cœur du présent lui survit et le transcende si l’on se représente que les souvenirs latents et actuels de chacun y insèrent en permanence le passé comme l’imagination et la projection y déposent déjà ce qui en sera le futur.

Cette masse, cette manifestation de l’Esprit du monde (?) quel en est le statut ontologique? Et n’a-t-il pas plus de réalité que la matière immédiatement donnée?

Le doute est levé.

Il est des gens -dont je fais partie- qui parfois suspendent longtemps, très longtemps, trop longtemps bien sûr, leur jugement avant de savoir quelle est la vraie nature de leurs prochains. La tolérance dont les plus retords peuvent bénéficier semble être une réserve sans fin qui leur permet de masquer leur moralité jusqu'au moment où un mot, un geste, une occasion dévoilent aussi infailliblement qu'irrémédiablement à qui l'on a affaire.

Nicolas Sarkozy a, bien établie, une solide réputation de traître. Mais en politique, de quoi doit-on s'étonner? Que n'a t-on pas vu ou entendu? Mais ce que j'ai lu ici dépasse tout ce qu'on peut imaginer. C'était proprement inimaginable!

Au lendemain de son exercice de soumission "intellectuelle" et morale auprès du Congrès américain, se rendre sur la tombe du Général de Gaulle révèle en cynisme et en abjection ce qu'on ne croit possible que des pires petites… (le lecteur remplira de lui-même…).

Ce déplacement était prévu de longue date, et bien avant donc sa prestation de servilité à Washington. Quels peuvent en être la raison, le but, la signification? Quel message veut-il faire passer et à qui? Et à ce moment précis? Si ce n'est justement à l'Amérique à qui il dit: "voyez ce qu'il reste du gaullisme qui vous a tant chagriné." "Comptez sur moi" leur a t-il dit, "voyez le premier gage que je vous donne."

Mais peut-être n'y a t-il là que confirmation de ce que je pressens depuis quelques temps: Nicolas Sarkozy est dans l'ébriété du pouvoir enfin conquis: "Je fais ce que je veux, comme je veux, quand je veux parce que je le veux!" La revanche du petit chose que rien ne contiendra dans les déchaînements d'un ego qui aura attendu 50 ans avant de se donner enfin libre cours.

Cet aveuglement narcissique l'amène spontanément et en toute bonne foi à proclamer au monde entier: "Je suis un traître et je l'affiche car je me dévoile malgré moi tellement mon viscéral besoin de reconnaissance ne me retiendra de rien faire qui puisse servir mon ego éternellement affamé."

Peut-être est-ce la nausée qui a finalement fait fuir Cécilia?

Déjà vu.

Whenever I peruse the cartoons at Slate it‘s always a sure bet that, when it comes to portray France and the French, I will meet 5 permanent fixtures cartoonists all over the world resort to:

1°) The Eiffel Tower.

Well, nothing wrong here, it helps to settle the setting. A bit repetitive but, well, no doubt, we’re in Paris, France.

2°) The béret.

Well, why not? Although it’s meanly worn on the country but I can see some in Paris too. Spaniards also wear the beret and much more than the French.

3°) The baguette.

It’s one among many other products bakers make and sell and one that is essentially to be found in Paris. But then again, it’s OK.

4°) The striped Jersey.

Now, this is really much more surprising. Where does that cliché come from? No French that I know of or see in the streets, on flicks or ad posters never wear striped jersey.

I once thought that it was a souvenir of Auguste Renoir’s painting at the time of Guy de Maupassant, but after I checked, the jersey wasn’t striped. Les Frères Jacques? Nope!

It eventually dawned on me that it had to do with le Mime Marceau (the upper part of his costume) who obviously made a smashing impact on the perception Americans in general seem to have regarding the French. 

Because I’m positive on this: Next to no French ever wears a striped jersey, even on the beaches in July/August. But never mind…

5°) Napoléon.

There seems to be a real obsession with this historical figure, and not only among American cartoonists. You can be sure to find him in cartoons from Germany as well as Norway or India, Brazil or wherever.

Whichever French politician is portrayed, he’s entitled to his caricature as Napoleon. Be it De Gaulle, Mitterrand, Chirac and now Sarkozy, all French leaders are would-be Napoleon. Like every new Russian leader is the new Tsar of all Russias.

Let me tell you, if there’s something the French don’t exactly mull over it has to be Napoléon.

Of course 2 or 3 of these clichés are often to be found in the same cartoon.

My feeling is that cartoonists the world over haven’t much idea of what modern France and the French are and they all have to use again and again worn out clichés. On the other hand that’s what caricatures are made of: clichés and prejudice. 

If only they could be funny…

How OBL won the war

The definitive victory of terrorists isn’t the number of victims they actually kill in reality but the distortion of perception they induce among the masses. Zillions $ have been spent on security around the whole world to prevent terrorist acts which, in the end -save 9/11 which cannot happen twice- can kill a very limited score of people. Granted, some security measures are necessary (particularly in the flying business) but overall the money (by the billions, really) that is spent on totally unnecessary precautions could save thousands of people, be it used wisely to fight diseases. Or by strictly implementing the basic rules of road driving safety.

There was a ship accident 2 years ago in the New York Harbour when a tourist boat sank with 5 victims (I don’t remember exactly). It wasn’t due to terrorism so it was forgotten two days later. The captain was responsible I think. Had it be caused by a terrorist attack (why would terrorists -but some nuts- want to scull a tourist boat is beyond me) another set of draconian regulations and security and screening measures would have been implemented with bio/fingerprinting of all passengers, where they come from, their ancestors etc. etc. 

It looks like (and it is admissible, given the context) the US was all in a frantic chase of murderous terrorists some weeks after 9/11 because of a purported planned attack against indiscriminate citizens with anthrax. In the end, only 3 persons died and the whole thing petered out… That’s where lays the core raison d’être of terrorism: to alter the perception of reality and eventually change reality. Not directly but by making potential victims of terrorism change reality themselves. Out of their “free will”. In that sense, you need not to be killed or even maimed to be a victim of terrorism. 

By refusing to assess reality as it is but rather participating in the distortion of said reality by nurturing the fear factor, you simply are contributing to the terrorists’ strategy and victory. By calling to endless security measures with no end in sight you’re simply turning yourself into a terrorist. When Blair once said that we will have to live with terrorism for at least a generation this dimwit played the fear factor full steam. As did G. Bush and his war against terrorism. And when will the war come to an end? 

When these two war criminals will have left their job to more responsible leaders. 

L'histrion (Portraits V)

C'est un cas de figure bien connu de chacun que celui qui nous joue l’insaisissable mouche du coche, allant de droite et de gauche sans autre souci de cohérence que la jouissance perverse à asticoter sans fin et à tous propos les uns et les autres. Jusqu’au jour où elle se reçoit une bonne petite claque qui l’estourbit suffisamment pour aller voir ailleurs quand elle s’est remise de ses émotions. Hors référence entomologique, on peut également songer au personnage de l’histrion, ou du Fagotin dans le théâtre classique (le montreur de marionnettes pour singes). Toute honte bue, ce genre de bouffon se vautre dans l’autodérision si besoin est quand ses rodomontades et autres craques sont mises à jour, pour repartir de plus belle dans les minutes qui suivent.

Profitant de la bonne foi et de la sincérité naturelle à ses contemporains, ces lamentables caractères ont latitude quelque temps de se jouer de la bonne disposition des membres du cercle dans lequel ils se sont introduits en contrebande, se faisant d’abord passer pour d’honnêtes convives, désireux de participer au plaisirs des échanges de bons mots, des saillies et autres traits d’esprit.

Jour après jour cependant, leur vraie nature ne tarde pas à se dévoiler ainsi que la raison d’être, tant de leur présence parmi un cercle d’habitués que de leur identité même. Inévitablement, leurs insanes et médiocres provocations comme leur total manque de vergogne mettent la puce à l’oreille des uns et des autres qui comprennent alors à qui ils ont affaire et de quelle traîteuse façon ils ont été joués… Sans conséquence d’ailleurs autre que le ridicule et l’opprobre dont ces histrions se couvrent, mais il semble que cela constitue leur perverse et inavouable jouissance.

En cela, ils obtiennent donc satisfaction dans la désapprobation générale dont ils sont l’objet. En un mot, ils utilisent l’Autre pour accéder à un schéma relationnel fondé sur leur humiliation consentie par des partenaires non consentants et ignorants à l’origine quel rôle ils sont destinés à remplir ou à jouer dans cette mise en scène perverse dans laquelle ils veulent les impliquer. De telle sorte qu’ils souhaitent entraîner (et y parviennent jusqu’à un certain point) l’Autre dans une relation qui tend à le souiller des miasmes de leurs propres perversité…

“Toute honte bue” et feignant une modeste, naturelle et raisonnable contrition sans cesse ils reviennent à la charge jusqu’au jour où ils se font expulser manu militari car d’eux-mêmes, jamais ils ne lâcheront prise.