There is Another article this morning in the NYT about the Afghan war.
The readers' comments are worth reading as usual. Although I haven't read all of them, an overwhelming majority calls for America to withdraw out of that absurd, insane, neo-colonial military entanglement with no chance to achieve anything whatsoever but final disaster.
Save for a tiny minority of Europeans and Americans diehard warmongers or those gullible enough to believe in the politicians' outright lies, a vast majority of the American as well as European people demand and end to this sheer madness.
To no avail of course since people have no say in any matter in our so-called democratic countries...
The Germans, the French can't stand that their countries are involved in that far away land which has no connection to them. But the media, particularly in France, have decided not to play any role in conveying the French people opposition, as these media have long renounced to play their part as fourth power.
And after all, only 45 French soldiers have been killed over there, which is insignificant after 8 years on the ground.
Since the economic crisis is striking everywhere next to everybody, the war by far is not a major concern for Europeans and yet, how much do the costs of this war weigh on our economies?
E la nave va...Gods of all civilisations are speechless in front of human stupidity! Only when they'll decide to put an end to the lunacies of their creatures will wars no longer happen on earth.
Except that there are no gods!
9 commentaires:
This war was launched in the wake of 911 and both Chirac and Jospin followed Bush's crusade in the search for one man!
Now Sarko the americanolâtre is on the helm and you can count him out when it comes to decide how and when France will withdraw.
That won't happen until the US decide it's time to quit.
Whether from the right or from the left, I can't think of any French politician objecting the pursuit of this absolute insanity.
The left in particular is now totally clueless and irresponsible.
If you want to see where these wars came from, basically the neo-conservatives whom I think of as paleo-fascists, look up the BBC program on youtube, "The Power of Nightmares".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk1WkmioQvA
They have ideas similar to some members of the British upper-class in the 19th century who knew that atheism was true, but thought that it should be kept from the common people because it would be dangerous for society to deprive them of their illusion.
They thought that only the elite could handle it.
I forgot to add that you should look up another BBC program "A Rough History of Disbelief" by Jonathan Miller. It is also called "A Brief History of Disbelief".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYelCWkfEgY&feature=related
Daniel Dennet in the film puts it succintly, "most people in the West who say they believe in God actually believe in belief in God."
"some members of the British upper-class in the 19th century who knew that atheism was true, but thought that it should be kept from the common people because it would be dangerous for society to deprive them of their illusion.
They thought that only the elite could handle it."
On trouve déjà cette idée chez les philosophes Grecs quoi qu'il n'était pas question de théisme bien sûr.
Le christianisme en particulier a développé un monde d'allégories à destination des masses incapables d'accéder aux mystères sacrés et au vrai sens de la religion.
Cela se tient d'ailleurs. Qui n'a pas rencontré des pratiquants n'ayant manifestement pas la moindre notion du sens de leurs pratiques rituelles?
N'en va-t-il pas de même des Juifs assez "intégristes" (j'en ai des exemples là où j'habite) qui ne sauraient pas dire pourquoi ils s'abstiennent d'utiliser tout appareil électrique le samedi ou d'ouvrir les portes (à clef).
Savent-ils même tous pourquoi ils portent la kippa si ce n'est pour se différencier des autres, des goïs et montrer leur appartenance au peuple élu?
Et que se passe-t-il s'ils ne portent pas la kippa?
"most people in the West who say they believe in God actually believe in belief in God."
Exactement! Mutatis mutandis, on pourrait traduire cela en termes kantiens: Ils croient aux phénomènes mais ignorent la chose en soi.
D'où la nécessité des allégories, fables et autres contes à dormir debout qui ont une double fonction:
1°) Satisfaire le besoin religieux
archaïque des hommes et leur permettre de croire participer à une union avec le divin,
2°) Ce qui permet également de maintenir dans l'abêtissement les masses incontrôlables autrement. C'est politiquement utile pour la Cité dont la cohésion et la survie dépendent de la croyance collective à une quelconque transcendance.
Le question politique est de savoir à qui profite le système et qui en détermine les conditions.
les documentaires de la BBC sont toujours passionnants, on ne risque pas de voir cela en France. A la limite sur ARTE...
In Slate, Christopher Hitchens has a good article on orthodox Jews and particularly Hanukkah,
http://www.slate.com/id/2179045
"Jewish orthodoxy possesses the interesting feature of naming and combating the idea of the apikoros or "Epicurean"—the intellectual renegade who prefers Athens to Jerusalem and the schools of philosophy to the grim old routines of the Torah."
And yet Hitchens was and is a fervent supporter of the war in Iraq. Strange bedfellows..
But then orthodox jews/orthodox chrisitans/orthodox muslims..
Ned,
Très intéressant article en effet dont je retiens entre autres ceci:
"when Judaism repudiated Athens for Jerusalem, the development of the whole of humanity was terribly retarded."
Cela fournit un bon exemple d'une possible discussion sur le thème de "What if?". Which in the end is totally meaningless since there's no "if" in the course of History.
"What if" could theorically be applied to every bit of each second and of each atom in the universe.
What eventually happened had to happen the way it happened. Period.
Therefore Hitchens is right regarding his remark that the evolution of humanity was terribly retarded by religions but religions had to happen and the course of humanity had to follow the path it did as it will in the future.
Hitchens est à peu près inconnu en Europe (il y a cet article dans Libé l'an dernier).
L'article anglais de Wiki est très développé.
Le traité des trois imposteurs devrait t'intéresser, à moins que tu ne le connaisses déjà.
Full texte in French
Anijo,
I remember you once reminded us that Hitchens was in favour of the wars both in Irak and Afghanistan and I see in his Wiki article that he opposed the first gulf war...
I don't know his reasons to be pro and against in both cases.
Frankly, I don't understand Hitchens's reasons either, even though I have read and watched a lot, much is on youtube and very enlightening.
In one, he reads part of his book, God is not Great, on how Islam came into being.
He seems to accept that Mohammed existed(though I haven't read the book), but there seems to be much evidence that Mohammed was an imaginary character like Jesus.
Enregistrer un commentaire