Search Results for: libre ce soir

External contributions

Open letter in response to the article in the « Soir » of 3-11-2022.

Below is the open letter in response to the article of the « Soir » of 3-11-2022, written by twelve citizen collectives united in the name of objectivity and the precautionary principle.

The article written by Anne-Sophie Leurquin and Arthur Sente and published by the newspaper « Le Soir » on 3-11-2022 is surprising because of its imprecision, its omissions and its partiality[note].
First of all, from a strictly legal point of view, the above-mentioned journalists should have informed themselvesmore about the exact content of the subpoena, either with Dr. S. or the Aviq, orwith the complainant or her lawyer. In this way, they would have found that the complainant — in addition to the law of August 22, 2002 on the rights of the patient — also invokes the law of May 7, 2004 on theexperiments on the human being, which effectively provides in its art. 6 §1er that thePatient consent must be given in writing[note]. This law is applicable to the case in point since, on the one hand, the inoculated vaccines are only in phase 3 (known as « experimental » and have only a provisional marketing authorization) and, on the other hand, a vaccine must be considered as a medicine by virtue of article 1 — 1° of the law of 25–3‑1964 on medicines.

Similarly, the Code of Medical Ethics — also cited in the quotation — requires in its article 45 the written consent of the patient participating in a human experiment. Moreover, when the above-mentioned journalists point out that the vaccination centers do not ask for written consent either, they are in fact only further demonstrating the fault of the Aviq in its organization of the vaccination campaign.

Secondly, when talking about the management of the « pandemic emergency », Ms Leurquin and Mr Sente give a singular summary: according to them, the time needed (7 to 10 years) to obtain a definitive marketing authorization was too long in view of the need to « urgently protect the most vulnerable and to ensure continuity of care in overcrowded hospitals ». In March 2020, the official instructions were to send patients home by simply taking paracetamol, thus encouraging the development of the disease, and it was necessary to hospitalize a large number of patients who could have been treated easily. Therefore, to speak of overcrowded hospitals as a fatality is misleading. In addition, in November 2021, scientists from Ghent University published a study indicating that people who became seriously ill with Covid-19 have one thing in common, namely a dietary deficiency:  » Almost all patients who eventually became seriously ill or even died in hospital had a severe deficiency of selenium and zinc in their blood on admission « [note]. It must be noted that no general prevention measures have been promoted by the public authorities (and in particular the Aviq whose mission it is!) to make the « most vulnerable » people more resistant. Strengthening natural immunity is considered by a broad scientific consensus to be the best way to prevent the spread of viral diseases. It should also be remembered that the initial two doses of these vaccines were supposed to be 95% « effective », but the latest independent studies show that vaccinated people develop more severe forms of the disease than unvaccinated people, even in people over 85. September 2022 figures from the French government’s DREES (Direction de la recherche, des études, de l’évaluation et des statistiques) clearly indicate that triple vaccination puts people at greater risk of severe forms of Covid and death than unvaccinated people![note] Obviously, journalists are misinformed.

According to them, this accelerated marketing has guaranteed « scrupulously the same level of safety and continuing to closely scrutinize the possible side effects », insisting moreover by qualifying them as « very rare ». Let’s remember that the clinical trials were conducted by the pharmaceutical companies themselves, that they did not evaluate the effects of repeated doses or even mixing different vaccines, that the accelerated marketing could not take into account long-term adverse effects, and that the vaccines are distributed to billions of people. The official record of serious side effects (hospitalization, life-threatening or death) reported in Belgium was 2,750 cases as of January 24, 2022[note]and according to European pharmacovigilance data, in a population that does not die from Covid, 800,000 adverse reactions have been reported, including 26,000 deaths[note].

Rather than questioning the deep reasons for this complaint, Le Soir prefers to transcribe the writings that Dr. S. published on a specialized medical platform (MediQuality), an article entitled: « The solitude of a general practitioner dragged before the courts by conspiracy theorists ». The title sets the tone, the author does not address health, nor adverse effects, but takes refuge behind the « scientific and governmental recommendations » that she has « scrupulously (and with conviction) » applied. She is the « simple executor » of the vaccination, the victim of a « bewildering misadventure ». 

Dr. S. goes so far as to question the credibility of her former patient, as well as the credibility of the doctors (qualified, experienced and attentive to their patients) who treated her (these words are reproduced in full in the article in Le Soir): « The complainant managed to find pseudo-doctors who wrote pseudo-attestations asserting pseudo-links between her condition and my Big Pharma syringe. The complainant managed to find pseudo-doctors who wrote pseudo-attestations asserting pseudo-links between her condition and my Big Pharma syringe » she ironizes. « The secrecy of the instruction[note] does not allow me to quote them, but you will have guessed that we find all the druids of the antivax and conspiracy spheres of French-speaking Belgium, some of them fired from some hospitals for the same reasons. « . However, from a medical point of view, if her patient was in perfect health before the injection (which she should know better than anyone else), how else can we explain the pathologies (serious neurological disorders) from which she suffers today? It is important to know that the proof of the causal link by excluding any other possible cause is now admitted by the jurisprudence of the French Council of State (decision of 29–9‑2021), precisely in the matter of adverse effects following a vaccination. The real victim in this story is the complainant.

Dr. S. appropriates the caricatured expressions « anti-vax and conspiracy theorists » to make an amalgam with a person who, duly vaccinated, asks that his disability and his suffering be recognized. The mere fact that she has to go to court demonstrates her difficulty in being heard. The denial of suffering is a denial of humanity. The term « conspiracy theorist » is used indiscriminately with the sole aim of discrediting the authors of a discourse critical of the government’s doxa on the management of the pandemic, but without refuting their arguments[note].

To return to the above-mentioned « Soir » article, it should be noted that the wording of the last paragraph of this article suggests to uninformed readers (which is undoubtedly the majority of the newspaper’s readership) that the action brought against Dr. S. is indeed the work of the « anti-vaccine community », and that it is indeed « pseudo-doctors who have written pseudo-attestations ». Indeed, in the absence of any critical commentary or distancing from Dr. S’s assertions, there is no reason to believe that they are questionable. More specifically, did Ms. Leurquin and Mr. Sente inquire about the « anti-vaccine community », did they ask the complainant or her lawyer to be able to verify who these « pseudo-doctors » were, or to be able to consult the « pseudo-attestations »? And if this was impossible, why didn’t they have any reservations about the terms used? It appears, therefore, that these journalists have failed in their duty to provide complete and objective information (including verification of the truthfulness of the information) as guaranteed by the Code of Journalistic Ethics and the Declaration of Duties and Rights of Journalists.

full article from the newspaper le Soir published on November 4, 2022

The role of journalists is not to discredit but to inform.

The citizen collectives ALPHA Citizens, Zone Libre, Les Belges se réveillent, Réinfo Covid, Covi Soins, Med4Health, Responsible Rebels, Revivance, Résistance et Libertés, Grappe, Liège Décroissance, Santé et Démocratie[note].

Read more "

Excess mortality, a pretext for lies

Le Soir
While the Belgian daily newspaper Le Soir published an article on pages 2–3 (the most expensive in terms of advertising after the first page) with a headline on the cover:  » Covid increases mortality in Europe « , we contacted Christophe De Brouwer. Former president of the School of Public Health of the Free University of Brussels, he has beenanalyzing the Covid figures and the media and political lies about their interpretation for over two years. His conclusions are without appeal: this article by Xavier Counasse is a real fake news, as the mainstream newspapers themselves like to call them. We add that in addition to spreading fears and anxieties, this kind of article literally sows death.

Last week, a mainstream daily newspaper, on its front page, presented us with a real pickle. But the goal is achieved: to increase anxiety. Let’s examine and try to understand.

Le Soir

The author states that for all observed causes, the excess mortality for 2022 in mid-July in Belgium (actually June 20), would already be 1,534 deaths compared to the « expected » which he says is the average daily death rate of the non-covid years 2017–2019. This  » excess mortality  » would be attributable to covid (« Not all countries account for their « covid » deaths in the same way (…) there is another method for which all EU countries have a similar accounting: the calculation of excess mortality »).

Le Soir
There are two statements in this assertion that we need to consider — we will not deal with other countries, except our own; Belgium. As the author of this article correctly states, when comparing one country to another, one is most often comparing apples and pears. Already on Belgium, there is work to do…

First difficulty

Unless we find the polynomial[note] that best fits the curve drawn by this 3‑year average (2017–2018-2019), we are left with significant uncertainties. Calculating an « expected » (what should be observed in a so-called « normal » situation) based on only three years introduces a large variability in the comparison, as the graph below shows. So what are we talking about?

(Note that it is an abuse of language to make believe that all the countries of the Union use his method to calculate an « expected »: of course not, this task is entrusted to competent people in this field who use various methods).

Second difficulty

Let’s continue to explore this data and put it in perspective with the three covid years, compared to the average of the 3 non-covid years from 2017 to 2019 (represented by the « 0% » bar), as the author of the article suggests.

Le Soir
The author of the article explains that as of June 20, 2022, the 1,534 deaths found in excess (actually 1,534.7, which I rounded up to 1,535), represent 2.8% more deaths than should have been …

NB: (a) All-cause mortality data statbel are currently available through August 14, 2022. (b) The 0% bar represents the average of the three years 2017–2018-2019 expressed as a %.

Looking at the graph above, several things jump out:

1. The year 2021 is below the expected. This so-called « covid » year performs better, in terms of overall mortality (all causes), than the average of 3 non-covid years. In this case, I suppose that the author of this article, on the basis of his logic, will explain to us that covid will have saved 1,291 deaths as of June 20, 2021 (or will he remain prudish like sciensano with his  » undetectable  » since the journalist falsely claims that « the [l’année 2022] is similar to the excess mortality observed during the year 2021 « ???)

2. Based on the average of the three years 2017 to 2019, we observe a steady increase in overall mortality in 2022 starting in March, and in April begin to develop an excess over the proposed average (represented by the 0% bar). In no case can we detect in the shape of the curve a correlation with the peaks of the original omicron, then omicron-BA2, then omicron-BA5. Unlike 2020, where part of the increase can be reasonably attributed to covid, in this case it is not possible on the basis of these data to attribute the observed increase in overall mortality to omicron compared to the average of the three non-covid years.

Let’s explore this further using the raw data and compare it with the deaths attributed to covid by sciensano. Let’s do it for the years 2021 and 2022. Here, the « 0 » bar represents the average of the three years 2017–2018-2019.

Amazing, isn’t it? The year 2021, for the period under consideration, shows lower overall mortality than the average of the three non-covid years of 2017–2018 and 2019, and yet it is the year with significantly more mortality attributed to covid, according to Sciensano, than 2022.

This has two obvious consequences:

1. Excess all-cause mortality cannot be used to estimate a mortality attributed to covid: NO, it is not
another method
to calculate »
their dead covid »

2. Mortality attributed to covid suffers from excess and not a little. (See « Graphs 54, point 3 Mortality »[note])

In short, the author of the propaganda article has it all wrong. And that’s an understatement.

Third difficulty

Let’s explore the expectations: is it reliable?

On June 14, 2021, Sciensano decided to change its expectations. One of the reasons given is:  » Some episodes of excess mortality, mainly from 2021 onwards, will now be observed when they were not previously detected. » In other words, by modifying the « expected » towards the decrease, Sciensano, in a very artificial and voluntary way, will be able to declare large sequences of observed mortality (reality) in overmortality. This is what I called in my « Graphs 89[note],
ab nihilo, ad nihilum, per vanitatis.

Let’s examine this:

The change is not small, it proposes, as of June 14, 2021, a decrease of 11 deaths per day. The consequence for 2022 is clearly visible: the entire year 2022 is, according to Sciensano’s expectation, in overmortality. That’s enough to raise everyone’s anxiety level, bravo!

If Sciensano had kept its old expectations, this stuffing (I can’t find other words to qualify this) would not have taken place and more realistic periods of « excess mortality » would have been delimited (in April for example), allowing a real questioning of public health and if necessary a correctly targeted action.

Decidedly, the modeling of « expectations » is very, too much in my opinion, sensitive to the most diverse manipulations to be a reliable model. This is unfortunately a good example.

Fourth difficulty

But then what to do? In public health, methods that use an « expectation » are called indirect methods, precisely because they use a model (the expectation). But there are so-called « direct » methods, which simply compare data to each other, whether « standardized » (best)[note] or not.

Statbel, in its overview[note], provides numerous direct comparison tables from 2017 to 2022. Since the data are raw (not standardized), you will see an almost imperceptible trend of increasing deaths from year to year (except for the year 2020 which is special). And this is normal, on January1, 2017, we were in Belgium 11,322,088 inhabitants and on January1, 2022, 11,584,008. But we’ve also gotten older: the average age in 2017 is 41.52 and in 2021, 41.98. The increase in life expectancy compensates very partially for this. It is therefore normal that we die a little more each year, although it is not very noticeable.

With this in mind, let’s look at mortality by age group (statbel data). I present them every week in my « Charts »[note], but it is worth looking at them in the context of this work.

These 6 charts, by age group, compare 4 years, from 2019 to 2022. Their examination teaches us many things.

But, in the context of the question dealt with here, we shall be content to note the following:

The increase in mortality that can be observed in 2022 concerns only the age group of 85 years and over.To speak of a real increase in mortality for the 75–84 age group is borderline.For the other age groups, there is absolutely nothing.
What can explain this? It should be noted that people aged 85 and over are above all a very fragile population, generally suffering from polypathologies. The hypothesis of a lethal covid seems unlikely, as this is the most vaccinated population in the country, including a second booster, if not to think that the gene therapy vaccine is of little use for this age group. And it is true that the data proposed by Sciensano, according to the vaccination status, concerning hospitalizations, ICU and hospital deaths show a vaccine efficacy largely at half-mast for the 65 years old and more, sometimes even a negative « efficacy » ‑an increased risk- (pudimentarily named by Sciensano of  » relative risk reduction [suite au vaccin] not detectable  »). I address this, week after week, in my « Charts »[note].

Another hypothetical cause for this observation would be in the nature of the gene therapy vaccine itself and the 85+ year olds have indeed received so much and more of this experimental gene therapy vaccine. That the gene therapy vaccine is being considered as a cofactor of death in the very elderly seems to me to be a hypothesis that deserves attention. From this point of view, it would be interesting to know the number of deaths within 24 and 60 days after injection. The British had offered us this data, so why shouldn’t we?

But obviously, it is not because we are currently observing an increase in mortality in the 85+ age group that we can say that, according to some, it is obviously the fault of covid, or for others obviously the fault of the gene therapy vaccine.

No, that’s not how it works. The cause is most probably multifactorial: it is the age and other intercurrent infections and the tendency to diabetes and hypertension and decreased immune capacity and obesity/alcoholism/smoking and polypathology and vaccine-gene therapy, and covid… In what proportion? This is obviously what should be the subject of rigorous research.


The article of this mainstream newspaper, placed on the first page ‑excuse me- which was the pretext for this analysis turns out to be a false construction, a fake, charged with anguish and fear. We really don’t need this right now on top of everything else[note]. Based on figures diverted from their real meaning, the intellectual construction that is proposed is false from « A to Z ». It is quite astonishing that a mainstream newspaper, which used to be read for the quality of the information it provided, for the appearance of a counter-power it presented, can propose such nonsense. But in the end, is it so surprising? Today’s mainstream press has long since abandoned its role as guardian, critic of authority, a fortiori as « fourth estate » and guarantor of freedom of expression. It has turned into an uncompromising propagandist of the narrative, a narrative parallel to the realities we live in, which our « elites » (in Maffesoli’s sense:  » those who have the power to say and the power to do ») feed us. Both are co-responsible for this social distancing, this abyss that is growing between the « elite » and the people and that announces uncertain times. Sad and dangerous.

Christophe de Brouwer

Honorary full professor and former chair of the School of Public Health at the Université Libre de Bruxelles.

Read more "

Debates in the House on mandatory vaccination and choice of experts: a travesty of democracy!

In a context where omicron dominates contaminations, where this variant is even less lethal than its predecessors (the omicron variant is 100 times less dangerous than H1N1[note]), where it no longer saturates intensive care units[note] and where it seems to largely escape the immunity conferred by the current vaccines, it is not at all clear what the relevance and basis of the debate on mandatory vaccination that is being prepared in Parliament might be. Certainly, one can feel the government’s will to force the population and in particular the minority that refuses vaccination, but the rationality of this will seems totally non-existent.

This minority, which still represents one tenth of the population[note] or one million people, to which must be added all those who were vaccinated under social, family or professional pressure, have more rational reasons to refuse vaccination than the mainstream media would like to admit. Indeed, many high-level experts from different disciplines have expressed profound divergences with the official positions on the basis of verifiable facts and rational, scientific, ethical and legal arguments. Regardless of what the media says, there is no scientific consensus on the efficacy, safety and benefit-risk balance of current vaccines. Nor is there an ethical consensus on the appropriateness of mandatory vaccination. A truly democratic debate requires that experts who are critical of compulsory vaccination and/or the vaccine pass receive an audience in Parliament that is equivalent (in terms of speaking time) to that of experts who are a priori in favor of these projects. The list of experts provisionally constituted to date does not guarantee this democratic requirement.

Indeed, the choice of experts selected to be heard by the members of the House of Commons does not reflect in a balanced way the diversity of scientific positions on vaccination, and even less the duality (favourable or unfavourable) of the positions on compulsory vaccination and/or the vaccine pass. We’re not even close. Not only were most of the names proposed by the citizens’ associations that contest the relevance of compulsory vaccination and the vaccine pass not retained, but most of the experts retained have already spoken out in the past in favor of vaccination, compulsory vaccination and/or the vaccine pass. Finally, the independence of some of the selected experts is an issue that needs to be addressed.

The debate is therefore biased and has only the appearance of a democratic debate. Of the 32 experts selected, only one or two officially spoke out against compulsory vaccination and/or the vaccine passport, and no citizens’ association critical of these projects, such as CovidRationnel for example, although it is made up of Belgian university professors, is represented. Among the many other possible experts who have repeatedly expressed their views on the subject and whose applications have been rejected, even though they are more than a match for the successful candidates, let us mention: Christian Perronne, Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier, Alexandra Henrion-Caude, epidemiologist Martin Zizi, virologist and former rector Bernard Rentier, microbiologist Kaarle Parikka, Aryan Afzalian (for the scientific aspect), philosopher Jean-Michel Longneaux (for the ethical aspect), professor and former rector Yves Poullet or the Lawyers for Democracy collective (for the legal aspect), etc.

This debate is not a debate at all…

Heidi Larson : Director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, pro-vaccination anthropologist : Peter Piot and Heidi Larson, virologists: « The coronavirus will stay with us for a long time » | L’Echo (

Marius Gilbert : rather in favor of compulsory vaccination (and in any case of vaccination), despite some oratory precautions: Marius Gilbert, behind the tears (

3.Emmanuel André : in favor of mandatory vaccination: Emmanuel André: « Making vaccination mandatory is a public health necessity » — Le Soir

4.wouter Arrazola De Onate 

5.Virginie Pirard (Advisory Committee on Bioethics): this body is not unfavourable to compulsory vaccination « under certain conditions »; Opinion n° 80 — compulsory vaccination in times of pandemic | FPS Public Health (

6.a member of the IFDH (Federal Institute for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights): this organization is in favor of compulsory vaccination: read-the-opinion-on-compulsory-vaccination.pdf (

7.a member of the Superior Council of Health: this organization is in favor of the vaccination obligation: Opinion 9671 — Compulsory vaccination for health personnel | FPS Public Health (

8.Maarten Vansteenkiste (psychologist) : in favor of compulsory vaccination: Belgian psychologists are in favor of compulsory vaccination: « We are at a turning point » — La Libre

9.Tom Goffin (President of the Federal Commission for Patients’ Rights) : : this organization is in favor of mandatory vaccination : 20211220_cfddp_avis_vaccination_obligatoire.pdf (

10.Vincent Yzerbit (psychologist): in favor of compulsory vaccination: %22Une%,%20selon%(

11.Vanessa De Greef (vice-president of the League of Human Rights): this organization is not unfavorable to compulsory vaccination « in the respect of the law » : Compulsory Vaccination, Covid Safe Ticket and Human Rights | IFDH (

12.Els Keytsman (Unia) : this organization is not unfavorable to mandatory vaccination « for certain categories of populations » (caregivers, vulnerable people): Mandatory vaccination should be « the last resort, limited in time and coupled with other measures », according to Unia — La Libre 

13.Leila Belkhir (infectiologist): in favor of vaccination; believes that the debate on mandatory vaccination should be scientific and not political (whereas a legal constraint is a strictly political issue!): Obligation20vaccinaleC2A0%A0:%20LeC3AFla20Belkhir20learns20on20Twitter20his20participation20in20the20hearing20of20the%20Chamber (

14.Johan Neyts (virologist): working on a vaccine against covid : Johan Neyts (virologist): « This virus will continue to cause problems for a long time » — Economic Policy — Trends (

15.Tijl De Bie (data scientist):
Tijl De Bie (@TijlDeBie) / Twitter

16.Mathias Dewatripont (economist): Gems member, pro-vaccination: Covid-19 vaccination campaign to guide European economic recovery | Euronews

17.Hendrik Vuye (constitutionalist)

18.Luc Herry (president of Absym): this organization is in favor of mandatory vaccination from 6 years: Absym wants a mandatory vaccination from 6 years: « young people are the most contaminated » — Health — LeVif

19.Carla Nagels (criminologist): not opposed to the vaccination obligation: Let’s stop stigmatizing the non-vaccinated — La Libre

20.Herman Goossens (microbiologist): in favor of adult vaccination : Microbiologist Herman Goossens explains what bothers him about the vaccination of children aged 5 to 12 | Coronavirus in Belgium |

21.Geert Molenberghs (biostatistician) : in favour of vaccination : Covid: Geert Molenberghs believes there will be a 4th dose of vaccine (Brussels) (

24.Geert Vanden Bossche (virologist): against mass vaccination: Home | Voice for Science and Solidarity


We investigate about the few remaining experts… The list will be updated. 

A Grappe-Kairos collaboration

Read more "


In March 2018, the collaboration between Financitémagazine and La Libre came to an abrupt end, after 12 years during which the former was quarterly embedded in the latter. A look at a case of proven censorship, typical of the generally more insidious thought control that is typical of our « modern » societies. 

: Describe in a few words what is
Financité magazine?

Julien Collinet : Financité magazine was born 12 years ago. At the beginning, Financité was an association that only informed the public on everything related to solidarity investment. It then became an association of permanent education with a mission of information and sensitization in relation to finance in general. Then there was an evolution towards much broader themes and an interest in more things. As a result, this magazine, which at the beginning was only dedicated to solidarity investment, has turned into something more critical about finance, global economic issues and their implications on people, working for example on food speculation. It is important to know that from the second issue, the magazine was inserted in La Libre Belgique but we also distributed it in 400/500 places of deposit in Wallonia and Brussels: cafés, CPAS, medical houses, etc., plus our subscribers who receive it by post. 

What was your relationship with
La Libre
and afterwards ?

It was really good. We had our annual meetings, I always exchanged with them. It is important to know that they were in charge of printing the magazine, they were very happy and had very good feedback from their readers. People often thought it was a supplement of La Libre Belgique. I’ve always been told that it’s good for them, giving them quality editorial content as well. So there was never any blame, until a September 2017 issue. 

So no reminder, even when you were treating
some « delicate » subjects?

Until then, they never told us anything. There was never a little reproach or a simple discussion about the content. We really felt free to publish what we wanted. 

The collaboration came to an abrupt end
a few weeks, explain to us how
what happened?

As I said, until September 2017, there were no problems, it was getting better and better each time. They offered us more opportunities, were in a process to continue and strengthen the partnership. Then there’s this issue in 2017 that was about inequality, with a photo of Albert Frère on the cover. My choice then was to deal with inequalities and to embody them, not to say  » inequalities in the world « , but to show who are its representatives. Thus, the 8 richest men in the world are listed at the beginning of the file, which was not a problem at all for La Libre. But it’s a week after the publication that we receive an e‑mail which indicates that it made a lot of commotion within La Libre… 

Small precision here, they do not control
what is going to come out, it is after that they react by
based on the feedback they received.

It is important to know that the magazine was sent for printing on Tuesdays and usually it was printed on Tuesday afternoon. But since they trusted us completely, there was no proofreading. In short, we received an e‑mail from the person in charge of the partnership, who told us that it was causing a lot of commotion and wanted to meet, in particular with the general manager of IPM, Denis Pierrard, former general manager of Libération in France. 

So you go to this meeting…

We go to this meeting which takes place two or three weeks later. I go there with the director of Financité, to meet the person who manages the partnership and Denis Pierrard. Basically, they explain to us that they have had phone calls, that the board of directors has risen up against this One, that it looked like a PTB leaflet, that it is really demagogic, that our information was not solid, that we were implicating people who are close to La Libre, that this is not acceptable, etc. In the dossier, we mentioned large families with significant assets in Belgium, such as the Emsens family, which became rich thanks to the asbestos trade. In this regard, they tell us that it is not solid[note].

« The Emsens family (€3.3 billion in assets) got rich thanks to the asbestos trade, through its company Eternit. These people have killed thousands of people because of their noxious products and we let their fortune prosper. (Financité, September 2017) 

What do you say to them?

On the fact, we let him speak, I really found it ubiquitous, quite violent that our work was questioned like that. They also add that it is dishonest to point the finger at Albert Frère like this, when he is a very generous person. 

He is a patron of the arts.

Yes, a philanthropist… They add that even if he had done tax evasion (sic), it is not illegal. It may be immoral but, well, we’re not allowed to talk about it. Already before, in the e‑mail, they asked us, referring to the logo of La Libre on the Financité website and on the magazine, to withdraw all this immediately, not wanting to be associated with it anymore. 

At this point, they ask us several conditions. In addition to removing the logo, they want us to indicate in the future, if we continue the partnership, that our words do not commit the editorial staff of La Libre. We had no worries about that, it even seemed honest to us. But they also required that the paper be proofread before publication and that they could demand changes. This meant that we had to provide the material a week before. If there is a delay, no problem, we could arrange it, the newspaper is published every three months. 

Although you indicate that the words of
were in no way binding on

La Libre
they ask for a right of review and
modification ?

Yes, and we thought about this at the time, because first of all, it would be a problem for us if they were to ask us to remove a piece of information one day, and secondly, there is a form of self-censorship implicit in this case, because we know that we can be rejected if we write something that they don’t like. But we finally accepted because it allowed us to have a huge distribution for a small newspaper like that. 


Yes, on Saturdays they print 60,000. This allows us to have an audience that we could not have ourselves by our small means. So we kept going, while thinking about what might happen. 

Then, the December issue arrives.

Yes, the December issue is coming, which is not at all about a polemical topic, as it deals with cooperatives as a response to uberization, for which I take the example of bike delivery people, Delivero, etc. But in fact, there is another article, which is in the « zoom pages » published by Financité [L’association] and which I am popularizing a little. I’m trying to test them and I’m putting back a little reference to Albert Frère, in an article about how the rich are, inevitably, the ones who use tax havens the most. So, recalling the inequalities, I make a small sentence about Albert Frère to remind us how strong they are and I indicate how much his wealth weighs compared to that of the Belgians. And there, it does not fail, they ask me to remove it, directly. 

But the paper also shows that the Belgian rich do more tax evasion than the European average, justifying my title  » Belgian rich love tax havens « . And here, too, I am asked to remove « Belgian ». It’s not much, but… 

It’s not much, but it means a lot. 

This means that you can bash the rich globally but not the Belgian families (and this we will learn later, clearly understanding it when they cancel the March 2018 issue) because the boards of the press groups are composed of people defending the interests of these families. In this case, they warn us two hours before the closing, we had worked two months on it, we were not going to say: « We cancel everything ». 

So against my will…

… we take it off in the end.

It’s violent. And then what?

The March issue addresses the issue of service
public. Again, the subject is re-read. In the first
mail I was sent, I was told:  » Dorian [Dorian de Meeûs] has read again « .

The editor-in-chief of
La Libre Belgique

Yes. What is interesting is that when we later decided to make this matter public by issuing a press release, Belga interviewed Denis Pierrard, director of IPM, who said:  » The editorial staff had nothing to do with it, they never intervened in the content « , while it was the editorial director of La Libre checked and then asked for changes in this issue. 

So you think the managing editor
checks and doesn’t ask for anyone’s opinion
other. He knows himself what to censor,
which will not please the shareholders?

Yes, it is. The person who manages the partnerships writes in his e‑mail:  » Dorian read it again, he found the file great « , etc. She brushes a little bit in the direction of the hair, adding however:  » But there are two things we can’t accept, especially in the letters to the editor where we talk about inequality and someone who says he is sick of seeing the gap between the incomes of bosses and workers « This in itself, even if one can find it demagogic and all that one wants, is true. 

But above all, there is a brief that poses a problem, which concerns a report published by an Icelandic NGO showing that some Belgian banks have investments in nuclear weapons. I mention banks, including Degroof Petercam, which will prove important later on. I know that Degroof is on the board of La Libre… Basically, he explains to me that it’s really too simple, that you can’t summarize such a complicated subject in a brief, that it would require a lot of explanations. 

Is it de Meeûs who says that?

No, it’s the middleman, but I guess the orders come from above. In short, there are phone calls. I defend myself, say that it is factual, etc. So I know that’s the problem. After several exchanges of emails, I received a message:  » Ok, we have discussed with Denis Pierrard and with Dorian [de Meeûs] « , telling me afterwards on the phone:  » It is not possible, we are making you an offer « . And then he e‑mailed me a proposal:  » Let’s remove Degroof Petercam from our board of directors, it’s a problem « . 

Because there is the famous Alain Siaens who is at

That’s right. They say  » Siaens is part of our
board of directors « .

At that point, what do you tell them?

I say this is not acceptable and I refuse their request. At this point, I know we’re not going to get published. The next day, normally the day of publication, they call me and I have to push them to tell me themselves:  » Asit is, we refuse to publish it « , and then they tell me  » It is Patrice le Hodey, owner of IPM (see the article in this file:  » The Hodey galaxy  »), who decided . It’s the boss of IPM who decided for a small publication and a brief story! So there we refused. They still agreed to print the newspaper but not to insert it. 

So La Libre
wanted you to rewrite the newspaper? 

They accepted in fact that we publish this brief, after negotiation, but on the condition of removing Bank Degroof, which is close to La Libre Belgique, because one of the directors of Degroof is a director of IPM. 

What’s fantastic is that, through a kind of mirror effect, it gives an idea of what they can and cannot say in La Libre. We, with Kairos, we have been criticizing the media for years, and therefore La Libre, they always told us that they were free to do what they wanted, this famous « freedom of the press » that we know is totally false. This shows that the most important thing for the Belgians, for the readers, is not said: the wealth gaps, the way the money goes to tax havens… 

I wouldn’t go that far because La Libre publishes articles on tax evasion, maybe does the minimum, but… 

So it’s all schizophrenic?

Let’s just say that there’s no such thing as a phone call from a shareholder in an editorial office. The censorship is implicit. I worked 5 years before at Canal+ in Paris. Never, before Bolloré, did Vivendi call to say « Don ‘t do that « , but the censorship is implicit, I have plenty of examples. 

What is interesting is that there was no
censorship before September 2017.

By the way, it’s simple: I don’t think they read it. But one day, the important people at La Libre received the Saturday paper and saw Albert Frère’s head, with an article and a somewhat provocative title. So they look at what’s inside. And that’s what happened: they told me at the meeting I had with Pierrard, that they had received phone calls, that there were important people who complained. Afterwards, there was an overzealousness in relation to our publication which they reread three times to avoid any problems. Because short stories like that, we could have done 10 of them before and it would slip through the cracks. The overzealousness can also be explained by the fact that people who are very high up in a newspaper are paid for it: their employer is the shareholders and, at some point, they want to save their place. 

No doubt these important people did not
and got interested in
seeing the cover, but in the meantime they read
without doubt
La Libre

Yes, indeed (laughs).

Did this event change your perception of the mainstream media, even though you were probably lucid about it? Did you say to yourself:  » I didn’t think they could go that far » ? 

I have a certain background: I went to journalism school in France, I worked in editorial offices where media criticism was not present and where I understood, because there were problems, how important this criticism was. I had found a certain freedom here at Financité. I thought it was the right compromise: it allowed me to be hired by a non-profit organization, of course it’s not totally independent but at least I don’t have any important shareholders behind me, I thought everything was going well at the time. It didn’t fundamentally change my perception
because it was something I knew.

But when it comes to you…

On the other hand, yes, it is violent. I admit that it was 6
months quite hard by the way, personally.

You can imagine what happens in these newsrooms when you still believe in a free press. People like de Meeûs and all, they are managers more than editors, they are buffers between the press groups and the newspaper, they know what you can say, what you can’t say, what you didn’t know at Financité. 

Yes, it is. We are not going in the right direction today, when you see the status of journalists. There are practically only independents, but they are false independents, people who are on ejector seats. So they have no interest in going against their management. 


What is also interesting is how other media reacted. Apart from RTBF, which other media outlets reacted? Does Le SoirDid you say anything about this to the Hurbain family, which is in the same situation with regard to its shareholders? 

At first, it is important to know that we hesitated before releasing the information. I really wanted to do it. 

Did you get any threats not to take it out? 

No. They called me. They wanted us to make an appointment, a bit of a reunion. I dragged it out a bit and we got them by surprise… I don’t think they thought we would get it out. I wanted to bring it out because it is important, it says a lot about the independence of the press in Belgium. Afterwards, we were afraid of shooting ourselves in the foot, of being boycotted. It could be dangerous: the association needs press relays when we release certain information. We knew when we released it that it wouldn’t be picked up in the press. We were very clear on that. 

So, apart from the RTBF, nobody spoke?

We contacted Medor which released [une partie de] the day after our press release; Belga also made a dispatch. What you need to know is that normally when Belga publishes one of our news, it is taken up on all the sites, which have their own account, whether it is 7 sur 7, Le Soir, La Libre… and here, just the RTBF. For my part, I was even surprised that RTBF was playing it. I didn’t think he would relay it. However, it is obvious that a lot of journalists have read the press release and that it has been widely circulated in the newsrooms, because it is a subject that affects journalists. I don’t think we’ve ever had a press release that was circulated so much but not relayed on other media websites. 

Did you know the composition of the Board of Directors of La Libre (see p.12)?

No, not at all. I realized that Bank Degroof was on the Board of Directors, because I received an e‑mail on my mailbox, just after the Albert Frère story, where I had been called to tell me that the content had not gone down well with La Libre, from a certain Alain Siaens, who does not introduce himself, who does not say who he is and who asks  » Such information, I would like to have your source, it seemsstrange tome ». 

Unluckily, the source was the SPF économie. So, anyway, no news but I google this guy and I realize that he is on the board of La Libre. So that’s when I discovered it. On the other hand, there is something a bit insidious that I am discovering about the press in Belgium: I thought that things were going a bit better here than in France where the media belong to big industrialists whereas in Belgium we have rather press groups: Rossel, IPM, etc. But by the way, when you dig a little, you discover the composition of the board of directors, you see that all the press groups belong to big Belgian fortunes but, in addition, you find in the boards of directors the whole Belgian financial and industrial oligarchy. They are linked like that. 

But in France there is a strong criticism of the press. Le Monde diplomatique has done a lot of work on this, Acrimed, guys like Halimi, Accardo, Ruffin, whereas here, except for Geoffrey Geuens who had worked a little on this, there is almost no one, which means that there is still this ignorance. When you released the information, a web user reacted:  » I thought that La Libre was one of the last bastions of a still respectable press « . 

On the question of a respectable press, I would not go
not until then. The majority of journalists are
people who do their job well. La Libre, Le Soir, on
tax evasion issues, for example.

But the more disturbing we are, the less we will talk
of us. Is it now in

you tell yourself that you are going to leave a place,
or you think that it is not your role,
to a criticism of the mass press and also of the
link between finance and the press.

Yes, the question will arise and we will make a case for it, it is important. It was actually planned in this issue. I was supposed to interview Aude Lancelin, author of Le Monde Libre , but it didn’t work out in terms of timing. I would have loved to see their reaction, it’s a shame. 

How do you see the future of a magazine that had
the chance, in quotation marks, to touch
60,000 people. Does this change everything now?

It changes everything, you really have to rethink the whole thing. We just finished the previous issue but everything was done in a hurry. We knew that when we published the information, it would not be relayed by the press, on the other hand, we counted on the civil society and we had a lot of support from citizens, associations and we will count on these relays to diffuse the newspaper now. 

Interviewed by Alexandre Penasse on June 21, 2018

Read more "

Censorship as a system

While politicians and the media censor and do not want certain legitimate questions to reach the ears of citizens, it is essential to give you articles that highlight the structure and functioning of these media. 

Media and politics are thus intimately linked in a form of organization where one serves the other, without there being any conspiracy. In this context, press conferences are great dress rehearsals, and serve only one purpose: the show. 

Curious, isn’t it, that our web developer had her site hacked last night? What a coincidence… Those who talk about freedom and restrict it when it does not serve their interests…

We are preparing a video (to be published today or tomorrow) that will follow up on our questioning of yesterday, April 15, at the press conference of Sophie Wilmès, including the second question, which was censored. 

We can’t answer the thousands of messages, but THANK YOU ALL! 

Four articles, to teach us how to apprehend those who say they protect us against Fake News when they are the main architects of it. Which will make you understand, among other things, why François de Brigode, reverent, does not ask any disturbing question to Sophie Wilmès in the evening news of April 15, or the magic formula taken out of the hat by RTL (« complot »).[note]

Let’s take the time to understand. As the Greek historian Thucydides said: « You must choose, rest or be free ».

Read more "

137 days banned from press conferences… « Penasse v. Belgian State »

« Political language — and with some variations, this applies to all political parties, from conservatives to anarchists — has the function of making lies credible and murder respectable, and of giving what is only wind an appearance of consistency.George Orwell[note]

It’s not that I was particularly excited about it, finding these government press conferences particularly bland and uninteresting, a bit like a RTBF or RTL-TVI newscast, an editorial in Le Soir or La Libre. Pushed in the back by relatives who slipped me  » We can’t let that happen! Go ahead and ask more questions « I decided to go there. It was on April 15, with this extraordinary banal question about the legitimacy of a government and of groups of experts who eat from all racks and invite us to take care of ourselves while they take care of their interests and those of the pharmaceutical multinationals[note]. What if the art of politics was only to disguise words, to construct a reality that does not exist, to hide everything they do and do not say? Therein lies the real lesson of my question and the political reaction of April 15. They will do everything to make sure that I never come back and ask them to account for their actions in front of hundreds of thousands of Belgians.

Before the press conference on April 15

My first contact with the Minister’s communications department was on March 30, via an email to the Minister’s French-speaking spokesperson, Steve Detry:

« Hello, as a journalist, I would like to attend the upcoming government press conferences that will be held. Could you please tell me what to do? Thanking you in advance. Sincerely, Alexandre Penasse, accredited journalist (F08882)  »

They will do everything to make sure that I never come back and ask them to account for their actions in front of hundreds of thousands of Belgians.

Response from Steve Detry (March 30)[note]:

 » Hello, due to the strict instructions related to the Coronavirus, access to the press room is strictly limited to certain newsrooms in pool. However, you can follow in streaming press conferences on our official websites. This configuration will be re-evaluated when the social distancing will be lifted. Thank you for your understanding »

I send back an email (March 30):

« What do you mean by « some of the pool editors ». Could we know them to let our followers know which essays are allowed? Being part of a different type of media than the conventional ones, it would be interesting to be able to go to these press conferences. Especially since the social distancing is no reason for some media to get a pass and not others. On what criteria do you make the distinction? »

Response from Steve Detry (March 31):

« Hello, Physical access is allowed to newsrooms that are listed by the General Association of Professional Journalists of Belgium. These are organized to form pools between them. It goes smoothly. That being said, all press conferences and their contents are available to anyone, in their entirety, in live streaming « .

March 31, I reply:

« I am recognized as a professional journalist (F07882) and the newspaper I edit (Kairos) registered as a periodical press with the Wallonia-Brussels Federation. I don’t see what would prevent us from sending one of our journalists to a government press conference? I have just contacted the AJP[note]of which I am obviously a member, to know my rights.

On April 2, having no answer from the communication service of the minister, I send an e‑mail:

« Could you answer the questions in the previous email, but also point me to the authorized redactions, this pool you’re talking about? »

The next day, I get the answer:

« I think I’ve already answered your question about newsrooms. At future press conferences, you will be asked to register as is the case for any media organization. We will advise at that time according to the configuration of the room and the number of requests; all in good consultation with your journalist counterparts. »

As of April 3, I will not hear from the Minister’s communication department. On April 15, the day of the press conference, at 12:53 p.m., I strangely received an e‑mail from Louise Ringuet, who was always copied on Steve Detry’s e‑mails, but with whom I never communicated directly:

« Mr. Penasse, there will be a press conference after the NSC this afternoon at 16 rue de la Loi. Are you planning to come? If so, a link can be sent to you so that you can follow the conference live from a distance. Thank you in advance for your prompt response. »

I will answer him and confirm my presence.

« Are you planning to come? If so, a link can be sent to you so that you can follow the conference live from a distance ». Minister’s Communication Service

One may find it curious, when Steve Detry’s last email indicated that they would make their decision on the day of the press conference based on  » theconfiguration of the room and the number of requests « , and that they knew perfectly well that I wanted to attend the press conference and ask my questions, that another official from the Minister’s communication department invites me to send a link to  » follow the conference live from a distance « . Similarly, shortly before 3:00 p.m. on April 15, after having informed Sophie Wilmès’ spokesperson that I wanted to attend the press conference, a person linked to the minister’s communications department sent me an SMS with the YouTube link, even though I had not asked for it:

« Here is the YouTube link to watch the press conference. I still don’t have more info on the time of the press conference ».

At 2:45 p.m., I texted back:

« I would like to attend, not as a viewer on YouTube, thank you ».

At 2:48 p.m., I was told:

« It’s up to you, » he said,  » so see what the practicalities are with the chancellery.

… that’s just what I was doing…

On April 15, prior to this exchange, I had called the press office of the chancellery to obtain more information about the place and time of Sophie Wilmès’ press conference. Following my call, the press service of Minister Wilmès could not inform me about the time and place, so they called me back a little later:

 » Concerning « the press conference of this afternoon or evening, I can already tell you where it is, it will be at the Egmont Palace where the press conference will take place, so you see where it is the Egmont Palace, it is behind the Sablon. So for any practical question related to this press conference, you can call the chancellery, there the number, but I think you have it, it is 02/301.02.11.  »

- « So, the time we don’t know ».

- No, we don’t know the time, we are making bets ourselves. We will see when they have decided.

This was false information, because the press conference took place in the « bunker », rue Ducale. It is astonishing that the Minister’s communication department, the first to know, is wrong about this.

The day of the press conference

On April 15, I entered the « bunker » and asked my question to a bewildered minister: « You have just introduced a politically biased question in this press room, which is not usually the habit of journalists « [note]. The Minister refused my second question, citing the tight timing and the fact that questions could be asked after the press conference. This will be the first lie to suggest that the freedom of expression of journalists is tolerated: we don’t go outside the box!

On that day, tens of thousands of people heard a question that contrasted with the banality of the reverent journalists who did not seek to reveal the truth, but rather to remain on good terms with the authorities. Following the press conference, hundreds of people will subscribe to Kairos, more than 8,000 to the Facebook page of the newspaper.

Having broken their show and introduced  » the politically biased question « , i.e. the right question, I send an email on April 20 to Steve Detry:

 » I will be present at Sophie Wilmès’ press conference on Friday, April 24. Could you make a note of this and keep me informed of the time and place? »

He will answer me the same day:

« As announced last time, we are proceeding in a pool due to the limited access to the press conference room in view of the social distancing measures .. Your colleagues should also have access to the press room. The teams are rotating. As already mentioned, the content is available, live, on the internet. If you have a question, I invite you to get organized with your fellow journalists. It is customary for some journalists to also ask a question for another newsroom. It is also possible to send it to us later. »

These assertions have been proven false. None of the questions sent to the firm afterwards were answered and no journalist, of course, relayed our questions. Why « obviously »? For it is this very functioning of the mass media, which we have been denouncing for years, that explains why « disturbing » questions cannot be asked. For several reasons, there is an indecent proximity between the media and politicians, which means that the former no longer play their role as a counter-power and remain nothing more than a sounding board for political decisions, a communication service for the government, which ensures that its decisions will be accepted and its continuity assured.

The Journalists’ Association

Because of the difficulty in getting invited to government press conferences, on March 31 we informed the journalists’ union, the AJP, in advance. The latter will then prove to be at the service of the media status quo, and therefore of political power, a logical conclusion when those who run it come from the mass media whose harmful role we denounce[note].

We wrote to the AJP:

 » I contacted Minister Wilmes’ spokesperson to gain direct access to one of the upcoming press conferences. This one answers me: « Physical access is allowed to editorial offices that are listed by the General Association of Professional Journalists of Belgium. They organize themselves to form pools among themselves. It is going smoothly ». Could I also have access, as a professional journalist and editor of a newspaper recognized by the FWB as a periodical press? Thank you for your help. »

The email was reportedly forwarded to the legal department, which we did not hear from again until April 20, when we wrote: « You had not informed me of the outcome of my request for legal aid regarding the refusal to attend Sophie Wilmès’ press conference. They are refusing to let me attend the next one. What are my rights? This is urgent.

Martine Simonis, Secretary General of the AJP, will respond[note]: « Following your previous message, I had indeed personally intervened with the organizer of the pools (the Prime Minister’s Office) so that you would have the opportunity to participate. This was the case. Pools are by definition limited groupings of journalists, which then serve all other media (image, sound and information sharing). There is a rotation among these journalists/media within the pools. There is no « right » to be in the pools. Your participation in the pool also seems to have caused some problems (e.g. with other journalists) .This, and the above, probably explains why the organizer of the pools [le cabinet de la ministre] does not respond favorably to your request (sic). We have no other way to intervene on your behalf.

« Your participation in the pool also seems to have caused some problems (especially with other journalists). This, and the above, probably explains why the pool organizer [le cabinet de la ministre] is not responding favorably to your request. Martine Simonis, Secretary General of the Association of Professional Journalists

Who does the journalists’ union serve?

This answer raises several questions. First of all, besides the fact that it is surprising that a union would respond to our request and support us without even informing us, it is even more surprising that it would tolerate the Prime Minister’s Office assuming the right to organize the pools, while we will see later that this is done in the greatest opacity.

But most significantly, what happened next will show that the union itself was preparing to defend the mass media and anticipate the government’s posture. When I will indeed attack the State for hindering the freedom of the press (see below), the latter will justify, via his lawyer, my ban on attending press conferences by my alleged attitude of July 27 (see lawyer’s letter), whereas before he could not support it on any rule, except that of the  » This is the  » pool « , an arbitrary and falsely democratic creation on which the media and politicians agree. At times, « pools » are old journalistic habits, at others measures taken because of Covid-19[note]. In other words, a measure whose semantic vagueness leaves room for arbitrariness and censorship.

On April 23, I will respond to Ms. Simonis of the AJP:

« I want to thank you at the outset for your initial intervention with Minister Wilmes’ press office. However, you should know that, despite this, many elements lead me to believe that they acted so that I would not be present on April 15. The reactions of many Belgian citizens to my question that day clearly indicate that they expect journalists to ask certain questions that they consider important. It is clear that this is very rarely the case, for reasons that we have already analyzed many times in the journal Kairos. So it follows, logically enough, that when journalists say something different, it is disturbing.

« My behavior towards other journalists » ? What you are relaying here without proof, constitutes serious accusations. Don’t you think that it is rather the object of my question that provoked the search for pretexts, to now try to justify their refusal that I go to a press conference again? Your wording («  including  ») also indicates that there would have been other problems. May I know which ones?

You announce in your letter of April 20 that you can no longer support me — what about your support for the defamation of me in the mass media? Yet you represent the journalists’ union: aren’t you supposed to defend me when the right of the press and freedom of expression are clearly flouted?

Could you also give me some legal texts about press conferences and the journalist’s right. It seems that, representing only one media and having my press card, they cannot deny me access to the press conference. »

« Don’t you think that it is rather the object of my question that provoked the search for pretexts, to now try to justify their refusal that I go to a press conference again« Mail to AJP

Without any answer, I call again on April 29 and receive an answer the same day:

« I wrote to you on April 20 that « I had indeed personally intervened ». This email also stated:  » Pools are by definition limited groupings of journalists, who then serve all other media (sharing images, sound, information). There is a rotation among these journalists/media within the pools. There is no « right » to be in the pools.

You are asking us for  » legal texts on press conferences and journalists’ rights « . Press conferences are not regulated. In this case, The rules of sanitary distance do not allow to open the press conferences of the NSC to all journalists. This is the reason for the organization of pools of journalists. The pools aim (I re-explain) to put the information given in press conferences (beyond the streaming that everyone can view) at the disposal of journalists who cannot, for reasons of space or security, be present. The pools are frequent in places like the Courts of Assizes for example. The principle of pool is the rotation. There are 5,000 professional journalists in Belgium. They are either employees or freelancers, for large or small media, mainstream or not. They have a press card. There is no individual « right » to be part of the pools. Not for you, not for anyone else. The public authority must ensure access to information (public broadcasting) and the opportunity to ask questions (presence of journalists). Then the journalistic work begins. Investigation is not conducted in a press conference, all professionals will tell you that and you know it too.

As for your behavior towards other journalists: the AJP Board of Directors was informed of your attitude outside the NSC last Friday. You have deliberately hindered journalists in their work of interviewing at the time of the exit of the ministers. The Council would like to remind you of the rules of confraternity that govern the profession and which imply respect the work of other journalists[note]whatever you may think of it. We thank you for your attention in the future.

Finally, if, as you write, you believe that you are being « defamed » in the « mass media », or that your freedom of expression and the right of the press are being « violated », you should seriously build a case (with supporting evidence). The AJP’s legal department will consider requests from its members if they are substantiated.

Please accept, Mr. Penasse, the assurance of our highest consideration.

« Investigation is not conducted in a press conference, all professionals will tell you that and you know it too« Martine Simonis, Secretary General of the Association of Professional Journalists

On May 8, I answered him:

 » Ms. Simonis,

On April 23, I told you that you were relaying without proof serious accusations about behaviors that I would have had against colleagues during the press conference of April 15. In addition to not answering my questions in your letter of April 29, you persist in a biased attitude and accuse me again, without any proof, of an inappropriate attitude that I would have had on Friday April 24. This time, the factual inaccuracy adds to the accusation without evidence.

I quote: « As for your behavior towards other journalists: the Board of Directors of the AJP has been informed of your attitude outside the NSC last Friday »… I did not go outside the NSC at any time, but was only present at the press conference venue on Rue Ducale. Therefore, there was no « behavior towards other journalists outside the NSC ».

« You purposely interfered with reporters taking interviews when the ministers were leaving… » As Minister Jeholet arrived at the press conference, I was the first to interview him. A colleague from RTL-Tvi stepped in and stood in front of me to ask his questions. While I was prevented from putting mine down, the RTL cameraman deliberately knocked on my camera, with the clear intention of preventing me from continuing to film. We have all the evidence in pictures and will not fail to use them in our defense.

« …The Council would like to remind you of the rules of confraternity that govern the profession and that imply respecting the work of other journalists, whatever you may think of them. We thank you for taking care of this in the future. You must know, Mrs. Simonis, the presumption of innocence? How do you explain that you give more credibility to certain media? I remind you: you accuse me a first time without proof, in relation to the day of April 15, while not answering my questions contained in my mail of April 23[note]. Instead, you are again making accusations about my supposed attitude on April 24, without consulting me or finding out what happened. You ask me to make sure that I respect the work of other journalists as if their word had the value of truth. Shouldn’t there be an investigation before condemning acts for which you have no evidence?

« …respect the work of other journalists, no matter what else you think ». « No matter what I think about it » ?… Qhat do you mean by that? Isn’t this a trial of intent?

I am attaching a passage from the video so you can judge for yourself. You will see in particular that my colleagues of RTL do not respect the rules of confraternity. Did you admonish them in the same way? I therefore invite you to watch this video, from the beginning, and particularly the second 59[note] where the RTL cameraman tries to drop my camera. At the same time, I would like to point out that I approached Minister Jeholet before the RTL team, but that the latter went before me. Other images in the process of being sequenced will prove to you the blatant lack of solidarity on the part of my fellow journalists, contrary to what Sophie Wilmès’ spokesman, Steve Detry, stipulated before the press conference of April 24, recommending that I ask other journalists to ask my questions.

For hours, I stayed in front of the entrance of the rue Ducale, approached several colleagues. All of them refused to ask my questions, some of them even arguing that they were not going to attend the press conference, although most of them did.

To return to the beginning of your email, you mention that there is no right for a journalist to be in the pools. Representing a single media, Kairos, like the journalists of RTL whorepresent only one media, RTL, can you assure me that our media is not allowed to be represented at the press conference, and on which rule of media law is this refusal imposed? As the only journalist in Kairos with a press card, I am the only one who can enter. So my question is: does every media outlet have the right to be represented at a press conference?

We prepare a proper complaint file.


Alexandre Penasse

« Representing one media outlet, Kairos, like the journalists of RTL who represent one media outlet, RTL, can you assure me that our media outlet is not entitled to be represented at the press conference, and on what rule of media law is this refusal imposed? » Mail to AJP

The lawyer’s intervention

Following Steve Detry’s letter forbidding me to attend the press conference of April 24, a lawyer will put the firm on notice to provide within 24 hours :

 » — the address and time of the upcoming press conference;

- confirmation of your agreement to my client’s participation in the next conference;

otherwise, I will be mandated to take further action (judicial and summary judgment if necessary), unless you can justifyiUnless you can justify your position in a more detailed manner, and this, on a legal basis, unequivocally produced?

The lawyer will not receive any response to this demand letter. Since Steve Detry’s response on April 20, when he and his colleagues could not be reached by phone, we have not received any response from the Press Office of the Prime Minister’s Office.

On April 29, 12:42, I will send a letter to the communication department of the minister:

« This letter to let you know that:

- Not having responded to the formal notice from my lawyer, having forbidden us to enter the press conference on April 24, under the pretext that we had to organize ourselves by pool, This « obligation » is necessary in order to respect the social distancing and the rotation of journalists in the press conference room, a social distancing that has never been respected by the ministers during all the press conferences.

- The « obligation » to form a pool is nothing more than an arbitrary protocol issued by the Prime Minister’s Office, supposedly put in place by your ministry to guarantee press freedom and ensure democratic media rotation.

- Since there is no legal obligation for other journalists to take over our questions and relay them, and since there is no guarantee that this will be done effectively, the « accredited » journalists refused to relay our questions[note] as you assumed (under the fallacious pretext that they did not attend the press conference, which they all finally did attend, or that it was none of their business); we are therefore forwarding to you these questions (as you stipulated in your previous letter), which should have been asked at the press conference, particularly to Mrs. Sophie Wilmès. However, these questions are only relevant if all Belgian citizens hear the answers, not if we alone receive them « in private ». Submit these to the Minister and her team a posteriori does not make up for the loss of their non-mediatization on April 24;

- Given all of the above, our media, Kairos, should have been present, even in the case of a pool, and our journalist intern (who has a press card) should have been able to attend the press conference. Aren’t you supposed tos guarantee the freedom of the press?

We hereby inform you that we will be present at the next press conference. Please keep us informed of the date and place of the event.


Alexandre Penasse  »

Faced with their silence, on May 4, the lawyer sent a final notice which  » in the absence of a convincing answer, confirmed that she was mandated to file a summary action (with a request for damages of about €100,000) if this situation were to continue. The demand letter addressed:

 » — the address and time of the upcoming press conference,

- confirmation of your agreement to the participation of a Kairos journalist at the next conference, and ideally my client’s inclusion on your list. As a reminder, Mr. Penasse is seriously prejudiced by certain measures specifically taken against him. »

On May 5, Steve Detry replied :

 » Madam,

Lhe information concerning the organization of press conferences is known from the beginning by your client.

Caution regarding the health situation in Belgium obliges us to take measures to limit the risks of contamination within the press conference room of the Sixteen, Rue de la Loi. It would have been possible to use a method similar to the twice-daily press conference at the Crisis Center (questions via digital means) or to follow the example of other European countries that restrict access to the room to one or two journalists (thus becoming the « spokesperson » for the entire profession). This is something we have refused to do so far for the sake of transparency. This demonstrates our commitment to press freedom as well.

Considering its surface and the number of places available in the public (75), we have planned an access limited to twenty people (1–2‑1x5) so that it is possible and « easy » to respect the distances, knowing that we also have to count the technical teams on site.

Five places are provided for the collaborators of the Minister-Presidents.

The remainder is therefore earmarked for the press, according to a distribution key for agencies — audiovisual — written press; on the basis of a « pool » operation. This system allows everyone to have a chance to attend the press conference. Of course, we keep a place for requests from media that have less means and less audience than the big media players of the Belgian landscape. Your client was awarded this position on April 15. On April 24, Le Ligueur occupied it. For this conference, we attribute it to DaarDaar[note].

This way of proceeding is validated and supported by all the participants and the professional union of journalists.

Moreover, I would like to point out that the access to information is total: the press conference is broadcasted live on the internet, without editing.

Your client is free to have a colleague ask his or her question or even to send it to us by e‑mail and we will answer it. I notice that no questions were ever addressed to us before or after a press conference (sic).

Best regards,  »

« Caution regarding the health situation in Belgium obliges us to take measures to limit the risks of contamination in the press conference room of the Sixteen, Rue de la Loi.Response from the Prime Minister’s Communications Office

The lawyer replied on May 6:

 » Ladies and Gentlemen , 

I am following up on your letter of yesterday, for which I thank you.

First of all, it isinappropriate to claim that my client was aware of the rules concerning the organization of your conferences (pooling ) sincethe situation is unprecedented, in addition to being relatively confusing.

I think that Mr. Penasse did not call for a council by pure pleasure and I myself questioned you on April 22 to obtain some clarifications, in vain.

After two weeks of waiting, I finally received some answers.

This being the case, it seems to me, on the one hand, inappropriate to consider that your practices are validated and supported by all the participants, without which I would not have allowed myself to put you on notice on two occasions.

On the other hand, I also notice that some of your selection criteria seem to be discriminatory since, for example, the media LN24 was represented by the same journalist during the last two conferences (the same goes for other journalists!).

Out of a few authorized actors, I also notice that several photographers have access to the conference, which makes me wonder about your priorities, as well as your real attachment to the freedom of the press, given the circumstances.

I am also surprised by your choice of the « bunker » when other, more accessible places could have been preferred.

Given your concern for transparency, I would like to have your lists so that I can be sure of the validity of your argument, especially since the Daardaarcolleagues will not be able to relay the Kairos question because according to them, they will not be present later… In order not to procrastinate any further, I remind you that my client sent you thes following questions by email dated April 29: 

- You often say that citizens will have to tighten their belts and that efforts will have to be made, but there are alternatives to the austerity policies imposed on people. One of them is to suspend the repayment of the debt using the argument of necessity. Will you implement this solution? »

- Do you intend to put human and technical means to stop tax evasion? Because preventing tax evasion would make it possible to bring back the money from tax havens and, in particular, to reinvest in the health sector? »

It istherefore completely false to claim that the Kairosmedia would never have addressed questions to you, and I would therefore be grateful if you would put them on the agenda for today, in order to put your words into action. 

(…) « .

On May 6, I sent this email to Steve Detry, as he invited us to submit our questions to the Minister:

« Mr. Detry,

Following your invitations in various e‑mails, in which you proposed to transmit to us the questions that we could not ask ourselves during this press conference of May 6, and that other journalists present refused to ask for us, we complied and are waiting for the answers of the minister, in addition to the two questions that we already sent you on April 29 and to which you did not give any follow-up:

- How does the government justify the sudden availability of masks when caregivers have been without them for so long?

- Why doesn’t the government regulate the price of these masks, as is done in other countries?

- What will the Belgian government do with the money collected from the breach of the containment rules? Will it be donated to associations, will it be used to purchase sanitary equipment? Will it be used to fill the equipment gap in hospitals? Or will it be used for other purposes that have nothing to do with the current health crisis?

- Is it appropriate to maintain the’F35 purchase? »

Without any response, on May 11, the lawyer sent :

 » Ladies and Gentlemen , 

I’m coming back to you to follow up on my email of May 6, which has not been answered yet.

The next press conference is scheduled for this Wednesday, May 13, and my client would like to know about his upcoming registration?

Attached you will find a publication that is very interesting for what concerns him… Broadcasting a media mainstream which is truly scandalous[note]. Insofar as some colleagues had access to the conference, without rotation (!), and that the colleagues of DaarDaar would not have attended the previous conference as indicated, I would be grateful if you could confirm a future date that will allow my client to enjoy his rights again.

Failing that, please let me know which small media outlet would have the privilege of appearing on your selection this week, and most importantly, please assure me that if it fails to make the list, thequestion of Kairosmedia can be asked this time at the next conference. »

To date, we have received no response from Sophie Wilmès’ communications department. The supposed solidarity of our fellow journalists, defended by both Steve Detry and the AJP, has never been seen. Their famous pools have seen the same editorial staff and no questions about the legitimacy of the power in place, its decisions, its obvious conflicts of interest and the impact of all these realities on the liberticidal decisions that are taken by a state supposedly acting for our good.

« To date, we have had no response from Sophie Wilmès’ communications department. The supposed solidarity of our fellow journalists, defended by both Steve Detry and the AJP, has never been noted. Their famous pools have seen the same editorial staff and no questions about the legitimacy of the power in place, its decisions, its obvious conflicts of interest and the impact of all these realities on the liberticidal decisions that are taken by a State supposedly acting for our good. Letter from Alexandre Penasse’s lawyer to the government

Penasse v. Belgian State

On June 22, in response to the lawyer’s complaint to the AJP for infringement of press freedom, the AJP’s Board of Directors[note] replied that  » the AJP’s vocation and social purpose is not to arbitrate disputes between journalists. He added that  » more generally, it seems to us that the Belgian population does not suffer from any democratic deficit insofar as its press conferences following the NHA are broadcast in full and accessible to anyone, including your client. It is up to you to judge that silence on your client’s requests to re-attend a post-NSC press conference constitutes a « degrading treatment’, but we don’t think so.

« You are free to judge, to think… », but they are free to prevent us from asking our questions live… AJP does not take sides, but AJP takes sides when it accuses me of inappropriate behavior toward other journalists…  » Freedom is oppression, » « War is peace. » They and we live in other worlds, while they are convinced that because of a full transcript of the press conferences on television and the Internet, we live in a democracy. That my question of April 15 has bothered? They won’t talk about it.

Therefore, nothing should have been expected from the AJP in this case. Faced with the pretexts, subterfuges, wooden tongues, inventions of all kinds of the government not to evoke the essential, namely that the mass media form a system with the political power allowing to never seize the problems at their root, we were going to try the recourse in justice.

While the State via its lawyer did not respond to my insistent requests to attend a press conference and the government invented all sorts of malleable and opaque rules to justify their refusal, my last attempt on July 27, 3 months after the one on April 25, was going to give them the pretext they were looking for. Only a few hours after showing those who followed us on our website and social networks the repeated refusal[note] to let me enter the press conference, the lawyers of the Belgian State sent :

 » I am compelled to send you this official email. Your client, Mr. Alexandre Penasse, was at the end of the morning on the sidewalk of 4, rue Ducale in 1000 Brussels, i.e. in front of the FPS Chancellery of the Prime Minister, in the presence of other journalists (…) At about 12:15, Mr. Penasse took advantage of the exit of a member of the staff to surreptitiously enter the building, although he had neither been announced nor invited. This intrusion occurred in disregard of the security rules, which are applicable to all visitors, including journalists, and which all respect (except your client, obviously). Mr. Penasse, however, got stuck in the airlock and was unable to proceed with his intentions. He was asked to leave the premises immediately, especially since the time of the press conference was not yet known and he will be able to follow it in streaming « .

They conclude that  » the Belgian State does not want Mr. Penasse to attend the press conferences following the National Security Council meetings. Indeed, Mr. Penasse’s recent behaviour confirms that, at least temporarily, he cannot be granted access to these press conferences « . They add that  » despite the signs at the entrance indicating that, for security reasons, it is forbidden to film, Mr. Penasse filmed his behavior and broadcast it live on the Facebook of Kairos (…) This unacceptable behavior does not reflect responsible journalism and confirms that the presence of Mr. Penasse at a press conference could seriously disrupt the smooth running of the event. A press conference is not a place for investigation, although questions may be asked « . The rest sounds like a copy and paste of the AJP speech quoted above: the number of participants is limited due to sanitary measures; other journalists have previously been bothered by my presence; under the pool, I can ask colleagues to relay my questions, but  » the State is not responsible for any refusal of Mr. Penasse ».[note].

In the rest of the letter, the Belgian State undertakes to answer the questions I asked earlier as well as the new questions. So we can ask questions away from the cameras, and the state can take the time to answer what it wants. Imagine the difference: my question on April 15 in front of hundreds of thousands of people live or this same question by email? They understood well what was a risk for them…

Our questions, which will not be heard…

Here are some of the questions we could have asked at the last conference, which we are forced to email to the minister’s press office:

- At a press conference in early August, the tragic death of a 3‑year-old girl was mentioned, attributing it to Covid. Her father testified in the press, explaining that on July 16, his daughter  » had been placed in intensive care where the Covid-19 infection was subsequently diagnosed. Testing also proved positive for the parents. « It was the coronavirus that came with her, but not the coronavirus that killed her. You don’t have to scare the world for nothing. It’s a lot of show, » he laments. This type of communication, which has political effects, namely the hardening of measures, but also generates anguish and worry among parents and grandparents, as the start of the school year approaches, is in our opinion proof of amateurism, or a desire to instill fear. How does the government collect and verify this Covid information?

Imagine the difference: my question on April 15 in front of hundreds of thousands of people live or this same question by email? They understood well what was a risk for them…

- Can you tell us about the government’s dealings with multinational pharmaceutical companies, especially GSK? What is the status of your current collaboration with the latter? In particular, Pascal Lizin is both Chairman of the Société fédérale de participations et d’investissement (SFPI) and a director at GSK as the main lobbyist. It was also SFP I that put Vesalius Biocapital, where Philippe De Backer worked, in its  » strategic priorities « .

- Since the beginning of the coronavirus in Belgium, nothing is said or done about the major risk, much greater than an epidemic, which concerns climate change and the major dangers for humanity associated with it. However, while Covid-19 would have allowed us to rethink our entire model of society, you hasten to financially support Brussel Airlines, which participates in the destruction of our ecosystem; nothing is done to curb air pollution, for which the automobile is largely responsible. Worldwide, 7 million people die every year from poor air quality; in Belgium, more than 10,000 people die prematurely because of air pollution. Do you intend to perpetuate this policy of growth, which has brought us to where we are today, and of which Covid-19 is also the result?

- Could you detail the numbers among those who test positive: which ones are asymptomatic, which ones require treatment but can stay at home, and which ones require hospitalization?

- Never in more than 5 months have you specifically and repeatedly mentioned the fact that the mortality attributed to Covid was in fact affecting people with co-morbidities (obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disorders) or very old people. You also ignored potential remedies and practices that could, at a lower cost, increase immunity. While the conflicts of interest of the groups of experts and members of the government, which you unashamedly call privacy, are obvious, we can legitimately ask ourselves what dictates the choices of the government: money or the common good. In view of your previous decisions, notably as Minister of the Budget, but also as a member of a party, the MR, which has always worked in favour of the richest (cf. notably the « notional interests » introduced by Didier Reynders), you will admit that doubt is allowed. Can you assure us that no private group is profiting from Covid-19 and the decisions that are made by your government?

- During the press conference of July 27, Elio Di Rupo, whom I questioned, did not seem to be aware that only one man was behind the tracing measures, a certain Frank Robben. Could you tell us more?

- Mental health professionals indicate that many people consult them for disorders related to the present situation, of which depression, loss of meaning, suicidal thoughts… are largely part. Do you weigh the collateral damage of your measures against their benefits when you decide on them, in a kind of cost/benefit calculation for the population? Do you have figures for the social/individual effects of your decisions?

- Do you think it is possible to avoid covid-19 contamination completely? In this field, there is no such thing as zero risk, yet one gets the impression that this is what you want to make people believe. What about herd immunity, which some virologists believe will be essential to reduce contamination if the virus returns seasonally, a herd immunity that you do not take into account at all?

- Sweden, which has taken measures quite different from those of Belgium, refusing the generalized confinement, and shows results that are not alarming, while some promised tens of thousands of deaths. What consequences do you draw from this?

- How do you explain that at the most crucial moment of the epidemic, only one laboratory was designated for the whole territory? This totally determined the number of tests and the criteria to perform them.

- Can you confirm to us at this date, while you are tightening the measures, in particular in Brussels with the imposition of the mask in all the public places, that the rate of lethality due to Covid is only decreasing?

- There is no scientific basis to impose the wearing of masks everywhere. What criteria do you rely on then?

Pulling out of the hat their  » pools » to justify their refusal to allow me to attend a press conference, my  » inappropriate behavior  » which  » could seriously disrupt the proceedings » from now on, no debate will take place. For sure, it is not at all the substance of my questions that disturbs them and undermines their work of representation…

How much longer can we put up with this?

The thought police are watching over rue Ducale… Photo: AP
Read more "

The State: censor, not savior

(continued from theeditorial of Kairos 46)

While we legitimize a power in permanent war which hides the structural inequality of our societies, caricatured in a convenient dichotomy of a people united in front of an enemy, this one makes us advance in the direction that it wants: concerning the digital in the education for example,  » Covid19 was a catalyst. We will probably achieve in a few months what, without this crisis, would have taken a few years « [note] ; it is known that in the middle of containment, BIPT will propose, regarding the introduction of 5G,  » to grant interim use rights « .[note] The planes were grounded within a few days and for several months, which seemed impossible before, the zeal to stop them being matched only by the zeal to get them back in the air. The precautionary principle is thus selective: the cultural sector is massacred, but not the aeronautics or the car. 

If the above statements are true, as a matter of principle they cannot be said to a large audience, because they would automatically delegitimize the current power. Therefore, a public debate under favorable conditions from which certain truths and policy measures could be derived, is simply impossible. In a consumer society, where the subject has exchanged his freedom for a precarious security and a deleterious purchasing power, leitmotiv of the extreme right to the extreme left, this glaring lack of agora where everything is said is not fought, or worse, is not even perceived. The illusion of one day joining the upper class by getting rich extinguishes any form of protest in most people. 

« For if all enjoy leisure and security, the masses, ordinarily stultified by poverty, will become educated and think, and as a result they will eventually see that the privileged few are useless and will sweep them away. Eventually, a hierarchical society must rely on poverty and ignorance to be viable. 

It is indeed not conceivable, in a political system that has based its entire operation on the growth of production and consumption, using various lies such as advertising, media propaganda, political spectacle[note]It’s a good idea to think outside the box, to say that an innovation, which will benefit an elite, will not benefit the majority, or worse, may harm them. To this end, politicians will occupy an important part of their activity justifying themselves and saying what they do not do, while doing what they do not say, promising employment, health and happiness for all, while reality will implacably show unemployment, disease and social misery. 

« It is therefore a problem of education: the consciousness of the leading group and that of the larger group of executives immediately subordinate to it must be cast in the mold. As for the masses, it is enough to numb their consciousness. 

« Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be watched, could be placed twenty-four hours a day under the gaze of the police and within earshot of official propaganda — to the exclusion of all other channels of communication. Imposing complete obedience to the will of the state, but also perfect uniformity of opinion on all subjects, became possible for the first time. » 


« The names of the four ministries that govern us purposely contradict their true nature. The Ministry of Peace deals with war, the Ministry of Love deals with torture, the Ministry of Truth deals with propaganda, and the Ministry of Plenty deals with famine. 

Master of the  » doublethink « , the political actors will be able to name the thing and its opposite, Sophie Wilmès to say one day to the journalist Jérôme Colin that  » Freedom of expression is sacred. The debate too « , with  » the belief that criticism is healthy ‚ » and another day to interrupt you to tell you that conflicts of interest are a matter of privacy and do not concern the citizen; to indicate on its site  » I am at your disposal for any question/suggestion « , but to refuse to be confronted with sentences that chip away at the varnish of her worked representation. On the one hand, therefore, « freedom of expression », on the other hand, the prohibition to speak, which leads to the prohibition to think. 

« Orthodoxy is not to think. To not need to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness. 

« The Party claims that Oceania has never been allied with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knows perfectly well that they were still allies four years earlier, but where is this information filed? Exclusively in its consciousness, doomed to short-term annihilation. And if everyone else accepts the lie imposed by the Party, if all the stories agree with it, this same lie passes into history and becomes truth. « Who controls the past controls the future, » proclaims a Party slogan, « and who controls the present controls the past. ». But the past, now alterable, has never changed. What is true today has been true for centuries. It’s simple, all it takes is a series of uninterrupted victories over memory. « Control of the real », as we say, and in neo-speak, « doublethink » » 

In 1984, Sophie Wilmès would have been in charge of the Ministry of Love,  » which enforces law and order « . The State, which deprives us of the capacity to govern our lives, interferes in what still makes our humanity, and breaks social proximity (cf. physical distancing) to transmute it into virtual « proximity », an oxymoron if ever there was one: telecommuting, digitalized confinement with data downloading offered by operators, « hybrid » school, tracing… The ubiquitous Marc Van Ranst, whose official propaganda does not seem to find anything to criticize when he is also driving for GSK while making decisions for 11 million Belgians, said:  » We will eventually get used to this situation (…) Of course,every crisis changes society, that’s what’s happening now too: people will telecommute more, more attention will be paid to hand hygiene, we will keep our distance and we won’t shake hands anymore (…) Cheseare things that will remain « .[note]. Getting used to it, the worst thing here… The frog had also begun to appreciate the warm water in which it bathed. 

« The most terrible thing is that the Party convinces you that your impulses and feelings are null and void, even though it deprives you of all power over the material world. Once you have fallen into its clutches, what you feel or don’t feel, what you do or don’t do, is of no importance. You disappear anyway, and no one will ever hear about you or your actions again. You are removed from the course of history. And yet, only two generations ago, men would have considered it insignificant because they were not trying to change history. They were governed by personal allegiances that they did not question. What mattered to them were the relationships between people, and a gesture of abandonment, an affectionate embrace, a tear, a word to a dying person, could have value in itself. 


The fact that Sophie Wilmès comes from the advertising world[note] is not a coincidence: the political sphere has been using its methods for a long time in order to distort reality and make it favorable to the power while avoiding contestation: a political decision is sold like a car, by making it desirable and passing it off as indispensable. The extinction of all contestation being still impossible, the media, communication service of the politicians, will work to occult or denigrate it. As Alain Accardo expressed it perfectly:  » The media and their personnel are no more than the instruments, more or less consenting and zealous, that the dominant class needs to ensure its hegemony « [note]. Without them, they can do nothing. 

Faced with the growing awareness of a part of the population about the harmful role of the government, the zealous media servants had to publish papers that would restore the image of the politicians and stifle the protest. In an article that has as much to do with journalism as sustainable development has to do with ecology, one can read the « states of mind » of Sophie Wilmès published in La Libre on the first weekend of August. A true eulogy devoid of any critical thinking, Sophie pours out her heart and soul, while what touches her most in life is  » the suffering of others « :  » It was a hard time, not for me (sic), but I could see that people were suffering . Le Soir joins the maneuver with, as the article of La Libre, four pages in the series « racines élémentaires », titled by this comment of the First:  » I am not a victim of my life . We understood it… On August 29, Paris Match launched its soothing article, while the Prime Minister had been elected Woman of the Year by the same people:  » Sophie Wilmès: The Woman of the Year is a Prime Minister in sneakers « . Is that so? What if she had worn loafers? The caption of the article speaks for itself:  » In the middle of the Covid crisis, Sophie Wilmès brings a breath of fresh air to Belgian politics. And a lot of humanity in a suffering world « . Thank you Sophie. Identical interviews that tell us nothing about reality, not a single impertinent, deep question, no mention of conflicts of interest or of all those initiatives to challenge the political management of the crisis, but a litany on the family, the children, the husband,  » the ego in politics « … Either the mainstream media in their traditional role. 

However, they could have asked her some of the questions we have been sending to Sophie Wilmès’ communication department for more than 4 months and for which we have not received any answers[note]. The ineptitude and conformist function of this kind of articles can be measured by the themes they could have addressed. What about, for example, « The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations » (CEPI), founded at the World Economic Forum in 2018? Behind the acronym, states such as Norway or Japan, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or the Wellcome Trust. A classic PPP (public-private partnership), strongly supported by the WHO (of which Bill Gates is the main donor) to accelerate the development of a vaccine. Also at the helm are Belgians, such as Peter Piot, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Paul Stoffels, scientific director of Johnson & Johnson. But also Luc Debruyne, who headed the global vaccine business for GSK, member of the institutional advisory board of the Flemish Institute for Biotechnology (VIB), strategic advisor… at CEPI. CEPI, in addition to being largely funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has also received 5 million euros from the Belgian government[note]. Public money is ultimately transferred to the GSK/Cover platform through CEPI funding, and thus subsidizes the private sector[note].  » A matter of privacy? We could also have asked Sophie why Hugues Malonne, post-authorization DG at the AFPMS, in Philippe De Backer’s team, whose conflicts of interest we have denounced, allowed his agency to exceed its rights and set up an internal validation process, but above all whether there was not a conflict of interest and possible malpractice due to the fact that the wife of the person concerned, Marie Tré-Hardy, is the deputy director of the hospitals whose lab was chosen in the list of those who were entrusted with the validation.[note]


We do not have either the certainty that Covid is nothing or that it would be of an unprecedented gravity. We only notice some strange things and an opacity more than indecent in this period: centralization of figures related to infected and deceased people, distorted statistics (infected people counted several times) or presented in a biased way (percentages of increase calculated on very small populations; number of asymptomatic cases not counted separately ; growth of cases not correlated with the increase in tests), incestuous mixes between the political/scientific world and the private pharmaceutical world, in particular GSK, fabrication of anguish with information phone calls mainly oriented on the number of daily cases, several times a day; contradictory information (masks are not useful/masks are indispensable[note]), fear of those who have a different opinion from the official version to express themselves, under penalty of stigmatization/criminalization; political refusal to take decisions apparently important for a consequent part of the population, our old people, respecting the sacrosanct law of supply and demand… 

There seems to be too much evidence that favors have been done to private multinationals (cf. Philippe De Backer, with the rejection of clinical labs to carry out tests in favor of a consortium of companies, or, again, him, with his interests in Vesalius Biocapital; the Hugues Malonne affair; the Goffin and Avrox affair, etc). 

« For it is only by reconciling contradictions that one keeps power indefinitely. The endless cycle could not be broken otherwise. If equality between men is to be outlawed forever, if the upper class, as it has been called, wants to retain its supremacy, then the prevailing mood must be one of controlled insanity. » 

Beyond the doubt, this confusing mishmash of information and counter-information, we ask to know. This seems obvious. Today’s crisis is global, the logical consequence of a « failing » system. But it is impossible to expect the media to do anything other than what they are programmed to do, i.e. to ensure the perpetuation of the dominant. In the middle of Covid-19, when exceptional measures are taken that put millions of people in Belgium at risk, asking those who are supposed to serve us — but have not done so for a long time — about the conflicts of interest between political and scientific actors and the world of pharmaceutical multinationals cannot be heard. 

« Winston drops his arms down his body and slowly fills his lungs. His mind wanders through the maze of doublethink. Knowing without knowing, being aware of the full truth while telling cleverly constructed lies. Maintaining at the same time two antithetical opinions, with an equal conviction. Playing logic against logic, flouting morality while claiming it, believing democracy to be impossible and designating the Party as its guardian, forgetting what needs to be forgotten, then recovering one’s memory if necessary, only to forget it again. And above all, to apply this treatment to the process itself: to induce unconsciousness knowingly, and to repress the act of self-hypnosis to which one has just given oneself up — the height of subtlety. To understand the word « doublethink », one must be able to « doublethink » oneself. 


We did not suddenly think that in this great dysfunction (because chaos benefits some), justice would save us, and that the truth, thanks to it, would win. However, we believe that in the situation we are in, bringing it in can only be to our advantage: if we were to win our case, we would prove that the State is guilty of having hindered the freedom of the press; if not, that the truth cannot be obtained even when we summon the justice. 

« Belonging to a minority, even if it is only one person, does not make you crazy. There is truth and untruth, and if you hold on to the truth against all odds, you are not crazy. » 

We have therefore filed a complaint against the Belgian state for obstructing the freedom of the press, while for more than four months, all press conferences have been refused to us[note]. Before July 27, they justified this by the pool rule (see box). Today, they find something else. They have to find out. 

Alexandre Penasse


After our first press conference on April 15 and the « discomfort » caused, in the words of the dominant press, the reasons for refusing to attend subsequent press conferences have varied, with Wilmès’ office constantly seeking to explain the inexplicable, to justify our « democratic » absence. Throughout their rhetorical exercise, one word kept coming up: pool. 

Whether you support or oppose the fact that multinational pharmaceutical companies have the power to influence policy decisions that are made on behalf of the collective, is basically beyond the scope of the issue that concerns us here in the first place. Indeed, the government decided in the name of an obscure and arbitrary rule (the pools) that he pulled out of his hat, not to make a debate of it: « you introduce here a politically biased question, which is not the habit of journalists », Sophie Wilmès will say on April 15. Journalists in power, spokespersons for the bosses and politicians, are used to asking conventional, unbiased questions, and the former to answering them as they should. In this game, the citizen-spectators are cheated, while some still think that the dice are not loaded. 


Thanks to their arbitrary decisions disguised as a democratic choice, since April 15 the press conferences have been full of inane and empty questions. Sports competitions, mother’s day, kayaking, shopping, flying… don’t let the mainstream media call you a « conspiracy theorist ». Brushed in the direction of the hair, the politicians return the favor to the journalists: they invite them back… and they like it, the journalists in the orders, having the feeling that a part of the power which they admire in the one they question is reflected on their person. All this is priceless: compromises, lies, collusion. 


According to the dictionary : Pool. Def. In English 1. means a pond, a swimming pool, a pool. 2. A prognosis, a pool (of talent, experience), a team. 

In French. 1. Grouping (of physical or moral persons) ensuring the common management of an operation, of resources, of means. D cooperation; cartel, agreement, group. Banking pool , financial pool . 2. A group of people doing the same work in a company. Pool of typists. Press pool . D team. 

According to the journalists’ union, the AJP, in a letter: « Pools are by definition limited groupings of days

nalists, which then serve all other media (image, sound and information sharing). There is a rotation among these journalists/media within the pools. There is no « right » to be in the pools. » 


Definition as of March 30 : limitation of access to a press conference  » to certain pooled newsrooms , due to the strict instructions related to the Coronavirus . »[note] Configuration that can be re-evaluated when social distancing measures are lifted[note]. However, by definition,  » physical access is allowed to editorial offices that are listed by the General Association of Professional Journalists of Belgium who organize themselves to form pools among themselves « [note]. In summary, a journalist who is a member of the AJP and holds a press card,[note], can be part of a pool. 

As of April 3 : Selection of journalists based on unclear criteria, requiring prior registration on a secret list as other media outlets do,[note] The journalist will only learn just before the press conference, depending on the configuration of the room and the number of requests, if he will be able to enter. All of this was done in close consultation with his journalist counterparts. This selection does not prevent the journalist from attending the live streaming[note].

As of May 5 :  » Distribution key of agencies — audiovisual and written press — responding to a pool operation , allowing everyone to have a chance (sic) to access the press conference « . The governmental selectors who constitute these secret lists of pools do not, however, exclude requests from media that have fewer resources and less audience than the big media players in the Belgian landscape, organizing a rotation that leaves room for one free media each time.  » Your client was awarded this position on April 15. April 24thLe Ligueur has occupied it « [note]. However, those who are not admitted to the conference are entitled to full access to information, being able to attend the press conference broadcast live on the internet and without editing[note]. This practice is validated by the entire profession[note].

Purely authoritarian decision, the poolThis is a practice which, if it can sometimes be justified, allows above all to preserve the media monopoly of the « big media » owned by the biggest fortunes, in ideological concordance with the political power which serves these fortunes. 


Based on our experience, we define a pool as an arbitrary selection of journalists from the  » major media players in the Belgian landscape « , i.e. the dominant press, i.e. the one that asks the government the questions it wants to hear. This arbitrary selection becomes perfectly intelligible when the consensus is broken by an « accident », i.e. when an intruder succeeds in asking a question not included in the tolerated themes. Since the choice of pool is not based on any democratic and transparent criteria, the rules change according to circumstances, self-justifying by « necessity », as the social distancingrequested by Covid-19, rather than by arbitrary power… 

The words of the journalists’ union, AJP, that  » the pools are by definition limited groupings of journalists, who then serve all the other media « , denotes a profound denial of the existing differences between media that are privately owned o(or political instruments like the RTBF), and the « small », free media. We knew it, but experience supports us: no mainstream media will relay our words, our questions and our concerns. This would be to misunderstand their main function: to feign the description of reality when they are only concerned with generating its acceptance. 

The only way to break the illusions they create? Work on ways to get information across that is free of private interests. 

« Until there is awareness, there will be no revolt, and until there is revolt, there will be no awareness. »

Read more "

Covid-19’s race for billions

While they try to make us believe that a future vaccine would be the Holy Grail, the panacea that will save humanity from extinction by Covid-19, the media label as conspiracy theorists those who reveal the conflicts of interest that cast doubt on the rhetoric of the priority given to our health. To question the decency of huge expected profits from collective misfortune seems unbearable for the spheres close to power. Yet these links between governments and multinational pharmaceutical companies are at the heart of the problem. It is therefore more important than ever to know who is speaking and who is deciding our future. Because we cannot reasonably listen to and believe those who work for a private interest disguised as a common good.

It was in 2017, at the World Economic Forum, known as the Davos Forum, that the organization for the future management of future pandemics was born as the « Coalition for Innovations in Epidemic Preparedness. » Behind the acronym CEPI are states such as Norway or Japan, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or the Wellcome Trust, the richest medical charity after Gates’. A classic PPP (public-private partnership), strongly supported by the WHO to accelerate the development of a vaccine. Bill Gates, the main sponsor of the WHO, will say that vaccines are  » the best investment he ever made[note] « . He could not have done better than to ally himself with the UN organization.

Peter Piot, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Paul Stoffels, chief scientific officer of Johnson & Johnson, of Belgium, are two of the initiators of the CEPI. The first, a great benefactor of humanity, is a zealous developer of the vaccine:  » Today, there is a worldwide effort to develop a safe and effective vaccine against Covid-19 as soon as possible. Only then can we say that we have truly defeated the virus. CEPI plays a central role in this respect as an international coalition of public and private partners. Belgium’s contribution will accelerate the search for a vaccine. Appointed Special Advisor to the European Commission on the new Coronavirus by Ursula Von Der Leyen[note]The Belgian microbiologist is also favored by Bill Gates:  » There are few people I’ve learned more from over the years — especially about viruses — than Peter Piot. « [note]

What is CEPI?

When we look at CEPI’s profile, we discover that it is closely linked to organizations such as Gavi, Inovio, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Moderna.

Inovio, a biotechnology company working on DNA, has as partners AstraZeneca, Beijing Advaccine Biotechnology, International Vaccine Institute, Regeneron, Genentech, the U.S. Department of Defense, CEPI and the Gates Foundation. According to Inovio, in December 2019, its Coronavirus experts learn of a new Coronavirus in Wuhan. Inovio receives :
— January 23, 2020, $9 million from CEPI: This money allows the launch of the first phase of testing of INO-4800, Inovio’s new vaccine, which injects a DNA genetic code into a person’s body in order to trigger a specific immune response against the SARS-CoV‑2 coronavirus;

- March 12, $5 million from the Gates Foundation;

- March 26 and June/July 2020, $11.9 million and $71 million, respectively, from the U.S. Defense[note];

- Phase 2 of Inovio’s INO-4800 Vaccine will be conducted in collaboration with Advaccine in China and IVI in Korea; for this phase launched in June 2020, CEPI will donate $7.3 million to Inovio.

Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, whose founding members are WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank and… the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. To launch Gavi, the Foundation gave him $750 million. Since then, it has received a total of more than $4 billion[note]. On June 4, 2020, the foundation announced a $1.6 billion donation to Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance,  » to protect future generations with life-saving vaccines « [note]. Gavi aims to  » shape the vaccine market  » and the Gates Foundation is contributing to this through a role  » both technical and financial. It helps gather data to guide our decision-making and provides funding. The Foundation invests in activities ranging from vaccine discovery and development to delivery, while encouraging product innovation and new entrants to the market « [note]. We would thank them if it were not for the fact that their fortune came from a first looting: « the accumulation of wealth feeds « philanthrocapitalism » ».[note]

Moderna, a publicly traded company that, as of March 2019, has received $1.05 billion from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Moderna’s director, Stephane Bancel, is a French businessman and billionaire, CEO and 9% owner of Moderna, an American biotech company, as stated on his Wikipedia page. The Covid-19 has helped him to increase his fortune:  » In 2020, as Moderna’s stock price rose on news of impending Phase 2 human trials for its potential Covid-19 vaccine, its stake in Moderna made it a billion dollar company. On May 18, 2020, when the stock price peaked at $80, its share of Moderna was worth $2.5 billion « [note]. Epidemics are good… for some. Stéphane Bancel is also a member of the capital fund Flagship Ventures and[note] and was, among others, president of BG Medicine[note]. He also held the position of Managing Director of Eli Lilly Belgium[note], known for the famous and criticized antidepressant Prozac, a firm whose Belgian branch was located, before it closed, in the industrial zone of UCL.

This October 21, we learn on the site of Boursorama, that  » Moderna’s chief executive, said the U.S. government could authorize emergency approval of its experimental Covid-19 vaccine in December if the biotech gets positive interim results in November from a large clinical trial. »[note]. In the « vaccine race », where whoever comes in first will secure an unprecedented windfall, Pfizer is also competing. Both are in a hurry and will seek emergency approval for equally urgent marketing. Money doesn’t wait. Faced with this, will the public authorities take into account that  » Moderna’s messenger RNA-based technology has never proven effective against other viruses, » and that  » previous work using this technology has had the opposite effect to that desired, making recipients more likely to become infected[note]  » ? Never mind, Bigpharma has already worked behind the scenes to avoid any lawsuits should the Covid-19 vaccine have harmful side effects[note].

 » In 2020, as Moderna’s stock price rose on news of impending Phase 2 human trials for its potential Covid-19 vaccine, its stake in Moderna made it a billion dollar company. On May 18, 2020, when the stock price peaked at $80, its share of Moderna was worth $2.5 billion »
CEPI(re) that you think

Let’s get back to CEPI. We also find Luc Debruyne, where he is a strategic advisor. On his Linkedin page, he is presented as a  » business leader with over 30 years of experience in the life sciences industry, he has  » for the past 5 years led the global vaccine business for GSK and was a member of the GSK Corporate Exec team, growing revenues by over $7 billion in 2018 and making GSK the world’s number one vaccine company. » It has developed close links with governments, NGOs and academic institutions.

Luc Debruyne is, like Peter Piot, a member of the institutional advisory board of the Flemish Institute for Biotechnology (VIB), a company that considers  » science as an engine for economic growth « , 51% of whose revenues come from the Flemish government and 49% from other sources, notably private. In connection with several universities (Gent, Hasselt, KU Leuven, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Antwerp), it has initiated several spin-offs, i.e. structures that build bridges between public university research and private innovation, to make them business model according to the well-known logic of socializing costs and privatizing benefits. As Le VIB states on its website,  » Technology transfer is firmly anchored in the mission of VIB. VIB’s research provides new and innovative insights into life processes that benefit society as a whole [sic]. Our Innovation & Business team focuses on translating research findings into a variety of new products, agricultural innovations, medicines and therapies that improve lives . Whose life? It will be necessary to specify. This is the same organization that will receive authorization to experiment with the cultivation of a GMO corn and that in March 2020 will announce having developed an antibody capable of neutralizing the Covid-19 virus.

 » No time to lose ».

If Moderna and Stéphane Bancel are in a hurry, so is Alexander De Croo, all of them probably chasing the same thing. The latter will express:  » This deadly coronavirus is spreading rapidly. If we want to save human lives, we must also accelerate the development of vaccines. CEPI would like to conduct clinical trials within 4 months. This is significantly less than the usual time frame. We have no time to lose »[note]. Belgian diplomacy could not be clearer « Belgium joined the CEPI under the leadership of Minister De Croo in 2017. This global coalition aims to facilitate the availability of new vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and thus reduce the risk of future pandemics. » What foresight, isn’t it? Bill Gates must be proud of his foal[note].

Belga photo
For some people, making money dispenses with any moral principle, developing their business and paying their shareholders with public money is not a limit. The coalition launched in Davos to fund research for the Covid-19 vaccine, with Bill Gates as master of ceremonies, includes Luc Debruyne, strategic advisor and former president of Global Vaccines at GSK. There’s a lot going on at the World Economic Forum, isn’t there? Alexander De Croo knows something about this, as in 2013 he was appointed Vice President of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Ageing, and will be part of the 2015 class of Young Global Leaders of the same Forum[note]. In an article on the latter’s website,  » What you need to know about the Coronavirus pandemic on October 20 « , the Prime Minister’s lie at the October 15 press conference is taken as proof of the real[note]:  » The situation is serious. It is worse than on March 18 when the containment was decided « . What is it preparing us for?

Belgium gives 5 million € to an organization, the CEPI, composed of companies listed on the stock exchange that make millions on the Covid
Let’s get back to CEPI, because it doesn’t end there. In addition to being largely funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, it has also received €5 million from the Belgian government[note]. Public money is ultimately transferred to the GSK/Cover platform through CEPI funding, thus subsidizing the private sector[note]. This reminds us of the case of Pascal Lizin,  » both President of the Belgian Société fédérale de participations et d’investissement (SFPI) and a director at GSK as the main lobbyist (…) SFPI [qui] is expanding its « strategic priorities » in 2012. Among the « investment opportunities that SFPI is looking for », Vesalius Biocapital I (investment fund — medical innovations) where Philippe de Backer worked « [note]. Everything is as it should be… Sophie Wilmès will talk about privacy, the media in the pay of the political and financial power, of  » conspiracy theories « [note]. We call these incestuous and indecent mixtures  » conflicts of interest « , in the light of which none of the measures taken by the Belgian government against Covid-19 can have any credibility, whether good or bad.

GSK, China and the CEPI

In June 2020, GSK and Clover Biopharmaceuticals, the latter based in China, announced that Phase 1 human clinical trials for a Covid-19 vaccine were beginning, although the collaboration between the two had been announced as early as February 2020[note]. Thomas Breuer, Senior Vice President and Chief Medical Officer of GSK Vaccines, is looking forward to large-scale vaccine production. Who funds this program? CEPI.

In light of the multiple conflicts of interest of politicians, none of the measures taken by the Belgian government against Covid-19 can have any credibility, good or bad
Other CEPI member of the scientific committee: Michel De Wilde[note]. He is also a member of the scientific committee of Curevag, VBI Vaccines, former vice-president of Smithkline Bilogicales (now GSK Vaccines), and has been with Sanofi. He is the owner of MDWConsultant, LLC. Curevag  » aligned with the interests of our shareholders « , financed largely by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation[note], has two Belgians on its supervisory board whose names come up often. Its president is none other than Jean Stéphenne, ennobled by the Belgian State and now a baron, former president of GSK Biologicals, but also president of the Walloon Business Union. Which a few months ago  » had the indecency to ask citizens to support financially the UCL »[note]. He was also President of Besix, Bone Therapeutics, Vaxxilon, Bepharbel, Nanocyl. Is there an excess of language in talking about parasites?[note]

The media will say nothing, or very little, because the groups to which they belong are so closely linked to investments in the medical sector. Le Soir, for example, has acquired a stake in the Belgian company Redpharma, which advises GSK, Sanofi, Roche, Nestlé, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, etc.

Feeling nauseous? This is not Covid, rest assured.

Read more "

Would Science have killed the New Normal, how long before the masks fall off?

Most non-pharmacological coercive measures taken to combat Covid-19 lack a solid scientific basis or evidence of proven effectiveness. In the long term, however, they would constitute a factor of psychological abuse for many citizens and are contrary to the constitution. We come back here to the case of masks, which we will develop and specify, and show, with scientific studies, that a reduction of the measures more respectful of the psychological health and the fundamental rights of the persons could be taken. This relief would not seem to impact the safety of everyone. We finally propose a summary sheet at the end of the article which is also available in PDF format here.

Here are, first of all, some essential points, which science has proven in one year, and which change the game, but which still seem to be too widely ignored or misunderstood:

Asymptomatic people have too low a viral load to be contagious[note] (on the other hand, carriers who will have symptoms, and who will therefore be identifiable, are contagious over a short period of time called presymptomatic. Presymptomatic carriers do not cough, coughing being the mechanism of contamination from which the mask mainly protects) [note] [note] [note] [note] [note] [note] [note] [note]. The contagious asymptomatic hypothesis is tantamount to saying that every healthy person is an unknowing sick person or is presumed to be guilty. Remember that this assumption is the basis of the generalized mask. It is undoubtedly, also, an argument to justify the confinement of the whole population. The invalidation of this contagious asymptomatic hypothesis may explain, in part, the lack of positive correlation observed in real life of containment on the decrease of hospitalizations and deaths by more and more scientific studies, and now in America where states that are completely open and unrestricted, such as Texas for many weeks, are seeing a dramatic drop in cases and deaths over the same period.

The virus is spread by fine aerosol droplets which pass through the pores of the mask which are up to 1000 times larger than the virus (Fig. 1, the more efficient FFP2 masks filter a part of the aerosols larger than 600 nm, the virus is 60 to 140 nm) and would propagate even beyond the social distances [note]. This aerosol-type transmission, which could also explain the phenomenon of supercontaminants, increasingly seems to be the main mode of transmission[note] [note] [note] [note] . Fortunately, there is the notion of threshold[note]: 1 virus is not enough, it takes many more to be contaminated[note] [note] [note] [note] .

Fig. 1 Respiratory droplets collected for 30min while not wearing (dark green) or wearing(light green) a surgical face mask, and aerosols collected for 30min while not wearing(brown) or wearing (orange) a face mask, collected from individuals with acute respiratorysymptoms who were positive for influenza virus. Data from [11] Respiratory virusshedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks, Nature Medicine volume 26, pages 676–680 (2020).
What are the implications?

All scientific studies and observations confirm it[note] [note] [note] [note] , the risk of Covid-19 contamination outdoors is extremely low. It takes about 1 million viruses per ml in our bronchial tubes to reach the threshold for SARS-Cov‑2 [note] [note] [note] [note] . This threshold cannot be reached by aerosols outside, it is a question of volume[note].

Another case is that of children who are rarely symptomatic and therefore not very contagious[note] [note]. Wearing a mask outdoors or for children seems to be done in spite of any benefit-risk balance and common sense. Because if the scientific evidence for the usefulness of the mask generalized to the whole population is lacking [note] [note] [note] [note] [note]The risks of its negative impact on physical and mental health have been demonstrated, for example [note] [note] [note] [note] [note] and Table 1. Masking, confinement, social distancing, and the associated stress and isolation can further weaken our immune system [note] [note] [note]and could therefore contribute to increase, paradoxically, the risk of severe forms (and therefore much more contagious), hospitalizations, deaths and contagions, especially in populations that are not at risk for which the benefit of these measures is not demonstrated [note] [note] [note] [note] [note] [note] [note][note]. It could also be useful to think about reinforcing your immune system with vitamin D, C and Zinc and why not a little essential oil of Noble Laurel or Ravintsara [note], for example in case of a more risky contact.

Indoors, aerosol contamination is possible if there is insufficient ventilation. Typically, you would need to be in contact with a high viral load person for a sufficiently long time (typically > 10 minutes. Mask and social distancing would have little effect, except for symptomatic coughers [note] [note] [note] [note] [note] [note] who should be isolated and masked, preferably with a FFP2 mask, in case of essential displacement. A standard mask offers no real protection against aerosols smaller than 3 um [note] [note] [note] and even a FFP2 mask, which is less breathable, offers only imperfect protection, and real-life protection depends greatly on the conditions of use [note]A better solution would be ventilation or air purification (there are for example very efficient HEPA, ozone, and UVC filters) so that the threshold is never reached indoors. : Wearing a mask outdoors is useless! « Dr. Blachier, studies to back it up! April 26, 2021.

In conclusion, if according to the WHO [note] [note], the wearing of a medical mask type FFP2 (non-medical masks would have a limited efficiency and could even increase the risks of infection if badly used[note]) is useful for health care personnel in direct contact with patients, symptomatic patients and also undoubtedly for people at risk as an additional protection, the generalized wearing of it for people with no apparent symptoms of the disease has little or no scientific justification [note] [note] [note] [note] [note] [note]. The WHO, after having pronounced itself against [note]seems to accept it [note]because of the strong demand of the states to reassure the populations, as a measure rather of a psychological nature [note]or even a talisman that reassures[note]and despite the low contagiousness of asymptomatic [note] [note] [note] [note] [note] [note] [note] [note]. A recent article from MIT calls into question social distancing, since transmission by aerosol would therefore cross these distances[note]. If science seems to have killed the new normal, how long will it be before the masks come off?

Aryan Afzalian

Civil engineer and Doctor of Applied Sciences. Researcher specialized in the field of atomistic quantum physics applied to the modeling of nano- and bio-electronics and author of the site

Nour de San

Independent consultant. Doctor of Medicine, specialized in clinical biology (immunology and microbiology), formerly responsible for risk management in discovery and development of the Vaccine unit of GSK. Project Manager in support of the COVID crisis management at Erasmus Hospital from April 2020 to May 2021.

Florence Parent

MD — PhD, Public Health and Medical Education, author of books on Medical Education.

Martin Zizi

MD-PhD, Biophysicist, Professor of Physiology (KULeuven and VUB), former Epidemiological Director of the Department of Defense, former Scientific Director and Chairman of the Ethics Committee, former UN Advisor on Biological Disarmament and Unscom Bio-Inspector.

Mask Summary Sheet:

Covid-19: Wearing the mask what do the scientific studies say:

This note is for information purposes only. It is based on the scientific literature and an interpretation of the benefit-risk balance. It aims to help everyone to better understand the mechanisms of transmission and to know the benefits and risks of wearing a mask, in the hope that each person can use this knowledge to best protect themselves. It does not take into account, nor is it intended to substitute for the legal jurisdiction specific to each country, but is intended as a message to the authorities asking them to consider that measures more respectful of the psychological health and fundamental rights of people could be taken. This relief would probably not impact everyone’s safety.

I wear the mask, I am :

Un Malade avec Symptôme: Nécessaire 👍 (Je protège les autres de mes exhalations directes: gouttelettes de salive quand je tousse par exemple).Le Personnel soignant directement au chevet des malades: Nécessaire 👍 (Je me protège des exhalations directes des malades).Une Personne ne présentant aucun symptôme : 👎 Inutile (Pas d’efficacité prouvée, asymptomatiques pas contagieux 1 , risques prouvés sur la santé physique et mentale et affaiblissement du système immunitaire, risque si mauvaise utilisation).Une personne à risque et qui a peur: 👍 utile avec modération ( Porter le masque, de préférence FFP2, comme précaution ultime et pour se rassurer peut faire sens surtout dans les lieux clos quand les distanciations sociales ne sont pas possibles. Dès que possible, je l’enlève pour ne pas risquer d’affaiblir inutilement mon système immunitaire. Je pense d’ailleurs à renforcer ce dernier par de la vitamine D, C et du Zinc et pourquoi pas un peu d’huile essentielle de Laurier Noble ou de Ravintsara, par exemple si j’ai eu un contact plus à risque (Je demande bien conseil à un professionnel de santé, par ex. mon pharmacien ou mon médecin de famille pour les dosages et utilisations).
What does the mask protect from, what doesn’t it protect from?

It protects me if a symptomatic sick person with a high viral load coughs directly on me, which represents a very small proportion of contaminations.The mask does not protect me from indirect contamination via the hands, nor does it protect me from contamination by fine aerosol droplets that pass through the pores of the mask (up to 1000 × larger than the virus; indoors, the FFP2 type mask filters out some of the aerosols). These are the main modes of contamination. Fortunately, there is the notion of a threshold [note].

Read more "

Debate between the evening and Kairos

We had been invited to a debate at Ihecs, with Philippe Laloux, vice-editor of Le Soir and Digital Media Manager… In about twenty minutes, we had the time to measure all the morgue of the journalists of the power, but especially their uneasiness, the conscience of their contradiction always coming back to us at one moment or another… Finally, we are not rancorous, so we accept with outstretched arms the proposal of Philippe Laloux of  » come to an editorial meeting  » at Le Soir*. Until then, reading the transcript of our meeting on May 8 will undoubtedly help you understand why bringing the free press into contact with the industrial press is, how can I put it? Difficult… [note] .

Host (Sylvain Anciaux): How do you create information at Le Soir, how do you create an article, what are your sources?

Philippe Laloux: the term is perhaps badly chosen: we never create information, we go and get it, we go and get the information with our teeth, that’s the rule in this business. You don’t get up in the morning and say « oh, what am I going to write about today, what am I going to comment on »; information is a rare commodity, more and more complex to find, and that’s the main job and the role of the press today, it’s to go and find this information, to decipher it, to analyze it, to put it into perspective.

How do we handle the information at Kairos?

AP I quite agree with the fact that we do not create information; at the same time we go looking for it but at the same time we do not create it, we do not generate it by thinking if it will please or if it will not please. We often start with a doubt, a question, a query… I can give a very simple example: the next file will be about wealth. It starts from a questioning that is where we often hear about the fight against poverty, but we rarely expect to talk about the fight against wealth for example, or to put limits to wealth. So we start from there, we do the investigation and everything that follows.

There are 5 [6] issues of Kairos per year, there are 365 at Le Soir…

PL: … much more…

… or even much more… Do you think that the frequency of publication impacts the quality of the information in your newspapers? Basically, what is your relationship with time as a journalist?

AP: There are two points: first, it is simply impossible for us to create a newspaper every day; second, the periodicity [quotidienne] of a newspaper is made for only one thing: a newspaper that comes out every day is made to please the advertisers, that’s obvious. It has to come out every day so that we can put ads in it, so that we can be in line with the advertisers who subsidize us.

Mr. Laloux, you agree.

PL: I will first answer the question before saying whether I agree or not, since we obviously don’t create a newspaper for advertising, since we can obviously make an all-purpose box, which is called Vlan, for example, and which meets that rule. What is important is not necessarily the rate of publication, but the time and resources one puts into doing one’s job with rigor. So if we have the capacity to provide validated, rigorous information 5 times a year, we have to do it, it is very important. There are weekly newspapers that do it 52 times a year and that also have advertising… we do it much more than 365 times a year because Le Soir is not only a paper newspaper, it is also a website. So that’s the main break with the way people consume information today, I don’t like the word « consume » but in any case read or read about information, they do it all the time: we’re no longer in a media model where I stand on my pedestal and broadcast the same message (…) people consume information when they want, when they want, on the medium of their choice. And the main break in this profession is there, namely that the deadline, the limit of publication has become totally accessory, even the support has become totally accessory, what is important is to give information when it is validated. For example yesterday [le 7 mai], the media release at 15:30 a.m. an information giving the name of the future president of the French Republic : well, it is zero merit, because fatally it is on the basis of poll, it is not cross-checked (…)

But often in Le Soir we find the news of the day, the hot news, is it possible in not even 24 hours to cross-check all the sources and publish something that is reliable?

PL: Le Soir is a news paper, and, to be a bit of a caricature, you have the result of the match, but you also have, and I hope you read it, an investigation on the soccer leaks that allows you to dismantle the whole mechanics of the Mercato transfers, where Ronaldo embezzled 150 million. This is not news that falls from the sky, it is information that we seek, that we cross-check and that takes months to be validated.

Mr. Penassse, do you want to respond?

AP: Apart from advertising, of course the market newspaper, the newspaper that belongs to the dominant ones, is also made to shape a certain public opinion and give it certain ideas. So we will never find in Le Soir, or La Libre, as has been shown, ideas that go beyond a framework. So Macron, we make believe that all of a sudden we endorse the result of free and democratic elections while all the media have been actively working for months, especially in this case the French media, to create the candidate Macron and to make him the candidate who passes (…). It is obviously difficult to obtain from a journalist who works in a large press the admission that his bosses are the Rossel group which belongs to the Hurbain family, which is the 100th richest family in Belgium[note]and who is obviously not interested in the Evening. This is not a coincidence.

PL: I think we have here the difference between people, and I have nothing against Kairos and I salute this work as well as the existence of alternative press as you called it… obviously here we are far from a journalistic work; here it is an opinion, we are in the fantasy…

AP: I was waiting for this one…

PL: … yes, really in the fantasy, we let go in a peremptory way…

« Mr. Penasse never took his phone and never bothered to call Beatrice Delvaux! Never! I invite Mr. Penasse to come and participate in an editorial meeting, to live a few days, to do a real journalistic work, to cross-check all these sources « .

You are just making my transition, that’s perfect. In the first introduction to its first issue, Mr. Penasse, you write:  » our era is cruelly lacking in radicality, which in reality appears to be simplecoherence. It is true that as Mr. Laloux has just said, at Kairos we often find a bias in the articles, we can’t hide it, so what relationship should the journalist have with what he produces: should he be completely neutral?

AP: Only those who say they are the least committed are the most committed. Newspapers like Le Soir, La Libre, Le Monde and others are very committed: they are simply committed to capital. I will read you a small excerpt from our dear friend Béatrice Delvaux who, in 1999, wrote:  » the radical no to globalization is untenable in a world where the consumer takes actions every day that take companies beyond their borders. The market remains the most efficient way of organizing economic life, especially because all the others have shown their limits. We must encourage the construction of a strong and conquering capitalism, which will ensure the durability of companies that keep their decision centers in the country « . It should be recalled that Beatrice Delvaux prefaced the book on Albert Frère…

PL: … and she did her internship at the IMF, to already anticipate…

AP: Albert Frère is one of the biggest fortunes. Obviously, we are mocked when we say this as if it were something that was not serious in the way we approach the reality and truth of certain subjects (…).

PL: I have the greatest respect for Mr. Penasse’s opinions, but they remain opinions. Mr. Penasse never took his phone and never bothered to call Beatrice Delvaux! Never! I invite Mr. Penasse to come and participate in an editorial meeting, to live a few days, to do a real journalistic work, to cross-check all these sources.

PL: because obviously…

AP: noted!

PL: …but of course, and I can open my address book to you, there’s no problem, just do your job. Because it is not because one has an opinion or a fantasy where one maintains a certain conspiracy theory… based on what? Because Beatrice Delvaux did her internship at the IMF, I, as a journalist at Le Soir , would obviously be a supporter of capitalism? Of course I would get up in the morning and say to myself  » well, how can I serve the interests of Bel20? « , it doesn’t make sense. We are in the ideology, we are in the conspiracy theory, we are in the most complete fantasy, and the commitment in journalism, the first thing that counts is to go and look for information, it is the only thing that counts.

Precisely, we are going to talk about newspapers that could serve capital, as Mr. Penasse said, and as you defend yourself, Mr. Laloux…

AP: I would like to add that when we discuss, it’s funny because there is always this  » I respect alternative newspapers, but they are worthless opinions, it’s made by guys who just talk like that… « …

PL: Did I say that?

AP:  » These are opinions, it’s not really journalism « …

PL: do some journalism, back up your words!

AP: You should know that in our editorial office, we have Paul Lannoye, honorary member of the European Parliament… [note]

PL: (cuts me off), he is a journalist!?

AP: but you don’t have to be a journalist to do journalism…

PL: as soon as we have a politician who is a journalist at Le Soir, well, Le Soir goes out of business, because we wouldn’t be doing journalism anymore, we couldn’t…

AP: but he left the green party…

PL: Yes, of course!

AP: argue, this is ridiculous.

PL: I argue: he is militant, he is militant!

You say that Mr. Penasse does not do journalism, he has been looking for information here [refers to the file Seriez-vous libre ce Soir], for quotations, he has done a research work, so I think that he has done journalism, but critical journalism.

PL: I read it very carefully: all the data in there is public. I love to read articles that talk about other people’s articles… once again, I don’t find an investigative work where we would have revealed, oh great surprise, that Rossel belongs to the Hurbain family, that Bernard Marchant is the managing director who in another life worked at Arthur Andersen… this is where we leave the field of journalism and start to fantasize in the conspiracy theory, stuck a little bit in blinders and a prism by which we analyze all this, we are in the critic: under the pretext that we worked at Arthur Andersen, we would have made allegiance to the big capitalism and that when I get up in the morning I don’t think about the reader or about the information but I think about taking care of advertisers. Personally, I don’t give a damn. I would like to remind you that in Belgium we are fortunate to have press groups that do not belong to arms dealers or political parties; more than that, we are also fortunate, and here I am speaking for Le Soir, to be in a newspaper where independence is not an empty word: we have been brandishing it for 130 years and we even pride ourselves on it. But inevitably, these are media companies that need to break even at the end of the month. So I’m willing to work for free, but this is not the model of society that we defend, under the pretext that a company earns money it would inevitably be harmful, of course not; to do quality journalism it is necessary that the press company is balanced.

AP: I didn’t say that because she was making money, she wasn’t free. No, we know very well, and we know perhaps much better than the other presses, that to be able to survive we need money (…).

« The elite’s hold on the media and the marginalization of dissenters follows so naturallyof the very functioning of these filters that media people, who often work withintegrity and good faith, can convince themselves that they are choosing and interpreting « objectively » theinformation on the basis of strictly professional values. They are indeed oftenobjectives, but within the limits imposed on them by the operation of these filters.Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, The Making of Consent.

Is there a form of censorship in relation to advertising? Are we really free at Le Soir?

PL: Imagine: I want to write an article and immediately I have the advertising department come down to the editorial office:  » Say, you’re not allowed to write this article « . Imagine for a second a country, a democracy where it would happen like that, it would be atrocious. There is a Berlin Wall…

AP: But of course there isn’t! It’s crazy because it was written thirty years ago: Chomsky and Edwards did a fabulous book on it, obviously there isn’t a guy who comes down from the advertising department and says « Hey, buddy, stop! We know very well, that it is a form of self-censorship that is integrated, and that is integrated long before journalism schools, in high schools, in elementary school, in the fact that we ourselves have been readers and listeners of the media as they are. Of course there’s not a guy coming in with a gun. They always compare it with countries under dictatorships, where the resistance is real.

PL: I don’t have the knowledge of Mr. Penasse in neuropsychology, I think he is certainly right…

AP: Maybe it’s because I did psychology, but…

PL: absolutely, but I think you’re right, that advertising obviously uses codes and techniques that make it possible to touch — I have three children and I try to preserve them from all that, and we certainly have the same values as Mr. Penasse and I with regard to that… — I just want to say that there is a part of intention in self-censorship, but not only with regard to advertising. But in any case, we are not dogmatic about it. And I can show you pages where in the middle of the Fortis affair revealed by Le Soir, there were articles on the same page denouncing the board of directors and a Fortis advertisement.

Finally, what is quality journalism for you?

PL : It’s a rigorous journalism, and rigor means being independent, obviously from any economic or political pressure, but also from any dogma, from any ideology… I’m not here in the morning to serve an ideology.

« I argue: he is militant, he is militant! »

Mr. Penasse, to close the debate?

AP: The question, I would like to rebound, is not that people get up in the morning and say « we are going to serve an ideology », it is only that there is certain information that can be said and others that cannot. For us, quality journalism means putting no limits on the work of truth. So, we have to realize where we are: we are in 2017, in an environmental, political and financial situation that is catastrophic, and many researchers say that if man continues like this, in 100 years it will be the end of the road, so the recreation is over. And so that’s quality journalism, it must be said.

PL: I invite you to read Le Soir every day to find out…

AP: … but I can’t do it anymore sir, I can’t do it anymore…

PL: But I’m not talking to you, I’m talking to the readers! … to read every day to get information, because the first to do an investigation on…

AP: I really advise you not to read it!

PL: but then you talk about things you don’t know, that’s not journalistic!

AP: but I can’t anymore…

PL: But you are not a journalist!

For your information, when students, off mic, ask Mr. Laloux if he plans to stay for the end of the show, he answers: « no, I have work, I have a job ». CQFD.


So we contacted him again… on May 11, I sent him an email:

Hello Mr. Laloux,

Following our debate of this Monday, May 8, most interesting, I gladly accept your invitation to come and participate in an editorial meeting, live a few days, to do a real journalistic work, to cross-check all these sources.

How could we best organize this? How did you plan to proceed?

I look forward to hearing from you,


Alexandre Penasse

The same day, he answered me:

Good evening,

Christophe Berti, editor in chief, will contact you to answer all your questions. At least you will have the most direct source to organize your further investigation. I took the liberty of forwarding your email to him and to have a word with him.

Thank you for your interest.


Philippe Laloux

In passing, the invitation to participate in an editorial meeting became « answer all your questions »… We obviously didn’t get any more answers, so we called him, and finally got him on the phone in June, telling us that he was very busy with the new evening site and would get back in touch with us. We tried again in September, no response. We are still waiting. Of course.

Read more "



Remembering Nearfield, un film d’animation sur l’électro-hypersensibilité (EHS) réalisé par Sean A. Carney, a remporté le prix du meilleur film sur la santé au Festival des films du monde de Cannes en juillet. À l’heure actuelle, l’EHS est un handicap toujours négligé par les pouvoirs publics et la majeure partie du monde scientifique, qui compromet la capacité des patients à mener à bien leurs activités quotidiennes. Une piste de solution est le maintien ou la création de « zones blanches » où le rayonnement électromagnétique est faible ou nul. En attendant la solution radicale d’« éteindre le moteur de la civilisation thermique », comme le suggère le scientifique Guy McPherson 

B. L. 


Le Soir du 3 octobre 2023 consacre 2 pages à la gloire du smartphone. Le journaliste Philippe Laloux ne porte apparemment aucun jugement de valeur, se cantonne au factuel, mais va jusqu’au prophétique : « La transformation du smartphone en portefeuille électronique est inscrite dans les astres ». Nous voilà prévenus. C’est comme ça ! Le 10 octobre, un publi-reportage : « Le nouveau smartphone, plutôt Apple ou Google ? ». Les médias dominants sont les vecteurs enthousiastes du monde tel qu’il va. Pour (essayer de) le faire aller autrement, lisez aussi nos confrères de Suisse, Moins !, et de France, La décroissance. 

B. L. 


Le mardi 19 septembre dernier à Namur, les DoMineurs, des citoyens opposés à la réouverture des mines en Belgique, ont rencontré pour la deuxième fois la Ministre Céline Tellier au sujet du Code de gestion des ressources du sous-sol wallon, actuellement proche de sa finalisation et devant bientôt être voté au Parlement wallon. Une action a été entreprise auprès des députés. Pour eux, voici un dossier à creuser ! 

B. L. 


On aurait pu croire que la présidente de la Commission européenne Ursula von der Leyen n’allait pas pouvoir ajouter grandchose encore à son palmarès d’idioties et de malfaisances (collabo en chef du pouvoir étasunien, collusion avec Pfizer, alimentation zélée de la guerre en Ukraine, etc.). Elle vient de prouver le contraire en s’attaquant au statut d’espèce protégée dont le loup bénéficie dans l’UE (in Le Soir, 04/09/2023). Elle n’atteindra sans doute pas son but, mais ça n’ôte pas à la chose sa gravité. On repense à la formule d’un personnage de L’homme à l’envers de Fred Vargas sur les ennemis du loup : elle les qualifie en effet de « vieux cons arriérés », expression s’appliquant tellement bien, dans le cas présent… 



Une bonne nouvelle (ça arrive) : elle concerne le takahé, oiseau qui avait vécu en Australie durant 12.000 ans au moins, avant qu’on le considère comme éteint depuis 1898, suite à l’introduction par les colons de prédateurs de cet animal. On avait cependant découvert quelques survivants au milieu du XXe siècle. Ceux-ci ont pu se reproduire en captivité. Et en août 2023, pour la première fois, des takahés ont été relâchés dans des zones naturelles, où leurs prédateurs avaient été capturés. En outre, cette réintroduction est l’aboutissement d’un long combat juridique d’une communauté indigène, les Ngāi Tahu, pour lesquels cet oiseau est une part de leurs terres ancestrales. (in Reporterre, 04/09/2023). 



« La démocratie était l’idéal de tous les États dans le monde, et aujourd’hui, au contraire, il y a une demande d’autoritarisme, y compris parfois chez nous, une défiance vis-à-vis de la démocratie avec l’impression qu’elle ne protège pas assez les citoyens », se plaint Georges Dallemagne, député fédéral des Engagés, dans Le Soir du 26 septembre 2023. Rappelons-nous que c’est le même qui avait réclamé la vaccination « automatique » pour le personnel soignant. C’est pas de l’autoritarisme, ça ? À moins que ce ne soit un acte « démocratique » pour « protéger les citoyens »… 



En juillet dernier à Saint-Imier (Suisse), les rencontres internationales (anti ?)-autoritaires (RIA) ont réuni 5.000 anarchistes. Ce n’est pas peu dire qu’elles ont tourné à la pagaille, et au cauchemar pour l’historique Fédération anarchiste (lire le compte-rendu circonstancié par Tomjo et Mitou sur pdf/mes_vacances_a_saint-imier.pdf). Tout n’est évidemment pas pourri au royaume de l’anarchie, loin de là ! On visitera avec intérêt la revue libertaire en ligne Divergences, qui garde la tête froide en ces temps troublés (dans le genre). 

B. L. 


Nous saluons la venue d’un tout nouveau confrère français engagé dans la résistance, Stop ! Le Paris débranché, à destination des citadins qui n’ont « pas encore totalement abdiqué de [leur] côté humain pour se fondre dans les cohortes de zombies électro-trotinettisés au cerveau piloté par un smartphone », lit-on à la Une du n° 1 (octobre/novembre 2023). Nous leur souhaitons déjà longue vie. En toute cohérence, pas de courriel ni de site, seulement une adresse où s’abonner : 7 bis, rue Jules Parent – F‑92500 Rueil Malmaison. 

B. L. 


Le Soir du 29 septembre 2023 se demande s’il faut continuer à promouvoir la Formule 1 dans le contexte du réchauffement climatique. Même en l’absence de celui-ci, la F1 devrait être supprimée, déjà parce qu’elle encourage le gaspillage des ressources métalliques et fossiles, le comportement agressif des « hommautos », qu’elle exalte la « virilité », la vitesse, la frénésie, le vacarme, toutes choses qui vont à l’encontre d’une société décente et respectueuse du bien commun. Seulement, « quant à savoir pourquoi on continue : parce que cela marche. Après plusieurs années de déclin, la Formule 1 a connu une seconde jeunesse […] En Belgique, le circuit de Spa-Francorchamps a ainsi vu son chiffre d’affaires augmenter de près de 40 % en 2023 ». Désolé de vous annoncer une mauvaise nouvelle de plus. 

B. L. 


L’ère Covid-19 nous aura permis de distinguer avec une évidence rare les conformistes qui se donnaient des airs de libre-penseur, déversant désormais sans plus aucune vergogne leur mépris sur quelques intransigeants qui ne pensent pas comme eux. Ainsi du Canard enchaîné, qui titre une de ses brèves « Des doigts et du souffre à LFI » (30 août 2023), usant des méthodes de la « grande presse » pour stigmatiser Alexis Poulin : « Cet ancien du “Média” Insoumis était invité à débattre […] de la liberté de la presse, “entre algorithmes et oligarques” (sic). Un véritable expert ! Cet habitué des canaux préférés de l’extrême droite conspirationniste (Boulevard Voltaire, TV Liberté) et de RT France, la télé favorite de Poutine, avait qualifié Gabriel Attal de “[jeune] leader passé au Bilderberg”* […] ; « Dans une interview au très obscur canal Tribunal populaire » […] ; « Sans oublier quelques saillies répétées sur les “politiques fascistes” telles que l’obligation vaccinale pour les soignants ». Florilège des méthodes dénigrantes (en gras) de la « presse libre »… Il ne nous en faudra pas plus pour comprendre comment Le Canard Enchaîné, malgré les apparences, est, comme le toutou Médor, au service de son maître. *Ce qui s’avère vrai. 

A. P. 


La Libre Belgique publiait le 2 octobre une information captivante : Elon Musk, propriétaire de X a diffusé un « mème » (élément de communication se diffusant largement sur Internet, notamment sur les réseaux sociaux) afin de se moquer de Volodymyr Zelensky. L’image était accompagnée de la phrase suivante : « Quand cela fait 5 minutes que vous n’avez pas demandé un milliard de dollars d’aide ». Le parlement ukrainien ne tarda pas à riposter en publiant à son tour un mème accompagné du texte suivant : « Quand cela fait 5 minutes que vous n’avez pas diffusé de propagande russe ». Ou quand les hommes les plus influents du monde jouent à pipicaca dans le bac à sable des réseaux sociaux. Soit dit en passant, ceci en dit long sur la néantisation de la société, d’autant plus que, selon la RTBF, le francophone absorberait en moyenne 5 h 37 de vidéo par jour ! 

K. C. 


Hubert Reeves est mort le 13 octobre, à l’âge de 91 ans. Célèbre astrophysicien franco-québécois engagé dans la cause écologique depuis une vingtaine d’années avec son essai Mal de Terre (2003), il refusait pourtant avec obstination d’envisager l’hypothèse de la décroissance, contrairement à son collègue Albert Jacquard (19252013), qui, lui, avait montré de l’intérêt envers elle. 

B. L. 


Cela fait maintenant plusieurs années que l’Union européenne a annoncé l’abandon du changement d’heure, et la résolution n’est toujours pas « implémentée ». On peut se demander les raisons de tels atermoiements quand on a vu que les « autorités » sont, quand elles le veulent, très rapides pour prendre des décisions autrement lourdes de conséquences (confinement, couvre-feu, injection de la population, financement de l’effort de guerre de l’Ukraine…). 

B. L. 


Yves Coppieters, docteur médiatiquement inconnu avant la crise du covid-19 devenu une star pendant la pandémie, sera candidat aux prochaines élections fédérales pour les Engagés. Maxime Prévot, pour qui cette nouvelle recrue est « un gage incontestable de sérénité, de crédibilité et de bienveillance », est content. Et jure qu’il n’y a aucune collusion entre le monde scientifique et politique (comme il n’y en a bien entendu aucune entre le monde du journalisme et la politique, n’est-ce pas, Hadja Lahbib — ancienne présentatrice de télévision et ministre des affaires étrangères) ? 



Discours de politique général du Premier ministre Alexander De Croo du 11 octobre 2023 : 

« La guerre en Europe relègue peut-être au second plan la lutte contre les changements climatiques mais elle n’en atténue pas pour autant l’urgence ». 

« Nous sommes la première génération à ressentir les effets de la crise climatique, mais aussi la dernière génération capable de la contenir ». C’est sûr qu’en reléguant au second plan la lutte contre les changements climatiques à cause de la guerre, on va y arriver. 

« Un État qui se veut protecteur des générations futures et défenseurs des libertés, doit reposer sur des fondements solides. Pour notre pays, cela veut dire des pouvoirs publics plus performants, plus de gens au travail et des carrières plus longues ». Ou quand la liberté, c’est la multiplication du travail aliéné. 

« Si nous voulons que les investissements soient rentables, nous devons oser rationaliser ». N’est-ce pas la rationalisation osée qui provoque un effondrement sans précédent du système des soins de santé ? 

« Nous ne vous laisserons pas tomber. L’Ukraine gagnera cette guerre ». 

« S’il y a bien une leçon à tirer de la guerre en Ukraine, c’est qu’à vouloir à tout prix avoir raison, on finit par la perdre ». La guerre, la raison, ou les deux ? 

Heureusement que nous n’avons recueilli que certains propos énoncés en français ; autrement, cette brève aurait été certes deux fois plus remplie, mais aussi deux fois plus vide. Bref, elle aurait été à l’image du discours du Premier : paradoxale. 

K. C. 

Read more "

The return of Law?


Kairos: It seems that the law has regained its prerogatives for some time now, after being sidelined by the executive branch during two years of pandemic, doesn’t it? 

Thierry Vanderlinden: I wouldn’t be so optimistic! It should be noted that the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal against the « pandemic law » in its entirety: the law is now considered constitutional and applicable in its entirety. All the measures provided for in this law have been endorsed by the Constitutional Court, which has made a legal pirouette by transferring responsibility for their practical application to the burgomasters and provincial governors. In other words, when the latter actually take concrete measures (confinement, wearing of masks, ban on gatherings, etc.) in the event of a new pandemic, citizens will then have to lodge appeals with the ordinary courts and/or the Conseil d’État: we can only note that the Court has got rid of this question by referring it to others! The consequence is that it will be up to each citizen to take individual action as soon as he or she feels that the measures decreed violate fundamental rights, which risks dispersing energies and increasing costs… Generally speaking, it can be said that the Conseil d’Etat and the Constitutional Court have fulfilled their role as the government’s after-sales service: these courts have accepted the complaint, but have indicated: « Sorry, but by virtue of such and such an article and such and such a principle, we cannot act on your appeal. » In 2020–21, the Conseil d’État signed all the government’s decrees, whatever they were, and gave positive opinions, to the point where some malicious tongues say that the Conseil d’État has become the Conseil de l’État, which is no exaggeration. They almost told the government how to proceed so that the bylaws would be acceptable. With regard to « pandemic » legislation, appeals have also been lodged against the Walloon Decree and the Brussels Ordinance. The Walloon Decree, in particular, is quite astounding, since it authorizes inspectors from the Agence pour une vie de qualité (AViQ), who are not even doctors, to force someone to stay at home or undergo medical treatment, but without specifying what treatment is involved: one might think, of course, of vaccination! They can also seize domestic animals and exterminate them if they deem it necessary. The icing on the cake is the third option in the event of disagreement with these measures: you have to go to a « place designated for this purpose » (sic!) without any further specification: this brings to mind internment camps such as there have been, it seems, in Canada and Australia. 

In concrete terms, does this mean that if tomorrow the Walloon government decrees that we are entering a pandemic, the measures set out in the Decree can be applied? 

Let’s wait for the Court’s ruling, expected in September. I can’t predict it, but there’s every reason to believe that it will be negative, as there’s a general tendency in the higher courts — Court of Cassation, Council of State, Constitutional Court — to ratify all the legislation and decrees issued by the government since the start of the health crisis. Let’s take an example. The Kortrijk Criminal Court, ruling on appeal from a Police Court, had found that the measures relating to the wearing of masks were illegal, or in any case contrary to the fundamental principles laid down in the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Unfortunately, the Public Prosecutor’s Office went to the Court of Cassation and won… There is still an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, but in this case the time limit has obviously expired. For the future, we could consider it, for example for the Walloon Decree, but it would require a great deal of legal thinking (and therefore a cost!), and it’s not certain that we’ll win the case. 

Can we move on to the good news? Firstly, the ruling by the Liège Court of Appeal concerning the extension of the Covid Safe Ticket. 

Yes, a victory! A ruling by the Liège Court of Appeal was handed down last spring. The Namur Court of First Instance had already ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who felt that the Walloon Region’s decision to extend the CST was not sufficiently well-founded. After some hesitation, the company finally appealed, and the decision of the Namur Court was upheld by the Liège Court of Appeal in a lengthy and well-reasoned ruling. It should be pointed out that these courts rule in summary proceedings, which means that they issue provisional rulings and simply say that, on the face of it, the arguments presented appear to be relevant. So we have to start the debate all over again, before another tribunal that can really dig into the issue and decide whether the arguments are well-founded or not. This process is ongoing, and we won’t have a decision for some time yet. 

A half-victory, then? 

Yes and no, it’s still a victory in principle. These two court rulings confirm the position of the Notre bon droit association, and prove the Walloon Region wrong. Confirmation on appeal is important because it shows that what the official authorities say is not infallible and, above all, is not irrefutable, i.e. it can be proven otherwise. It’s a defeat for the doxa, which claims to be the only acceptable truth. It also shows that the public authorities are obliged to make decisions that are justified and well-founded, and is therefore a consecration of the rule of law: we’re no longer under the Ancien Régime! It is the role of the judiciary — the third branch of government — to monitor the actions of the legislative and executive branches, to check that their decisions comply with the law and the Constitution. Here, we have to face up to the fact that this was not the case. The mainstream press relayed the information, with Le Soir even featuring it on its April 19, 2023 front page. This should encourage citizens and associations to never give up. Even if the exact chronology of this case was not ideal — since the measure had been lifted in the meantime — in terms of fundamental principles, it remains a fine victory. 

Can the Walloon Region appeal? 

Yes, but she’d better think again, because she’s already screwed up twice and her credibility is at stake. An appeal to the French Supreme Court is time-consuming, costly and requires in-depth legal analysis. To my knowledge, the Walloon Region does not appear to have lodged an appeal, which suggests that there were insufficient legal arguments to do so. In this case, the result would be a final judgment « cast with the force of res judicata », i.e. no longer subject to appeal and opposable to everyone: it becomes « the word of the gospel », as it were. 

Is there a second piece of good news? 

Yes, another ruling from the Court of Appeal, this time in Brussels, again in the health context. The Zone libre collective had published flyers based on the AViQ flyers promoting the good health of Walloons through vaccination. Their visuals featured smiling ordinary citizens delighted to be vaccinated. In Brussels, there was the same « Je me » campaign. Zone Libre rephrased it as « Est-ce que je me vaccine? », explaining on its website that getting vaccinated was perhaps not so obvious, presented dangers, risks of side-effects, and that above all there were alternatives to vaccination — scientifically backed up — which no public authority ever talked about. This is a violation of the 2002 law on patients’ rights, which clearly states that doctors are obliged to inform patients of all possible medical solutions, so that they can give their free and informed consent to the treatment proposed. In the health crisis, the official discourse repeated that there was only one solution, vaccination, whereas vaccination is only one possibility. There are others, not only more effective, but also far less invasive, as Zone libre put it, using much the same visual as AViQ. She objected and took the publisher responsible for the flyers to court for copyright infringement! The court ruled in favor of the AViQ, but fortunately Zone libre appealed, and it was right to do so, because the court ruled 100% in favor of the AViQ: there was no need to raise the notion of copyright because the AViQ flyers were nothing special, and the visuals were taken from the Internet. Secondly, said the Court, the Zone libre flyer expresses a different opinion, but in a tone of humor and derision, which is part of freedom of expression. The court adds: « Do I vaccinate myself? Yes, that’s a question you can ask yourself ». Citizens have reason to ask questions, and « Am I vaccinating myself? » corresponds to the state of mind of part of the population. This judgment, which rules on the merits, shows two important things: firstly, official discourse is not invincible, and secondly, humor is an extremely effective weapon. 

Is it conceivable to lodge a complaint against RTBF, for example, which has actively participated, along with others, in disinformation or misinformation, even though it is in the public domain? 

There’s a lot of work to be done, starting with an inventory of all the fanciful claims: that’s where Kairos comes in! Then we need to compare them with reality and the scientific findings that contradict these fanciful assertions. There are undoubtedly several lawyers who would be delighted to be able to take action in the field of propaganda… 

What’s also interesting is that the media don’t go back on what they said… 

Indeed, they’re locked into their own logic, and that’s something of a weapon for us. Right up to the last moment, they’ll claim that we’re all conspiracy theorists, that what they’re saying is the only thing that makes sense. It’s unthinkable for the political powers-that-be or the media, at least until proven otherwise, to change their point of view. That should work in our favor, because there are a few magistrates who would certainly be sympathetic to that argument. But it’s something that needs to be studied in greater depth, and thought through carefully. 

Let’s end on a high note with EVRAS! 

It’s the acronym for Éducation à la vie relationnelle, affective et sexuelle (Education in relationships, emotional and sexual life), a program that began quietly at WHO in the early 2000s, and in Belgium from 2011-12. As a test-bed, a few animations were sporadically held in schools. This was not a compulsory program in the Wallonia-Brussels Federation. Then the years went by, and mentalities supposedly evolved. The LGTBQIA+ movement — towards which I have no particular opinion — has gained momentum in official, unofficial, associative and other discourses. Subsidies seem to have been allocated left and right, and the Walloon Ministers of Health and Education saw fit to mandate the associative world to draw up a guide, released two years ago, a 200-page brick whose responsible publishers are the Asbl O’ Yes and the Fédération des centers de plannings familiaux. The aim is to make pupils aged five and over aware of the concepts of relational, emotional and sexual life. It’s certainly a good idea to raise young people’s awareness of emotional relationships, and tolerance of different types of relationship, such as homosexuality, which sometimes fall outside traditional norms as passed down through the family. Personally, I think it’s a good thing: in emotional and relational matters, tolerance and open-mindedness should prevail. Sexuality is another matter altogether, and the guide even goes so far as to mention masturbation, orgasm, breast size, uterus, sexting and pornography in full, listing both the advantages and disadvantages! So what’s the problem? I’ve heard child health professionals, child psychiatrists and psychologists, tell us that talking about sexuality from the age of five is an invasion of the psyche[note]. The Sauvons Nos Enfants and Innocence En Danger websites provide information on this subject. Breaking and entering is a child psychiatry concept which, apparently, was totally absent from the considerations of the guide’s editors, which is very worrying. There were no representatives from the scientific community, and no child psychiatrists or psychologists specializing in this field. It’s quite singular and challenging. This raises the question of whether the public authorities’ decision to give such a prominent place to associations that defend certain points of view in the field of sexuality was not ideological. But what does the law say? The legislator made no mistake: this « frightening » aspect is included verbatim in the penal code. This is article 417, which, fortunately, was completely overhauled just a year and a half ago by the Minister of Justice, whom we salute here in passing, who saw fit to completely revamp the concept, particularly in view of the worrying wave of sextos and « nudes », which consist in depicting the intimacy of partners or former partners and are obviously contrary to the general notion of good morals. This matter has been rigorously regulated, and two principles emerge from article 417. The first and most important is that there is no criminal majority below the age of 16, which means that any child up to the age of 16 is legally incapable of giving consent in matters relating to sexuality. But imposing standardized teaching in the sexual field contradicts this principle! Child psychiatrists will say that it’s an abuse of the psyche: a minor is psychologically incapable of giving valid consent, and this is confirmed by the penal code, which pronounces aggravated penalties as soon as these animations are given in class by entertainers who are in a relationship of authority with the children. I’d like to point out in passing that, until now, all the activities have taken place outside the presence of the teacher in charge of the children, on the pretext that the children must not be influenced by their teacher; this is an attack on sexual integrity, the second principle of article 417. We want children to be isolated from any adult context and to be able to express themselves validly (?) on subjects that go beyond them[note]. There are already many reports of the children being quite traumatized and disturbed. Complaints campaigns are envisaged, in particular by means of a standard letter[note] that parents can send to their children’s school management to request that their children be exempted from these activities. Apparently, according to the Minister’s official speech, EVRAS will be compulsory from the start of the 2023 school year, with priority given to primary sixth and secondary fourth grades. The official documents are currently being voted on by the Walloon Parliament. They were the subject of an initial vote in the Select Committee by the majority parties who, by virtue of party discipline, could only do one thing: vote in favor of this provision. In theory, however, the Decree is not applicable until Parliament has passed it. 

And this debate will be public? 

Debate in Parliament is public by definition (it’s only behind closed doors if there are people involved). Any member of the public can follow them or simply be present at the entrance to Parliament to raise awareness of the issues raised by this draft decree. Until the decree is passed, it is politically impossible for ministers to impose the EVRAS guide on schools. In conclusion, it’s more important than ever to lodge appeals and complaints, and not to let ourselves be taken for a ride. A complaint lodged with the local police station may end up with the judicial police, who will certainly be sensitive to the situation and pass it on to the public prosecutor’s office. And we can only hope that some magistrates in the Public Prosecutor’s Office will react. 

Interviewed live by Bernard Legros and Alexandre Penasse, August 2023. 

*Thierry Vanderlinden is a lawyer and was a member of the Brussels Bar for 10 years; he then coordinated the Quartier Botanique urban renewal operation in Brussels, and for almost 15 years headed the Mons Rental Assistance team within the Walloon Housing Fund. He has also been a professional metalworker for 35 years.


Read more "

The trans. phenomenon A philosopher’s view


Du « je parle donc je suis » au « je dis donc je suis »

Nicolas Drochmans

Dans votre ouvrage, vous évoquez votre expérience de découverte de la différence des sexes lors de votre petite enfance, et montrez comment elle fut structurante. Peut-on dire que cette division demeure fondamentale ? Il est incroyable qu’il faille le rappeler. Cela en dit long sur une époque ? 

Oui, il est incroyable qu’il faille rappeler que l’être humain est, dans son être même, marqué par la différence des sexes. Il naît en effet sexué, c’est-à-dire d’un sexe ou de l’autre, avant même qu’il ne se pose la question. Il a donc fallu attendre le XXIe siècle, que l’on dit caractérisé par un accès immédiat à l’information, pour remettre en cause ce fait majeur, inaugural de toute vie. C’est pourquoi je mets les activistes trans dans le même sac que les terraplanistes et autres créationnistes. Ces activistes s’activent donc à nier la réalité. Ils disent que le sexe des bébés est assigné à la naissance… par le médecin. Alors que, depuis la nuit des temps, dans toutes les cultures, la première nouvelle qui se répand à la suite d’une naissance procède d’un constat partagé par tous les protagonistes (parents, famille, amis…) : « C’est un garçon ! » ou « C’est une fille ! ». Certes, il existe des accidents génétiques, mais ils sont très rares, ne concernant qu’une naissance sur environ trente mille. Bref, il ne faut pas confondre la règle et l’exception. Pour ma part, le déni de la différence des sexes s’est effondré quand j’avais 5 ans lorsque j’ai voulu montrer aux petites filles de ma rue qu’elles avaient elles aussi un zizi et qu’elles pouvaient faire pipi debout. Sauf que, parti avec les meilleures intentions du monde à la recherche de leur zizi, c’est… le mien qui s’est manifesté. J’ai donc découvert cette loi, gaillardement consignée par Brassens, dès 5 ans : la bandaison, papa, ça ne se commande pas. Il en résultait que j’étais un garçon et qu’elles étaient des filles. Pas pareil. Or, force est de constater que l’expérience fondatrice que j’ai faite à 5 ans, comme pratiquement tous ceux de ma génération, tend aujourd’hui à se faire plus rare. Par exemple, les activistes trans l’ignorent car, chez eux, ce déni de la réalité de la différence sexuelle perdure. Quelle force s’oppose donc à cette évidence ? Je compte, cher Alexandre, sur votre opiniâtreté pour que vous me rameniez bientôt à cette question. Mais je voudrais auparavant souligner que nous voici avec un déni qui en dit long sur notre époque. Je formulerais ainsi ce tournant : on se retrouve avec un « parti trans » qui veut prendre le pouvoir. Ce n’est pas la première fois que de tels dénis arrivent dans l’Histoire. Il suffit en effet de remonter d’une centaine d’années en arrière pour s’apercevoir que les nazis ont cherché à prendre le pouvoir en imposant des vues défiant le sens commun : il existe, disaient-ils, une race supérieure et il faut tout lui sacrifier. Pour accréditer cette thèse délirante, ils ont entrepris de changer la perception de la réalité en changeant la langue allemande. Le philologue Victor Klemperer, juif de son état, s’est fait le scribe douloureux de cette transformation de la langue allemande. C’est ainsi que, dans son journal personnel, il a noté jour après jour toutes les manipulations que les nazis ont fait subir à la langue allemande. Cette langue du Troisième Reich, Klemperer l’appelle la Lingua Tertii Imperii[note]. La LTI, écrivait Klemperer, est une langue dont la « pauvreté » était la « qualité foncière ». Les mots y étaient martelés. Tout en elle « devait être harangue, sommation, galvanisation ». Klemperer relève dans la LTI les mots dont la fréquence augmente : « spontané », « instinct », « fanatique », « aveuglément », « éternel », « étranger à l’espèce » et, par-dessus tout, le mot « total », désigné par Klemperer comme le « mot clé du nazisme »[note]. Je rappelle ceci parce que c’est aussi une novlangue que le parti trans est en train d’essayer d’inventer. Voyez par exemple le nouveau « lexique trans » que le Planning Familial diffuse désormais auprès des familles. On y lit que certains termes ou expressions doivent désormais être proscrits ― comme « mâle/ femelle » ― et que d’autres doivent être promus ― comme « Les hommes peuvent avoir un vagin ». Vous m’objecterez peut-être que le parti trans est infiniment moins dangereux que le parti nazi. Pour l’instant, oui. Mais, sur le fond, je dirais que le projet est le même car les transactivistes constituent les troupes de choc d’un mouvement bien plus large, le transhumanisme, qui lui aussi, comme le nazisme, cherche à introduire une scission dans la commune humanité : lorsque certains deviendront augmentés, les autres deviendront ipso facto diminués. 

Est-il encore possible de discuter du phénomène trans ? Les médias pratiquent la technique de la Fenêtre d’Overton, rendant progressivement acceptables des idées qui, il y a encore quelques années, auraient été inaudibles, estampillées du sceau du progrès, marquant tous ceux qui oseraient la critique du stigmate de la transphobie. 

En effet, c’est la technique de la fenêtre d’Overton qui a été employée, de façon à rendre progressivement acceptables les idées et projets trans encore très marginaux quelques années auparavant. Cela a si bien marché qu’aujourd’hui, si vous discutez la moindre proposition du transactivisme, vous passez pour un vilain transphobe. Surtout dans les groupes dits de gauche. Du coup, c’est moi qui suis désormais obligé d’« Overtonner » (c’est le cas de le dire) en exprimant ce qui est désormais inaudible. Comme je ne peux pas le dire à gauche (puisque là, justement, c’est inaudible), je suis obligé, moi homme de gauche (mon passé et mes travaux contre le néolibéralisme en témoignent), d’aller dans les médias de droite pour me faire entendre. C’est ce qui m’est arrivé avec ce livre. La presse de droite a vu dans mon essai un bon moyen de titiller la gauche. J’ai accepté d’y répondre, mais je me suis fait un devoir de ne pas dissimuler mes positions, notamment en mettant en avant la responsabilité du Marché dans les dérives trans actuelles. Le Figaro ne s’y est pas trompé puisqu’il a publié, le samedi 8 avril, le long entretien qu’il m’a accordé sous le titre « La gauche contre le mouvement trans ». D’ailleurs, si cela peut vous rassurer, j’ai eu ainsi une bonne recension dans L’Humanité… À vrai dire, on se retrouve dans une confusion telle que la presse de gauche défend, sauf rares exceptions, un néolibéralisme culturel, ce à quoi la presse de droite s’oppose, mais en défendant un néolibéralisme économique. Jean-Claude Michéa a bien rendu compte de ce partage du travail. Bref, tout est confus aujourd’hui : les hommes sont des femmes, la gauche est à droite et la droite donne la parole à une gauche que la gauche proscrit… Bien sûr, si la presse véritablement critique (comme la vôtre) était plus développée, je n’irais pas voir ailleurs. Mais comme cette presse n’a pas, par définition, les moyens de la presse « officielle », il m’apparaît de bonne guerre d’en passer par la presse de droite pour dénoncer le néolibéralisme culturel de la gauche. On n’en serait pas là si la gauche avait fait son travail. Or, elle est loin du compte. Elle n’a pas compris qu’avec le néolibéralisme et le règne du Marché total (qui atteint jusqu’à l’intime), nous étions passés, il y a plus de trente ans déjà, du vieux capitalisme patriarcal à un nouveau capitalisme libidinal. Pire même : cette gauche s’est fait refiler son actuel logiciel woke par le néolibéralisme culturel américain (les GAFAM, Hollywood, Disney, Netflix…) et elle n’y a vu que du feu ! Du coup, cette gauche prend les vessies pour des lanternes et les trans pour des prolos. Lesquels, abandonnés par la gauche, partent de plus en plus du côté de chez Trump aux USA et du côté de chez Marine Le Pen en France… 

Ils parviennent même à insulter des trans qui les contredisent : dans le documentaire Enfants trans, parlons-en, Miranda Yardley, trans-femme, jugé/jugée pour ses propos « transphobiques », dit : « L’auto-déclaration réduit le fait d’être une femme à un sentiment dans la tête d’un homme. Quelle connerie ! ». En outre, ceux qui reviennent de leurs expériences sont vilipendés par les militants. Un homme qui a subi des opérations pour paraître femme, explique dans le documentaire What is a woman : « Je ne me suis jamais adapté (…) Quand des psychologues ou quelqu’un que j’aimais m’ont dit que je n’étais pas dans le bon corps, j’ai commencé à penser que c’était peut-être le cas. Je suis une femme biologique qui a subi une transition médicale pour ressembler à un homme grâce à des hormones synthétiques et à la chirurgie. Je ne serai jamais un homme. Est-ce que c’est transphobe de ma part de dire la vérité ? Pourquoi alors, dans quelques centaines d’années, si vous déterrez mon corps, ils diront : oui, c’était une femme, elle a eu des enfants ». 

Beaucoup de trans qui ont cru au voyage vers l’autre sexe déchantent et parfois « détransent » au sens où ils cherchent à détransitionner lorsqu’ils se retrouvent lost in transition pour s’être laissés embarquer un peu trop vite dans ce mirage. Ils sont alors la cible des transactivistes qui les prennent pour des renégats de la cause. Et, bien sûr, comme dans tous les groupes totalitaires, les « renégats » (c’est-à-dire ceux qui se sont aperçus du délire dans lequel ils étaient embarqués) subissent plus encore les foudres des activistes que ceux qui sont simplement des opposants à la cause. Normal : ils savent dans quoi ils ont été embarqués. En l’occurrence, par rapport à ce que dit Miranda Yardley, le fait d’avoir cru qu’ils allaient devenir femme, voir plus femme qu’une femme. Cette usurpation de l’identité de femme rend évidemment furieuses les vraies femmes (celles qui sont nées femme). Elles se trouvent en quelque sorte expulsées de leur identité féminine en devant accepter des hommes qui se prétendent femmes dans des compétitions sportives, en devant partager avec eux leurs lieux (vestiaires, toilettes, voire prisons). Même chose de l’autre côté, ces femmes qui ont cru qu’elles allaient devenir hommes… 

La tragique beauté de l’être humain est qu’il parle, mais le paradoxe est qu’il a basculé désormais, soutenu par la technoscience, dans le « je dis, donc je suis », inversion prométhéenne. C’est d’ailleurs ce que dit Judith Butler : « Le discours produit les effets qu’il nomme ». Vous dites : « Ses ouailles prononcent des abracadabras, shazam, hocus pocus, biscara-biscara bam-souya et autres bibbity bobbity hou en se regardant dans le miroir et hop, une bite (ou un vagin) apparaît ou disparaît ». Nous en sommes arrivés au stade de la pensée magique ? 

Oui, c’est la conséquence du déni de réalité dont je parlais plus haut. Pour eux, il n’y a pas de réel, il n’y a que du discours. Cela a été « théorisé » par Judith Butler qui a revu et (mal) corrigé la notion de performatif créée dans les années 1960 par le philosophe du langage John Austin qui avait découvert que certains dires sont aussi des faires. Par exemple, si je dis és qualités « je te baptise Untel », ce dire devient un fait puisque vous allez effectivement vous appeler Untel. Butler pousse à bout cette théorie en soutenant que les normes discursives font advenir, dans le réel, ce qu’elles norment, c’est-à-dire les corps sexués. Il suffirait donc, si vous naissez homme, que vous objectiez à cette « construction historique » et que vous vous disiez, à vous-même et aux autres, « je suis une femme » pour que vous deveniez femme ― en butlérien, on appelle cela « resignifier ». C’est aussi simple que cela : avec ce coming out performatif, vous homme, vous deviendrez born again en femme. Dans mon essai, je donne la recette de cette transformation. Il suffit de prendre un tiers de néo-évangélisme (celui qui affirme la possibilité d’une nouvelle naissance permettant une régénération), d’ajouter un tiers de vocabulaire managérial (celui des business schools où l’on clame qu’il faut « Empower your life and your career now ») pour devenir sans délai le manager efficace de sa vie et de sa carrière. Puis on fait revenir le mélange dans un tiers de foucaldisme (avec le concept grec de parrhesia, le dire vrai revu et corrigé par le philosophe puisqu’il ne s’agit plus de dire la vérité, mais sa vérité). On chauffe le tout et, au moment de la fusion, au terme de cette opération alchimique, tout comme le plomb se transforme en or, l’homme se sera performativement changé en femme ou la femme en homme. Ainsi, « iel » aura fait preuve d’une encapacitation (d’une « capacité auto-conférée »), d’un empowerment (d’un « pouvoir auto-octroyé »), d’une agency (d’une « capacité d’agir ») pour devenir femme ou homme. On se croirait chez Harry Potter qui a le pouvoir, en disant « Aguamenti », de faire sortir un jet d’eau de la baguette (quelle baguette?) ou, en disant « Amplificatum », d’augmenter la taille d’un objet (devinez lequel?). 

Nicolas Drochmans

Dans le documentaire What is a woman[note], une femme trans explique : « Pour la première fois dans l’histoire, un groupe marginalisé a un énorme signe de dollar sur le dessus de la tête (…) Nous massacrons une génération d’enfants parce que personne n’est prêt à parler de quoi que ce soit ». La censure et l’omerta sont consubstantielles à l’avancée de la technoscience qui ne peut supporter des débats démocratiques ? 

Oui. Pour les enfants diagnostiqués vers 6 ou 8 ans « dysphoriques de genre », les activistes trans et les médecins qui les soutiennent les engagent dans un cycle au long cours qui commence avec l’administration vers 10 ans d’inhibiteurs de puberté (accompagnés, pourquoi pas, d’un peu de ritaline [NDLR nommée rilatine en Belgique] pour les faire se tenir tranquilles), puis ensuite d’hormones inverses, puis enfin d’une transition qui peut être sociale (changement d’état civil), mais aussi chirurgicale, avec une dizaine d’opérations très lourdes dans l’un et l’autre cas. Ça commence, dans la chirurgie « male to female », avec une castration dite pénectomie (ablation des corps caverneux et d’une partie du corps spongieux du pénis), une préservation de l’autre partie du corps spongieux et d’une partie du gland pour effectuer une clitoridoplastie, la création d’une cavité vaginale (néovagin), des lèvres génitales et d’un néo-clitoris, urétroplastie avec création d’un néo-méat. La chirurgie mammaire est souvent indiquée. Enfin les modifications de la voix sont envisageables (outre les hormones masculines qui changent la voix, des techniques phoniatriques et chirurgicales peuvent être pratiquées). Les complications urinaires, digestives, génitales et hémorragiques ne sont pas rares. Du côté « female to male », on pratique une hystérectomie, une ovariectomie, une colpectomie (c’est-à-dire l’ablation de l’utérus, des annexes et du vagin), la construction d’organes génito-urinaires masculins (lambeaux de peau et de tissu prélevés sur le corps, vascularisés et innervés) et une métaidoioplastie (plastie d’agrandissement du clitoris) pour reconstituer un pénis. Il y a ensuite pose de prothèses cylindriques pour pallier l’absence de corps caverneux (pénis à rigidité constante) ou prothèses gonflables par pompe et réservoir. 

L’uréthroplastie n’est pas systématique car sujette à un taux de complications supérieur à 50 %. Le coût des médicaments peut se monter à plusieurs milliers d’euros par mois et celui des opérations à plusieurs dizaines de milliers. En France, les « soins » liés à la demande de « réassignation sexuelle » peuvent être remboursés à vie par l’Assurance Maladie dans la cadre d’une ALD (affection de longue durée). Les transactivistes recommandent aux candidats de prévoir et de demander le maximum de soins et d’opérations. Ce qui pose une lourde question à quoi il faudra bien répondre un jour : pourquoi, si l’indication n’est plus médicale (comme l’ont demandé et obtenu les associations trans), devrait-elle encore être remboursée par la Sécurité Sociale ? Pourquoi la collectivité devraitelle prendre en charge ces « soins » alors que beaucoup de soins de base ne sont pas ou plus remboursés (le ticket modérateur, les dépassements d’honoraires, la plupart des moyens de contraception et des vaccins, les implants dentaires, la chirurgie réfractive, l’orthodontie adulte, la parodontologie, beaucoup de médicaments comme ceux contre la migraine…). C’est donc un double signe que portent ces personnes : celui du dollar et celui de la souffrance. Tout cela pour quoi ? Pour obtenir des néo-organes non fonctionnels du point de vue des deux grandes affaires humaines : la reproduction et la sexualité. On comprend que le taux de suicidalité (une ou plusieurs tentatives de suicides) des jeunes trans ainsi traités, ou plutôt maltraités, soit à peu près cinq fois supérieur à celui d’une population standard. Si ces jeunes sont victimes, ils le sont d’abord des activistes trans qui les conduisent dans des impasses. C’est pourquoi il faut mettre en place des consultations dédiées pour accueillir ces jeunes qui se sont laisser grisé par les promesses des activistes et des technosciences. 

Je pense, comme je le dis dans mon essai, qu’un jour prochain, on verra dans ces faits des crimes contre l’enfance et l’adolescence dont les responsables auront alors à rendre compte. 

Dans le documentaire Enfants trans, parlons-en, un psychiatre spécialisé dans les dysphories de genre, explique comment il lui a été interdit d’évoquer dans son université le pourcentage important de sujets qui voulaient revenir vers leur sexe d’origine, faire ce qu’on appelle une ré-réassignation ou détransition. Il y a des automutilations, tentatives de suicides et suicides réussis. Ces enquêtes ne sont jamais citées par les militants. La détransition est un tabou. Pourquoi ? Ils ont mordu à l’hameçon, comme vous dites[note] ? 

Ces enquêtes ne sont en effet jamais citées par les activistes, mais elles le sont par ceux qui se rendent compte des dégâts. À cet égard, ça progresse. Par exemple, le système de santé public anglais, le NHS, a décidé de fermer la clinique Tavistock qui s’était reconvertie au début des années 2000 dans la prise en charge des enfants supposément atteints de dysphorie de genre. De surcroît, la clinique se trouve sous le coup d’une action de groupe lancée par plus de 1000 familles s’estimant abusées d’avoir été indûment alertées que l’absence d’accès précoce à un traitement hormonal de leurs enfants pouvait conduire ceux-ci au suicide. En Suède, l’hôpital Karolinska, après quarante ans d’ouverture à ces pratiques, est en train de les réguler beaucoup plus fermement. En France, il y a le travail rigoureux mené par le groupe de La Petite Sirène, composé d’universitaires de toutes disciplines, de médecins, de pédopsychiatres, de psychanalystes. 

La sociologue Heather Brunskell-Evans dit : « Il est désormais quasiment accepté qu’il existe bel et bien des « enfants trans », pourtant aucune preuve médicale ne permet d’affirmer qu’un enfant pourrait être « né dans le mauvais corps ». Les enfants ne devraient pas être contraints par le genre. Engager un enfant dans une voie qui le place en conflit avec son corps alors que la chose la plus émancipatrice, la plus libérale, la plus progressive que l’on devrait faire serait de l’encourager à se sentir bien dans son corps, de faire en sorte que le corps ne soit pas une contrainte pour un petit garçon qui voudrait s’intéresser à des choses considérées comme « féminines », cela ne devrait absolument pas poser problème. Nous menons une expérimentation sur les enfants et leur corps, qu’aucune preuve n’encourage. Nous ignorons les conséquences que cela aura, parce que l’expérience a lieu en ce moment même ». Le présupposé qu’on serait dans le « mauvais corps » n’est-il pas déjà faux ? Et la réponse apportée, propre à nos sociétés, qui réifie le corps pour en faire une matière qu’on modifie à sa guise et qu’on soigne à l’aide de médicaments ? 

Vous savez, rien n’est plus normal que des adolescents soient troublés au moment de la puberté. Des organes sexuels, des poils, des changements physiques apparaissent, des émois nouveaux naissent et ils ne savent que faire de tout cela, jusqu’à sombrer pour certains dans une déréliction qui fait alors d’eux des proies faciles pour ces faiseurs de miracles qui leur font croire (par réseaux sociaux et influenceurs interposés) qu’ils sont tombés dans le mauvais corps et que la solution est dans le changement de sexe. Je cite dans mon livre les conclusions d’une étude récente (2021) faite au Canada qui a l’avantage de porter sur le plus grand échantillon de garçons référés en clinique pour dysphorie de genre. Il se trouve qu’à l’âge de 20 ans, près de 90% de ceux qui avaient été classés à l’âge de 8 ans comme dysphoriques ont naturellement renoncé à toute velléité de réassignation sexuelle. Il ne faut donc pas les aiguiller trop vite vers la transition comme cherchent à le faire les activistes. 


Les médias donnent donc l’illusion d’une minorité majoritaire, alors que les enfants et adolescents désirant changer de sexe sont rares. En même temps, en donnant l’illusion d’une possibilité de changer de sexe, le monde politique, médiatique, l’industrie de la chirurgie et de la chimie, font croître les candidats. C’est un jeu vicieux. 

Oui. On présente la loi du marché comme étant celle de l’offre et de la demande. La demande suscitant une offre. Rien n’est plus faux. Car, le marketing le sait bien, c’est toujours l’offre qui suscite la demande. L’offre, elle est faite par les industries culturelles, médicales et chirurgicales. Et, plus l’offre de changement de sexe s’étale, plus la demande se fait pressante… 

Certains psychanalystes sont ouverts au désir de leur patient de changer de sexe et donnent libre cours à ce délire. Dérive ou suite logique de la psychanalyse ? 

Je pense tout d’abord qu’il ne faut pas confondre les lubies du patient avec ses désirs. Les lubies apparaissent tout à trac, au contraire des désirs qui ne s’expriment vraiment qu’après une longue élaboration. Le psychanalyste est celui qui, en principe, sait discerner ces deux plans de façon à ne pas tomber dans les panneaux du sujet. Si le psychanalyste ne sait pas faire cela, alors, ce n’est pas un psychanalyste, mais un coach qui va se mettre en peine d’être ouvert aux « désirs » du patient, jusqu’à l’accompagner pour les réaliser. Pauvre psy qui se place dans cette position. Il devrait alors, pourquoi pas, être ouvert au « désir » de certains de ses patients de tuer leurs père et mère ou qui vous voulez. Ou de devenir le nouvel Hitler souhaitant exterminer la moitié de l’humanité. Or, justement, le psy, à ma connaissance, n’est pas un coach. Si le psychanalyste a mauvaise presse en ce moment où le Marché incite l’individu à demander tout ce qu’il veut, c’est parce qu’il est celui qui rappelle à ceux qui voudraient l’oublier le principe de réalité, en l’occurrence l’existence de deux sexes et l’impossibilité de passer de l’un à l’autre. Principe avec lequel il vaut mieux que le patient se débrouille… sauf à tomber dans le délire. Lequel consisterait à croire qu’en paraissant l’autre sexe, il serait de l’autre sexe. Or, prendre l’apparaître pour l’être serait source de souffrances indicibles car cela repose sur une supercherie, un rapport mensonger à soi-même et aux autres, qui ne manquerait pas de resurgir en drame. En aidant le patient à faire la part des choses (entre celles qui sont possibles et celles qui sont impossibles), celui-ci pourra peut-être découvrir que, s’il ne peut changer de sexe, il lui reste néanmoins la possibilité de changer de genre. Ce qui n’est qu’une mince consolation, mais cela dépend bien sûr de la dynamique de la cure. Et chacune est singulière. 

Ces psychanalystes évacuent totalement la question du Maître, primordiale. Dites-nous en plus… 

Oui, ceux des psychanalystes qui veulent exaucer les lubies de leur patient font comme si la demande de changement de sexe venait de lui. Or, comme je l’ai déjà dit plus haut, cette demande est surdéterminée par l’offre du Marché, ce nouveau Maître qui, en plaçant le sujet en position d’être comblé par l’offre toujours plus large d’objets manufacturés, de services marchands et de fantasmes sur mesure produits par les industries culturelles, met ce dernier en position de tout vouloir, y compris l’impossible, dont changer de sexe. L’ancien Maître, Dieu par exemple, nous tenait par le haut, le nouveau, le Marché, nous tient par le bas. Il nous tient par ce que les Anciens Grecs appelaient « l’âme d’en-bas », l’épithumetikon, siège des passions, aujourd’hui directement exploitées par le Marché. Autrement dit, nous sommes passés de l’ancien Maître qui édictait ses Commandements et jouait franc jeu à un Maître pervers, passé sous la barre, qui fait semblant de nous laisser la bride sur le cou, mais qui nous tient en sous-main. Appelons cela la sous-main invisible du Marché. C’est une main de fer dans un gant de velours… 

On présente au fond comme un choix ce qui est déterminé par la nature. La véritable liberté n’implique-t-elle pas notamment d’admettre une fois pour toutes que certaines choses ne nous appartiennent pas, comme la filiation, l’âge, le sexe, le nom… ? 

Oui. En principe, c’est le droit qui nous renseigne sur ce qui se rapporte à notre état civil en nous rappelant les fondements dogmatiques de notre socialité (cf. Pierre Legendre) qui décrètent disponibles certaines données et indisponibles d’autres. Par exemple, dans nos pays démocratiques notre adresse est en principe disponible, on peut en changer. Mais d’autres, jusqu’à une date récente, étaient indisponibles, comme notre âge, notre filiation, notre sexe. Or, l’état de la personne est de plus en plus « contractualisé », c’est-à-dire remis à la disposition du sujet, pour qu’il en fasse ce que bon lui semble. Ainsi, depuis un arrêté de 2020, on peut en France changer de sexe à l’état civil (sans être opéré). Et peut-être pourra-t-on bientôt changer d’âge, c’est-à-dire de date de naissance, ou de parents, ou de langue maternelle… Ce serait un pas de plus vers l’extension du délire. Cette mutation est bien évidemment à mettre en relation avec le fait (évoqué plus haut) que le nouveau Maître, le Marché, se soit rendu invisible en plaçant le sujet en position de Maître apparent, devant être comblé dans toutes ses appétences. 

Ces victimes du progrès technoscientifique ne sont-ils pas des ennemis, volontaires ou pas, de la nature ? 

Oui. Ennemis de la nature. Et avant tout ennemis de leur propre nature. 

Avec votre ouvrage, vous soulevez une question essentielle qui a trait au processus de construction de la pensée et à l’autonomie par rapport à celui-ci. Certains voient dans le sujet en proie aux idéologies modernes un effet de l’individualisme contemporain. Vous dites au contraire que cet individu « est aujourd’hui placé en position de marionnette d’un Maître qui ventriloque ses demandes. Cet individu est devenu la voix de son maître ». Vous remettez en question que le phénomène trans soit le résultat d’une individualisation forcenée, mais dites plutôt qu’il s’agit du résultat d’un processus de création de besoins, chez un sujet qui croit se penser lui-même mais qui est en fait pensé par un autre. 

Je crains en effet que beaucoup de penseurs contemporains ne soient tombés dans le panneau. Ils disent que nous vivons dans des sociétés individualistes, sans Maître, alors que le Maître n’a fait que se dissimuler en incitant chacun à la satisfaction de toutes ses appétences ― ce dont ce nouveau Maître profite tant au plan économique qu’au plan de l’emprise exercée sur les individus. En fait, j’aspire à ce que nous entrions un jour dans une vraie société d’individus ― ce qui supposerait des êtres pensant et agissant par eux-mêmes, capables de s’auto-limiter. Or on est très loin du compte. On est dans une société marquée par, non pas l’individualisme, mais par l’égoïsme, avec des êtres à la recherche de la satisfaction pulsionnelle ― dussent-ils pour cela consumer (par la consommation effrénée) le monde, jusqu’à sa consomption finale. 

C’est au fond un effet moderne : le sujet est pensé par un autre. Dans le café du coin, les médias imposent les sujets de conversation : on ne parle plus de politique, on parle de « l’affaire Palmade ». [sans évoquer surtout le plus important, les « dessous » de ces affaires]. L’ultime paradoxe est qu’on en arrive à ce que ce soit l’auto-castration qui amène le sujet à prendre conscience qu’il est pensé par un autre. C’est en expérimentant l’impossible que le sujet réalise qu’il est limité et déterminé, malgré lui, et que l’impossible n’est pas possible. Mais c’est souvent trop tard. 

En effet. C’est pourquoi je reprends cette figure tragique de l’Héautontimorouménos, littéralement le « bourreau de soi-même », évoqué par Baudelaire dans un poème des Fleurs du mal. Tout se passe comme si l’absence de limites finissait par revenir sur le sujet en le constituant comme sa propre proie, le poussant vers une subjectivité autophage débouchant sur la transhumanité. 

Nicolas Drochmans


Nous sommes arrivés à une époque où la folie est mise en avant, valorisée sur les plateaux télé, norme sociale. La zooanthropie (Homme qui se prend pour un animal) devient presque à la mode, alors qu’il s’agit d’un délire psychotique. La dysphorie de genre elle-même était-elle, encore il y a peu, considérée comme une maladie mentale ? 

J’ai écrit en 1996 un livre intitulé Folie et démocratie. J’y annonçais le déferlement de la folie dans l’histoire, dû à la désuétude de toutes les grandes dichotomies qui soutenaient, tel un fondement, la culture occidentale : logos/pathos, même/autre, bien/ mal, présence/absence, intelligible/sensible, masculin/féminin, nature/culture, sujet/objet, humanité/ animalité, etc. Annonçant cela, j’ai alors moi-même été pris pour un fou. Aujourd’hui, nous y sommes. Le déni de la différence masculin/féminin ― ce qu’on appelle la non-binarité ― fait particulièrement symptôme. Celui qui affirme ce déni aurait été classé comme psychotique il y a quelques années. Aujourd’hui, il est admis, voire encouragé, au point qu’on doit accueillir ce déni pour reconstruire toute la culture, de même que le droit et l’éducation. Bientôt, cet ancien psychotique devient la norme et se met à classer les « normaux » comme dingues. Nous sommes en bonne voie puisque les hétérosexuels sont de plus en plus soupçonnés d’être des psychopathes créés par le « vieux mâle blanc occidental ». 

L’ordre du marché est en train de consumer le monde pour satisfaire le toujours plus, la pléonexie. Pour ce faire, il en passe par la destruction de l’être, son psychisme, sa culture (culture, rappelons-le, « non essentielle » lors de l’événement covid). Ce n’est que la suite du délire occidental ? 

Oui. C’est clairement la suite du délire occidental. Ça atteste qu’on veut toujours plus, dans tous les domaines. Ce qui pose deux questions. Premièrement, à quel point les autres cultures accepteront ce délire, en Afrique, dans le monde arabe, dans le monde slave, en Inde, en Chine…? Deuxièmement, ne serait-ce pas à penser comme les prémices du suicide occidental ? 

Le trans fait partie de la panoplie transhumaniste, avec comme point d’orgue la mort de la mort. Vous citez dans votre ouvrage (p. 106) le pape du transhumanisme, James Hughes, ancien directeur de la World Transhumanist Association, qui a dit des transsexuels qu’ils étaient « les troupes de choc du transhumanisme ». Les deux sont intrinsèquement liés ? 

Oui, et ce n’est pas moi qui le dis. C’est le/la chantre de la transidentité, Paul B. Preciado. Après avoir invoqué, je cite « Internet, la physique quantique, la biotechnologie, la robotisation du travail, l’intelligence artificielle, l’ingénierie génétique, les nouvelles techniques de reproduction assistée, et le voyage extraterrestre [qui] précipitent également des changements sans précédent vers l’invention d’autres modalités d’existence entre l’organisme et la machine, le vivant et le non-vivant, l’humain et le non-humain », « iel » indique, au comble du bonheur, qu’« un bouleversement comparable à celui qu’a impliqué au début du siècle dernier la mécanique quantique et les théories de la relativité en physique se produit aujourd’hui dans le domaine des techniques de reproduction de la vie ainsi que de la production collective de la subjectivité sexuelle et du genre ». 

Nous sommes tous des êtres à qui il manque quelque chose – la violence du transsexuel (quand on lui dit qu’il est impossible de changer de sexe) qu’on met en face de son délire, est peut-être liée à cela, il sait qu’il ne réparera rien ? Qu’il y a un manque fondamental irréparable, mais paradoxalement que ce manque est à l’origine également de la créativité humaine, de sa richesse. 

Belle question. J’ai souvent fait état dans mes travaux de la néoténie de l’homme qui réfère à son état d’inachèvement à la naissance. Un manque originel qui demande à être comblé. Or, il y a deux façons de le faire : par la culture ― ce qui était la voie jusqu’alors choisie, ouvrant à l’infini de la créativité humaine — ou par la réparation de l’« erreur humaine », en intervenant directement sur sa nature moyennant les technosciences. Je constate avec effroi que celles-ci s’imposent de plus en plus au détriment de la créativité humaine, d’autant mieux que ce qui reste de celle-ci est de plus en plus soumis à l’« intelligence artificielle », ChatGPT, Midjourney et autres. 

On punit un enfant de quatre ans parce qu’il regarde sous les jupes des filles, mais on distribue des guides d’éducation à la vie sexuelle et affective où on leur dit qu’à 4 ans ils pourront choisir leur sexe plus tard ; à 9 ans on leur parle de prise hormonale et de bloqueur de puberté. On marche sur la tête ? 

Certes, on marche sur la tête. Mais surtout, on marche sur les têtes. On les écrabouille pour mieux les reconfigurer. Il s’agit en effet qu’elles n’entendent plus l’évidence : il y a des hommes et des femmes. Et qu’elles croient qu’elles peuvent décider de ce qui leur convient. J’y vois un clair encouragement à la psychose sociale ― au sens d’une psychose qui ne résulterait plus de causes internes (dues à l’histoire personnelle), mais externes (dues à l’environnement). 

Le délire occidental, c’est aussi celui de sa supposée supériorité. Derrière la valorisation LGBTQIA+, on a aussi toute la supériorité occidentale, qui fait la leçon aux pays qui pratiquent l’excision, mais charcute ses jeunes pour l’illusoire changement de sexe… 

C’est une des raisons pour laquelle je pense que ce mouvement ne peut pas tenir longtemps. Il est trop plein de contradictions. Pourquoi en effet condamnerait-on l’excision là si l’on admet ici la mutilation sexuelle ? C’est un petit carnaval, pour chauffer les esprits, avant que les choses vraiment sérieuses commencent bientôt : eugénisme, amélioration de l’espèce, hybridations homme/ machine, grand remplacement de l’intelligence naturelle par l’intelligence artificielle, etc. 

À la fin de votre ouvrage, vous notez que le maître antique, celui des monothéismes, a promis aux sujets la vie éternelle. Celui du capitalisme, la richesse. Et le maître post-moderne, celui du néolibéralisme, leur promet maintenant de sortir de leur condition sexuée. 

Oui. J’en ai tiré une loi : le Maître est le Maître parce qu’il propose l’impossible. Il est celui qui réussit à tenir les gens avec des fausses promesses dans lesquelles beaucoup tombent à pieds joints. C’est ainsi qu’il assure son emprise. Je parie que la prochaine fausse promesse ne consistera plus à promettre la vie après la mort, mais la mort de la mort. 


Revenons au refus de tout dialogue. Il faut déjà accepter le dialogue pour vous entendre. Mais toute cette mouvance ne signe-telle pas déjà la fin du discours articulé ? N’est-ce pas trop tard pour éveiller le sujet LGBTQIA+ ? Vous dites d’ailleurs que face à cela, la seule solution est de « laisser l’autre à son délire en évitant, par compassion pour le genre humain, de continuer à diffuser l’ineptie ». 

Le délire se présente comme un sommeil plus ou moins profond de la raison. Ce qui signifie que, quand quelqu’un est parti dans un délire (de secte, de transidentité…) ― un délire entretenu par beaucoup d’autres, dont les réseaux sociaux ―, les appels à la raison sont vains. Il n’y a alors plus qu’à se mettre dans la peau de Winston, le héros de 1984 d’Orwell, qui répète contre le Parti certaines évidences niées par ce Parti. Il se forge ainsi ce mantra : « L’évidence, le sens commun, la vérité, doivent être défendus. Les truismes sont vrais. Il faut s’appuyer dessus. Le monde matériel existe, ses lois ne changent pas. Les pierres sont dures, l’eau humide, et les objets qu’on laisse tomber se dirigent vers le centre de la terre […]. La liberté, c’est la liberté de dire que deux et deux font quatre. Lorsque cela est accordé, le reste suit ». Aujourd’hui, c’est pareil avec le Parti trans, il faut répéter que non, les femmes ne possèdent pas de pénis, et que non, les hommes ne possèdent pas de vulve. Il arrive alors parfois que, chez un trans, une petite lueur de raison s’allume et qu’il se rende compte qu’une femme est une femme et qu’un homme est un homme. Alors peut s’engager le douloureux et salvateur processus de détransition que j’ai évoqué plus haut. 

Dans ce processus, l’invective est utilisée, pour catégoriser l’autre et empêcher l’échange. Parmi les sophismes, il y a la confusion volontaire et entretenue entre la crainte de cette promotion du changement de sexe et l’homophobie. 

On entend souvent dire en effet que la transphobie est aujourd’hui ce que l’homophobie était hier. On a fini, dit-on, par accepter la seconde, on finira bien par accepter la première. Eh bien, ce n’est pas comparable. Car l’homosexualité est une option parfaitement possible dans la structure subjective. Elle a d’ailleurs existé de tout temps, dans toutes les sociétés comme en témoignent, par exemple, les Hijra de l’Inde, les Fa’afafine de Polynésie, les Kathoeys de Thaïlande, les Sworn virgin des Balkans, les Akava’iné Maoris, les Burnesha d’Albanie, les Bakla des Philippines, les Winkte Sioux d’Amérique, les Muxe du Mexique et bien d’autres. L’homosexualité correspond à la possibilité effective de choisir son genre, par exemple en présentant 20, 50 ou 200% (par ex. les drag queens) de traits correspondant à l’autre sexe. Rien de tel dans la transidentité qui, elle, se fonde sur un leurre : choisir son sexe. Ce qui est impossible. La preuve : un transsexuel, male to female, après une opération dite de transition vers le sexe femelle, restera avec le gène SRY au fond de ses cellules, qui détermine une fois pour toutes son sexe mâle avec toutes ses implications, notamment qu’il n’aura pas de menstruations et qu’il ne pourra jamais porter un enfant comme une femme. Quant à la transsexuelle femelle réassignée en mâle, elle (ou il) ne disposera pas du gène SRY et ne connaîtra jamais l’érection spontanée qui caractérise la vie et la sexualité d’un homme et sera réduite à actionner une prothèse pénienne avec une pompe dissimulée dans l’un des testicules reconstruits. 

À ce titre, l’insulte transphobe en dit long ? 

Si vous objectez quoi que ce soit au discours trans, alors vous voilà stigmatisé comme transphobe. C’est ainsi que beaucoup, qui n’en pensent pas moins, choisissent de se taire de peur d’être estampillés de l’encombrant attribut et de passer pour des transphobes actifs, ceux qui cherchent à stigmatiser, à enfermer ou à maltraiter l’autre. Cependant, je rappelle que « phobique » a aussi et d’abord un sens passif où l’on se trouve effrayé, sujet à la crainte, comme l’agoraphobe se trouve effrayé devant la foule ou le claustrophobe face à l’enfermement. Bien sûr, les défenseurs de la transidentité jouent sur les deux sens : ils font passer le transphobe passif pour un transphobe actif. C’est totalement abusif. Ainsi, moi, je suis peut-être un transphobe passif au sens où le trans opéré me fait (philosophiquement) peur puisqu’il attente à la condition humaine marquée par la différence sexuelle, mais je ne suis nullement un transphobe actif. Je condamne en effet sans appel tout acte de maltraitance passé, actuel et à venir à l’encontre des trans que je considère comme des personnes en souffrance essentielle, qui se sont laissé berner par une fausse promesse et qui méritent compassion et secours s’ils le demandent. 

La fin du discours et du débat signe le début de l’idéologie et du totalitarisme. L’idéologie LGBTQIA+ a ses représentants, avec des Butler ou des Preciado, ces « non op », dont vous dites qu’il ne serait pas abusif des les considérer comme responsables « de l’envoi sur le Marché boucher du changement de sexe de centaines, voire de milliers de candides candidat.e.s à la réassignation sexuelle ». 

Oui, Butler et Preciado sont dans la position confortable d’intellectuels qui théorisent la transidentité. Des sortes de super influenceurs opérant à partir de positions de pouvoir universitaire. Il leur aurait été possible de prévenir clairement les candides candidats à la réassignation sexuelle par des moyens chirurgicaux que ça ne marche pas très bien. Mais ces deux prestigieux non op n’en ont rien fait, alors qu’elles savaient. L’une et l’autre savent en effet ce qui est arrivé à David Reimer, premier garçon chirurgicalement réassigné en fille sur les conseils du pédopsychiatre John Money, fondateur des Gender Studies, ce mouvement où le sexe a cessé d’être une « réalité anatomique » pour devenir un « construit social ». Le résultat de ces belles théories est que David Reimer s’est suicidé en 2004, date après laquelle Butler est, comme par hasard, subitement sortie de la problématique du genre sans prendre la peine d’expliquer à ces lecteurs pourquoi cet évènement remettait quelque peu en question ses assertions passées. 


Quid du droit des femmes ? Certains disent que c’est encore, paradoxalement, une victoire d’une forme de patriarcat, de domination masculine ? 

Oui, je comprends parfaitement que les femmes nées biologiquement femmes soient choquées et révulsées quand elles entendent les femmes trans (MtoF) leur dire qu’elles sont les vraies femmes au motif que, « elles », elles ont choisi ce « devenir femme », alors que les femmes biologiques n’ont fait que profiter de la loterie génétique… 

N’en est-il pas de même avec l’écriture inclusive, novlangue qui se donne les atours de l’égalité, alors qu’elle se fonde sur des faux présupposés (notamment que la langue française comporte un genre masculin et féminin), qui en fin de compte, citant le linguiste Jean Szlamowicz, construit « une misogynie imaginaire qui laisse prospérer la misogynie ordinaire ». On feint d’établir justice et égalité pour mieux pérenniser la domination ? 

Oui, l’écriture inclusive se fonde sur de faux présupposés en faisant se recouvrir le genre grammatical dans la langue et le sexe des individus. Or les deux ne se recoupent que très peu. Ou alors il faudrait qu’on m’explique en quoi une chaise est plus féminine qu’un tabouret. Ou pourquoi un escabeau est plus masculin qu’une échelle… 

L’époque a évidemment des effets sur le droit, droit qui lui-même avalise les dires du sujet, réduit à une instance « qui ne se contente plus que d’enregistrer les dires du moment des justiciables ». 

Lorsque le droit admet que les hommes puissent être des femmes et les pères, des mères, ou vice-versa, c’est que nous sommes entrés dans ce que j’appellerais un droit néolibéral sadien, que l’on peut dire incestuel au sens où plus rien n’est à sa place du point de vue des relations d’alliance et de filiation[note]. Cette fin du droit romano-germanique, où chacun était nommé à sa place, avec ses droits et devoirs, est une porte ouverte au surgissement de la perversion, sous toutes ses formes. 

Ces expériences sur les jeunes semblent aller contre le code de Nuremberg, qui interdit les expériences médicales illicites. C’est d’autant plus révoltant quand on sait que « la grande majorité des jeunes adolescents mal à l’aise avec leur identité sexuée ne persistent pas dans leur demande de transformation après la puberté (87,8%) ». 

Oui, je rappelle que le code de Nuremberg a été établi à la suite du procès (1946–47) des médecins nazis qui avaient pratiqué des expériences médicales illicites sur les prisonniers des camps de concentration dans des conditions atroces. Ce code éthique de référence établit comme critère d’acceptabilité la « capacité légale de consentir » du patient. Or, sachant que le traitement par inhibiteurs de puberté peut commencer avant 10 ans, on se retrouve loin de l’âge requis pour consentir stipulé par ce code en vue d’établir des repères solides après l’effondrement moral et civilisationnel du XXe siècle provoqué par le nazisme. 


Les hérauts (ce mot pose en lui-même « problème » car il n’a pas de féminin…) du bannissement de la formulation dite genrée (« Bonjour à vous chers lecteurs») ou de l’inclusif avec point médian, se targuent de sortir d’un sexisme primaire en s’exprimant ainsi, mais ils ne font que promouvoir des catégorisations biologiques qui nous empêchent de gagner en universalisme, détruisant le neutre qui garantit la dimension universelle du langage. 

Le grand perdant, c’est l’universalisme (républicain) qui posait des valeurs communes pour lesquelles il valait la peine de se battre comme, par exemple « Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité ». Et le grand gagnant, c’est la ghettoïsation démocratiste, avec l’apparition de groupes identitaires. Chaque ghetto fonctionne au mimétisme avec des identiques qui exhibent le même critère biologique ou intime (homme/femme, noir/blanc, type de sexualité…). Chaque groupe identitaire exige que ses droits particuliers soient inscrits dans le droit, la langue, la culture et l’éducation. Et chacun brandit sa soi-disant morale supérieure, en guerre permanente contre les autres. 

En opposant de plus les femmes aux hommes, on occulte la diversité au sein de chaque groupe. Cette destruction est d’ailleurs visible dans certains supposés combats pour l’égalité des sexes, qui rappellent une réflexion de l’auteur de La Diversité contre l’égalité, évoquant des femmes issues de Wall Street et de Wall Mart marchant ensemble pour le droit des femmes : « Le salaire horaire moyen d’un employé à temps plein de Wal-Mart s’élève à environ 10 dollars. En travaillant quarante heures par semaine, un employé de Wal-Mart gagne donc 400 dollars par semaine, soit presque 21.600 dollars par an. Les femmes, victimes de discrimination, gagnent un peu moins, les hommes un peu plus. La différence, selon Richard Drogin, le statisticien qui a analysé les chiffres lors du procès pour discrimination, est (pour les salariés à l’heure) de 1.100 dollars par an. Disons donc que les femmes salariés de WalMart gagnent environ 20.500 dollars par an. Il leur faudrait par conséquent 60 ans pour amasser ce que les femmes salariées de Wall Street – également victimes de la discrimination – gagnent en un an. Bien entendu, les hommes salariés de Wall-Mart – qui sont les bénéficiaires de cette discrimination , puisqu’ils gagnent 21.600 dollars par an – s’en tirent mieux : il ne leur faudrait qu’environ cinquante-sept ans pour atteindre cette somme. Autrement dit, à Wal-Mart, on a des femmes qui se battent pour obtenir des parts légitimes d’un gâteau si ridiculement petit que, l’obtiendraient-elles, il ne parviendrait même pas à les nourrir. Se représenter les femmes de Wal-Mart comme marchant coude à coude avec leurs camarades de chez Morgan Stanley ou de Harvard pour défendre leurs droits est donc parfaitement grotesque, de même qu’il est parfaitement grotesque de considérer leur problème comme un problème de discrimination sexuelle[note] » 

C’est dans des exemples comme ceux que vous exposez qu’on s’aperçoit qu’on ne peut pas substituer des critères identitaires aux critères de classe. 

La lutte trans est par ailleurs présentée comme progressiste et égalitaire, alors qu’elle est profondément réactionnaire. Pier Paolo Pasolini, que vous citez, écrivait que le pire qui pourrait arriver aux homosexuels [par ailleurs lui-même homosexuel] serait d’être tolérés : « Il est intolérable […] d’être toléré ». Car être toléré, c’est être obligé de rentrer dans la norme et de participer à ce qu’il appelait « la grande bouffe névrotique », la consommation, seul horizon offert par le divin marché. Dans Salo ou les 120 journées de Sodome, il montre que « la soi-disant libération sexuelle réalisée sous l’égide de la société de consommation et du capitalisme est une tromperie obscène où tout s’expose ». 

Oui, aujourd’hui, comme Pasolini l’avait génialement anticipé, au contraire de Foucault, le Marché est devenu total, aux deux sens du terme : il a pénétré dans toutes les activités humaines et il atteint jusqu’à l’intime. Beaucoup de ces groupes qui se croient progressistes ont plusieurs trains de retard, ils combattent encore le vieux capitalisme patriarcal qui n’existe plus guère que comme réminiscence, alors qu’ils ne savent pas qu’ils sont les meilleurs représentants du nouveau capitalisme libidinal qui s’est mis en place. 

Et les politiques, de l’extrême gauche à la droite, tombent à plat ventre dans l’idéologie Trans[note] …alimentant l’extrême droite. Je vous cite : « Plus le gauchisme wokiste butlérien s’imposera en affirmant que toutes nos certitudes élémentaires sont des illusions ne résultant que de la violence du système colonial, patriarcal ou hétéro-binaire, plus il suscitera des retours de bâton venus d’une ultra-droite (para-trumpienne) lasse de cette magie à deux sous et prête à encenser un grand chef autoproclamé distribuant des armes au troupeau[note] ». (p. 133). 

Oui. Il faudrait quand même se rendre compte qu’il n’y a pas besoin d’être d’extrême droite pour combattre ces groupes identitaires. C’est justement un tel espace que j’essaie, avec ce livre et avec d’autres, d’ouvrir à gauche. 

Propos recueillis à distance par Alexandre Penasse, mai 2023. 

* Le philosophe Dany-Robert Dufour (né en 1947) est précédemment l’auteur de plusieurs essais critiques de l’idéologie libérale, entre autres : Le divin marché. La révolution culturelle libérale (Denoël, 2007), La cité perverse. Libéralisme et pornographie (Denoël, 2009), L’individu qui vient… après le libéralisme (Denoël, 2011), Baise ton prochain. Une histoire souterraine du capitalisme, Actes sud, 2019). 

Read more "

100ème — CSI Conseil Scientifique Indépendant

Site web:

Pour la centième émission du Conseil Scientifique Indépendant, nous proposons une journée publique de conférences en présence des intervenants qui ont contribué au CSI, accompagnés de personnes impliquées dans la vie de la Cité.

Au programme, en amont de la centième du CSI, le 18 mai 2023 au soir (en présence  de Louis Fouché, Christian Peronne, Hélène Strohl notamment), nous recevrons au cours du 18 mai Laurent Toubiana, Pierre Chaillot, Emmanuelle Darles, Alexandra Henrion Caude, Christine Cotton, Hélène Banoun, jean-Marc Sabatier, Giogio Agamben, Mehdi Belhaj-Kacem, Tristan Edelmann,  Michel Maffesoli, Jean-Dominque Michel, Eric Menat, Philippe De Chazourne, Nicole et Gérard Delépine, Xavier Azalbert, Alexandre Pénasse, Franco Fracassi, David Guyon et bien d’autres encore, dont des hommes et des femmes politiques impliqués dans la défense de la médecine, de la science et des libertés fondamentales. 

Rejoignez-nous le 18 (et le 19 mai) 2023 à Saintes (Complexe le Végas, 1 route de Royan, 17100 Saintes) pour deux journées entre science, médecine, et citoyenneté !

Cet évènement est filmé en direct et retransmis intégralement sur les réseaux.

Il est organisé par l’association Réinfo-Liberté ( et par le collectif Saintais pour la Citoyenneté Libre (CSCL: http://cscl.e‑ Si vous souhaitez aider ces associations pour l’organisation de ces deux journées significatives, vous pouvez leur adresser vos dons sur les pages correspondantes de leur site respectif. 

Billet nominatif non remboursable. Ouvre droit au programme  deux journées du 18 et 19 mai 2023 (à l’exclusion des ateliers qui seront assurés par certains intervenants et feront l’objet d’une inscription à part). 

Les billets à 30€ et à 15€ sont en placement libres. Le tarif à 15 euros est en priorité pour les personnes ayant des difficultés financières (étudiants, demandeurs d’emploi, etc…). Aucune justification n’est requise pour le montant demi tarif, qui est laissé à la conscience de chacun. Lorsque toutes les places plein tarif seront épuisées, le demi tarif sera par principe ouvert à tous. 

Les organisateurs se réservent le droit d’écarter de l’assistance toute personne qui empêcherait le déroulement pacifique, bienveillant et serein des journées. 


Jeudi 18 mai

08h45 : accueil et introduction à la Centième du CSI (Louis Fouché et Vincent Pavan)

09h00 – 10h00 : table de philosophie politique 

→ Giorgio Agamben, Medhi Belhaj Kacem, Tristan Edelman, Michka

10h00 – 10h05 → 5mn changement de plateau

10h05 – 10h50 : table des acteurs juridiques et administratifs 

→ David Guyon, Gianco Ferreri, Rossanna Becarelli

10h50 – 11h15 →25mn de pause

11h15 – 12h15 : table politique

→ Forian Philippot, Nicolas Dupont-Aignant, Jean Lassalle, Laurence Müller-Bronn

12h15 – 13h45 → pause déjeuner (1h30)

13h45 – 14h45 : table politique

→ Virginie Joron, Jean-Frédéric Poisson, Martine Wonner, Michèle Rivasi

14h45 – 14h50 → 5mn changement de plateau

14h50 – 15h50 : table vaccins

→ Alexandra Henrion-Caude, Hélène Banoun, Jean-Marc Sabatier, Jean-Michel Jacquemin-Raffestin,      Amine Umlil

15h50-16h15 → 25mn de pause

16h15 – 17h15 : table statistiques

→ Pierre Chaillot, Laurent Toubiana, Christine Cotton, Emmanuelle Darles ; Gérard Delépine.

17h15 – 17h20 : 5mn changement de plateau

17h20 – 18h20 : table anthropologie et médecins

→ Michel Mafesoli, Jean-Dominique Michel, Eric Menat, Philippe de Chazourne, Nicole Delepine

18h20 – 18h25 : 5mn changement de plateau

18h25 – 19h30 : table journalistes

→ Xavier Azalbert, Marc Daoud, Alexandre Pénasse, Franco Fracassi

19h30 – 21h30 : pause dîner (2h)

21h30 – 23h30 : 100ème CSI « Mort et renaissance du Système de Santé » : animé par André Barcoff

→ Christian Perronne, Hélène Strohl, Louis Fouché, Philippe de Chazourne

Avec, possiblement, la présence d’Annie Duperey durant la journée (à confirmer).

Jean-Louis Blondeau (responsable du projet « Les Essentiels ») sera présent ainsi que Fabien Moine (réalisateur du film « Suspendu… »), pour défendre la cause des soignants suspendus.

Vendredi 19 mai 

09h00 – 11h15 : présentation, projection du film de Christophe Cossé « Wake Up » (1h50) suivi d’un débat (25mn)

11h15 – 12h30 : forum des associations, prise de paroles des responsables sur scène

12h30 – 14h00 : pause déjeuner

14h00 – 15h00 : forum des associations, présentation (suite et fin)

15h00 – 15h45 → préparation de la salle / pause des spectateurs

15h45 – 18h15 : ateliers des intervenants

18h15 – 19h00 → préparation de la salle / pause des spectateurs

19h00 – 20h45 : présentation et projection du film « Après la Pluie » (1h40)

20h45 – 21h15 : conclusion, remerciements, chant…

Read more "

Kairos 59

Who is a fascist?

The same people who are always boasting about the freedom of the press and their openness, compared to « bad guys » like Putin, are more silent when it comes to creating debate, and therefore to hearing contradictory points of view that they do not like. If they display a fight, it is the one that will allow them indirectly to criticize « the dictatorship » and in mirror to present themselves as good: Olivier Vandecasteele on the pediment of the communal houses, but not Julian Assange[note].

The same process takes place when the mainstream media refuses Anne Morelli’s carte blanche[note], and anyone who does not understand the significance of this refusal shows a lack of understanding, whether naive or voluntary, of the function of the media of power. A function that the latter will obviously never recognize. Thus, when Vladimir Putin, in his speech, explains:  » We have done everything possible, really everything possible to resolve this problem by peaceful means, we have patiently negotiated a peaceful solution to this serious conflict « s chief editorial writer, the Evening pretends not to understand, and writes in an editorial that perfectly illustrates the arrogance of the West:  » For a year now, this man has held the fate of Ukraine and the fate of world peace in his hands, regularly raising fears of a third world war, the possibility of which he has put back on the agenda « . 

Béatrice Delvaux forgets the recent words of Merkel admitting that the Minsk agreements were only a dilatory measure allowing the Kiev government, supported by NATO, to better prepare for war. Amnesia also on the oral promises made at the time by the United States to Gorbachev not to extend the borders of NATO. More recently, blindness to the conclusions of one of the most illustrious American journalists, Seymour Hersch, as to the evidence of US responsibility for the attacks on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines — a notorious act of war.[note].

Is it any wonder then that Anne Morelli’s article does not please her and the daily La Libre, when the historian, author of Principes élémentaires de propagande de guerre has the courage[note] to say:  » The public must be persuaded that we are in self-defense and that the « other » started it. It was his expansionist aims that dictated his attack. It is therefore obviously Russia that is presented as solely responsible for the war in Ukraine. Yet Machiavelli (1469–1527) had already warned that the one who draws his sword first should not necessarily be considered responsible for the conflict. He may indeed have been put in such a situation that there is no other option for him than to enter into open war. The West thus speaks of Russia « attacking » Ukraine in February 2022, without taking into account the fact that NATO’s advance towards the East is, from the Russian point of view, a concrete threat against its territory to which — cornered — it must eventually « respond ». » 

Selective indignation. They are blind to the crimes committed by those they defend, worse than 6 year olds playing soccer or adults… in a playground who denounce the foul when it is committed by a player of the opposing team, but are indignant when it is committed by one of their own and sanctioned. If they can’t keep quiet, they process the information in a partial way according to its ideological proximity. Thus, the official media rely on Amnesty’s reports when Russia is accused of committing « war crimes », but above all they refer to the criticisms that the NGO faces[note] when it dares to denounce the actions of the Ukrainian army[note].

The « despicable » editorial of Beatrice Delvaux, rather than invalidating the remarks made during the Russian presidential speech, only supports them. Thus, if Europe likes the nice dogs who obey the diktats of the Commission, even if it means destroying their people like Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s, it does not support those who make their independence a supreme value:  » This man, we did not see him coming (sic) in the years following the end of the Soviet Union. We 

we even thought we could domesticate and « neutralize »[note] by multiplying the economic links « … that is, imposing the Washington consensus on the country: privatization, liberalization, deregulation, opening the borders to foreign capital… the usual Euro-Atlantic recipe that colonizes, domesticates, places and formalizes the tyrants who serve it. As Alexander Dugin says,  » liberal modernity is deeply hegemonic, racist, supremacist, colonial. It considers its values as universal values applicable to all humanity. Today the liberals behave in a totalitarian way by wanting to impose their LGBT+ and gender norms, marriage for all, wokism, ultracapitalism as the only possible values. I accuse this liberalism of being a new fascism by wanting to impose its own norms on the whole of humanity at all costs (…) Moreover, liberals call all those who do not agree with them « fascists », which is contradictory to the very principle of liberalism « [note].

If the editorialist evokes « Putin and his henchmen », she does not fail to quote one of her mentors, Charles Michel, President of the Council:  » There is only one aggressor, and that is the Kremlin. There is a victim: it is the Ukrainians first, and it is the endangerment of international law and democratic values second. « Perhaps Le Soir has taken its information directly from the source, when we know that one of its former journalists, Jurek Kuczkiewicz, has become, after 18 years of loyal service to the daily’s editorial staff, « Strategic communication advisor » to the new president, Charles Michel[note]. To whom do journalists render good and loyal service? Isn’t that right? Perhaps Kuczkiewicz’s enthusiasm upon learning of his appointment speaks for itself:  » For his part, Jurek Kuczkiewicz said he was honored to have been invited to join Charles Michel and his team to serve, in another place, the European ideals « [note].

To serve and protect the European and therefore American ideals — this could be the motto of the journalistic caste, with the editorial offices serving as a folding seat to join the political services. It was thus obvious that Anne Morelli’s article[note], could not in this period of artificial unanimity come to disturb the party of the-good-war-to-save-our-brothers-Ukrainians, 3rd latent world war that some, in their hushed living rooms or their office far from the bullets, would like to see « solved » by a victory of Ukraine[note]. « Impossible dream », that the same people will continue to comment on, to desire, therefore to make happen, far from the splashes of blood spilt and torn flesh, of their war for which others pay the price. 

Alexandre Penasse

Read more "

The pandemic as normalization

Lara Perez Duenas

Le thème est glissant, mais peu importe ! Certaines périodes très récentes de notre histoire se caractérisent par l’irruption à un niveau très élevé de l’irrationalité dans les sphères du pouvoir. Le nazisme avait ainsi la particularité de combiner une rationalité glaciale et oppressante au cœur des services policiers, de l’armée ou des organismes chargés de la prévision des productions industrielles, avec une irrationalité extrême, par exemple dans le fait de construire un système totalitaire sur la base d’oppositions, plutôt que de complémentarités, entre le parti, l’État, l’armée et la SS. De son côté, le système communiste chinois s’est construit sur un irréalisme profond en matière industrielle ; il est en effet irrationnel de confier la direction de processus industriels à des cadres du parti qui doivent rendre des comptes aux échelons hiérarchiques supérieurs dudit parti, car ces cadres ont davantage d’habileté à maquiller des résultats dans des rapports qu’à les obtenir dans l’activité productive quotidienne d’une usine. Cet irréalisme a abouti très tôt aux aberrations du Grand Bond en avant. Pourtant, l’idéologie maoïste elle-même préconise l’inverse, dans une simplification des contradictions et des voies souvent caricaturales pour les résoudre une à une qui relève elle-même de l’irrationnel. Et ce ne sont que deux exemples. 

Or, la période que nous vivons depuis le début 2020 – pour nous en tenir à la pandémisation de la vie politique, culturelle et sociale – est une période de totalitarisme, en ce sens très précis que, dans les pays les plus influents du monde contemporain, comme la Chine, les États-Unis, l’Allemagne ou le Brésil, le Nigeria et bien d’autres encore, les groupes au pouvoir, parfois incarnés par un individu ayant adopté une posture ouvertement dictatoriale, exercent une emprise sur la société telle que ladite société dans son ensemble, ou au moins de larges groupes actifs et conscients, rencontrent d’énormes difficultés pour exprimer leur désaccord avec les politiques suivies. Dans la plupart des États, aujourd’hui, les gouvernants ont été soit désignés par des pairs, soit élus avec des pourcentages extrêmement faibles de la population adulte, et leur légitimité est très contestable du point de vue même du système en place. En France, Emmanuel Macron, au premier tour de la présidentielle de 2022, n’obtint même pas les votes d’un cinquième de la population adulte (si l’on inclut les inscrits et les non-inscrits) ; sa légitimité est donc extrêmement faible au regard de ce que demanderait une démocratie dite parlementaire, et cela sans ajouter tous les biais de caractère dictatorial que le président et le gouvernement utilisent sans arrêt (corruption, outrages commis par d’importants personnages de l’État, mode de gouvernement par décrets, disqualification des oppositions quelles qu’elles soient, contrôle des médias et du système de divertissement, etc.). Ainsi, nous partons de ce qui est pour nous une constatation, qui ne sera pas discutée davantage, parce qu’elle nous semble une évidence : nous vivons un mouvement totalitaire. 

L’irrationalité est une évidence chez l’être humain, et heureusement ! C’est bien parce que nous sommes des êtres irrationnels – non pas profondément irrationnels, non : juste et simplement, à l’occasion ou un peu plus souvent, irrationnels – que nous refusons de nous plier aux normes, pas forcément à toutes les normes (le code de la route en est une évidence…), mais à certaines. 

C’est bien parce que les humains sont irrationnels à certains moments cruciaux de leur vie que les théories les plus en vogue pour contrôler les populations sont aujourd’hui issues du behaviorisme. Le behaviorisme postule en effet que, « au-delà de la liberté et de la dignité » – pour reprendre le titre de l’essai phare de Skinner –, il existe la possibilité de contraindre l’être humain à aligner son comportement sur ce qui est socialement acceptable et souhaitable. Autrement dit, on ne peut pas modifier l’être humain, qui n’est ni fondamentalement bon ni fondamentalement mauvais ; cette discussion n’a aucun intérêt, affirment les behavioristes, car ce qui importe est la « technologie du comportement » : contraindre les humains, par des moyens « scientifiques », à adopter, qu’ils le veuillent ou non, un comportement socialement dirigé. Par qui ? Par les scientifiques et les experts qui définiront ce qui est acceptable et souhaitable, et les moyens de nous y contraindre, ou par les États qui utiliseront les principes behavioristes d’endiguement des comportements individuels. 

Le behaviorisme est aujourd’hui au sommet de sa puissance d’influence. Ainsi, les algorithmes de Google ne nous renseignent, pour toute nouvelle requête sur leur moteur de recherche, qu’en fonction de nos requêtes précédentes, ce qui nous enferme de fait dans un certain domaine de pensée, un certain style de raisonnement ; il s’agit bien là d’une « technologie du comportement » purement behavioriste. Technologie du comportement encore via le logiciel archiperfectionné de Facebook pour la reconnaissance faciale, qui atteint en la matière des résultats désormais supérieurs à ceux de l’être humain lui-même et qui devient un auxiliaire de premier ordre pour les services de police. À la tête de Facebook, la pensée politique semble absente, si l’on en juge par le spectacle pitoyable que donne son fondateur, Mark Zuckerberg, face aux sénateurs américains qui s’inquiètent de sa puissance (le 11 avril 2018, le texte intégral de l’audition est accessible sur le web). Ce spectacle d’un abruti ne sachant rien répondre n’est-il pas, en réalité, la marque de sa supériorité absolue face aux sénateurs : il n’a rien à leur dire, car ils n’ont plus le pouvoir ? 

Mais, car rien n’est joué, le behaviorisme doit affronter une limite fondamentale : l’être humain est irrationnel, et s’il est en effet plus facile de contrôler le comportement de l’être humain que de le rendre « bon » ou « mauvais » ou « adapté à telle situation », comme le rêvent les dictateurs de la fable d’Aldous Huxley Le Meilleur des mondes, il reste impossible de le rendre rationnel en toute situation. De le contrôler, quel que soit le contexte. Car le Pouvoir – avec une majuscule –, qui attend beaucoup du contrôle des foules depuis au moins la fin du XIXe siècle et l’ouvrage pionnier de Gustave Le Bon, Psychologie des foules, rêve en effet de contrôler non seulement notre comportement, mais notre irrationalité elle-même. Effacer tout irrationnel pour, comme dans Le Meilleur des mondes, nous limiter à produire et à n’être que les esclaves consentants d’une Mégamachine au service d’une caste de, au choix : dirigeants, transhumains, présidents-directeurs généraux, militaires, experts, scientifiques, médecins… De nos jours, le behaviorisme triomphe peut-être, mais ce triomphe marque aussi ses limites et les dévoile si jamais nous ne les avions pas encore aperçues : il contrôle nos comportements, mais il ne pourra pas modifier l’irrationalité constitutive de l’être humain. 

Mais – car surgit un autre « mais » -, voilà qu’en 2020, une situation nouvelle est créée par l’apparition (nous ne discuterons pas ici de savoir si cette apparition est une illusion ou une réalité) d’une pandémie entraînant dans son sillage la peur quasi généralisée. Peur de mourir et peur de l’autre. Notons d’emblée que la peur de mourir comme la peur de l’autre sont profondément irrationnelles, car nous apprenons toutes et tous très vite comment nous allons finir, la mort faisant à coup sûr partie de la vie ; de plus, en tant que primates, nous sommes des animaux profondément sociaux, chez lesquels l’autre devrait être non pas source de peur, mais la principale source de bonheur. L’irrationalité réalisait donc un passage en force inédit en temps de paix, comme si – et pour une fois, le dictateur de la République française pouvait avoir raison, mais il le disait avec une autre idée derrière la tête… – nous étions en guerre. 

L’irrationalité n’est pas un défaut, c’est un fait d’espèce, et sur ce fait se construit, notamment, l’opposition aux normes. Les normes sont un mode de contrôle de l’irrationalité, en tentant de corseter les décisions dans un cadre le plus strict possible et d’endiguer les débordements de toutes natures. Ainsi, refuser les normes parce qu’elles sont aliénantes, parce qu’elles aboutissent à l’exploitation, etc., est profondément « logique » d’un point de vue politique émancipateur. Insistons ici sur ce fait selon nous essentiel, qu’à un moment, ce refus s’appuie sur un invariant de la psychologie humaine : nous sommes des animaux qui, à certains moments de leur vie, sont irrationnels et prennent des décisions difficilement justifiables. Le refus des normes n’est pas seulement une position politique ou éthique ; c’est aussi une simple donnée de la psychologie humaine et c’est cela qui donne l’espoir, y compris dans les situations les plus dramatiques, car il y a toujours l’espoir de sortir de l’emprisonnement par les normes puisqu’elles sont contraires à l’être même de l’animal humain. 

L’anarchie, le communisme anti-autoritaire, le refus de parvenir, le zadisme, etc., ne sont pas le chaos ; ils sont la libre association de tout ce qui vit dans un souci holistique constant, s’appuyant sur des valeurs clés : l’émancipation, la non-domination, la non-soumission, la liberté des autres comme continuation et extension de la nôtre, etc. Ces formes d’opposition et de construction d’un plurivers libre, que nous synthétisons ici dans le « refus de parvenir » pour simplifier, pourraient être définies comme des politiques qui laissent ouvertes des possibilités de s’échapper de la norme ; ce sont même les seules politiques laissant ouvertes ces possibilités-là qui sont, a priori, l’inverse même de tout système politique autoritaire, productiviste et industriel. Le mot « système » est à prendre ici en son sens le plus fort : une organisation structurée, fonctionnant par elle-même, pour elle-même, en elle-même, et avec les individus qui le composent réduits à l’état de rouages. 

Tel est bien le but de tout système, y compris du « monde digital » auquel travaillent Google, Facebook et les autres. C’est ainsi que les dirigeants de Google affirment dès 2013, dans The New Digital Age, que tout individu dont les coordonnées numériques sont « inhabituellement difficiles à trouver » cherche sans doute à « cacher quelque chose » ; ils préconisent par conséquent d’inscrire ces personnes sur une « liste de terroristes » (!) et de leur appliquer des mesures comme les restrictions de déplacement (confinement ?). Voilà qui est fondamental pour comprendre ce qui se joue depuis mars 2020 et les mesures de confinement adoptées en Europe cette année-là et la suivante. 

L’irrationalité est ainsi, pour les behavioristes dont les théories inspirent les dictateurs actuels, l’ennemi qu’il faut non pas abattre, car Skinner a bien montré que cela n’était pas simple du tout, voire impossible, mais contrôler, endiguer, limiter, confiner. Remarquons ici que l’irrationalité s’empare y compris des dictateurs, ce qui constitue pour nous, qui travaillons à l’inverse à l’émancipation du monde vivant et du genre humain entre autres, un atout. Depuis 2020, les dirigeants européens ont pris de nombreuses décisions 

irrationnelles qui aboutissent à des volte-face sur la politique pandémique (masque obligatoire et indispensable puis l’inverse, ne pas généraliser l’obligation du vaccin alors qu’ils affirmaient pour la plupart que c’était le seul moyen de survivre, etc.), décisions irrationnelles dans la mesure où elles décrédibilisaient leur politique – certes on pourrait dire que l’irrationalité est un atout de la politique politicienne par la peur qu’elle engendre, car l’irrationalité des dirigeants engendre la peur chez les dirigés qui leur font confiance… 

Venons-en à ce qui aurait pu former un « Nous », par rapport à «Eux» qui sont au pouvoir. Pas un «Nous» qui soit les 99%, ne rêvons pas, mais un « Nous agissons collectivement », qui rassemble à la fois les anarchistes, les décroissants, les opposants au tout industriel et au tout scientifique, les partisans des diverses formes de simplicité volontaire, les féministes, les conseillistes, les zadistes (bien entendu, on peut se reconnaître dans plusieurs de ces orientations à la fois !) et tant d’autres, en gros toutes celles et tous ceux qui refusent l’ordre néolibéral, économiste de marché, masculiniste, industriel, militariste, etc., le Pouvoir sous toutes ses formes autoritaires, y compris l’idéologie du Progrès qui n’en est pas le moindre aspect. L’irrationalité est présente, et heureusement, également chez Nous. Mais certaines décisions ou prises de position de certaines et certains parmi Nous ont eu des conséquences très négatives sur le « mouvement » dans son ensemble. Celle de se faire vacciner est celle qui porte avec elle le plus de conséquences négatives. 

Irrationnelle, cette décision l’est à l’évidence. Se faire vacciner, c’est avaliser le lien profondément aliénant entre les décisions de l’État et le sort des individus. C’est accepter de lier notre sort à celui des « foules », ce mot devant être pris dans le sens précis de l’ensemble des personnes prises « en masse » et en même temps atomisées devant leur écran et une à une aux prises avec leur peur de la maladie, de la mort, et donc profondément aliénées par tous les outils que le Pouvoir a à sa disposition. Les foules, ce sont « un plus un plus un… », soit une collection d’individus sans pouvoir, face au groupe dirigeant, bien plus faible numériquement, mais immensément plus fort car parfaitement soudé. 

De ces foules-là, nous n’avons pas d’autre choix que de nous en distinguer, non pas pour nous en séparer, mais pour conserver le minimum nécessaire de clarté politique – du moins si nous prétendons ne pas mourir aliénés et hébétés devant la destruction de la planète et la perpétuation jusqu’à ses extrêmes limites des rapports d’exploitation et de domination. Nous n’avons, en réalité, pas d’autre choix que de Nous échapper de ces foules auxquelles le Pouvoir ne veut que Nous réduire. Et la vaccination et le confinement en furent, en 2020–2021, des moyens qui se voulurent un temps « absolus » et « définitifs », sans doute à l’image du crédit social chinois dans lequel chaque individu, s’il s’y soumet, accepte sa réduction à l’état de rouage d’une immense machinerie globale sur laquelle il n’a pas la moindre capacité d’influence. 

C’est dire que là, avec le confinement et la vaccination, Nous avions la possibilité de construire un point commun, un pont commun, entre Nous : devenir toutes et tous, enfin, des hors-la-loi. Hors de ces lois que Nous abhorrons parce qu’elles signent la soumission et l’exploitation des masses et, désormais, de tout ce qui vit, jusque et y compris la planète, par le biais d’un extractivisme absolu qui détruira tout à terme, si Nous ne parvenons pas à y mettre fin. 

Le second point qui nous semble signer notre défaite – provisoire, mais réelle en 2020–2021 – est la désintégration, l’explosion de la relation pourtant nécessaire entre nos pensées, nos manières de voir la politique, l’émancipation et la vie quotidienne. En clamant notre anti-productivisme et en acceptant, jusque dans nos corps, de nous soumettre au laissez-passer qui nous permet de continuer à produire – le cas des soignants étant le plus emblématique sur le plan politique et émotionnel –, nous rompons ce lien nécessaire entre théorie et pratique, entre grandes déclarations et « descente dans l’arène de la vie quotidienne ». Nous nous discréditons, il n’y a pas d’autre mot, sur le plan politique. 

N’oublions pas en effet que nous étions le plus souvent très informé·e·s de la réalité de Pfizer, l’un des pires laboratoires pharmaceutiques du monde, dont l’objectif affiché, par le biais de l’Association de psychiatrie américaine (qui publie le fameux manuel de psychiatrie, le DSM), est de mettre sous contention médicamenteuse 75% de la population américaine. Si ces Nous vacciné·e·s avaient opté pour le Moderna, elles et ils savaient sans doute que cette société a été fondée par le DARPA, l’agence du Pentagone (excusez du peu !) pour la recherche, dans le but de développer un vaccin à ARN permettant aux soldats yankees de s’installer dans un territoire auparavant nettoyé de ses habitants par des armes biologiques (le site du DARPA donnant ces informations à propos de Moderna est resté ouvert tout le long de la pandémie et l’est encore[note], ainsi que celui de Moderna[note]. Ces personnes très bien informées savaient de plus que le « vaccin » n’en était, pour le plus avancé d’entre eux, le Moderna, qu’au stade 2 de l’expérimentation (sur les primates non humains) et qu’il manquait donc le stade 3, soit plusieurs années de tests… 

Cette réalité de l’irrationalité survenant au pire moment et dans les plus mauvaises conditions politiques possibles a traversé à peu près tous les groupes humains. D’où la « recomposition » (des associations, des groupes de camarades, des amis, des « tribus » ou des cercles de sympathie) que, toutes et tous, nous avons constatée au cours des années 2020 et 2021. 

Mais, nous l’avons déjà dit, l’irrationalité n’est pas un défaut en soi. Il nous semble donc qu’un important progrès vers l’émancipation peut désormais être accompli. Face à cette réalité d’êtres humains profondément irrationnels à certains moments cruciaux de leur existence, nous pouvons « opposer » une solution simple en répondant à cette question : sur quelles valeurs pouvons-nous nous entendre ? Reformer un Nous ? 

Car c’est à Nous de proposer les valeurs permettant de passer au stade de l’émancipation. Il ne s’agit surtout pas de tracer un programme et de retomber dans une contradiction indépassable, mais de fonder nos comportements et nos manières d’agir politiques sur les valeurs qui font sens : simplicité volontaire, recherche de l’émancipation de toutes et tous, y compris les autres animaux et même les végétaux (les forêts par exemple), refus de tout ce qui Nous opprime et Nous détruit, et d’autres encore que chacun est libre d’ajouter à sa guise ! 

Philippe Godard 

Read more "

Kairos, « a tool for militant expression

In this article, we share the three pages of the decision of the Commission of First Instance on the recognition and protection of the title of professional journalist, in the context of Alexandre Penasse’s request for renewal of his press card, which was unanimously refused by the members. These bodies representing the mass media, instruments of propaganda, have the nerve to reproach Kairos for having a point of view and an editorial line. They can afford the absurd, because they have with them the power to appoint, endorse or banish. For the moment… 

In December 2021, the Accreditation Commission refused to extend my press card, stating that I had not notified it that I was engaged in another paid activity — continuing, as the Commission found, my activity as a journalist, but refusing a double salary and therefore to be paid for this activity. The Commission therefore considered that journalism was no longer my main activity. In addition, Amid Faljaoui, director of the magazines Le Vif/L’Express and Trends-Tendances, receives 150,000 euros per month from the bank Degroof Petercam, but continues to write economic columns on the radio The FirstNot to mention all the others who move from the media to the private sector or to politics, and vice versa.

At the time they first refused to renew my press card at the end of 2021, the Commission had no criticism of the nature of the work I was doing. Since then, more than two years have passed, paid full time as a journalist. So in June 2022 I reapplied for a renewal of my press card, an application that the Commission has just unanimously refused, citing that my  » journalistic activity does not correspond to the terms of the 1963 law as specified by the jurisprudence of this commission « (The 1963 law organizes the recognition and protection of the title of professional journalist, see the document at the end of the article).

The Commission that judged me recalls that the law of December 30, 1963, provides that the title of professional journalist can only be recognized to a person who participates  » writing daily newspapers or periodicals, radio or television news programs, filmed news or news agencies devoted to general information. In accordance with its constant jurisprudence since its creation, the Commission assimilates communication activities to advertising or commerce, activities that are incompatible with the title. It is necessary to distinguish between communication in the service of the public interest and communication in the service of the general interest (…) The commission recalls that the purpose of the information body in which the person who wishes to be recognized participates must be information. Editorial should not be used as an alibi for other motivations « .

 » Editorial should not be used as an alibi for other motivations « , you say, so you accuse Kairos of doing « communication » and not participating in a general interest information. It seems that by projection you are talking about the media of which you are the representatives. These are the big families that have concentrated the press in a few groups sharing the different media that they now call « brands », journalistic brands that use their editorial content to make us buy the advertisers’ products, right? 

Advertising for a car, full page next to an article in the daily newspaper Le Soir, owned by the wealthy Hurbain family
Is it not also them who have served as a sounding board for government choices, even more visibly since the Covid crisis, calling journalists and citizens who did not follow the official narrative orders « conspiracy theorists » or « antivaxx »? 

The mass media are nothing more than consent manufacturing agencies for which you are the official guarantors. You do not like to look at yourself in the mirror, especially when, like several members of the Accreditation Commission, you are retired: you do not look at your entire career in the service of the order with lucidity, you risk falling down…

 » The bimonthly Kairos, the website, the facebook page of Kairos appear today as tools of a militant expression.extract from the Decision of the Accreditation Commission
Is it not the universities and colleges that have changed their titles from « journalism » to « communication », definitively endorsing the tipping of the journalist into advertising formatting? You say in your decision, and I quote:  » The bimonthly Kairos, the website, the facebook page of Kairos appear today as tools of an activist expression. And add:  » The information process requires, for a given theme, to cover all the subjects related to it, to relate all the facts, opinions and comments relevant to it in various ways. It does not prevent the author from expressing a personal position, or even a commitment, by developing a reasoning and the arguments that support them. On the other hand, a news media cannot be a relay of such a position presented in a unilateral way. Commitment cannot jeopardize journalistic independence « .

Doesn’t your blindness hurt your eyes? The Covid episode, for almost three years, has been treated by the media in a way that will go down in history, if one day the official propaganda agencies stop writing it themselves. Never has the debate been so forbidden, while Kairos proposed a great debate in June 2021 and invited all the official experts, only one of whom responded — and refused the invitation. This debate will lead to the closure of our Facebook channel, without you being indignant about it. Never have those who think differently been so vilified by the political-media order. And you dare to say that we were the relays of a position presented in a unilateral way? The future will show us that your treatment of information, your stigmatization, division, guilt are directly responsible for the death of individuals. And your silence, unforgivable, while we know for example that the editor of La Libre who vilified in his newspaper the doctors who treated Covid early with ivermectin, was personally treated with it.

You are not the bodies that protect the free press and the Munich Charter[note]Like the Order of Physicians, they are made up of representatives of the Media Order, these large press groups, whose main function is to ensure their survival and to protect them from anything that could harm them. So you represent only yourselves and fear the truth.

I finish quoting your order:  » The media in which the applicant participates do not present such a multilateral treatment of the subjects. The plaintiff uses his freedom of expression without giving voice to the theses opposed to his own. In particular, he expresses strong support for various actors in the social debate without putting this commitment into perspective. The choice of subjects, sources and interviewees is guided solely by his or her convictions « . In conclusion:  » The media in which the applicant participates are intended to convince the public of the merits of a thesis, not to inform them in a multilateral way of the different positions present so that they can freely form their own opinion. The Commission systematically denies the title of professional journalist to people who contribute to publications whose objective is to relay the theses of any organization, and which do not offer the public a guarantee of independence in the choice of subjects, sources and approach to them « . 

You only have to open a daily newspaper such as La Libre, Le Soir, La Dernière Heure, but also many periodicals, to understand that what you are reproaching us for is perfectly in line with their functioning. For example,  » Guarantee of independence in the choice of subjects « , whereas the masters of censorship and self-censorship are to be found among the media that you represent, who send every 5 years their list of journalists whose accreditation is automatically renewed by you. What a tremendous dissonance. 

As the Accreditation Commission itself states, one can be a journalist without a press card. Certainly. But it is particularly interesting to see to whom this Commission grants it and to whom it denies it. In this respect, a guarantee of freedom today would paradoxically be not to have any, unless one dissolves these bodies which are in no way a guarantee of press freedom, but whose existence, on the contrary, ensures that it will not happen.

1963 ActDownload

Read more "

The ethics of activism

Sarah Fatmi

Dans « L’impossible militantisme de gauche[note] » on trouvera l’inventaire des entraves actuelles au militantisme et son contexte historique. Le militant « de gauche » est, en effet, confronté à la quasi-impossibilité de faire valoir son point de vue par quelque action que ce soit. 

Tout ce qu’il a fait ou fera sera, d’une manière ou d’une autre, retenu contre lui. Que le militant agisse ou non, qu’il s’explique ou non, qu’il présente ses excuses (!) ou non, il ne communiquera que son indigence à communiquer, c’est-à-dire la non-maîtrise de son argumentaire, de sa propre image et de sa diffusion. Reprenons la question à sa racine en évoquant successivement militance, philosophie et éthique, deux disciplines et un mercenariat aux destins (pieds et poings) liés par le néolibéralisme. 

1. Le terme même de militantisme révèle, sans surprise, l’engagement profond, si pas total, dans la lutte sociale pour faire advenir un idéal. Dans son acception principale, qui est aussi la plus noble, le militantisme est une forme d’engagement collectif pour le bien commun, c’est-à-dire contre ce qui est perçu comme une injustice (une fois n’est pas coutume, Wikipedia est ici plus explicite que les dictionnaires traditionnels). La rationalité qui s’y joue est donc double : elle est théorique et visionnaire en tant qu’elle identifie les enjeux politiques, et elle est pragmatique en tant qu’elle suscite l’action. Un idéal qui n’est pas vécu est une idée morte-née. 

2. De ceci il suit que la militance est de l’ordre de la pensée vivante ou, si on préfère, de la philosophie vécue. D’une part, il ne saurait y avoir de pensée — et donc de philosophie — qui ne vise le bien commun : penser veut dire dépasser ses contingences personnelles pour énoncer les propositions respectueuses de toute forme de vie. Tout le reste n’est qu’opinion, égoïsme, et prédation. D’autre part, quelles seraient la cohérence et l’applicabilité d’une pensée qui n’occasionnerait aucune conséquence pratique ? De fait, les philosophes grecs articulaient la sagesse théorique (« sophia ») et la sagesse pratique (« phronèsis »), la vraie sagesse devant être le fruit de la conjonction des deux. À la fois contemplative et active, elle requiert alors l’homme tout entier et invoque l’abîme de sa liberté. Le mythe platonicien de la caverne est peutêtre le plus explicite à cet égard : l’épreuve de la philosophie consiste à dépasser le miroir des contingences spectaculaires pour accéder à la contemplation du Bien souverain (et de sa réflexion sur les Idées) afin de retourner dans la caverne pour y promouvoir le Bien commun, quelles que soient les conséquences pour le philosophe … 

3. Il faut surtout comprendre qu’il existe une éthique de l’irresponsabilité, voire une éthique totalement irresponsable. Depuis que sévissent les philosophes professionnels (les « Denker von Gewerbe » de Hannah Arendt), et surtout depuis que la culture est devenue scientifique et l’université une entreprise, le champ de la philosophie s’est progressivement réduit à celui de l’épistémologie et de l’éthique. Ce faisant, la philosophie ne s’est émancipée de la théologie (n’écrivait-on pas « philosophia ancilla theologiae » ?) que pour être réduite en esclavage par la science et donc, finalement, par les bailleurs de fonds, c’est-à-dire le capitalisme. 

D’une part, l’épistémologie et les disciplines connexes que sont la philosophie des sciences et la philosophie de la nature, n’ont généralement plus d’autre ambition que de contextualiser les percées conceptuelles scientifiques et leurs inévitables conséquences idéologiques, la dernière en date étant le transhumanisme[note]. Seule la science pourra répondre aux questions philosophiques comprises jusqu’il y a peu comme insolubles (« dieu » existe-t-elle ? la « femme » est-elle libre ? l’âme est-elle immortelle ?, etc.) Certains, comme Bertrand Russell, vont jusqu’à prétendre que la raison ne doit pas interrompre son travail avant que le sens de l’existence ne soit détruit et l’eugénisme imposé[note]. Il la compare d’ailleurs à une scie circulaire et aurait pu s’approprier le cri d’Ubu « Cornegidouille ! Nous n’aurons point tout démoli si nous ne démolissons même les ruines ! Or je n’y vois d’autre moyen que d’en édifier de beaux édifices bien ordonnés. » Seul reste alors l’aveuglante opacité du progrès scientifique. 

D’autre part, le mirage de l’éthique est savamment entretenu, encore une fois à la remorque de la recherche scientifique et de ses créations technologiques, fussent-elles des plus funestes. Là où le sens commun devrait suffire à exiger un moratoire sur les derniers développements totalitaires de la technoscience, on injecte un discours complexe qui se déploie essentiellement sur l’argument d’autorité : selon le Pr. Dupont, Dr. en philosophie, habilité à diriger des recherches, Directeur du Centre de bioéthique de l’Université (catholique) de New York (celle de Kinshasa-Limete ne ferait pas l’affaire), il est illusoire de vouloir brider la recherche alors que des balises éthiques ont été clairement énoncées et qu’un comité éthique vise au respect absolu de ces impératifs éthiques… Il faudra néanmoins tempérer avec le plus grand discernement l’enthousiasme de nos chercheurs, car nous sommes déjà très en retard par rapport à la Chine. 

Mais l’histoire vient parfois remettre en question cette division du travail entre épistémologie scientifique et éthique existentielle. Comme l’a fait remarquer Foucault, et comme cela se dit encore dans les alcôves, ce ne sont pas les philosophes de l’engagement qui se sont engagés lors de la Seconde guerre mondiale… Les mathématiciens et épistémologues Albert Lautman et Jean Cavaillès sont entrés dans la Résistance après s’être, l’un comme l’autre, évadés de leurs Oflags. Pendant que Georges Canguilhem, épistémologue lui aussi, Paul Éluard et René Char, poètes, et Léon Chertok, psychiatre, prenaient toute la mesure de leur responsabilité, Sartre médite sobrement (?), en 1944 donc, au Café de Flore, sur l’évidence de « Jamais nous n’avons été plus libre que sous l’occupation allemande ». N’aurait-il pas plutôt dû écrire « On ne naît pas Homme, on le devient » ? Ou, plus simplement, « On parle que de ce que l’on ne connaît pas » ? 

. En somme, puisque le phénomène humain est de l’ordre de la machine (La Mettrie avant Cabanis : « Le cerveau sécrète la pensée comme le foie sécrète la bile »), il peut être machiné optimalement sans états d’âme (!)[note]. L’intelligence a toujours-déjà été artificielle et la politique néolibérale. De là il suit que la philosophie est devenue cybernétique, un art de gouverner rhétoriquement — c’est-à-dire de manipuler — les masses, que le militantisme est injustifiable, et que l’éthique occupe coûte que coûte le terrain de la violence symbolique laissé en friche par le monothéisme. 

Tout aurait été dit dans deux articles fameux de Max Weber : « Le métier et la vocation de savant » (1917), avance la thèse de la neutralité axiologique de la science ; et « Le métier et la vocation d’homme politique » (1919), fait dépendre l’éthique de la responsabilité du politique au sens large. Le taux de dilution de la conscience éthique de chacun des acteurs allait bientôt pouvoir atteindre des proportions homéopathiques, le GIEC en témoigne avec panache : le scientifique argumente en faveur de la thèse politique imposée par le monde économique ; le politique s’appuie sur la neutralité de la science[note]. 

Il existe pourtant des voix dissonantes dans le bêlement académique généralisé. Karl-Otto Appel propose une justification (pragmatico-transcendantale) des présupposés éthiques de la communication mettant en évidence que la logique elle-même présuppose une éthique en tant que condition de possibilité[note]. Jean-Pierre Dupuy et Jaime Semprun plaident pour un catastrophisme éclairé. Hans Jonas et Serge Latouche refondent le principe de responsabilité et le principe de précaution. La figure, plus ou moins mythique de Socrate, est loin d’être étrangère à ces questions : seul importe d’être en paix avec soi-même. En témoigne V. Klemperer, qui écrit le 16 août 1936 dans son Tagebücher que les vrais responsables de la montée du nazisme sont ses collègues universitaires qui auraient dû le contrer par tous les moyens et ont préféré regarder ailleurs ou même collaborer plus ou moins activement[note] … Comme Gœthe bien avant lui, il a compris que la responsabilité du penseur est l’immense et grave fardeau que l’initié ressent lorsque, rompant et débordant les domaines rationnels de la connaissance, il se met en quête du bien commun et reconnaît dans ce (dé-)devenir un impératif rien de moins que religieux[note]. Mais combien sont-ils, aujourd’hui encore, à mettre leur inconscience au service du plus offrant ? Personne n’a donc entendu parler du Docteur Faust ? Qu’est-il advenu du sens commun ? 

Trois conclusions s’imposent : il y a nécessairement une philosophie de la militance, et celle-ci est réflexion du bien commun ; la philosophie ne peut être que militante ; l’éthique est un grand vide instrumentalisé par le capitalisme technocrate. 

Michel Weber 

Sarah Fatmi

Read more "

Imperialism: philosophical roots and other ways 2/2

Antoine Demant

De la première partie de l’article, il ressort que la guerre en Ukraine découle notamment des influences d’idéologues comme Brzezinski, porteurs d’un fantasme funeste : celui d’une gouvernance mondiale. (« La seule alternative [au « leadership mondial des USA »] se résumerait à l’anarchie sur le plan international.[note] ») Comme nous l’avons vu, ces idéologues se réfèrent à des philosophes selon lesquels la paix ne peut être atteinte que par le « haut », par la force d’un grande puissance. 

De telles références sont sans doute un vernis philosophique que se donne l’impérialisme. Mais l’idée que les personnes et les peuples ne peuvent se gouverner par eux-mêmes, cette idée est présente tout autour de nous, y compris dans les sphères académiques[note]. Beaucoup voient l’être humain comme le jouet de passions chaotiques. Or, une telle idée sera encore et toujours utilisée par les partisans des visions dirigistes. De la question de savoir si la personne humaine peut se guider par elle-même dépend donc, sans doute, la possibilité d’un monde libre et démocratique. 

Clarifier cette question, de grands penseurs l’ont tenté. L’un des plus intéressants est Spinoza (1632–1677), qui a entre autres investigué la possibilité de développer des passions éclairées par la raison et les idéaux. Il a ainsi poursuivi le travail d’Aristote notamment, selon qui, de même qu’on peut cultiver le corps par l’entraînement physique et le mental par l’exercice intellectuel, on peut aussi, par un entraînement approprié, développer les qualités morales. 

Essentiel : Spinoza a manifesté par sa propre vie le réalisme de ses idées, car il a vécu en profond accord avec elles ; cela ressort de l’ensemble des biographies qui lui sont consacrées. 

Pour ce philosophe, nous avons très souvent une connaissance floue des causes de nos actes, mais il est possible d’en atteindre une connaissance claire, qui donne la possibilité d’agir sur nos passions : « l’âme a la puissance de former des idées claires et distinctes, et de les déduire les unes des autres (…) ; d’où il résulte (…) qu’elle a la puissance d’ordonner (…) les affections du corps[note] ». Si nous agissons suivant ces idées claires, nous pouvons alors devenir la véritable cause de nos actes, pour Spinoza (dans les autres cas, nous ne sommes que les jouets de causes inconscientes) : « Quand quelque chose arrive (…) dont nous sommes la cause adéquate, (…) quand quelque chose (…) résulte de notre nature, qui se peut concevoir par elle clairement (…), j’appelle cela agir. Quand, au contraire, quelque chose arrive en nous (…) dont nous ne sommes point cause, (…) j’appelle cela pâtir.[note]» 

Les passions, justement, Spinoza les aborde sous un angle particulièrement intéressant et motivant : « J’entends par passion (…) ces affections du corps (…) qui augmentent ou diminuent, favorisent ou empêchent sa puissance d’agir, et j’entends aussi en même temps les idées de ces affections. C’est pourquoi, si nous pouvons être cause adéquate de quelqu’une de ces affections, passion (…) exprime alors une action.[note] » On considère en général les passions comme des choses auxquelles nous sommes soumis ; les voir comme pouvant être des actes change totalement la perspective. Dans le même esprit, Spinoza qualifie aussi ces passions de puissances d’actions. P. ex. : « la clémence (…) n’est point une affection passive de l’âme, mais la puissance par laquelle l’homme modère sa haine et sa vengeance.[note] » 

Ces approches font aussi apparaître que la morale de ce penseur se fonde sur le désir et l’enthousiasme, l’énergie qu’on peut y trouver, non sur des principes qu’on s’impose. Sous cet angle, ce qu’on nomme les vertus n’apparaît pas comme lié à des devoirs ou fardeaux, mais comme des forces, des capacités d’actions. 


Tout cela, ce philosophe le fonde sur des observations et démarches très concrètes, dont on peut sans doute tous expérimenter l’efficience. L’exemple suivant est très parlant : « …ce que l’homme a de mieux à faire tant qu’il n’a pas une connaissance accomplie de ses passions, c’est de concevoir une règle de conduite (…), de la déposer dans sa mémoire, d’en faire une application continuelle aux cas particuliers (…), de telle sorte (…) que sans cesse elle se présente aisément à son esprit. (…) [p. ex.], nous avons mis au nombre des principes qui doivent régler la vie qu’il faut vaincre la haine (…) par la générosité (…). (…) nous devons (…) souvent méditer sur les injustices (…) et les meilleurs moyens de s’y soustraire en usant de générosité ; et de la sorte il s’établit entre l’image d’une injustice et celle du précepte de la générosité une telle union qu’aussitôt qu’une injustice nous est faite, le précepte se présente à notre esprit[note] ». 

Ainsi, sous le regard de Spinoza, la personne humaine apparaît comme capable de se développer dans un sens toujours plus éclairé et autonome, à partir du centre qu’est sa pensée active, et avec l’énergie qu’elle trouve en agissant ainsi sur ses émotions ; de sorte à pouvoir transformer ses passions en actes, ses tendances psychiques en puissances d’action morale. 

Certes, tout cela suppose que la raison ou la pensée soit une activité qui puisse se fonder sur soi, tendre vers une pleine clarté sur soi. Spinoza considère apparemment cette possibilité comme découlant, implicitement, de l’expérience qu’on peut tous faire de la raison. Beaucoup ne le suivront pas, à cet égard. Mais son approche peut être complétée par des apports essentiels de Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925), apports qui découlent d’une observation de la pensée. Ou plutôt du penser (das Denken), c’est-à-dire – dans l’esprit de Spinoza – de la réflexion comme activité tout à fait consciente et dynamique[note]. 


Du point de vue de Steiner, quand le penser est développé de cette manière consciente et active, il se présente comme un phénomène capable de se connaître lui-même et de constater qu’il repose sur soi. Pour comprendre, comparons le penser aux autres expériences : perceptions, sentiments, volonté… Si l’on considère ces expériences en elles-mêmes, avant qu’on leur ait associé des concepts, elles se présentent sans lois, déterminations ou rapports entres elles.[note] Couleurs, sons et autres sensations, sentiments, rêves, etc., sans relations entre ces éléments. On ignore alors ce qui serait cause ou effet, réel ou illusoire, etc. (Certes, dans la vie quotidienne, ces expériences sont déjà fortement entremêlées de concepts ; mais on peut tendre à les en épurer, à revenir à l’expérience initiale.[note]) 

Or, dans le penser, ce manque de relations ne se présente pas ; car il est justement un producteur de rapports, de déterminations.[note] P. ex. le rapport de causalité, celui de différence, celui entre tout et partie… Et c’est cela qui implique cette clarté du penser. P. ex., ne suffit-il pas de nous demander ce qu’est une cause pour penser aussitôt : « Ce qui produit un effet » ? L’idée de cause nous mène donc, par elle-même, à celle d’effet, et vice versa.[note] On peut faire de telles observations avec une série d’autres idées : qu’est-ce que le tout ? L’ensemble des parties. Idem avec l’existant et le néant, le nécessaire et le contingent, etc. Les idées mathématiques sont aussi un bon exemple. Dans un simple calcul pensé activement, on peut bien observer comme chaque élément et rapport est saisi avec clarté. On y voit bien, aussi, la différence entre un penser actif et une démarche passive : p. ex., on peut juste mémoriser que 4 x 4 = 16, mais aussi vérifier le calcul par soi-même, en additionnant 4 ensembles de 4 unités. 

Ainsi, « Ce qui ne peut être trouvé que de façon médiate dans les autres sphères d’observation – les liens de correspondance (…) entre les divers objets – dans le penser, nous le connaissons de façon tout à fait immédiate. Pourquoi le tonnerre suit-il l’éclair pour mon observation, je ne le sais pas d’emblée ; pourquoi mon penser relie-t-il le concept de tonnerre à celui de l’éclair, je le sais immédiatement par les contenus des deux concepts (…), [que j’ai ou non] les concepts exacts de tonnerre et d’éclair.[note]» 


Conséquence essentielle : le fait que le penseur vraiment actif passe d’une idée à l’autre en fonction des contenus de ces idées uniquement, ce fait signifie visiblement que les causes des actes de penser se trouvent dans le penser-même, non dans une autre réalité (comme le cerveau), qui déterminerait le penser de l’extérieur[note]. (Au sujet du cerveau, notons que ce qu’on observe en lui, avec les sens, est un tout autre contenu d’expérience que celui du penser – comme d’ailleurs du reste de la conscience. On n’a jamais observé un concept, dans un cerveau en tant qu’objet perçu, ni un sentiment…). 

Une telle déduction se heurte au préjugé que la pensée n’aurait aucune réalité. Mais si l’on constate qu’elle ne se développe qu’en fonction de ses propres contenus, non perceptibles aux sens, cela devrait bel et bien impliquer une autonomie au niveau de l’être, pas seulement à un niveau « seulement logique ». 

De ces observations découle aussi qu’avec le penser, on dispose d’une base depuis laquelle on peut espérer pouvoir connaître petit à petit le reste des phénomènes. La question capitale du rapport entre les concepts et les autres expériences dépasse le cadre de cet article, mais nous y viendrons bientôt. 

Pour cette fois, limitons-nous à cette observation déjà essentielle : tout cela fait apparaître le penser comme une réalité fondée sur elle-même, à partir de laquelle la personne humaine peut travailler sur ses passions et s’orienter intérieurement. Ce qui renforce considérablement l’approche de Spinoza, et contribue fortement à réfuter l’idée que l’humanité aurait besoin de puissances dirigistes ou de morales autoritaires. 

Daniel Zink 

Read more "

Editorial read: Journal #56

We never considered it useful to criticize media that seemed closer to us than those commonly called « mainstream ». If we refused to name them explicitly and to critically address their editorial line, we did not prevent ourselves in some of our analyses from situating this so-called « alternative », « independent » or « inclusive » press. It’s time to take stock. 

If so-called alternative publications, or even « slow press », which comment on the world, sometimes do interesting journalistic work, there remains something contradictory, even insoluble in the very idea of doing something else: how indeed to coexist peacefully alongside the mass press without criticizing it? How to work in both, without experiencing dissonance, but also without being disturbed by the dominant media that contribute to a part of their income?
(1)but also without being disturbed by the dominant media that contribute to part of their income? 

The explanation is not complicated. The coexistence is quite serene because this alternative press does not oppose the mass press, but is part of its continuity. It is not surprising that she is invited on the sets of La Première the day before the publication of a new issue or that the media networks, in general, are open to them. The price to pay is silence on a number of issues, with an obligatory and tacit omerta on the one they cannot address under penalty of anathema and dismissal: criticism of the media

The alternative press is thus a convenient catch-all, especially for those who want to ride the wave and set themselves up as a new troublemaker. Lacking a certain form of action, stuck in an editorial office at the beck and call of the government, the subject is annoyed, but can also feel targeted by the growing criticism of the mainstream media. In short, a remedy must be found. What better way then, to get back on track and still support the dominant media that employs us, than to launch into the « alternative press ». Yes! Dealing with scandals, investigating, snooping in the political world and making relays (who knows, there may be a future commitment), it is indeed exhilarating. The media scandal machine is well broken in, and one can thus enjoy both the cake and the eat it: on the one hand, one produces formatted information, on the other hand, one pretends to deviate from it by denouncing; on the one hand, one accepts censorship, serenely, knowing obviously that one cannot say everything, on the other hand, one hovers on the cloud of dissent, ready to dismantle all the cabals, embezzlements and traffics of all kinds that will not fail to come up, again and again. 

The problem is that both sides are happily flouting what is at the foundation of press freedom and the work of the journalist: « rrespect the truth, regardless of the consequences to himself, because of the public’s right to know the truth « (Munich Charter). To make it a real fourth power, and thus to analyze, describe, denounce the functioning of the structures of domination, of which the mass media are part. But it’s hard to go to the Gala of the Association of Professional Journalists with all the top brass of journalism installed, to hold after an editorial board where we criticize those who have just fed us and showered us with petits fours and champagne. 

The reaction to the censorship that Kairos is subjected to plays as a revelation of the true face of those who claim to be different, highlighting that it is only a mask they are wearing and that they are in fact the same. In general, they took a position by remaining silent, even when they were explicitly asked to react
(3). It is only in the course of a letter of indignation from one of our readers addressed to the so-called alternative newspaper, that the answer of the latter — identical to a speaker of RTL or an editorialist of Le Soir or La Libre — which he transmitted to us, explicitly revealed on which side he leans: that of power, of continuity, which ensures the « career »: 

We were prevented for 9 months from entering a press conference after the « politically biased question » asked of the Prime Minister
(4). Then, with the help of an attorney and with perseverance, we were able to get back to it on November 27, 2020. That day, the government control room will cut off my question in the middle of a live broadcast. Since then, my press card has been withdrawn, as well as my subsidies, following a new condition arbitrarily decided by Minister Linard. To declare that complaining and denouncing this situation is victimization and conspiracy, reveals the true role of these new media: to pretend to be different by playing the impertinence, while accepting perfectly the rules of the game of a system which they want to ensure that it makes them exist. In short, watchdogs who would like to see themselves as whistleblowers. 

Alexandre Penasse

Read more "

When the watchdogs of journalism were playing « alternative

We never considered it useful to criticize media that seemed closer to us than those commonly called « mainstream ». If we refused to name them explicitly and to critically address their editorial line, we did not prevent ourselves in some of our analyses from situating this so-called « alternative », « independent » or « inclusive » press. It’s time to take stock. 

If so-called alternative publications, or even « slow press », which comment on the world, sometimes do interesting journalistic work, there remains something contradictory, even insoluble in the very idea of doing something else: how indeed to coexist peacefully alongside the mass press without criticizing it? How to work in both, without experiencing dissonance[note], but also without being disturbed by the dominant media that contribute to part of their income? 

The explanation is not complicated. The coexistence is quite serene because this alternative press does not oppose the mass press, but is part of its continuity. It is not surprising that she is invited on the sets of La Première the day before the publication of a new issue or that the media networks, in general, are open to them. The price to pay is silence on a number of issues, with an obligatory and tacit omerta on the one they cannot address on pain of anathema and dismissal: criticism of the media[note].

The alternative press is thus a convenient catch-all, especially for those who want to ride the wave and set themselves up as a new troublemaker. Lacking a certain form of action, stuck in an editorial office at the beck and call of the government, the subject is annoyed, but can also feel targeted by the growing criticism of the mainstream media. In short, a remedy must be found. What better way then, to get back on track and still support the dominant media that employs us, than to launch into the « alternative press ». Yes! Dealing with scandals, investigating, snooping in the political world and making relays (who knows, there may be a future commitment), it is indeed exhilarating. The media scandal machine is well broken in, and one can thus enjoy both the cake and the eat it: on the one hand, one produces formatted information, on the other hand, one pretends to deviate from it by denouncing; on the one hand, one accepts censorship, serenely, knowing obviously that one cannot say everything, on the other hand, one hovers on the cloud of dissent, ready to dismantle all the cabals, embezzlements and traffics of all kinds that will not fail to come up, again and again. 

The problem is that both sides are happily flouting what is at the foundation of press freedom and the work of the journalist: « rrespect the truth, regardless of the consequences to himself, because of the public’s right to know the truth « (Munich Charter). To make it a real fourth power, and thus to analyze, describe, denounce the functioning of the structures of domination, of which the mass media are part. But it’s hard to go to the Gala of the Association of Professional Journalists with all the top brass of journalism installed, to hold after an editorial board where we criticize those who have just fed us and showered us with petits fours and champagne. 

The reaction to the censorship that Kairos is subjected to plays as a revelation of the true face of those who claim to be different, highlighting that it is only a mask they are wearing and that they are in fact the same. In general, they took a silent position, even when explicitly asked to react[note]. It is only in the course of a letter of indignation from one of our readers addressed to the so-called alternative newspaper, that the answer of the latter — identical to a speaker of RTL or an editorialist of Le Soir or La Libre — which he transmitted to us, explicitly revealed on which side he leans: that of power, of continuity, which ensures the « career »: 

We were prevented for 9 months from entering a press conference after the « politically biased question » to the Prime Minister[note]. Then, with the help of an attorney and with perseverance, we were able to get back to it on November 27, 2020. That day, the government control room will cut off my question in the middle of a live broadcast. Since then, my press card has been withdrawn, as well as my subsidies, following a new condition arbitrarily decided by Minister Linard. To declare that complaining and denouncing this situation is victimization and conspiracy, reveals the true role of these new media: to pretend to be different by playing the impertinence, while accepting perfectly the rules of the game of a system which they want to ensure that it makes them exist. In short, watchdogs who would like to see themselves as whistleblowers. 

Alexandre Penasse

Read more "


« The elite’s hold on the media and the marginalization of dissenters flows so naturally from the very operation of these filters[note] that media people, who often work with integrity and good faith, can convince themselves that they are choosing and interpreting information « objectively » on the basis of strictly professional values. They are indeed often objective, but within the limits imposed by the operation of these filters.. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, The Manufacture of Consent[note].

Following the white card  » Citizen journalism does not exist »[note], we had proposed with other free media, a response to the daily (see p.10–11). We thought we had the right to denounce what were for us shortcuts and reflected the positions of the intelligentsia, purely conformist points of view that eluded the reality of free journalism and its true raison d’être. 


The letter was sent to the editor of the « debates » service on October 6. On the 7th, she answered us: 

« Good morning, sir, 

Thank you for your suggestion. Due to various factors (including what has already been said in our columns and what is in preparation for our column and the rest of the newspaper), we will not be able to publish your text. 

Have a great weekend, 

Monique Baus  »

The answer arrives, the one we expected, but that in a paradoxical way we did not expect (which must also question us on the meaning of our interventions, on what we really are and want[note]). No way for us to express ourselves, to answer where André Linard, former director of the CDJ, has the space to attack in a few lines the reason of our struggles. Our right of reply, by a collective of free media (Zin TV, Kairos, Krasniy, Radio Panik…) is, without « explanations », refused. Bam! The sentence was passed. No great surprise then, although always a form of feeling of injustice mixed with a form of surprise a little feigned, a little true… It is indeed always so big, strong, violent. 

But all this is also rich in teaching, demonstrating to what extent the media shape our perception of the world and that, to change this world, it will be necessary to bring down this journalism which formulates the minds. 


I decide to call Mrs. Baus, responsible for the « debates » service at La Libre. 

« I have a number of boxes to fill with a number of texts. Responsible for the « Debate Service » of La Libre. 

- Kairos Hello, Mrs Baus? 

- Mrs. Baus — Yes. 

- Alexandre Penasse, editor-in-chief of Kairos newspaper . I have just learned of the refusal to publish the carte blanche and I would have liked, if possible, to have an explanation? 

- Well, the explanation was in the email: there is a choice to be made, I have less space than proposed texts and in the choice… here it is! 

- But we can offer you something shorter for next week . 

- No, it’s not about the length, it’s really about the choice. If you want to come back next week, but I don’t guarantee that… 

- Wait, a question of… I don’t understand, he’s… 

- Of length… 

- Is it too long ? 

- No, not at all. 

- I don’t understand then . 

- No, it’s not a question of length, it’s a question of choice, uh… I have, I have a certain number of boxes to fill with a certain number of texts: I have more texts than boxes, and there are certain texts that don’t fit, and here’s the one we decided that… 

- It has nothing to do with the substance of the article, I ‘m sure… 

- No doubt… 

- « Probably » what, that it has nothing to do with it? 

- Yes.

- Doesn ‘t the text bother you at all? 

- But you want to… I hear what you’re saying, but there’s no point in making insinuations like that over the phone. That’s not going to get the text through, you understand. 

- These are not insinuations, but I think that this is the problem. In any case, we will broadcast your refusal all over the place, it is obvious. 

« Is this concentration of the media in the hands of those who already concentrate the wealth as devoid of consequences for information as they say? » S. Halimi, p.56

- But this is not a refusal! It is that one cannot publish all in a newspaper where there are… we receive forty texts… 

- So you tell me « look, it’s not going to be for Friday, Monday or Tuesday, but we’ll publish it another day, it’s still relevant… », but don’t tell me that … 

- No, no, ah no, no, no, it’s not topical because it’s a reaction to something that was written the week before, so no it doesn’t stay current (sic). This is not true. 

- But the subject is still… Linard’s white card, it’s on your site, the person can very well find that and most people who are going to see our answer will go and review the original white card. I don’t understand. 

- Well, listen, I don’t have anything else to tell you. I take care of the paper pages, so I don’t take care of the site. What is published on the site or not is not my responsibility. And so I tell you, I have ten pitches a week and I can’t publish everything I get. We have to make choices. We have to make choices every week and we have to clean up as we go along, I can’t let the pile of texts I have here on my desk swell up only to have 150 more on hold… 

- Are you the one who decides on your own? 

- No, not alone. 

- So it’s just a technical problem? 

- Come on (she blows), okay. Well, yes, it’s just a technical problem… 


Following this, we called Jean-François Dumont[note]who has been a print journalist for 26 years, deputy editor-in-chief of the weekly newspaper Le Monde, and assistant secretary general of the Association of Professional Journalists (AJP). Vif/L’ExpressHe has taught journalism for 20 years at UCL and teaches at IHECS (for the Master in Media Education) and at the University of Burundi. He is a member of the Council for Journalistic Ethics (CDJ) and the Higher Council for Media Education (CSEM). The character is thus well anchored in the environment. 

Originally, it was called for the famous AJP Gala, the one where the pundits of the profession meet[note]. We want to see what happens there, what is said there, who are the friends of those who are supposed to protect the profession of journalists, and who meet them and the students during their  » tour in Wallonia and Brussels » , in the premises of IPM, Belga, Rossel, RTL-TVI[note]…

The discussion with Jean-François Dumont begins on the importance for us, at Kairos, of free, citizen journalism and the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of making a living from it. The dissonances, contradictions, are rich in interest; the way he represents and presents, following the example of André Linard, alternative journalism: a kind of organization on the bangs of the mainstream media that would provide the mass press with some content and would sometimes influence it a little by a little reminder, but not too deep, soft and always on the surface, without ever, oh no, ever, questioning the media industry and the big fortunes that own them: « this is real life. Even if we can deplore it »… 

Jean-François Dumont (…) There are things that are becoming more flexible, but it is true that we are not yet at the point of saying that a volunteer can be recognized as a professional, which would send a strong message to employers by saying  » You know, it doesn’t matter, if you don’t pay your people, they will still be recognized as journalists in our country.  » (…) We don’t want to get the message across that journalism is an activity that doesn’t necessarily pay. It’s a profession, it’s a job, it pays. 

- Kairos: yes, but precisely, when you make an alternative, free, dissident press, the reality is that you almost can’t afford (…) 

- We do not want to devalue, to demonetize the value of a professional service (…) 

- One more thing: which is worse, doing volunteer work without getting money from advertising or getting paid by advertising? 

- Wow… what’s that supposed to mean? You mean that if the media company is paid by advertising, the journalists are sold out to advertisers, is that what you are suggesting? We’re going to have a symposium on this one day if you want (laughs)

- We have a conference whenever you want… Accardo, Chomsky, Halimi have written a lot about this already. 

- Yes, I know, but we’re not going to stay in the fantasy either at this level; even if there are sometimes sulphurous links between information and advertising, we’re not at all… I don’t know if you’ve ever worked in a real editorial office? 

- No, but we can send you interns to real newsrooms. I work in a real editorial office, that’s our newspaper. 

- I say « real editorial staff » of a press that lives on advertising. I have 26 years of presence in these editorial offices, I never knew which advertiser was in my pages the next day. And none of my colleagues knew. And I had no instructions to say,  » We don’t say anything bad about so-and-so. But there are exceptions, which I am ready to acknowledge and which I have experienced too. 

« It is the advertisers’ preferences that determine the prosperity and even the survival of a media. Chomsky and Edward, p.47

- In any case, we notice that there are things that are not covered in the press, but hey … 

- But of course, of course. 

- And that Kairos is not too much appreciated by the mass press which does not relay us; we do not seek that, since precisely we exist because they do not make their job, but they avoid us nevertheless largely . 

- On the other hand, for communication people, you are surprisingly discreet. I met Kairos last year at the Namur show. 

- We are not surprisingly discreet, we just don’t have the networks of others . 

- Did you ever send a copy of Kairos to the traditional editorial offices, to be read, to be picked up, to be talked about? 

- To send a Kairos to La Libre or Le Soir or La DH, is that what you mean? * 

- Yes, of course, to the people who deal with the media. 

- Well, I’ll make a bet with you that we send it and there will be no response . 

- Not immediately, but of course when Bernard Hennebert or others were doing entry into the editorial offices, well, here was someone who got to the point of having full pages on him. You shouldn’t complain about never being quoted if you never come out of your den. 

« How did the information professional imagine that an industrialist was going to buy a means of influence while refraining from influencing its direction? Serge Halimi, p. 69 

- Oh no, I’m not complaining about not being quoted, I’m telling you that when I do a file on the links between the mass media and the biggest Belgian fortunes[note]I don’t think that Le Soir and Mr. Marchant and Mrs. Delvaux are saying to themselves: « Here, we’ll relay it ». Let’s not be naive, frankly, we have to stop. 

- No, indeed, especially if you also mention people from the Hurbain family and company. 

« Under the double pressure of capitalist concentration and commercial competition favoring conformism and stupidity, journalism has become almost everywhere: hollow and reverential. S. Halimi, p. 29 

— Ah, the Hurbain family, Belgium’s number one fortune? 

- We know how the media works, obviously there is a kind of… 

when I was at La Libre Belgique, I didn’t learn what was going on with them by reading Le Soir and I didn’t learn what was going on with IPM by reading Le Soir. And that’s real life, even if we can deplore it. And that’s why it’s interesting that there are alternative media. But at the same time, there are alternative media that do a job that ends up infiltrating, giving stories and information to non-alternative media. 

« Surveys consistently indicate that the public — while they listen and watch what is offered — would like more news, documentaries and different information, less sex and violence and a different kind of entertainment. It seems unlikely that citizens would really care why their incomes are stagnant or even declining while they work harder and harder; why the medical care they have access to is as expensive as it is poor; or whether they are unaware of what may be perpetrated in their name around the world. If they are so unaware of such issues, the propaganda model explains why: those who exercise sovereignty over the media have decided not to address such issues. » Chomsky and Edwards, p.96


It is obvious that the watchdogs of the dominant order, these well-meaning journalists who try to make us believe that they are free, whereas they are free within the framework that they are given and that they accept to give themselves, that of the « real life », feel that the wind is beginning to change. More and more citizens are turning away from media that are subject to big business and that consider them primarily as consumers, secondarily as readers whose duty it is to tell them what is important. 

They say they offer an agora. Yes, but with an entrance fee! 

* ACTION OF THE MONTH: Contact La Libre, La Dernière Heure, Le Soir, send them your Kairos, the address of the site… you will be surprised to see what we say here confirmed…

Read more "

What lessons for the future can I draw from 20 years of degrowth?

À la suite de la lecture du livre de Nicholas Georgescu, Demain la décroissance : entropie-écologie-économie (1979), nous avons imaginé, Bruno Clémentin et moi, le concept de « décroissance soutenable ». C’était en juillet 2001. Nous ne reviendrons pas ici sur la suite. Si les débats au sein du mouvement de la décroissance sont vitaux, en revanche, ressasser le passé m’exaspère autant que ceux qui passent leur temps à réécrire l’histoire ou ceux qui se passionnent pour les querelles des micros-chapelles de décroissants. Ce qui nous a toujours intéressés est d’être tournés vers tous. C’est la raison d’être du journal La Décroissance et de sa diffusion en kiosque. Qu’en est-il 20 ans plus tard ? Ma première observation est que le mot décroissance n’a plus aujourd’hui la même force d’interpellation dans la société. S’il reste le « mot épouvantail » par excellence, une insulte dont s’accusent mutuellement tous les politicards, les coups de ce « mot bélier » pour faire une brèche dans la forteresse où s’est claquemurée la société de la croissance sont moins percutants. En 2 décennies, le mot s’est répandu, aidé par la réalité des crises. C’est aussi le signe paradoxal de sa victoire : son imprégnation se mesure à l’aune de son affaiblissement « perforatif » ! Cruelle conclusion pour les décroissants qui s’illusionnent en voyant dans l’effondrement l’occasion de réaliser leur fantasme de domination, aux misanthropes et vaniteux qui ânonnent : « Bien fait on vous l’avait bien dit ! » 

Mais c’est bien le propre de la décroissance que de reposer sur une série de paradoxes. Le premier d’entre eux est de réaffirmer à la suite d’Ivan Illich que le seul sentiment de toute puissance infantile peut nous laisser penser que nous avons une prise totale sur la marche de l’histoire humaine. Que « tout est politique ». Et que c’est justement cette toute-puissance qui nous a en grande partie conduits à l’effondrement écologique et humain. Au contraire, la décroissance invite à une certaine humilité. Sans cette dernière, impossible de transformer au mieux le monde. C’est en comprenant ma faiblesse que je deviens fort. Il faudrait être fou pour penser qu’en écrivant ces lignes derrière mon écran je puisse sauver le monde. Seulement puis-je peut-être lutter contre ceux qui croient véritablement pouvoir le sauver comme le directeur du WWF France qui au nom de l’écologie, la fin justifiant les moyens, légitime l’instauration d’un pass climatique sur le modèle du pass vaccinal[note]. 

Pour répondre à l’invitation de nos amis de Kairos, je voudrais saisir cette opportunité pour évoquer ce qui constitue pour moi LE grand « non-dit » de la décroissance. Il est des choses tellement énormes qu’on ne les voit plus. Pour l’exprimer, je vais m’appuyer sur une sortie de Thierry Ardisson. Nous n’insisterons jamais assez sur l’idée, surtout en ces temps de submersion par la propagande, que la vérité d’où qu’elle vienne reste la vérité. « Même au Diable il arrive de dire des vérités. Il ne faut pas sottement condamner des paroles à cause de celui qui les prononce » soulignait Saint Clément d’Alexandrie[note]. L’animateur de télé poubelle affirmait donc : « Fondamentalement, l’écologie et le capitalisme sont antinomiques. Le premier est synonyme de décroissance, et l’autre de croissance[note]. » Cet éclair de lucidité (lié à la cocaïne ?) exprime à mon sens le cœur de la problématique écologique, et plus profondément celle de la condition humaine. Elle sera la clé de voûte de ma réflexion. 

Giorgio Pratolongo


Pour survivre, comme individu et comme société, nous devons « disperser un maximum d’énergie ». Je renvoie pour une explication scientifique aux travaux de l’astrophysicien François Roddier[note]. Pour l’exprimer simplement, à titre individuel, pour avoir le maximum de chance de se reproduire, l’homme doit montrer sa capacité à disperser de l’énergie. L’argent, une Porsche ou un diamant ont cette fonction symbolique. Face à ses concurrents, l’homme démontre à la femme qu’il est « plein d’énergie », et qu’avec lui, elle sera en sécurité pour se reproduire. Ce qui est parfaitement légitime de la part de cette dernière alors qu’elle est, face à lui, en situation de faiblesse dans la nature ; c’est elle qui porte le bébé et les seins pour l’allaiter. Je vois ton sourire cher lecteur. Car, bien entendu, cette réflexion simplissime, qui semble tirée de la sociologie désespérée d’un ado, ne peut que déclencher une réflexion gênée de la part de la majeure partie d’un auditoire. Mais il est des évidences tellement énormes qu’il est quasiment impossible pour toute une partie d’entre nous de les entendre énoncer. D’où les réactions de parler sur le locuteur pour qu’il arrête le supplice, la récusation moqueuse… Ce renvoi aux fonctions archaïques de notre condition ne peut en effet qu’atteindre l’image magnifiée que nous avons de nous-mêmes. Il n’empêche que ces réactions peuvent être parfois utiles, voire salutaires. Toutes les vérités ne sont pas toujours bonnes à dire ; le vrai ne se confond pas toujours avec le bien. 

Cette contrainte à la dispersion d’un maximum d’énergie est tout autant valable comme groupe humain : pour survivre dans la guerre économique, comme dans les guerres tout court d’ailleurs, il faut disperser un maximum d’énergie, c’est-à-dire… mener des politiques de croissance c’est-à-dire accroître sans cesse la production de biens et de services. À cette fin, il faut faire tomber tout ce qui l’entrave. L’application politique en est l’idéologie libérale et son double mouvement bien mis en lumière par Jean-Claude Michéa : « Le libéralisme économique intégral (officiellement défendu par la droite) porte en lui la révolution permanente des mœurs (officiellement défendue par la gauche), tout comme cette dernière exige, à son tour, la libération totale du marché. » Nous sommes ainsi progressivement plongés dans des sociétés dont le fondement devient le refoulement, la transgression et la destruction de toute limite. Bien évidemment les idéologues du libéralisme-libertaire pensent développer une philosophie alors qu’ils ne font que prêcher l’application des lois de la biophysique au politique ; en gros la loi du plus fort ; « struggle for life » ; la loi de la jungle. Ce discours trouve sa légitimité selon lequel son refus ne peut conduire qu’à se faire dévorer. Et les quelques niches qui seront invariablement citées en contre-exemple n’invalident bien sûr pas ce principe général. 

On ne lit jamais ses contradicteurs, même ceux qui semblent les plus claquemurés dans un esprit de système qui les conduit à ne pas supporter la moindre contradiction. Ainsi le chantage des techno-prophètes du transhumanisme est invariable : si nous n’acceptons pas de franchir certaines barrières éthiques, d’autres, moins à cheval que nous sur les principes, s’y livreront allègrement et nous dévoreront. Dans ma jeunesse, c’était déjà la moquerie adressée au ministre de la défense mitterrandien, Charles Hernu (1923–1990). Pour légitimer les exportations d’armes d’un gouvernement de gauche, il rétorquait par la sentence : « Si ce n’est pas moi qui le fais, ce sera alors un salaud de droite ». C’est tout le sens du chantage permanent de Messieurs Luc Ferry ou Laurent Alexandre : « Les progrès en neurosciences, explique ce dernier, posent la question philosophique de ce qui fait la spécificité de l’humanité en abolissant deux limites réputées infranchissables : celle qui nous sépare des animaux, avec le neuroenhancement, c’est-à-dire l’amélioration cognitive, et celle qui nous distingue des machines, avec l’IA [l’intelligence artificielle]. (…) Peut-on laisser les Chinois fabriquer des chimères homme-singe ou faut-il protester vigoureusement ? En réalité, les transhumanistes chinois hausseront les épaules si nous réagissons[note]. »L’idée que la liberté de conscience nous oblige à discerner le bien du mal, le vrai du faux et le beau du laid, fait sourire notre esprit utilitariste. Selon sa formule, le cerveau n’est qu’un « ordinateur fait de chair ». La menace de tous les Laurent Alexandre est donc claire : « Si nous ne réagissons pas, nous allons finir comme une colonie technologique dans les mains des géants du numérique sino-américains[note] ». Leur conclusion est implacable ; abolir le reste des vieilles barrières morales qui entravent notre marche vers le Progrès est une urgence pour survivre dans la compétition mondiale. Ce chantage des transhumanistes peut nous paraître odieux, mais il contient sa part de vérité. Car l’enjeu essentiel, essentialiste, est bien là : jusqu’où sommes-nous prêts à aller pour survivre dans la compétition mondiale ? 


De l’autre côté, pour sauvegarder son environnement, l’humain doit donc faire exactement l’inverse, c’est-à-dire « disperser un minimum d’énergie ». Même quand on se défonce dans un champ avec une bêche pour ne pas avoir recours à un motoculteur, c’en est bien le sens. Il s’agit bien ici de se poser des limites. À tel point qu’une des formules les plus célèbres de Freud est que « la conscience est la conséquence du renoncement aux pulsions. » Selon le père de la psychanalyse, plus le niveau de société est élevé, plus l’individu accepte de contraintes. Mais la conséquence en est l’augmentation des névroses. Nous l’observons tous : les individus très cérébraux que nous croisons dans le monde intellectuel ont la tendance naturelle à négliger ce qui relève de la matérialité, de vivre « dans leur nuage ». Comme la tendance inverse existe au moins autant. 


Même si nous ne le théorisons pas, nous sommes bien plongés dans ce dilemme, peinant à tenir les deux bouts. Nous observons de manière aiguë actuellement cette contradiction : pour faire face à la pénurie énergétique et « sauver le climat », des instances gouvernementales nous enjoignent à réduire d’urgence notre consommation[note], mais d’un autre côté, le Gouvernement est totalement effrayé par cette perspective. Il s’agit au contraire pour lui que la consommation énergie (donc sa dissipation) soit maximale pour survivre dans la guerre économique. Dans sa Lettre aux Français du 3 mars 2022, le Président de la République indiquait : « Pour ne pas nous laisser imposer par d’autres les technologies qui rythmeront demain notre quotidien, il nous faudra aussi continuer d’investir dans notre innovation et notre recherche afin de placer la France en tête dans les secteurs qui, comme les énergies renouvelables, le nucléaire, les batteries, l’agriculture, le numérique, ou le spatial feront le futur et nous permettront de devenir une grande Nation écologique, celle qui la première sera sortie de la dépendance au gaz, au pétrole et au charbon. » Ici, bien paradoxalement encore, l’écologie sert de prétexte de relance à l’expansion maximale. 

D’où la contradiction qui s’exprime quand l’État tente de nous rassurer en affirmant, à travers son Agence de l’environnement et de la maîtrise de l’énergie (ADEME), que « la sobriété n’est pas synonyme de décroissance » (22 mars 2022). On aboutit ici à une « double injonction matrice de la folie alors qu’au contraire nous devrions intégrer raisonnablement le principe de cette tension contradictoire. Cette dialectique est à l’image de notre condition humaine : sans réponse définitive. Nous sommes donc condamnés à chercher perpétuellement un équilibre. Face à cette difficulté la tentation permanente est l’« esprit de système ». Il consiste à refuser l’altérité du monde ; à ne juger que la thèse recevable et en diaboliser parallèlement l’antithèse. La première est assimilée au Bien comme la seconde au Mal. L’argumentaire récurrent pour défendre cette idée fermée, à nouveau bien paradoxal, est le refus du « dualisme ». Mais cet esprit de système conduit inéluctablement au monisme, c’est-à-dire à un monde indifférencié. 

Face à l’esprit du temps, soyons punk et tendons le bâton pour nous faire battre : citons la Bible. Dans la Lettre de Saint-Paul aux Corinthiens, l’apôtre dit : « Frères, j’aimerais vous voir libres de tout souci. Celui qui n’est pas marié a le souci des affaires du Seigneur, il cherche comment plaire au Seigneur. Celui qui est marié a le souci des affaires de ce monde, il cherche comment plaire à sa femme et il se trouve divisé. La femme sans mari, ou celle qui reste vierge, a le souci des affaires du Seigneur, afin d’être sanctifiée dans son corps et son esprit. Celle qui est mariée a le souci des affaires de ce monde, elle cherche comment plaire à son mari. C’est dans votre intérêt que je dis cela ; ce n’est pas pour vous tendre un piège, mais pour vous proposer ce qui est bien, afin que vous soyez attachés au Seigneur sans partage. » C’est bien ce dilemme premier qui est exprimé ; celui entre la nature et la liberté. La liberté entendue, non pas comme droit de faire n’importe quoi, mais responsabilité de discerner et choisir. La nature entendue ici, elle, comme le « capitalisme », c’est-à-dire dans le sens de la compétition pour la survie[note]. Nul n’échappe à la compétition entre les êtres humains et les plus dupes sont ceux qui le nient selon la loi psychologique de base selon laquelle on mesure le degré d’aliénation d’un individu à son illusion de liberté. Même dans les groupes les plus collaboratifs les hommes sont en concurrence pour s’attribuer les belles femmes. C’est la loi archaïque fondamentale de notre condition humaine. Pour nous reproduire, nous sommes en compétition, quel que soit le régime politique. Cette compétition archaïque, je vais l’assimiler ici à une forme de capitalisme anthropologique. Je la distinguerais de l’autre signification du capitalisme, que je combats naturellement : celui d’une société inversée où la loi de l’argent est première. C’est là le combat premier de la décroissance qui motive tout mon engagement. 

Toute l’œuvre de Bernard Charbonneau est traversée par l’intégration de cette dialectique : « D’un côté le constat de la nécessité, de l’autre l’idéal de liberté qui pousse à la refuser pour s’humaniser. Pourtant, à elle seule, la réalité n’a aucun sens, de même que l’idéal s’il est irréalisable. » Je recommande particulièrement sur ce sujet son chef‑d’œuvre littéraire Je fus (1950) : « Donc, en tous domaines, le devoir fondamental est de supporter la déchirure qui nous travaille. Si en nous l’esprit s’est enfin distingué de la matière, c’est parce qu’il tend à s’y incarner. L’idéal et le réel ne sont que les deux termes d’un seul ensemble dont chacun est l’arbitre. » Je fais totalement mienne la conclusion de ce géant précurseur de la décroissance : « L’écologie […] ne défend pas la nature ou la liberté, comme serait tenté de le faire sa droite naturaliste ou sa gauche gauchiste, mais la nature et la liberté. Ce paradoxe qui fait sa richesse et sa vie lui interdit de se fixer en idéologie[note]. » 

C’est ce que j’aimerais transmettre aux jeunes qui prennent la suite et le relais pour défendre la décroissance. Le pire serait qu’elle devienne une forme d’obscurantisme, comme l’est actuellement l’idéologie de la croissance, le scientisme, le libéralisme ; la société de l’illimité dans tous les domaines, l’économie, la culture ou les mœurs. C’est-à-dire un fondamentalisme qui n’accepte pas sa contradiction. 

Avant d’être une philosophie politique reposant sur l’idée de « moins mais mieux », de « Lentius, suavis, profondius », la décroissance est donc une invitation au débat, à la dialectique, à penser que si des fois nous avons besoin de « plus », le moins est tout aussi légitime à rappeler, a priori dans notre contexte de pays riche surdéveloppé. Rien ne m’effraye davantage que d’entendre la décroissance instrumentalisée par des démagogues promettant le beurre, l’argent du revenu inconditionnel et le sourire du dealer de cannabis. La démagogie est toujours le masque aguichant du séducteur pervers qui cherche la domination. Aussi, avant de promouvoir la décroissance, nous devrions commencer par nous forcer à trouver et défendre les bons arguments en faveur de la croissance. Et le jour où la décroissance sera aussi omniprésente que la croissance dans les médias, imaginer monter un journal au nom de cette dernière. On a encore de la marge ! 

Je vais faire de la publicité au roman (excellent) de mon frère Denis, Tu crèveras comme les autres[note]. Dans son Road book apocalyptique, il y décrit un héros qui abandonne petit à petit tous ses principes pour survivre. Il délaisse progressivement sa liberté au profit de la nature. Il perd son âme au fur et à mesure qu’il sauve sa peau. Il renonce à ce qui spécifie son humanité pour se transformer en fauve. Il choisit d’être un mort-vivant plutôt qu’un vivant mort. 

Voilà le questionnement auquel nous renvoie la véritable décroissance, pas à celui de promettre aux gogos de sauver le monde contre leur vote. Le destin de la décroissance donc est bien celui-là : accepter d’être du « parti des perdants », c’est-à-dire de ceux qui ne sont pas prêts à renoncer à la morale pour survivre. Faut-il s’en décevoir ? Non. D’abord ce serait une preuve de folie que de promettre de sauver le monde, même si bien évidemment toutes les améliorations sont essentielles à mettre en œuvre. Ensuite, et à condition d’appliquer cette volonté, tenter de sauver la liberté est un but plus sage donc plus grand que celui de sauver la nature. « Un homme n’est libre, écrit Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine, debout et donc Vivant, au sens fort du terme, que s’il consent à se demander pourquoi – pour quels principes, quels idéaux, quel bien supérieur – il serait prêt, le cas échéant, à engager sa vie et à risquer un peu sa sacro-sainte santé. À moins, nous sommes déjà morts. N’est sacré, en cela, que ce pour quoi on serait éventuellement prêt à sacrifier et à se sacrifier, donc à surmonter notre asservissement au vivre pour vivre. Tout ce qui est grand en l’homme dérive de cette disposition d’âme[note] ». 

Vincent Cheynet, fondateur du journal La Décroissance 

Refaire la Cité, sans eux…

C’est Jaime Semprun qui avait inversé la phrase « Quel monde allons-nous laisser à nos enfants » par « Quels enfants allonsnous laisser à notre monde ». Il avait au fond raison. À demeurer à genoux, nous demeurons des esclaves, laissant les puissants debout. Ce n’est pas nouveau, nous avons troqué depuis longtemps notre liberté contre centres commerciaux et vacances en avion et accepté de sacrifier nos vies dans des bullshit job dans l’illusoire attente d’une pension à 67 ans. À ceux qui me disent d’aller voir en Corée du Nord lorsque je leur dis que nous ne sommes pas en démocratie, je rétorque qu’il y a différents niveaux de dictature, dépendant de la longueur de laisse que le pouvoir daigne nous accorder pour autant que nous le laissions tranquille. La répression féroce des Gilets Jaunes en constitue la preuve : ceux qui remettront en cause le pouvoir central seront réprimés sans vergogne. De même, ceux qui nous demandent d’aller voir en Corée du Nord acceptent sans broncher que, dans leur pays, on suspende des soignants qui refusent de se faire injecter un produit expérimental. D’autres se font piquer pour aller au cinéma ou une semaine en All inclusive, alors qu’ils n’avaient aucun risque de mourir du Covid. Soit, ce monde était malade bien avant mars 2020 et ses sujets atomisés prêts à accepter tout ce que l’État central allait leur demander. Soumission à l’autorité et conformisme constituaient déjà les attitudes principales de nos sociétés désunies. Il faudra donc se ré-unir, mais à certaines conditions, dont les deux plus importantes sont de sortir du spectacle dans lequel on a été plongé, et de ne plus croire que ceux qui nous dirigent nous veulent du bien. Les politiques ont laissé la misère se répandre, favorisé des écarts de richesse ignobles, détruit la nature. Peut-on alors s’étonner qu’ils aient unanimement appliqué les règles du Forum de Davos et de Mc Kinsey ? Ils n’ont donc aucune légitimité. Parler d’eux et jouer dans le spectacle médiatique de leur fausse différence, c’est déjà leur donner du crédit. Attendre que le changement vienne d’eux nous assure la continuité du pire. Comme disait Coluche avec intelligence, si voter changeait quelque chose, cela fait longtemps que ce serait interdit. Il ne nous reste donc qu’à désobéir, dire non, ne pas se laisser hypnotiser par les fausses luttes, ces palliatifs qui nous endorment en accompagnant le système , s’unir au-delà de désaccords de surface, accepter que l’on perdra en confort matériel pour mieux nous retrouver. C’est sans doute la dernière chance. * 

Alexandre Penasse 

* Allocation faite dans le cadre du Mégathon. 

Read more "

Terre-en-vue: 10 years of reconquest

Tout comme Kairos, la coopérative Terre-en-vue fête ces jours-ci son dixième anniversaire. Dix ans, dans ces temps de mémoire ultra-courte, ça remonte presque à Mathusalem…Nous avons donc voulu savoir ce qu’est devenu ce nouveau-né… 

Annie Thonon : Expliquez-nous ce qu’est Terre en vue (TEV) … 

Zoé Gallez, coordination : Le cœur de Terre en vue c’est de promouvoir des projets agro-écologiques[note] et de soutenir l’accès à la terre des petits et moyens agriculteurs. Concrètement, TEV acquiert des terres agricoles au moyen de l’épargne citoyenne via la coopérative et loue les terres aux agriculteurs et agricultrices. 

C’est toujours loué ? 

Toujours. Avec l’objectif de changer aussi les mentalités en terme de propriété foncière. Faut-il encourager la propriété alors que la terre nourricière devrait appartenir à tous, être un bien commun ? 

Quels sont les problèmes particuliers du foncier, pourquoi cette envolée des prix ? 

Le problème de base du foncier est que l’on se trouve devant deux marchés : le marché acquisitif, l’achat de terres, et le marché locatif. Dans notre économie libérale, l’achat de terre est par définition complètement libre, absolument pas régulé, sans transparence : tout le monde peut acheter, particuliers , multinationales, agro-industriels belges et étrangers, fonds de pension, spéculateurs… En dix ans, le prix moyen des terres agricoles a été multiplié par quatre, de 7.000€ à 30.000€ à l’hectare dans certaines régions, et parfois même plus… ; ce sont des prix totalement déconnectés du revenu des agriculteurs et des prix alimentaires qui, heureusement, n’ont pas été multipliés par trois ! Un fermier ne peut plus se dire : « Je vais emprunter pour acheter une terre et rembourser les banques avec mon travail. » 

Cette explosion du prix des terres est liée à des facteurs supplémentaires : l’urbanisation, l’extension et la création de zonings, la PAC[note] qui donne des aides liées à l’hectare et donc encourage les grosses structures, les usages de la terre plus rentables que la production alimentaire (cf la monoculture des sapins de Noël pour l’exportation, la culture pour l’énergie, le maïs pour biométhanisation, l’élevage de chevaux pour des loisirs, etc…),. 

La philosophie de TEV est en désaccord total… Pour nous, le statut nourricier de la terre doit être protégé et en rapport avec la population belge : on doit nourrir onze millions d’habitants, il faut réserver un territoire suffisant destiné à l’alimentation produite localement. 

Le marché locatif, lui, est très régulé par le bail à ferme réformé en 2019 selon trois grands principes : 

1°  le loyer plafonné est calculé sur la base du revenu des agriculteurs ;2°  le bail garantit la liberté de culture sur les terres, en respectant bien sûr les règles environnementales, sanitaires, la lutte contre l’érosion, etc, et le fermier doit gérer sa terre « en bon père de famille » ;3° Après 36 ans, le bail peut être reconduit ou arrêté, le propriétaire peut récupérer sa terre et la proposer au prix qu’il veut au marché libre… 

Une terre libre de bail a donc beaucoup plus de valeur financière et incite les propriétaires à ne pas renouveler le bail. C’est l’effet pervers d’une réforme du marché locatif sans toucher au marché acquisitif. Bien que les pouvoirs publics aient été très peu présents dans les négociations, une prise de conscience émerge petit à petit, notamment par nos actions et nos plaidoyers. La Région Wallonne a mis en place depuis 2017 un observatoire du foncier. Les notaires doivent communiquer le prix de toutes les ventes à la Région qui fait un rapport annuel sur l’évolution des prix : on a des données objectives, mais pas de mesures prises, ni envisagées. Nous plaidons pour une régulation du marché des terres et une protection du statut nourricier des terres. 

Quel est votre rayonnement aujourd’hui ? 

De plus en plus d’agriculteurs s’adressent à nous, souvent parce qu’ils sont dans la même philosophie de transition agro-écologique, mais aussi parce qu’ils se posent des questions sur l’état de crise actuelle. Il est grand temps de changer notre regard sur l’agriculture et d’agir concrètement pour amorcer une véritable transition. 

TEV soutient actuellement 19 fermes en Région wallonne et à Bruxelles et rassemble plus de 3.700 coopérateurs/investisseurs[note]. Nous avons construit un véritable mouvement citoyen pour la protection des terres nourricières. 

Ainsi, pour chaque acquisition de terre, Terre-en-vue mobilise, en plus du fermier, des pour constituer un « groupe local » autour de la ferme. Les gens réapprennent à connaître les fermes ; il y a des liens qui se créent, entre campagne et ville, consommateurs et agriculteurs C’est là un rôle d’éducation permanente auquel nous tenons beaucoup. . 

TEV et sa communauté se bat contre des géants : les grands groupes agro-industriels, l’agrochimie, des supermarchés qui veulent contrôler toute la chaîne alimentaire, jusqu’au recyclage, le greenwashing…, avec la logique marchande et le profit comme seule motivation et au final le retour des fermiers en ouvriers agricoles, pourquoi pas en moujiks et serfs… Et pourtant, ne suffit-il parfois pas d’un petit tailleur courageux pour en tuer « Sept d’un seul coup » ? Comment donc l’actualité affecte-t-elle TEV ? 

La guerre en Ukraine pose la question des céréales, base de l’alimentation. Conséquence directe pour TEV : des agriculteurs se sont adressés à nous : « On a besoin d’avoir plus de terre, pour être plus autonomes au niveau des céréales ». Ils ont très peur surtout de l’année prochaine avec moins de récoltes en Ukraine et ils sentent qu’ils doivent s’autonomiser plus, lutter contre l’internationalisation, la nourriture n’a pas à voyager de cette manière, en tout cas pour la base. Cela c’est un bon réflexe, bien plus juste que les politiques à court terme comme la suppression des jachères et l’emploi accru de pesticides. 

On a été fort préoccupé parce que les agriculteurs ont été touchés de tous côtés : la facture énergétique explose, le pouvoir d’achat diminue, du coup le secteur bio est en chute, ce qui inquiète fortement les exploitations en transition. Le secteur bio dépend fortement du bon vouloir, de la possibilité d’achat du consommateur. On a dépensé des milliards pour le covid, idem pour le plan de relance, sans parler des dons à l’Ukraine. Dans quelle mesure cet argent n’aurait–il pas été bien plus utile pour soutenir une agriculture responsable ? 

De même, on donne de fausses réponses à la lutte contre le changement climatique, qui est déjà là. Il est complètement aberrant, surréaliste, qu’à la COP26 ni les associations agricoles, ni les ministres de l’agriculture n’aient été présents ! On répète que l’agriculture est un des plus gros contributeurs du changement climatique, mais dépendant de la météo, ils sont aussi les premières victimes et ils ne sont pas à la table des négociations sur les mesures à prendre pour le climat. Par contre, Total, Chevron, BP, les énergies vertes, sont présents et il n’y a donc pas d’équilibre entre la façon de partager les territoires qui devraient d’abord nourrir les gens puis accessoirement fournir un peu d’énergie. 

Autre exemple, le programme européen de stockage de carbone dans les sols dont les bénéfices climatiques réels et à long terme sont constestés, est typiquement une conséquence de la COP26, a été décidé sans l’avis des agriculteurs, sans que les populations soient au courant et qui, comme l’agrivoltaïsme, avec des sociétés de panneaux qui démarchent directement auprès des fermiers, augmentent la pression sur les terres nourricières[note]. 

Pour lutter contre toutes ces mauvaises réponses, TEV, les dix prochaines années se concentrera sur le travail à mener auprès des politiques, des pouvoirs publics. Et on y arrivera, il y aura des améliorations, il le faudra bien… 

Conclusion : 

Terre-en-vue, c’est donc une belle histoire, un conte de fées furtif, subreptice, dans les mensonges actuels qui nous gouvernent avec singes varioleux, ogres mégaloviraux, seringues et piqûres sauvages pour violer des fées comme TEV. 

Pour que les contes de fées se terminent bien dans la vie réelle comme dans les histoires, à nous de nous mobiliser et d’agir pour défendre et perpétuer TEV et d’autres belles histoires . 

Et surtout, n’hésitez pas à nous signaler celles que vous connaissez. 

Propos recueillis par Annie Thonon

Antoine Demant

Read more "

Interview with Alain Escada, president of Civitas Belgium

Kairos Warning:

Since the spring of 2020, after having decreed the general mobilization and used the weapon of fear to try to impose the new sanitary order, the governments have systematically discredited their opponents of all sides. To do this, supported by the vast majority of the so-called mass media, they resort to the techniques developed during the world wars and the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Rather than debate, in an open democratic setting, the merits of their policies, it is easier to anathematize them with supposedly infamous labels. The « traitors to the fatherland », « Judeo-Bolsheviks » and other « capitalist hydras » were followed by invectives against « conspiracy theorists », « supplicants of the extreme right » and other « confusionists ». For the same purpose, the mainstream media uses these vague and catch-all labels to lump together all their opponents. Thus, in demonstrations, the emphasis is always on the few filmed and spectacularly staged images of clashes between a handful of thugs and the police to suggest that the demonstrators are endorsing the violence. In the same way, the few flags brandished by Civitas supporters, who actively participate in the demonstrations, are regularly highlighted by these same media to denounce the supposed infiltration of the Catholic far right. 

Against such an amalgam, Kairos has decided to refuse any a priori ostracism but, on the contrary, to engage in dialogue with Civitas. This is a paradoxical exercise on our part, because although we regularly meet during the big Sunday events, we evolve in very different intellectual and political worlds and, to tell the truth, we hardly know each other. By giving the floor to Alain Escada, the president of Civitas, we try to understand the philosophy and the political positions of this movement, beyond caricatures and prejudices. Such an exchange should allow us to identify our convergences, some of which are due to the same opposition to health dictatorship, but also our fundamental differences, which are very marked, as this interview clearly shows.

After this first debate, Kairos intends to conduct a series of interviews with other components of the opposition to the liberticide measures. It is thus a question of refusing to exclude anyone a priori on the basis of the caricatures and infamous labels of government propaganda, but also, by clarifying our respective positions, to fight against the amalgam of this same propaganda.

Kairos: Hello Alain Escada, you have been president of Civitas since 2012, a movement created in France in 1909. What is your movement? Why and how to defuse insults to him?

Alain Escada: Civitas is a movement whose ambition is to promote traditional Catholic values and to fight against the globalist machine. We have been working on this for several years, starting in France and trying to develop it throughout the French-speaking world. Today, there are Civitas chapters in Belgium, Switzerland and Quebec, soon in Spain. It goes beyond the strictly French-speaking field, the Civitas model is popular in other countries. I think we have a common enemy, globalism, against which many European Catholics believe that we must organize ourselves on an international scale. But, to discredit us, the media prefer to define us…

K: …far right, nationalist?

A. E. : Civitas does not define itself as extreme right wing. On the other hand Catholic, absolutely. On the Belgian scene we have a commentator, a so-called expert appearing in all the media who has a monopoly on saying who is right-wing and who is not, it is Manuel Abramowicz. First of all, we must remember that he is a communist militant since his early youth. It’s a bit like asking a Bayer Monsanto director to say what’s good and not good in terms of food!

K: Just because he’s a communist doesn’t mean he can’t think, right?

A. E.: I’m not saying that he can’t think. I am simply saying that if you start with a personal political prism, then obviously the analysis you produce is not neutral, nor objective, it is militant. He is the media expert…

K: … who criticizes very little, it must be said, the media, because he is included in it.

A. E.: Yes, it is part of it. It should be remembered that for several years he was paid by the Center for Equal Opportunity, an office directly dependent on the Prime Minister’s office. Can we call Abramowicz a rebel? It has a direct link with the State. So obviously, for these people, anyone who challenges the official truth, government policy or globalism is in some way an extremist. And they will systematically try to link all the actors of the protest together to label them as extremists. So these TV set experts have no credibility and are untrustworthy. I assume that I am not a leftist. But I also consider that today the left/right debate is totally outdated. We need to break down all these old patterns that date back to the 18th century. Today, the only thing that can frighten the powers that be is precisely that all the actors of the rebellion against this New World Order have the intelligence to talk to each other, to collaborate and to converge against a common enemy. If the popular protest succeeds in bringing together people from Civitas, people very much to the left, independents, workers, unemployed people, veiled mothers and African students, then the authorities will tremble!

K: We would be in a vertical struggle rather than a horizontal one…

A. E.: Absolutely! This would be a dynamic that finally cares above all for the common good. Because in this case, we are all victims of the New World Order, regardless of our background.

K: What would you say to Manuel Abramowicz? He accuses you of being far right…

A. E.: But what is the extreme right? Then I would ask him if the real extremism today is not in power.

K: What we call the extreme center.

A. E.: Yes. Today totalitarianism is governmental. Have we ever seen a so-called extreme right-wing political power have the means to impose what the Belgian, French, German, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand governments have imposed on their populations? Confinement and compulsory vaccination, which is contrary to the Nuremberg Code. I remind you that the vaccine is at the experimental stage, so it’s totally crazy! When I see the repression of demonstrations, censorship, tracking tools, digital applications, politicians telling us how we should behave at home, to receive our friends or family, when we are told how many people we can have at the table, including at Christmas, when some ministers, especially in Germany, when some ministers, especially in Germany, have even gone so far as to dictate sexuality in Covid times, when the elderly in old people’s homes or in hospitals have been left to die, without being able to have family members visit them, then I’m sorry, but if this is not extremism, not the most complete totalitarianism, then I need to be re-explained the definition of extremism and totalitarianism. For me, extremism and totalitarianism are in power today. Totalitarianism is precisely the interference of the State in all the corners of our existence. And here we are, it is the worst of abominations. How could we admit, as a population supposed to be awake, that our parents, our grandparents are locked up like prisoners in hospitals or in old people’s homes, without being able to go and embrace them, to hug them before their last hour. Is there anything more despicable than that?

K: Would you be willing to debate with Manuel Abramowicz or others?

A. E.: I am ready to debate with anyone, I have no taboos.

K: The invitation is out! At Kairos, we want to create debate, but that is simply not possible right now. On your site, Civitas presents itself as a political movement defending the sovereignty, the national and Christian identity of Belgium, inspired by the social doctrine of the Church, natural law and the patriotic, moral and civilizational values indispensable to the national rebirth. Can you tell us more?

A. E.: First of all, we are Catholics, but we do not recognize ourselves in the discourse that is carried today by the Vatican. And for us, the analysis is very clear. The occupant of the papal throne is an agent of the New World Order. Today, Pope Francis dares to say that vaccination is an act of love. Could anything be more absurd when we know what Big Pharma is all about and what it is trying to do to impose compulsory vaccination with its accompanying depopulation plan? When Bill Gates and his foundation signed protocols with African countries to use them as testing grounds for vaccines containing electronic chips? That should be enough to make you understand that behind this, there is a truly Machiavellian plan. This pope and this Vatican 2022 are really controlled by the New World Order. I remind you that in the WikiLeaks, it appeared that bishops and cardinals are sponsored by the foundation of George Soros, one of the most influential globalist billionaires, along with Bill Gates. Modernist Rome has nothing to do with Catholic values.

K: They are representatives of the power…

A. E.: Yes, there has been an infiltration of the Catholic Church to take over all its workings.

K: It was already known that they had collaborated during the Second World War…

A. E.: There are different readings of history, but today the Vatican is a vector of the New World Order. This is not the kind of Catholicism we are defending. To return to sovereignty, we consider that all nations of the world must be able to decide their own fate without being dependent on supranational powers. Today, it is well known that none of the European nations has the power to take its destiny in hand through its own leaders. The European institutions, among others, dictate the rules to them. And the project is then a world government which we would like to believe would be better able to make general decisions for the good of all. I am a localist, I believe that the political power must be close to its citizens. I feel much more interested in a political representative at the municipal level than in a political representative at the national level. And I feel much closer to a political representative of the national level than to a political representative of the European level and even more so than to a representative of the world government.

K: Isn’t there a risk that with the values of sovereignty and national identity, one recovers the « fascist », the real one, if only indirectly?

A. E.: A national identity, again, what does that mean? Who doesn’t want to preserve their traditions, their customs or their land? I have African friends. Obviously, if I go to dinner at their place, I want to eat an African dish, not a burger from McDonald’s. I talk with Africans, Moroccans or others I am introduced to. Neither they nor I want a standardized world in which we would all be reduced to consuming the same products and repeating the same unique thought. The one that is presented as extreme right-wing wanting only Belgian white and blue, it is part of the imagination maintained by the media. I was trained for two and a half years in political philosophy by a Gabonese priest, Father Ndong Ondo. He obviously did not teach me white supremacism as a driving force in political philosophy! And I would like to point out that I live in a completely multicultural neighborhood, I have neighbors of all origins with whom I get along very well. And these people know that I have anti-globalization positions. We live in perfect conviviality, we debate, we exchange, we invite each other regularly and that does not pose any problem. But I consider that the worst scenario is the globalist one, which aims at making us all grey, eating the same junk food, wearing the same clothes, adhering to a unipolar world of the Orwellian type. The richness of the planet is in its diversity, in the fact that each one preserves its customs, its traditions, its identity, its soil, its culinary and linguistic particularities. I’m not in favor of everyone speaking English through a standardized novlanguage, nor am I in favor of everyone drinking Coca-Cola and eating a bad burger, listening to the same music, and dressing alike.

K: Coming back to the extreme right, don’t you think that it is used by the political power and globalism as a caricature? However, there is a real extreme right…

A. E.: Of course there is an extreme right. But I think that today the current embodied by Civitas is the worst case scenario for the authorities, as long as we are ready to break the classical pattern.

K: You are instrumentalized too. On the RTBF, you can see Civitas flags in the demonstrations all the time. To discredit.

A. E.: We’re not going to complain about it! I think the intelligence of the public is to say « who cares what the media says? If you talk to people who have understood that the media is lying to them about the health situation, among other things, they will conclude that it is also lying to them about the political, economic, social and religious analysis. The media are at the service of power, except for the alternative media, of course. And so let’s stop trusting them. I say it again, break your televisions because they are instruments of mental manipulation. Civitas was the first movement in France and Belgium to lead large-scale campaigns to warn against the health dictatorship. So we have a legitimacy to be present in the demonstrations, because we were among the first to gather financial means to stick thousands of posters, to distribute tens of thousands of leaflets, to alert people about the globalist tyranny under the pretext of health.

K: It may seem strange that activists who claim to be of the extreme left and opposed to the extreme right can be found in media like RTBF, RTL,
Le Soir, La Libre Belgique
that they do not criticize at all.

A. E.: For me, there is no rebellion among these people, although they present themselves as rebels. They are auxiliary militias of the power.

K: The demonstration on January 23, which gathered hundreds of thousands of people, should have been a great success. But something strange happened, the demonstrators were divided.

A. E.: There was a strong organization on that day, with material and organization, with big financial means.

K: It went on as usual, that is to say, people making the usual journey from the Gare du Nord to the Cinquantenaire, peacefully. People of all ages.

A. E.: And from all social backgrounds.

K: This time, not only Flemings, Walloons and Brussels inhabitants, but also French, Polish and Swiss. And again, the same scenario on arrival at the Cinquantenaire: thugs on the Schuman side. Those who were organizing asked to stop the demonstration, then changing their minds ten minutes later. But it was too late, the damage was done, many had already left. The police pushed the thugs into the park!

A. E.: From Schuman onwards, the cops pushed the demonstrators towards the top of the park. And at the Cinquantenaire Air Museum, a series of fire engines and a police deployment quickly turned into violent repression. I asked why we were chased in this way, since the police, on the Schuman side, chose to push the demonstrators towards the demonstrators instead of chasing them, and then chased the demonstrators to the point where the police vehicles appeared and prevented the people from leaving the Cinquantenaire Park. There was something that seemed totally inconsistent to me. And when I asked law enforcement officials to explain the decision-making process, I was told that as soon as the organizer of the demonstration, Tom Meert, admits that he has no control, the police have a green light. However, it is the organizer of the demonstration who should try to control the demonstration as long as possible, instead of letting the demonstrators down. It is also the responsibility of the organizers to provide a well positioned security service. I think that one of the major flaws took place when the mass of demonstrators entered the Cinquantenaire Park, without the presence of the demonstration’s security service positioned on the Schumann side, in order to show that there was a total disassociation with the thugs who were confronting the police.

K: The association Ensemble pour la liberté, which organized the previous demonstrations, was also presented in the media as extreme right wing.

A. E.: It’s so convenient! We’re all far right, that’s the classic pattern. I remind you that the demonstration of January 9 organized by Ensemble pour la Liberté went well. And then Tom Meert appeared with very, very large financial means to impose himself as the organizer of the January 23 demonstration. Strangely enough, he refused to be a member of Ensemble pour la Liberté, perhaps because he thought it was an unpleasant organization. I don’t know. But in the meantime, perhaps those 140 stewards of Ensemble pour la Liberté would have been useful, if they had been well positioned, to prevent this new manipulation that put an early end to the demonstration of January 23.

K: Where do you think these people who organize come from? Who show up out of nowhere as activists and work in banks? I ask myself: who is given the right to organize demonstrations? What is your position on this idea?

A. E.: It is certain that, when I see suddenly the appearance of previously unknown organizers in a process that had been initiated on November 21, the date of the first large demonstration, and then regular demonstrations, I am astonished.

K: With a Dutch militia…

A. E.: Yes, the January 23 demonstration depended on a massively Dutch organization. All these giant screens, the trucks, the sound system worthy of a rock concert, it’s very expensive equipment that came directly from the Netherlands that day.

K: And a platform…

A. E.: … giant, guards to surround the stand, a company specialized in communication came equipped with drones and multiple cameras. We’re really into very large global budgets. Tom Meert comes from a business background; I’m not saying that all business people serve the New World Order, but it’s true that you have to wonder when you see an organizer who came out of nowhere supplanting the organizers who had properly taken over the previous demonstrations. An organizer full of money who announces a giant event and brings in celebrities from all over Europe, such as Professor Péronne, Alexandra Henrion-Caude, Richard Boutry and many others, only to fail to do what is necessary for them to talk to the crowd.

K: There were even dancers.

A. E.: The organizational scheme, for me, was completely messed up. Anyone who has observed the previous demonstrations against the health dictatorship knows that it was never possible to speak for more than an hour without the first police interventions with gas, tear gas and fire pumps. And on the 23rd, the organizer chooses during one hour and a half to propose only second knives, with all the respect that I have for those who took the floor and dancers that we could have done without. All the celebrities who were waiting, they were left on the side of the road, they moved without being able to speak, while the public was waiting for them. For me, it is a calamitous management!

K: It’s that currently the power still controls everything. He has the controls in hand.

A. E.: Power is often several steps ahead.

K: Not to mention the Freedom Convoy, for example.

A. E.: The European version was a complete fiasco. Is it because the initiators were incompetent or remote-controlled or threatened or a mixture of all of these, in any case in the end what was supposed to be a gigantic gathering from all over Europe was essentially summarized by a few hundred French people abandoned in Brussels in a nameless mess. Beware of manipulators who make glittering promises of mobilizations to the finish and then desert and leave in total disarray those who have trusted them.

That said, once again, it is up to people to take charge, to invest in determined actions.

K: Like the Yellow Vests?

A. E.: Of the Gilets Jaunes type and of all kinds! I believe that the only way to undermine the New World Order is to be multifaceted in action. Petitions and demonstrations are well underway, but they will not sway a power that has the police force and surveillance systems in hand. So there comes a time when you have to be creative on all fronts. I think we need an economic boycott, mobilizations of truckers that must occur during the week and not only on weekends. We must shake the multinationals that support this power and tyranny. We must shake up the European political summits, force them to back down, to cancel their big meeting.

K: We can go back a little to the religious. In
Charlie Hebdo
it said that Civitas is calling for the repeal of the law on the separation of church and state, and for the re-establishment of Catholicism as the state religion.

A. E. : For the moment, I must say that Camus, the journalist of Charlie Hebdo, at this level does not say anything stupid, but it is in the interpretation of what it means that he lies completely. Indeed, we are in favor of a return, in France as in Belgium, to a union between the State and the Church. Obviously, at the moment this is a purely theoretical line because this project is based on the idea that the State and the Church are in good hands again. As long as state and clerical power is in the hands of the minions of globalism, it is obviously of no interest. In fact, one can even say that there is already a union of Church and State, but on the basis of mundialist objectives and therefore exactly the opposite of what Civitas wants. I would like to make it clear from the outset that, contrary to what Charlie Hebdo wrote, the re-establishment of Catholicism as the state religion would not mean that everyone would be obliged to become Catholic.

K: And that the Catholic religion is superior to others.

A. E: It would mean a privileged situation, linked to our history, but which would have as a consequence, above all, that in this configuration, the Church and the State seek to collaborate in order to ensure that the laws are just, ethical and moral, among others. Anyone can understand that it would be better if laws were subject to an ethical and moral requirement, rather than to materialistic interests, generally to the advantage of multinationals, bankers and speculators.

K: The Church, but not only; the State could also listen to other actors…

A. E.: In any case, even if the separation between the Church and the State were to end, this does not mean that the State would no longer have any other interlocutor, if only the professional categories which are the basic interlocutors of a well-organized society. But today I have no confidence in the unions, because they are agents of the system. This is clearly seen when different professional categories are ordered to vaccinate themselves under penalty of dismissal, and are not supported by the trade unions.

K: The teachers’ unions are even asking that their members be vaccinated more quickly!

A. E.: There is something to be said for raising awareness about the true nature of trade unions. Many unions have huge fortunes and collaborate with employers, who finance some of the major union events. I think it is better to have contacts by professional category.

K: I would like to talk about immigration, abortion, gay marriage, adoption by these couples, things that make Civitas qualify as a far-right movement. Let’s start with immigration.

A. E.: I will try to be very pedagogical in my reflection, in the face of the caricatures of the media. Today, I think that anyone — native Belgian, native French or person of immigrant background — can reasonably understand that immigration organized since the 1970s by the top management is part of the plan of the New World Order.

K: To break the wages…

A. E.: To break wages, to obtain cheap labor, to have pedestrians who can be forced to work at will. And today we must observe how the massive immigration to Europe is done…

K: …by the Bolkestein directive, among others.

A. E.: Yes, and by the role of George Soros and his Open Society Foundation, regularly reported in major media such as Der Spiegel — so it’s not conspiracy. His foundation releases hundreds of millions of euros to facilitate non-European immigration to Europe. Is this just philanthropy, in your opinion? Immigration on such a scale is only good for exploiters, human traffickers, pimps, slum landlords and multinational company bosses. I think the Third World needs its elites to stay at home.

K: Elites that the West has exploited, the Cinquantenaire Park being a beautiful symbol.

A. E.: Africa has enormous potential, and not only because of its exceptional natural resources. It makes no sense for African academics to be in Europe rather than in Africa; it’s brainwashing as it is labor looting. But not all Africans who are in Europe are academics, there are many young men who arrive here and who in my opinion would be more useful in their country. Organizing mass uprooting does not help anyone.

K: If the process is controlled by the employers for the moment, what about the victims, the undocumented migrants who have children here? The other solution, advocated by extreme right-wing movements — sending them home — does not take into account a certain human suffering.

A. E.: All this must be the object of a great collaboration between different countries, different peoples. Today, many African countries are saying this. They would like to see the people who have immigrated to Europe return to their countries to contribute to internal development. This is where the media distorts the analysis, presenting immigration as something great, as if everyone could find happiness in our Eldorado and as if there was nothing interesting to do in their countries. The media say that African culture is great, they make us listen to African music, they praise African artists, who are perfectly respectable, but why then do they make us believe that Africans could not find fulfillment at home and should necessarily find it here? For me, it is collective, organized uprooting. It is possible to have a plan over several years, even several decades of course, to organize an intelligent remigration. It would not be military trucks that arrive in immigrant neighborhoods to organize roundups of people to be parachuted into their country of origin. It is in everyone’s interest to stop this immigration process organized by the globalists. This would be much better for everyone, for the development of many countries, for the preservation of their traditions as well as ours. I can take you to meetings where I speak, made up of a largely immigrant and particularly Muslim audience, who end up understanding and agreeing with the point I am making in a much more substantiated way than in the conversation we are having right now.

K: Doesn’t this « open society » serve to conceal neo-colonialism, the fact that we need these countries?

A. E.: If we empty these countries of their brains as well as their arms, of their young generation which is essential to their recovery, then we leave the whole field of economic decision making again and again to the multinationals, which will exploit Africa, corrupt its leaders and dictate to the Africans how they should manage their country. I think that everyone should be master of their own house, each nation should regain its sovereignty. Of course, the problem is that power is in the hands of corrupt leaders who turn a blind eye to the exploitation of their people.

K: I interviewed a Burkinabe who had tried ten times to cross the Mediterranean. And after the 10ᵉ time, he had succeeded. When I asked him if Thomas Sankara had remained in power, he answered no. He finally returned home, because he did not find the Eldorado here.

A. E.: That’s a point that really needs to be emphasized: there are immigrants who return home. This scenario, we really have to explain it and show that it is not caricatured, nor racist, nor hateful to suggest to people to refuse uniformity in this global world, to keep their identity.

K: You said at the beginning of the interview that you live in a multicultural neighborhood. Do you ask your neighbors to pack up and go home?

A. E.: I don’t tell them to go home. But when they tell me how bad they feel about this company, I invite them to think about it: is your presence here necessarily the right choice?

K: Maybe so, if their country is destroyed…

A. E.: We must not maintain the media caricature: not all the countries of black Africa are at war, nor the countries of Latin America, nor Turkey, nor the Maghreb. The media constantly sell us immigration as the result of wars, while this is mostly false. Immigration is primarily economic. The real answer is to develop their country of origin and not to make them believe that Europe is an Eldorado that will be able to absorb the unfortunate people of the entire planet, give them decent housing, an acceptable job and dream leisure activities, which is a vast deception.

K: At the moment, an LGBTQI+ flag is flying in front of the Pfizer headquarters in Ixelles, in addition to the Red Cross flag. It is certainly funded by Soros. I would now like to hear from you on the issues of abortion, PMA, GPA, gay marriage and adoption.

A. E.: Once again, it is not a question of establishing a morality police, but of considering that for 2000 years, in all civilizations, in all corners of the planet, marriage has been considered to be the union of a man and a woman. It is an anthropological reality, because only this union allows to have children in a natural way and to perpetuate humanity. But all of a sudden, for the last few decades, the same globalists who have organized anarchy in many areas have given rise to the development of an extremely powerful lobby called the LGBTQI+ lobby. It’s worth thinking about. There is a link with the globalist plan. Look at the LGBTQI+ propaganda in Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, supported by the embassies of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada — all extremely influential nations in the globalist process -, the Open Society, the foundations of Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. Again, I come back to this notion of sovereignty. A country has the right to consider that LGBTQI+ propaganda in schools or gay marriage is not part of its customs. It is always the globalist forces that seek to prevent this sovereignty and to impose this globalist vision of what the new sexuality, the new morality, the new family should be, asking us to be tolerant. When a French television program director says that there is no more room for white men over 50 to host programs, it is the demonstration that in fact we have completely reversed the processes and legitimized new discriminations. And it is not innocent. It is not out of tolerance, it is not out of love for our neighbor. Behind it, there is a plan — I know I will be accused of being a conspiracy theorist again — there is a globalist plan that aims at subverting all the foundations of civilization to make us totally rootless beings, beings without God, without homeland, without family and without defined sex, reduced to the state of docile consumers and tomorrow transhumanists.

K: A lot of psychoanalysts talk about it, notably Jean-Pierre Lebrun in conversation with Charles Melman in a recent book. They explain that the will to be other than oneself has always existed. But the problem is that now we make the desire feasible. The proportion of children of teenagers in Great Britain who ask to change their sex is increasing. Again, as with the extreme right, this kind of topic should be discussed.

A. E.: We need to speak out on this subject to show to what extent, behind the official truth, there are actually tragic situations that are multiplying because people are deceived and manipulated.

K: Alexandre de Croo, Young Global Leader, was in Johannesburg to praise »
« In a rousing speech, he evoked Bill and Melinda Gates. We talked about Pfizer’s ties to the LGBTQI+ movements, and of course gender equality. Some warned that giving the same rights to those who decide to marry each other, whether women or men, could be an open door to other rights such as GPA. In India and in the United States, sperm banks are very successful, even with fertile couples, who select the embryos… Can we talk about eugenics?

A. E.: Yes, completely. There are companies that « sell » turnkey children, we could say, some of these companies even offer buyers to choose the characteristics (eye color, hair, …) of the child they will acquire as a common commodity.

K: During the containment, babies were held at the borders in some sort of child production farm.

A. E. : Yes, which shows once again that behind the caricature of Civitas, there are important debates that are made impossible today. Because the media, under the orders of the New World Order, only want a single thought. We will be told that on the one hand we must defend women, fight against the commodification of their bodies, against prostitution in our country. On the other hand, we do the opposite, we commodify the woman through GPA. And organized immigration has never provided so many prostitution networks.

And this, Jacques Attali had cynically explained it well. This globalist agent now considers that his side has already won, he dares to unveil a whole series of measures that will be taken in the future. And the problem is that it doesn’t alarm many people, except for an awake minority, and it doesn’t allow us to bounce back enough to prevent it. All this is deeply diabolical.

K: An LGBTQI+ flag in front of Pfizer’s headquarters in Brussels is amazing!

A. E.: It should show the collusion, that all this is not natural, that this lobby did not emerge all of a sudden after 2000 years of history of our civilizations. Let’s go back to surrogate motherhood. Behind this scheme, some people want to cut sexuality from procreation. The idea that sexuality should only be recreational and that procreation should become entirely artificial. The next step is the artificial womb and transhumanism.

K: Why don’t you want a morality police that tells people what they can and should do in bed?

A. E.: We are not here to check what people do in their bedrooms. But this does not mean that we should promote total debauchery, otherwise society will end up accepting pedophilia and zoophilia as respectable options.

K: I would like to come back to some points to conclude. The death toll from covid is overestimated by the media and the government. The inventor of the PCR test said himself that this test is not reliable. PCR testing is the Achilles heel of this crisis. The President of Tanzania, for example, had samples of papaya and goat tested and found positive by the laboratory.

A. E.: This is what we wrote in our leaflet, and what earned us the classification of « conspiracy theorist » by RTBF. What we have written is quite official. Just go to the Tanzanian media. I would add that, as if by chance, the President of Tanzania, who refused the vaccines offered to his country by the Bill Gates Foundation, died in a rather curious way after almost disappearing from the public scene for more than a week, and that his replacement then benefited from a press release from the WHO welcoming his appointment.

K: The mortality from the vaccine is dramatic. But I recall that Alexander De Croo said in a press conference that there was only one proven side effect of the vaccine in Belgium. Those who present others as liars are themselves the main liars.

A. E.: The media are not neutral or objective. They sought to completely discredit the leaflet distributed by Civitas in Belgium. However, the arguments that RTBF puts forward are real arguments but they cannot be debated. It is strictly forbidden to discuss these issues. RTBF regularly organizes debates on Wednesday evenings, sometimes on topics related to covid. They talk about all the sanitary measures of course, always to legitimize the official policy. RTBF claims to give voice to different trends. On the health pass, the QR-code and the mandatory vaccination for caregivers, they had consulted different associations to ask them to send people on the set to debate. And the association Ensemble pour la Liberté, which has a Dutch-speaking majority, had proposed that I be their representative at this French-speaking debate. RTBF’s answer: it is out of the question that we give the floor live to Mr. Escada. I’m sorry, but if I’m an idiot, if everything I say is absurd, false, incoherent, they should instead be happy to give me the floor and ridicule me live.

K: We have given you the floor, we will give it to others. We officially invite Manuel Abramowicz to come and debate with Alain Escada. Are you ready to do it?

A. E.: Absolutely. I told you at the beginning of this program that I am ready to debate with anyone. The wealth of intelligence is being able to speak.

Interview by Alexandre Penasse, January 2022.

Read more "

Kairos n°35

Daring to attack the mob

The work of truth exposes, when one really attacks the most infamous and significant manifestations of power, the risk of ending up with a bullet in the head. This is the danger when the mysteries of this social putrefaction that is the politically organized robbery are revealed, as in the Kazakhgate episode, which gives democracy the only value of appearance. Revealing the mafia component of politics, these formidable crimes of mass dispossession are also far from being  » nameless, faceless, party-less « , as the man who was also the architect of mafia politics superbly feigned about finance[note].

Faced with a horde of journalists who keep their mouths shut, the action of the small minority who actually open it therefore exposes them to potential dangers. Always busy convincing themselves, by persuading us, that they are free to say what they want, we should not expect the caste of journalists to dig the problems to their roots and reveal the evil immanent to the productivist system. We should not go too far, they say what they want under one and only one condition: that they do not « freely » feel like saying everything. Faced with the lack of response to a request to publish his article  » Beware of radio silence (active) « [note], a contributor to our newspaper raised the forbidden theme:  » Could it be that Le Soir does not dare to publish it? Are shareholders muzzling free speech? « . The reply from the Soir journalist came:  » Please stop fantasizing about « our shareholders ». There are enough crazy conspiracy theories in this world without adding a completely absurd one « . It would therefore be pure fantasy to imagine the Hurbain family as having other than philanthropic objectives and a love of the free press. And if the journalist doesn’t talk too much about the ranking of the Hurbain family among the largest Belgian fortunes, and to what extent inequality destroys in a general way what makes life, it’s not because this information might displease his bosses, but only because he doesn’t want to. It would not be because Le Soir likes to publish content written by the Nuclear Forum[note] that it would give little interest to articles that denounce the crime of the atom. In short, if you are surprised that the desires of journalists and bosses often coincide, you are probably just a mediocre conspiracy theorist.

Unfortunately, in the meantime, the IPM press group has muzzled the magazine Financité, which was inserted in La Libre on a quarterly basis:« As you know, Alain Siaens [Président du CA de IPM et administrateur de Degroof Equity] is one of our directors, so let’s not mention Degroof Petercam. « Result: the end of a twelve-year collaboration. But above all: it must not be known that Degroof Petercam invests in nuclear weapons, one might think that it is in their sole interest… Good people, sleep well!

They will therefore pretend to be surprised by this generalized fatigue of many people in front of the information. Obviously, this one, which has become soothing, empty, just spectacular, proper to a bureaucratic journalism serving a career plan to the detriment of the search for truth, would only be able to generate palaver, Sunday debates on the national channel and scoops of a day that take away from the heart of the matter. And when these are mentioned (Kazaghgate, Publifin, Samu social, Panama…), it is to close them immediately, as if everything was normal. The generalized corruption lasts as well, all these small and big compromises, commissions, bribes, which literally dictate all the « choices » of society.

If we have to discuss decent wages, voluntary simplicity, work arduousness, reduction of greenhouse gases, exit from nuclear power…, while never forgetting our share of voluntary servitude that contributes to maintain this world as it is, it seems vain to do so while leaving the conductors of wage exploitation, mass consumption, alienation of the worker, destruction of the earth, quiet, out of the debate.

Read more "

Will you be Free® tonight?

So, today, La Première, NRJ, DH Radio; Le Soir, La Libre, La Dernière Heure; RTL-TVI, Plug RTL, RTBF? What does it matter? Underneath the illusory freedom to choose your « media » lies the fact that all the options you can make come down to the same thing, despite the few visible differences in form and content. Because behind apparent differences, all propagate the same and unique version of the world, remain confined within the same possibilities, delimiting the impossible as soon as the tacit limits are crossed.

To see, read and hear them, there would never be anything to change fundamentally in the world as it is: destruction of nature caused by our lifestyles, over-investment in productive work, denial of the suffering it generates and absence of reflection on meaning, misery and inequalities, stigmatization of unemployment that employment inevitably generates, absence of questioning of the technological everything, etc. « In the eyes of most journalists, the « modern » world is inherently good (…) nothing negative (exploitation, oppression, massive unemployment, wars, waste of human and natural resources, etc.) is really attributable to the very essence of capitalism »[note]. There would seem to be a total absence of questioning of the religion of growth and the hyper-consumerism that it requires. It would be enough just to palliate — which comes from the Latin « to cover with a coat »! — the evils that the system engenders.

Why, when you decide to buy La Libre rather than Le Soir, to watch RTBF rather than RTL, are you basically not free to choose? Rather than seeing these different media as a kind of undifferentiated caste of malicious journalists, it is more useful to look at the ownership of these media[note]the sociological composition of their editorial staff and the advertising medium they represent. From this point on, the identical imprint of the same ideology can be seen in all the editorial offices: that of the market as king and consumption as a model of society.

Read more "

F1 at Francorchamps: a crazy public expense for an outdated toy

The text below was proposed to the Soir and the Libre Belgique for their respective forum and debates sections. Neither of these two media outlets saw fit to retain it for publication. So we decided to distribute it through our networks.


Should we go back to what Formula 1 represents when it should only be the shadow of a wasteful, structurally, environmentally and socially destructive past? F1 has no place in a friendly, socially balanced and environmentally responsible society. It represents a devastating cultural line that needs to be broken if we want to give ourselves a better chance for a happy future.

However, it appears that it could still have a bright future ahead of it. Indeed, not only does the Walloon Region, year after year, continue to pay off its deficits, but it also seems to ensure, through Minister Marcourt in particular (who says he is looking for a showcase for Wallonia[note]), that it extends its contract with Bernie Ecclestone[note]. Unless this desire hides the fact that our Region cannot get rid of the secret 2006 contract that the Société de promotion du circuit de Francorchamps signed in English with the inescapable holder of the F1[note]The signatories did not know this language, as they themselves stated. Anyway, today we know that we will have F1 on our backs at least until 2015 included[note]! There is even talk of prolonging the affair without the Walloon Parliament having the slightest say. Even he has not yet been able to see the contract. This shows the limits of parliamentary control.

The cost of the operation, between 2007 and 2013, amounts to 82.45 million €[note](including investments) at the expense of Walloon public funds! In short, an astronomical amount of money for an activity that we were at least assured would be an economic success. Indeed, when the GP was relaunched, in order to calm down the popular vindictiveness because of the more than 50 million € spent for the circuit repair and the financing of the billionaire Bernie Ecclestone, our politicians had pulled out of their hat a financial plan which announced a loss of money the first year, the balance the second and a profit the third, that is to say in 2008[note]. We can see that this is not the case when we read in the press that the Walloon Region will have to cover « only » 6 million € for 2013.

Meanwhile, almost day after day, the Walloon Region and the Wallonia-Brussels Federation are looking for money to meet their chronic deficit and mission needs. Closing the budget for the next legislature is so difficult that it requires some very difficult trade-offs. An example allows to realize the weight of the 82,45 million € already spent for F1 compared to other necessities. The Walloon Region is looking for €55 million to create new school places[note]. To achieve this, it is trying to set up a public-private partnership, but this arrangement is highly criticized by the Finance Inspectorate, and we cannot be certain that it will succeed.

On the other hand, things are likely to get even more complicated. The modern day gladiators, as the runners call themselves, are no longer in demand. They do not escape the questions raised about their dada at a time when the IPCC, in particular, sounds the alarm about global warming. The so-called « ecological » measures demanded by the European Parliament[note] and companies to reduce the carbon footprint of their game do not please[note]. They are not part of the cultural reference system linked to F1, which is based on the excitement of « always going faster »[note]. The audience rate of the GPs is decreasing all over the world[note], which would be very good news for us if it wasn’t for this absurd contract signed by the Walloon Region.

The next GP will be held on August 22–23-24. Let’s hope that on this occasion the Walloon Parliament will finally dare to set up the necessary commission of inquiry into the scandalous contract between the Walloon Region and Ecclestone, in order to get rid of it as soon as possible.

We do not want to be dumbed down by  » panem et circenses « . We are interested in our collective destiny. F1 has no place there.


Michèle Gilkinet, former federal parliamentarian

Paul Lannoye, President of the Grappe and Honorary Member of the European Parliament

Bernard Legros, teacher and essayist

Christine Pagnoulle, lecturer University of Liege, ATTAC-Liege

Alexandre Penasse, editor-in-chief of Kairos, anti-productivist journal for a decent society

Eddie Vanhassel, teacher

Read more "

Will you be Free® tonight?

So, today, La Première, NRJ, DH Radio; Le Soir, La Libre, La Dernière Heure; RTL-TVI, Plug RTL, RTBF? What does it matter? Underneath the illusory freedom to choose your « media » lies the fact that all the options you can make come down to the same thing, despite the few visible differences in form and content. Because behind apparent differences, all propagate the same and unique version of the world, remain confined within the same possibilities, delimiting the impossible as soon as the tacit limits are crossed.

To see, read and hear them, there would never be anything to change fundamentally in the world as it is: destruction of nature caused by our lifestyles, over-investment in productive work, denial of the suffering it generates and absence of reflection on the meaning, misery and inequalities, stigmatization of unemployment that employment inevitably generates, absence of questioning of the all-technological, etc. « In the eyes of most journalists, the « modern » world is inherently good (…) nothing negative (exploitation, oppression, massive unemployment, wars, waste of human and natural resources, etc.) is really attributable to the very essence of capitalism »[note]. There would seem to be a total absence of questioning of the religion of growth and the hyper-consumerism that it requires. It would be enough just to palliate — which comes from the Latin « to cover with a coat »! — the evils that the system engenders.

Why, when you decide to buy La Libre rather than Le Soir, to watch RTBF rather than RTL, are you basically not free to choose? Rather than seeing these different media as a kind of undifferentiated caste of malicious journalists, it is more useful to look at the ownership of these media[note], the sociological composition of their editorial staff and the advertising medium they represent. From this point on, the identical imprint of the same ideology can be seen in all the editorial offices: that of the market as king and consumption as a model of society.


Why should the mass media provide us with the tools to understand this world, if the risk for them is that their undue advantages and privileged position will disappear? It would be like cutting off the branch on which they are sitting. Let’s say it then: these media groups cannot tolerate the transition to a decent society!

The Belgian media — and among them the three daily newspapers La Libre, Le Soir and La DH — are concentrated in several large groups that also own radio stations, television channels, websites, distributors, production companies and are directly linked to banks, press agencies, various multinationals, and indirectly to ultraliberal think tanks and business lobbies. We will only detail three of them: IPM, Corelio and Rossel.

1. IPM is 100% owned by the Maja Group [note], itself wholly owned by the Compagnie de Développement des Médias, owned by the Le Hodey family, of which Axel Miller, former chairman of Dexia and current boss of D’Ieteren, is chairman of the board. IPM SA owns two newspapers, La Libre Belgique and La Dernière Heure/Les Sports, as well as their regional editions and websites. The group holds 50% of the shares of Libre Match, the remaining 50% of which are owned by the Lagardère group via its subsidiary Hachette Livre. IPM still owns 29% of Audiopresse, which itself owns 34% of the shares of RTL Belgium (RTL-TVI, Club TTL, Plug RTL), RTL Belgium itself is 66% owned by the Luxembourg-based RTL Group, itself a Luxembourg media conglomerate created in 2000 by the merger of the CLT-UFA and the British production company Pearson TV. Audiopresse is also a holding company owned by the publishers of the Belgian French-language daily press and manages a stake in the RTL Belgium group. IPM still owns 13% of the Belgapress agency; 99.8% of Twizz radio(DH Radio); 52% of Médiascap, which has indirect holdings in SARL Libération, which publishes the Libération newspaper. IPM is also a 50% shareholder in Courrier International EBL, which publishes the Belgian Courrier International, which is itself owned by Courrier International France.

In 2008, IPM had 26% of the television market share and in 2013, 21.73% of the press market share.

2. Corelio is a press group whose shareholders are Mediacore, Cecan, Krantenfonds, From Eik, Vedesta [note]. Corelio owns 62% of Mediahuis (DeStandaard, Het nieuwsblad, Het belang van Limburg), Médiahuis — which holds 19.5% of Belga — which is 38% owned by Concentra. Corelio also holds 29.2% of the shares of Audiopresse. Corelio also owns 100% of CorelioPublishingwhich owns 25% of De vijver media which itself is owned by Telenet (50%) and Waterman and Waterman… (we stop here for Corelio Publishing, see footnote 4). Corelio also owns 50% of the shares of Nostalgie, which is owned by Radio Nostalgie France, which is itself 100% owned by the NRJ Group, to which NRJ France and NRJ Belgium belong. Nostalgie also owns 50% of the shares of Flemish Radio Nostalgie, the other half of which is held by IPM.

The president of Corelio is Thomas Leysen. The latter was president of the FEB (Federation of Enterprises in Belgium, an employers’ lobby), is currently president ofUmicore, a group « specialized in materials technology », and president of the KBC. He is also a member of the European Round Table of Industrialists[note], a powerful lobby of the largest European companies.

In 2008, Corelio had a 10% market share in radio and 26% in television.

3. The Rossel Group [note]. Its president, Bernard Marchant, is a former tax advisor for Arthur Andersen, one of the « Big Five » companies whose reputation is more linked to the Enron scandal, for which it carried out audits, than as a newspaper publisher. He was vice-president Europe of the Olivetti IT group and later general manager of Beckaert, the world leader in metal), and before joining Rossel, he was CEO of the French group 9Telecom.

The Rossel Group (Le Soir, Le Soir Magazine), has Sud Presse (100%, these are regional editions), Éditions Urbaines (99.5%, Vlan), Imprimerie des éditeurs(99.95%), the latter owning 49% of Mass Transit Media (Métro), the remaining 51% of which is owned by Concentra. Rossel still owns 24.9% of Radio H, owner of Cobelfra(Radio Contact, Mint) and Inadi(Bel RTL); Radio H is also owned (17.54%) by RTL Belgium .Audiopresse, which holds 34% of the latter, is also owned by Rossel (29.34%). Finally, Rossel owns 50% of Mediafin(L’Echo) and 50% of Grenz-Echo (Grenz-Echo), two structures to which Holding Echos belongs.

In 2008, Rossel had a 26% market share in television and, in 2013, 21.73% in press.

That leaves: — Groupe Roularta[note] which publishes Le Vif/L’express, Bizz, Data News, Knack, Sport Foot Magazine, Trends-Tendance,, le Vlan, RTVM, Canal Z, Télépro;

- De Persgroep: Het Laaste Nieuws,, De Morgen, De Tijd, L’Echo, Tv familie, Humo, Story, VTM, 2BE, Joe FM,,,, all boxes, a telecom operator (Jim Mobile), etc.

Concentration in the « free » media: don’t see any private interest!

The existence of three groups gives, a priori, the illusion of a separation which hides the interpenetrations, where IPM has, via La Libre Match (Paris Match Belgium), links with the French group Lagardère but also maintains, via Audiopresse, a consanguinity with the Rossel Group (which publishes Le Soir in particular) which also partly owns RTL Belgium. A strange proximity to the Luxembourg tax haven (headquarters of RTL-Group), which Corélio can also boast. Through their participation in Audiopresse (29% for IPM, 29.2% for Corelio, 29.34% for Rossel, i.e. more than 87% in total), the three groups own 34% of RTL Belgium (RTL-TVI, Club RTL and Plug RTL), i.e. more than one third. It would therefore not be too much for the journalists of the DH, Le Soir or La Libre in particular, to say anything bad about the private channel: cross-interests oblige! It is not more likely that they start to clarify for their readers the structures to which they belong. These cross-shareholdings are also an opportunity to meet each other, an opportunity to increase investments in the future.

The media field is thus perfectly included in the wider economic field whose first rule is that of profit growth, the one and only religion. In this case, it is impossible to give oneself the time needed to process the information objectively. The reference shareholders clearly have an interest in the status quo because oftheir wealth and strategic position in key institutions of the company » [note].


How, in view of their structure and functioning, could the dominant media not favor the word of the powerful to the detriment of the popular masses? It goes without saying that if Bernard Marchant, the big boss of Rossel who owns Le Soir, finds that « the preparation to management in the training of journalists is insufficient », he will not, like the other press bosses, seek at all costs to hire journalists who do a real job to inform their readers in the most objective way[note]. For Marchant and the logic of management, in the configuration of a media, the reader/listener/spectator is a product that must be made available/sold to his client, the advertiser, so that he consumes what is being touted in the advertisement. The newspaper/television/radio serves as a presentation medium for the advertisements, and thus as a means of bringing the subject into contact with the advertisement.

But the selection of journalists is more subtle than that and does not require a facial check at the entrance to the job interview offices. It is already taking place in the places of training, the school having in addition operated its social sorting during the first 15 years of teaching. François Ruffin, a student at France’s renowned journalism training center, explains: « Among us, no child of a laborer, of a railway worker, of a cashier. Neither Black nor Beur of the « no-go zones » (…) A social compartmentalization that is further reinforced by claustration: we live among ourselves. We discuss with the press bosses and other executives ».[note]which often gives rise in the treatment of reports to a « banal class racism »[note], « Under our feathers, no questioning of the order — school, financial, judicial,… ‑established… which has, it is true, served us well until now ».[note]

Journalists are therefore very far from the working world and they quickly understand that in their career perspective, too much stirring in reality foreshadows future trouble and is therefore not promising in terms of « career plan ». Those who « succeed » are therefore those who endorse the state of the world, relaying the neo-liberal doxa under the guise of a neutral and objective treatment — without ever admitting that they participate in this doxa. There is no shortage of examples. On October 20, 2015, Beatrice Delvaux wrote in her editorial « A dangerous bet », interpreting the union actions in Liege and on the railways: « The union leaders (…) evoke « isolated actions », nourished by the growing discontent of the workers in front of the accumulation of « antisocial » measures of the government. Marc Goblet [NDLR secrétaire général de la FGTB] yesterday refused to condemn these actions, blaming the federal government’s policies for starting the fire. This obviously corresponds to a feeling ».. The reactions of the workers to the governmental measures would be just a « feeling », a subjective state in which there would be no really objective basis; claims of spoiled children therefore, according to the media. Trade unionists would only have the right to express themselves calmly during planned and authorized demonstrations. Or during « social consultations », a term that gives the illusion of an equity of the protagonists who have become « partners », a mirage of a non-existent equality that eludes all the symbolic and material power of capitalism (and therefore also the position that the media occupy in this structure). If the protesters go too far, they will play into the hands of those they oppose, the journalist never perceiving that it is he who arbitrarily sets the limits that must not be exceeded. And this game, for which he makes the rules, seems to suit him well.

This reminds us of the interview of Xavier Mathieu, CGT-Continental union delegate, by David Pujadas on the France 2 television news. The journalist, after the employees had demonstrated their anger at the court’s decision to reject their request to cancel the closure of their company, questions him:

David Pujadas: « Good evening Xavier Mathieu, you are the CGT delegate of Continental in Clairoix. Of course we understand your distress, but isn’t this going too far? Do you regret this violence? »

Xavier Mathieu: « You must be joking? We don’t regret anything… »

David Pujadas: « I’m asking you the question. »

Xavier Mathieu: « … No, no, wait. What do you want us to regret? What? A few broken windows, a few computers next to the thousands of broken lives? What does that represent? We must stop here, we must stop. »

David Pujadas: « For you the end justifies the means. »

Xavier Mathieu: « Wait, « the end » … We’re 28 days out, sir. We are being told that in 28 days [images de saccage reprises en parallèle] the social plan will be completed and we will be out on the street. Yes, yes, I don’t regret anything. Nobody regrets anything here because you saw, you didn’t see thugs, you saw angry people, determined people, people who don’t want to go and be dismantled, to die. We don’t want to die. We will go to the end of our fight. We lasted five weeks. For five weeks I succeeded, we retained, we managed to retain people. It’s over, people don’t want it anymore. The government made promises to us. He has committed to convene a tripartite from the beginning, within three days. This has been going on for a week. Since then we realize… »

David Pujadas: « Xavier Mathieu, we hear your anger, but are you making a call for calm tonight? »

Xavier Mathieu: « I’m not calling anything. I don’t have a call for calm. People are angry and anger must be expressed. There is a proverb from the last demonstrations that says ‘he who sows misery reaps anger’. This is what they have today. There are more than 1,000 families who are going to be on the street, who are going to die in 23 months with nothing left, who are going to be forced to sell their homes. You all have to understand that. We don’t want to die… »[note].

Even if this unconditional defense of employment, a leitmotiv that runs through the entire political spectrum, is completely contradictory to a project of global change of society that would include the social and ecological dimensions, we must denounce the political and media violence and show who it serves. And it is during riots and unusual anger of the masses that the class contempt of the journalists manifests itself all the more violently, sensing without doubt that they have the assent of a part of the population that all year long they set against the other. Journalists have this class reflex all the more easily because they come, in their great majority, from the middle classes, torn between the upper classes and the working classes, always in an ambivalence, an in-between, « in the sense that the upper classes as well as the working classes are at the same time and contradictorily the object of a form of fascination and of a form of repulsion »[note]. Caught in this in-between situation, they often stigmatize social movements and relay the appeals for calm made by employers’ organizations.

Prolos, shut up! Watch The Voice and turn off your voices!

Quite naturally then, « if we have to talk to the barakis, we will talk to the barakis« It is much better for the advertisers and their clients if the barakis keep their socio-economic position (so that the advertisers and their clients keep theirs as well…), or in other words, if ignorance and poverty remain: it makes for better buyers! These words from RTBF news chief Jean-Pierre Jacqmin speak volumes about the primary role he gives to public media. Some journalists have understood this: « We are clearly asked to lower the level for the sake of ratings »[note]. Indeed, « advertisers will be more likely to avoid programs that are too complicated or controversial, and that may reduce the audience’s ‘available brain time’.[note]. They are looking for light entertainment, which corresponds to the primary function of the programs: to spread the message of the vendors[note] ». When will the next season of Plus belle la viebe released? Quickly enough, so that it does not occur to the barakis to make life really more beautiful… In the meantime, Beatrice has sharpened her pen and learned to accept fatality (December 2011 strikes: « The strikes, understandable, will not change anything to the reality and the cruelty of this crisis »), to play the ones against the others for the greatest interest of the employers (« The country at a standstill until Christmas »; « The hell of the travelers has begun »), creating the spectacular that divides (« The strike causes the second most congested rush hour of 2015 », Le soir, 20/10/2015, 1st article on the site’s page in the afternoon just as on the La Libre site the same day:« Rail strike: 2nd most congested rush hour of 2015 »), and emphasizing what can divide rather than what should unite the struggle: This Monday morning, this umpteenth disruption in train traffic was enough to irritate commuters whose rail journey often resembles an obstacle course. If you add to this rotating strikes — which mean that you don’t take for one day but for several given the smallness and interconnection of the territoryBelgian -, there is enough to displease the most empathetic » (Le Soir, editorial of 20/10/2015).

During this time, we must continue to make believe — helped by an agency of com’ — that we are a « free media » detached from any mercantile interest[note] and that with its reading « I see it clear » (Formidable oxymoron! Clair le Soir…). But when you do what you don’t say — defending the interests of the wealthy — you have to pretend that you do what you don’t do — offering the reader objective information — and sell the illusion in the form you are most used to: the advertising slogan. Thus, Le Soir, via the advertising agency Air, is running its « campaign »: « Le Soir, je lis donc j’agis! Didier Hamann, editorial director of Le Soir, explains: « We want Le Soir to evolve towards a more civic-minded positioning. We don’t just want (Sic) inform. We also want to give people the necessary keys to act. (…) We are convinced that our readers no longer want to be passive and we hope that by reading us they will want to act. » It almost sounds like the manifesto of a new revolutionary party. However, the editorial director quickly returns to the basics: « Today, when they consume, people are looking for brands that display strong values in line with who they are and what they believe in. Values, ok, but if possible « when consuming ».(…preferably the products advertised in Le Soir ). The mass is said. Pretending to promulgate strategic advice to unionists, they basically point out that they should not exceed the limits that the media define, enact, and respect: « That workers reject measures that they consider unequal and therefore unacceptable is understandable and legitimate, but unions should be wary of creating the opposite of what they seek. » (…) « this blockade of the highway — unannounced for the time being -, is not the kind to consolidate the popularity of the union movement  » (Le Soir, 20/10/2015). It is the trade unionists who would be the cause of their own unpopularity, never the media… So you can act, but not too much, as the watchdogs think it’s best if you « show your strong values » at the supermarket checkout, but don’t forget to take out the card. In the ranks comrades! « Every citizen has the right to express disapproval of political decisions. However, the way the protests were « organized » on Monday is truly outrageous. » (La Libre editorial, 10/20/2015). Not all are condemned in the same way, like the National Lottery, sold on all media, and which invites us to become « scandalously rich »…

In this context, do not expect pages that would explain and legitimize the anger of the people. As stated by Acrimed (critical observatory of French media), « this media bias in favor of the possessing classes and the institutions they dominate goes through the occultation of these struggles themselves, and through the explicit stigmatization of the working classes when they have the bad taste to rebel ».[note].This lack of perspective feeds misunderstanding and hatred of the other — which in turn feeds the front pages of the media!


Alexandra DIEU
As long as Bernard Marchant and others have « awareness of the importance of the role of advertising in our society and in particular for our respective professions« The reader will be considered as a product that the newspaper puts in contact with the advertiser who is its client, the information and the concern for its quality having little importance with regard to this main objective[note].

This is a marketing principle that the Belgian media company that « commercializes spaces on RTBF 1 and 2 (in particular) » knows well, applying with zeal the methods of neuromarketing: « Aim for the small one. Prepare your target. Mark it on the forehead as soon as possible. Only the child learns well (…) Cigarette and soft drinks manufacturers know that the earlier the child tastes, the more addicted he will be. Neuroscience has taught companies the ideal ages at which a given learning occurs most easily. ».[note]

One could expect the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (CSA), which is supposed to regulate the media of the Walloon-Brussels Federation, to fight against all this. Coming from political parties or even from the world of advertising, the composition of its members instils a certain doubt as to its possible impartiality. Sandrine Sepul, for example, member of the authorization and control college of the CSA, is none other than the director of the Conseil de la Publicité, « composed and financed by the professional associations of the three partners of the advertising communication which are the advertisers, the communication agencies and the various advertising media »[note]. Hm! Conflict of interest? But no… would you be conspiratorial to think like that?

The particular case of RTBF: thrown into the arena of competition

What about RTBF then, until now — still — a public channel[note]? Caught in a competitive environment, managed by managers, instrumentalized by political parties, subjected to the diktat of figures and ratings, colonized by the advertising ideas of the RMB (Belgian media company), all that remains for RTBF to do is to be like the others.

It is therefore difficult not to link it to the same logic of numbers, since it formats its programs on RTL-TVI — not to mention the competition with the French channels[note] — and has its eyes riveted on the ratings results, a true religion, of its private neighbor. And it must be said that at this level, our government of the French Community at the time, has done a famous service to RTL-TVI, and thus seriously disadvantaged the public channel it is supposed to protect. RTL Group, based in the tax haven of Luxembourg, owns RTL-TVI, whose premises are physically located in Brussels. First channel of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation, but Luxembourgish! thanks to a legal arrangement accepted by the Minister of Culture at the time Fadila Laanan who had signed a cooperation protocol with Luxembourg. What does this change? Well! it is that Luxembourg is, how to say?… a little like its tax policy, less watchful in terms of advertising. So the channel does not have to comply with Belgian advertising rules, despite its national broadcasting[note]…

The RMB, a « multi-media » advertising agency, does not complain about this, as it markets the RTBF’s advertising space, but does the same for NRJ, La Première, Pure, Be TV, AB3, the websites of My Tf1, the DH, the Libre… conformity in the illusion of plurality. And this plurality, the CSA, which is supposed to protect us by controlling the quality of the media, plays it admirably. A large group whose members come from the various bodies described above, the pages of their website presenting the various media groups (IPM, Rossel, Corelio, etc.) are not included in the misleading heading « The media offer and pluralism in the French Community ». In view of their same membership in private organizations, we do not see any plurality, unless they define it as a diversification of instances independently of their owners who mix and share the same interest and ideology. As Alain Accardo says, « The existence of a basic consensus does not exclude, on the contrary, a certain pluralism of opinion (which the press reviews stage by giving it more reality than it has(…)this diversity does not prevent the bourgeoisies, small and large, new and traditional — within which journalists today collectively, as a professional body, occupy a position of strength — from sharing a common will to preserve the existing order ».[note]

In the meantime, in order to meet its obligations as a public channel, it will make do as it can, for example by creating RTBF3, a medium that will allow it to fulfil its function of permanent education, but which is the object of a profound lack of interest on the part of the public channel’s « managers.


The media groups we have described above are owned by some of the wealthiest families. A small classification[note]?

The de Nolf family and the Claeys family (Roularta): € 134,913,000 and € 58,960,000 (116th and 240th Belgian fortunes)

Family Van Thillo (De Persgroep): € 1.066.410.000 (18)

Hurbain family (Rossel): € 155,707,000 (100)

Family Thomas Leysen (Corelio): € 45,564,000 (308)

Baert family (Concentra : € 45.800.000 (305)

Elizabeth Mohn (vice-president of Bertelsmann group, which owns RTL-group): 3.5 billion dollars[note]

Concerning IPM owned by the Le Hodey family, we did not find any information on the wealth level of the owners. However, we do know that Axel Miller, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Maja Group (owner of IPM), was earning about 170,000 euros per month at Dexia at the time[note].

Therefore, will you still be surprised by certain editorials, such as the one in La Libre of January 06, 2014, following a visit organized by the unions in Brussels to show the places where the tax-protected big fortunes live, an editorial in which the journalist wrote: « On the eve of the weekend, the trade union leaders went on a « safari » in Brussels, a mini-trip intended to point out the « protected tax species » of Brussels. Fun? Rather distressing…(…) the systematic stigmatization of the « rich », as practiced by the unions, is deplorable. So what, you just have to be poor to be honest…? A country needs rich people. To invest, to take risks. The system should ensure that the wealthy, and others, have an incentive to invest their money in the real economy of the country rather than seeking high returns elsewhere. It is not the rich who are responsible for the crisis, but the sorcerers’ apprentices who took advantage of the flaws in the system to make it go off the rails ». […]

Certainly! we are not going to bite the hand that feeds us although, in any case, the sociological analyses of the journalistic field and a relative knowledge of the psychological defense mechanisms, allow to understand that in most cases, they would not even think about it.

And it all adds up. Béatrice Delvaux, chief editorialist of Le Soir, former intern at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), who postfaced the book on Albert Frère (Belgium’s largest fortune and among the world’s largest fortunes) « Albert Frère. The nail merchant’s son »( Brussels, Lefrancq, 1998), noted in the book, it is necessary to promote the « construction of a strong and conquering capitalism (sic), allowing to ensure the durability of companies that keep their decision center in the country ». Amen!

This propaganda, repeated daily, is more effective than coercion. Sometimes pretending to disturb with some reports and so-called subversive programs that are only there to create consensus: more rich, more poor, more classes! Just individuals driven by interests and crossed by diverse opinions. They never radically question the problem, never offer explanations that would make it possible to understand the state of the world; they never explain what motivates the anger of the people. Already, during the Seattle riots, Beatrice Delvaux, the current editor-in-chief of Le Soir, taught us to think in the right way: « the radical ‘no’ to globalization is untenable in a world where the consumer makes daily gestures that take companies beyond their borders ». And if you didn’t understand: « the market remains the most efficient way of organizing economic life — not least because all the others have shown their limits ». It was December 2, 1999[note].


Mr Iou
What can we conclude from all this? Those who own the media, who are supposed to make the world clearer to us, to bring what is far away, to help us understand, to make us experience what is not directly accessible by our senses, are in fact lackeys of power, administrators of banks and big car brands; members of ultra-liberal and powerful Think Tanks, of employers’ federations, from big families, the possession of the main media assures them a control of thought under the false pretence of a plurality of surface.

The reality presented to us by the media is therefore a pure fabrication that is supposed to protect them as well as possible. « It can be said that the media representation of the world, as it is fabricated daily by journalists, does not show what reality actually is but what the ruling and possessing classes believe it is, wish it to be or fear it will become. In other words, the media and their personnel are nothing more than the more or less willing and zealous instruments that the dominant class needs to ensure its hegemony. As such, these instruments must be dismantled and fought vigorously and relentlessly — something that the organizations of the institutional left, which have renounced class criticism and are always ready to make a pact with the enemy in the name of republican decorum, political realism and the need to exist in the media, unfortunately do not do. »[note].

I would add that even among those who do not pact with the enemy, there is, in a world where the image has become so important, a continuous quest for the « media moment ». Those who aspire to another society sometimes see their salvation only in terms of visibility in the mass media. Yet these are in complete opposition to the aspirations of those seeking a decent society. Thinking they have gained a minute on the front page, they are in fact the big losers[note].

It is necessary to dismantle and fight these perennial and deleterious anti-democratic organs, while creating other media that will serve as a support for the defense of the truth and the voice of the people. Without this, we must believe that the struggles will not lead to anything consistent… « a mass movement deprived of any media support and having to fight against a resolutely hostile press is, to say the least, handicapped… » [note] .

Looking for what they represent is a huge waste of time. With such structures, the mass media cannot elucidate the mechanisms of exclusion and bring about real change through critical thinking. We can see that these media, which try to pass themselves off as simple witnesses describing a reality, create it from scratch: by choosing to omit a piece of information, to focus their attention on a fact, they elaborate a media representation of the world which is only its appearance. Thinking the world in a distorted way, we cannot act, contrary to what their slogans say.

We can wait for them to change. Or make our own media live. It is up to us to choose.

In our opinion, a real news medium should be distinguished by different criteria:

- not to depend on structures that use the media as an ideological instrument to serve their interests, as shown above;

- not be funded by advertising, even by non-commercial organizations such as NGOs;

- not to cohabit peacefully next to the dominant press, but to try to make a radical criticism of it and to expose its functioning;

- to be radical in its approach to the facts, i.e. to take the problems at their root;

- to search for the truth, to come as close as possible to the objective treatment of the information, without depriving themselves of certain subjects under the false pretext of anticipating the reaction of the readers (specious argument which hides the fact that it is rather the reaction of the shareholders and the advertisers that the editors anticipate).

Alexandre Penasse

Read more "

The watchdogs watch over « your » interests: don’t disappoint them!

Defending the traditional parties since always, the press which is at their service is preparing its weapons, ready to ostracize all those who will be plebiscited by the people disappointed by the usual ones (MR-CDH-ECOLO-PS and their Flemish counterparts). The watchdogs therefore brandish and will continue to brandish without moderation the scarecrow of the « extremes »: of the right and of the left, without offering explanations on what could have provoked the growth of the electorate of both, but especially by insidiously associating in the mind of the spectator a rapprochement between the one and the other… henceforth a bit the same. On May 19, following a poll on voting intentions indicating that the PTB and the Vlaams Belang could be respectively the third party in Wallonia and in Flanders, Le Soir put on its cover a photo of Raoul Hedebouw, spokesman of the PTB and federal deputy, with the title :  » The rise of the extremes . What they are saying is obviously  » beware little people, getting closer to the extreme left makes you a little fascist ! Stay calm, vote as before  and forget your intentions ».
They will not say, however, that the shift to the left is something relative, especially since their point of reference — the government — is different from the center to move away towards the right, the subjective impression answering of this logic. Not content to avoid complex explanations, the media limit their analysis to the « problem ». loss of confidence in the traditional parties  » and name the consequence  » serious « This bad intention of wanting to elect « something else » (like the French refusal to the European Constitutional Treaty in 2005), whether it be in an indiscriminate way on the right or the left :  » this disavowal has heavy communitarian overtones : the South always votes more to the left, the North more to the right « . The  » good choice « It is one of the four « traditional » ones, even if they have brought us to where we are, providing MPs, ministers, burgomasters who only work for the renewal of their position and the salary that goes with it even though they are all more or less involved in corruption, more often than not they use the revolving doors[note], live like princes and put the populace under the yoke of repression and austerity.

The mass media, multinationals, employers’ federations, governments and parties all want the same thing : change with continuity, i.e. nothing can be taken away from the rich and the world’s course, which is dictated by the growth of profit, remains as it is. The dominant order, always, is defended by the media, which makes its propaganda all the time :  » a country needs rich people  » (La libre, January 6, 2014) ;  » the market remains the most efficient way of organizing economic life  » (Beatrice Delvaux in December 1999, in Le Soir, which has not stopped its propaganda since).

The protests must therefore be carried out within the framework of the  » social dialogue  » and the austerity measures  » necessary « , peacefully accepted. Everything that goes against the capitalist functioning of the social body-system is diagnosed as a handicap, borrowing the medical-social vocabulary of impotence, the novlanguage of the employers :  » Belgian wages are still slipping. Lhe wage handicap [en gras dans le texte] of our country has increased compared to our close neighbors. A new reform needed ?  » (Le Soir, February 14, 2013)… paralysis, skidding, handicap, disturbance… while strikes, demonstrations, protests, violence in response to State violence, are defects, dysfunctions which, by their accidental reference, refuse to ask the question of what caused them. At worst, we will find in their emergence the effect of a bad communication of the power…

The people must keep silent, be convinced that they can speak and not feel like doing so; they must limit their displeasure — for anger is inadvisable, proper to a volatile mind that cannot control itself -, and make demands if they want to, but within a space and time frame defined by the power in place. What is there to complain about for these little people, whose members can always take the ramps of liberal society that will allow them to rise to the top and reach the heights of wealth ? What does he have to reproach to the one who arrived there, would he be jealous ?  The « Arab  » or the  » prolo  » who « succeed » thus become the symbolic figures who, as in the lottery («  And if it were you  » ;  » Who is the next  » ; « Lotto, creator of chances « …), prove to the rest that  » it is possible « , the highlighting of  » the example  » obscuring the extreme weakness of the probability.
Isn’t life great ? In Molenbeek, in a « D+ » school (read « positive discrimination », now taken over as « differentiated supervision » in the new novlanguage term), they try to extinguish the protest by sending Queen Mathilde in great pomp to listen to the speeches of  » those who have succeeded « [note]In addition, the socio-economic index of students is ‑0.30, whereas it is +0.08 in regular secondary schools.[note]) or drop out, making the one who does not manage to overcome his condition feel guilty and making him the only cause: you should have worked, guy ! Undergraduates are thus institutionally produced and distributed on the market of underqualified jobs in the service of the employers and shareholders who had organized their segregation upstream.
Disinformed about what is really going on, the subject plays the game, enjoys it, a kind of substitute for democratic life
In order to climb the ladder, the subordinate will have to show willpower, a spirit of conquest, a motivation that would seem to be sufficient and would go beyond the determinisms of birth and social class, whether one is the son of a prominent person or a worker, and would allow the average person to become « a man of the people ». someone  » from  » son of a nail merchant « (Albert Frère) to the migrant who has become a company director. And to maintain the illusion, to feed the dream, to appease the disappointed, we will organize the  » creation of chances « With the stars artificially produced by the media and their The Voice, Star Academy, Loft Story… giving largely and by proxy to the inert mass, whose probabilities to join the caste of the privileged are as big as to draw the jackpot, the impression, in front of the screen, to be a little the star of the evening.

In the meantime, the pack is muzzled by its desire and its hope, amazing of the revolutionary procrastination; by its admiration of the wealth that it should hate and whose representatives it should stone. Disinformed on what is really going on, attending the partisan castes retranscribed and created by the media in length of the news, the subject plays the game, enjoys it, a kind of substitute of democratic life. The indecency of a world with its shameful inequalities, the destruction of nature in order to preserve the Western way of life, the vacuity of most jobs, the march forward continuing as if nothing had happened, the media propaganda organs doing their job, describing in a revolting litany the partisan jousting, the opinions of the  » experts « , convincing us that their verbiage will only end when they are no more… all this is however not without resonance on the accepting and submitted being. But he doesn’t see how to do it, he suffers, he feels socially useless; but he is waiting for something.

The mass media, more than ever, will try to continue to make us believe, in these dark times, that thinking outside the box is not good ; that competition, success for oneself — and the failure of another — are to be sought, that the market is  » the most efficient way to organize . It is because they feel that the anger that could strike those who organize the established order — politicians and captains of industry — risks turning against themselves who have always established this order in the media.


Alexandre Penasse

Read more "
you didn't find what you were looking for?

Search again

Espace membre

Member area