Why Does My Deodorant Burn

réacosphère in your ass.




- This is the title of a tune where I dispel some ambiguities that I have to be partly responsible, as I sometimes find myself quoted by blogs that I find difficult not to caricature the right, where no one moves away from Sarkozy to fall into the wrong Maurras. I started taking some notes about it, have for the time failed to turn it so that it is interesting to someone other than me, and again, let's get

So the theme of the day, a particular case of the above. I thought about it by reading two days apart a statement by Renaud Camus and a lament of Jean Raspail in Kling-Kling, where we explained that the replacement of the French population by immigrants-come-from-anywhere-and-who-are-full of Hell is underway or already completed - and long-planned big-bad-by Boumediene.

The subject can not be evacuated with a shrug. I remember being struck by the developments in this respect a Yonnet Paul, who in his Journey to the Center of the French malaise in 1993, does not seem to take seriously enough doomsday predictions of this kind Alfred Sauvy, before they are considered more carefully in The decline in death (unless I am mistaken) in 2006. It is further perfectly legitimate to distinguish between what one may think of immigration and what we can think of immigrants - not to mention that it is undeniable that we , that is to say the wonderful Democrats who govern us, not much has sought advice from the French on that, and that the it does seem to do that if business or other Woerth.

Given this, what is striking in both texts of MM. Camus and Raspail, is how these defenders of France finally see it as an old woman a little impotent in the process of being raped, without reaction. Let's remove it the tail of the Arab unleashed, and everything will be fine ... Besides this table "victimizes" France is in tune with the times, which is no shortage of salt coming from so-called anti minds "politically correct" so-called "manly" etc.. it does not match reality.

Without going into the game of "who it has begun" (we have colonized, say some, because we have settled the Turk, replied the other ...), a little historical perspective is important. I you point out some essential changes in French society, particularly the links between Paris and the provinces, have nothing to do with immigration. I fully agree with Debord when he considers that the essential process of disintegration of the French company would have happened the same way if we had stayed warm between "us". This "we", we - that is to say, especially but not only , generation 68 and generation ago - have more or less consciously sought to destroy - indeed, to destroy it, we have needed immigrant labor, though useful for building the infrastructure needed for growth if desired by all. We pay the piper for policy then, particularly through the emblematic issue of cities, is in some way that justice.

More generally, as some like to talk about civilization in recent times, say thirty Glorious (my ass!) Were the place of choice for confirmation of a civilization that was the choice of modernity and that this choice was in fact involved the submission of the nation to something other than itself. It is the ambiguity of Gaullism, I'll always hearing now: making believe that this development could be done within the national framework, or rather, because it was not impossible a logical point of view, having been led to believe that this development took place in a national context, even then, immigration of labor (and then stand in the next decade) on one side, given keys to the bosses ( which by definition is cosmopolitan, which is his right but must be constantly reminded) of the other, even though it was done in a manner and at a pace that led to the weakening of the national framework.





Well, I will answer it, but MM. Camus and Raspail does not necessarily argue washing France of its own responsibilities: besides, your analysis implies that the current immigration (in both senses from the presence of immigrants, the arrival of new immigrants) frankly does not help things.

course, but:

- to see how often this kind of position is referred to by sites much more eager to speak ill of Muslims and leftists to trace the actual French responsibility in the matter before us, such a reminder does not seem useless

- "We made the United States. (...) What claim, considering the presence of proliferative immigrants of all colors, all to find us shot in France, as if we stole something that is still with us? "It's not just admit that Debord was right to write that in 1985, but understand that this is still true and to this extent that the model of France raped me seems wrong. We continue to make U.S. (= motherfucker), and immigrants for years have understood: the rantings of Regis Debray a Max Gallo, a Henri Guaino can do but the French are more seduced by the United States than in France. It is logical, and partly our responsibility, that immigrants become Americans them too. Especially - in this sense that we are only partly responsible for this situation - they may already be more or less Americanized before arrive.

Before specifying the causes and global consequences of this last point, let's look at its particular consequences, that is to say limited to our beautiful country: if one sticks to Muslim immigrants, which both focus attention, we must never forget, when evaluating the benefits and harms of their coming, they are at least as much Americanized Islamization, and that their arrival in France Americanizes far more than it does " Islamizing " and / or "musulmanise. You have to be stupid and / or manipulative as Ivan Rioufol to focus only through some spectacular cases, the religious dimension and the dimension forget buggers. And if the answer that is even more serious for France, it will perhaps be right, but it will fall on the previous proof: Muslims do here but follow the same path as the eldest daughter of ex- Church, seeking to reconcile faith and comfort capitalist.

- Finally, and again we follow Debord, while the accompanying Cioran, it is clear that these changes go far beyond French "After all, this continent has perhaps not played his last card. If he began to demoralize the rest of the world, to spread its stench? - This would be for him a way to still retain its prestige and to exert its influence. " Cioran has not here said the last word on everything, the question of globalization requires that exchanges between cultures, as Levi-Strauss Sahlins should allow us to be approached with caution, but he understood it, and we leave it at that for now, that the West in its most sinister might do well to survive himself, alas ...

"France is surely regrettable. But regrets are vain., "Wrote Debord. I noted in a corner of my head a few months ago a formula very close to the meaning: France is a country of crap, which unfortunately no longer exists. My formulation is even more excessive than Debord, for besides that it is not so sure that France has disappeared, it was with all his faults, not so bad as that. In short, to conclude, I joined a Debord again when it considers that the central issue is "deeply qualitative," so far false evidence of population statistics,

whose use by A. Camus, I would forget pointed out, is also questionable: Read P. Yonnet was contrary to the impression, and that brings water to my mill, that immigrants line up quickly, and even more quickly, on the French model (and even model made in France , France's legacy to the world), and are quickly becoming less and less children. Again France is not inactive and submissive ...

, false quantitative evidence that put such a Peter Boutang furious when he heard Giscard d'Estaing to make a cross on the destiny of France under the mere pretext that it was less populated than the U.S. the USSR or China. "He lived people on the surface of the earth, and here, when France will be gone. The ethnic mix that will dominate is unpredictable, as their cultures, their languages themselves." This is what emerges from this mixture, the buggers squared or otherwise compromise about right between traditional values and what remains in the West - humanism - that counts. The rest ...






(For the record: I reread before posting, I find this text very similar in spirit The man who stopped writing . You decide.)

Gpsphone Pokemon Smaragd Rom

"Dispossession is at home in France." Some people say




All is not also relevant in this text 1985, either in substance or form, but Guy-Ernest at least has the advantage for him to take the issue through the proper end, logically and chronologically. So if you do not mind, I encourage you to read what he wrote here in 25 years:

"Everything is wrong in the" immigrant question ", just as in any open question in the present society and for the same reasons: the economy - that is to say the illusion pseudo-economic - has been made, and the show was treated.

We discussed only nonsense. Should we keep or remove immigrants? (Of course, the true immigrant is not the permanent resident of foreign origin, but one that is perceived and perceives itself as different and intended to stay. Many immigrants or their children had French nationality, many Poles or Spaniards are finally lost in the mass of a French population was different. As the waste from the nuclear industry or oil into the ocean - and there are slower and less defined "scientifically "The threshold of intolerance - migrants, products from the same management of modern capitalism, will remain for centuries, millennia, always. They remain because it was much easier to eliminate the Jews of Germany in Hitler's time that the North Africans, and others, by far: in France because there is neither a party nor the Nazi myth a native breed!

Must assimilate or "respect for cultural diversity"? Inept false choice. We can no longer assimilate anyone: neither youth nor the French workers, or even the provincial and old minorities Ethnic (Corsicans, Bretons, etc.). because Paris, a city destroyed , has lost its historical role was to the French. What a centralism without capital? The concentration camp has not created any German deportees among Europeans. The distribution of the show focused not be made uniform as spectators.

It revels in simple language advertising, the rich expression of "cultural diversity". Which crops? There are more. Neither Christian nor Muslim, neither socialist nor scientistic. Do not talk about absent. There is more to watch a moment of truth and evidence, that the dramatic deterioration-World (U.S.) of any culture.

This is definitely not voting for that one assimilates. Historical demonstration that the vote is nothing, even for the French, who are voters and are nothing (1 party = 1 other party, a campaign promise = its opposite;
and more recently a program - which everybody knows that it will not be required - moreover finally ceased to be disappointing, since he never contemplated any significant problems. Who voted into the disappearance of bread?).

We recently confessed that figure reveals (And probably manipulated down): 25% of the "citizens" of the age group 18-25 years are not registered on electoral lists, simply by disgust. Abstainers are others that are added.

Some put forward the criterion of "speaking French." Laughable. The French are they talking about the present? Is the French spoken by the illiterate today, or Fabius ("Hello trouble!") Or Françoise Castro ("It lives you or t'effleure it?"), Or BH Levy? Will not it not clear, even if there were no immigrants, to the loss of any language and any articulated reasoning? What songs play this youth? What

sects infinitely more ridiculous than Islam and Catholicism have easily won an allowance on a proportion of educated idiots contemporaries (Moon, etc..)? Not to mention the severely retarded or autistic that such cults do not recruit because there is no economic interest in exploiting these cattle: therefore it is left in charge to the government.

We made America. It is normal that we find here all the miserable problems of the U.S., the drug mafia, fast-food proliferation of ethnic groups. For example, Italy and Spain, Americanized surface and even at a considerable depth, are not ethnically mixed.



In this sense, they remain more widely in Europe (as is AIgérie North Africa). We have here the troubles of America without having the strength. It is not clear that the American melting pot still works long (eg with Chicanos who have another language). But he is quite sure he can not work here any time. Because that's what the U.S. manufacturing center mode current life, the heart of the show that extends its pulsations to Moscow or Beijing, and which in any case can not allow any independence to its local subcontractors (the understanding of this unfortunately shows a subjection much less superficial than that would destroy or moderate the usual critics "imperialism").


Here, we do nothing: the colonized who failed revolt, the yes-man of spectacular alienation. What claim, considering the presence of proliferative immigrants of all colors, find ourselves suddenly in France, as if we steal something that is still with us? And what then? What we believe, or rather what do we still pretend? It is a pride for their rare holidays, when the pure slaves indignant that metics threaten their independence!

The risk of apartheid? It is real. It is more a risk, it is inevitable there already (with its logic of ghettos, racial clashes, and a day of bloodshed). A society that is completely broken obviously less able to accommodate without too many problems a large amount of immigrants that could be a cohesive society and relatively happy. We have already noted in 1973 that striking the balance between technological developments and changing attitudes: "The environment is ever more hastily rebuilt to the repressive control and profit at the same time becomes more fragile and encourages more vandalism. Capitalism in its spectacular stage while rebuilding and producing fake incendiary. And its decoration is everywhere as flammable College de France. "

With the presence of immigrants (who has already served some unionists may denounce as" war religions "some workers' strikes they could not control), we can be assured that the existing authorities will promote development of small-scale experiments that we have seen clashes staged through" terrorists " real or fake, or supporters of rival football teams (not just English supporters).

But it's clear why all political leaders (including leaders of the National Front) have sought to downplay the seriousness of the "immigrant problem". All they want to keep all their allowed to watch one problem in the face and in its proper context. Some pretend that it's only a matter of "goodwill anti-racist" to enforce, and others that he comes to recognize the rights of a moderate "just xenophobia."


And all work together to consider this issue as if it was the hottest, almost alone among all the frightening problems that a company does not overcome. The new apartheid ghetto spectacular (not the local version, folk, South Africa), it is already there, in France today: the vast majority the population is trapped and brutalized, and all must have been the same had it not been a single immigrant. Who decided to build and Minguettes Sarcelles, destroy Paris or Lyon? We certainly can not say no immigrant has participated in this infamous work. But they have only obeyed strictly the orders given to them: this is the usual misfortune of wage labor.

How many foreigners it actually in France? (And not just the legal status, color, facies.) It is obvious that there are so many that we should rather ask: how is he French and where are they? (And what characterizes a French now?) How would it soon, French? We know that fertility decline. Is not that normal? The French can no longer bear their children. They send them to school at three years, and at least sixteen, to teach literacy. And before they have three years, more and more people who are "unbearable" and hit more or less violently. Children are still loved in Spain, Italy, Algeria, among Gypsies.

Not often in France now. Neither housing nor the city are no longer made for children (hence the cynical publicity of government planners on "open city on children"). On the other hand, contraception is widespread, abortion is free. Almost all children today in France, have been desired. But not free! The voter-consumer does not know what he wants. He "chose" something he dislikes. Her mental structure that has more coherence to remember that he wanted something, when he found himself disappointed by the experience of this very thing.

In the show, a company class wanted, very systematically, eliminating history. And now it claims to regret this one particular result of the presence of so many immigrants, because France will "disappear" as well? Comic. She disappears for many other causes and, more or less rapidly on almost any terrain.

Immigrants have the best right to live in France. They are representatives of the dispossession and deprivation is at home in France, as she has a majority. and almost universal. Immigrants have lost their culture and country, very known, but could not find others. And the French are in the same case, and just as secretly.

With equalization of the entire planet in the misery of a new environment and intelligence of all purely false, the French. who accepted it without much rebellion (except 1968) are ill advised to say they feel more at home because of immigrants! They have every reason not to feel at home, it's very true. This is because there is nobody else in this horrible new world of alienation, that of immigrants. It

people live on the surface of the earth, and here, when the France will be gone. The ethnic mix that will dominate is unpredictable, as their cultures, their languages themselves. Arguably, the central issue, deeply qualitative, will be this: will these future peoples they dominated, by a practice emancipated, the present technique, which is generally that of the sham and dispossession? Or, conversely, will they be dominated by it in an even more hierarchical and slavery today? We must assume the worst, and fight for the best. France is certainly regrettable. But regrets are vain. "

Discharges Before Period

has made outta mud Man Is ... ("The world as a device is part of the world as phenomenon.")




us continue our propaganda pro-Borella, as the clarifications given in The crisis of religious symbolism seem to be beneficial to all. If, in the words of P. Boutang nearly forty years ago, "the first work of reconstruction will be metaphysical, work, work, even if we repeat some :

" These are the considerations that allow us to grasp the true meaning of infinitization the cosmos in the early seventeenth century, and we justify could talk about it, an indefinite limitation. It is precisely this concept of a universal or indefinite restriction that allows us to realize, ironically, and the apparent expansion of cosmic space and the feeling that seizes prison when minds and hearts . We repeat - because that is where our eyes much of the cultural change experienced by the European soul - or the boundless openness of cosmic space is consequential, fundamentally, the reduction of world the geometric extent, that is to say its closing ontological. Conversely, the closure Space medieval and ancient world is a boundless correlative ontological, because the order of things is mysteriously connected to the divine order it symbolizes. This intrinsic boundless world agrees to depth of human life. For the life of man always takes place in a world that is both finite and deep, never in unlimited space and surfacial. Life is finitary, it requires a frame, a circle, a "medium" (Umwelt ) [ rooting, say Simone Weil ], an ecological niche, a matrix, a paradise. But at the same time it added to this space three-dimensional closed (that the cross symbolizes the rivers in the Garden of Eden), a fourth dimension, the only one infinite or near-infinite depth internal, geometrically non-figurative, presence of the hidden world behind in all things be extending their Secret to Being infinite. Therefore Galilean science may well provide the intoxication of a limitless expanse where plunge our eyes, the collective subconscious no mistake. He feels this opening as a loss, this expansion as a decoy. "( The crisis of religious symbolism , p. 89)

- that advertising has for once managed to translate the slogan Film the former (?) - advertising Ridley Scott: "In the Galilean space, nobody can hear you scream" - a quick Google search





to verify that I am right about this slogan tells me that in the space called the "conquest", which Jean Borella spends the rest of this passage is true, we hear nothing .





- What gives me a perfect transition to any other text from the same book. On one hand I have almost no scientific culture, on the other hand, as I explained last May, I have some general reservations on the use of science by philosophy or religion. It certainly does not preclude any reference to contemporary science, here is always so in the writings of J. Borella:

"Analyses of the finest recent physics ... lead to a paradoxical reversal of the ordinary conceptions: it is not the separation or distance between two points is first and obvious, and thus the possible correlation of these two points must be explained, but rather it is the "inseparability" becomes "principle" and distance or gap that is the problem: "the distance is not intrinsically between this or that element of reality independent. It is we who say, somehow, between such and such elements of empirical reality or, in other words, the image of reality that we build for our trade and use " Bernard of Espagnat, In search of the real , Gauthier Villars, 1979 46. This book may raise criticism, especially because the character a little summary (to us) of some philosophical considerations (and must This suggests a physicist of our own views on scientific matters!). But this does not suffice to discredit his basic thesis: the objective reality is not material in nature. "(P. 86N).

striking phrase, so I had the title of my first use of Crisis ... , and which I found today a programmatic look: my cautious temperament, Musil my side if I want to be pretentious, my cowardice if I want to flog, trying to restrain myself, my enthusiasm makes them a frame overflow ("school" in the sporting press, a frame overflow School is still, do not ask me why) and is quick to declare that the only interesting philosophies today, the only ones that can help us overcome the crisis, including financial and elsewhere throughout this shit (shit comes after the food, the fish rots from the head: the crisis is a consequence rather than cause, although it has its own rhythm), are those details and explains the principle. - And that is how, party walking on eggshells, I get excited activist, is typical ...

But back to Espagnat. The old voyers never extinguished in me can only wriggle on reading the name, and go check what that wrote fuck thirty years ago , the master

"We learn through the physicist Espagnat ( In search of the real ) that Bohr defines science primarily as a work of communication between human beings and not in terms of a given reality and its inherent mission would be to try to describe. In other words, science is for Niels Bohr synthesis part human experience. (...) In the design of Bohr's notion of reality properties objects seems to be strictly subordinated to that of human experience and have meaning only through it. So somehow a new cogito : communication alone is certain, everything else is questionable. The conclusion of this delightful school in Copenhagen is that physics can no longer speak of a kind in-itself kind of material self-respect and an object object in itself. For Bohr, the nature and matter are only parts of the world defined as the total activity of men. On Espagnat adds: "More knowledge expands, becomes more of those big field which one can say they are aware of ourselves before being aware of a problem outside world or eternal truth. "(...) The importance

conferred by Bohr instruments to measure Therefore he said that it is impossible to speak of a phenomenon as it fails to fully describe the experimental setup used to study this phenomenon at the limit: the world as experimental device to observe the world as a phenomenon "In truth it must be said that the device is an integral part the phenomenon and thus the world as a device is part of the world as a phenomenon. Thus, the propagation of a particle in space is not in itself a phenomenon. The assembly formed by the transmitter device, the particle environment in the here and a receiving device according to Bohr phenomenon whose physical science can legitimately speak. But the instruments used by men, although men must build them before using them. And why stop there way and define the phenomenon at the laboratory door and does not extend to different locations where instruments are manufactured. Thus this state prepared by the physicist is included in a report prepared by the world itself, this phenomenon is itself a state of the global division of labor and the world is the only suitable device for observing the world, ie the fact alone is qualified to observe reality. "

All this seems perfectly back in our analytical framework of the day. I reproduce even some theories:

" The fact that we pretend that what is meant by words of nature and matter or regions of knowledge does not mean we pretend that nothing exists which is not idea, thought. The movement of the idea takes place in what is and is not it. But what is and is not thinking is not necessarily what is meant by "material" and "Nature." This does not mean that what is and is not thought to be beyond the reach of knowledge as claimed by Kant. Instead, knowledge as a world, practical communication, movement of thought in which it is not destruction of what exists and is not thought, or at least destruction of its independence: mediation self-mediation of what exists. Knowledge as a world, far from foreign to being, is its self-destruction, its internal division infinite. Being is not left untouched out of knowledge, but knowledge is the internal collapse of the infinite being ... Hegel describes highly poetic of this collapse. The style of Hegel, style tornado and storm, is the apocalyptic style par excellence.

other words, what we call "nature" and "matter" are not in what it thought would move. It already the movement of thought is already a part of a state of destruction of what exists is already a region of the founding of the universe.

On this point, we differ from Hegel and are modestly dualistic. The idea of movement is the movement of the idea in what exists and thus becomes the world. We accept that something exists prior to the movement of the idea and not the idea, but we deny that something is "natural" or "matter" at least what is usually referred to by these words. Anyway, this hypothesis dualism is totally free and superfluous in the state of things. It does not eat bread and we do not deprive us of the pleasure of doing it. Which of course for our original sin divine essence. We will never be born as deities ! In the words of Lautreamont, we are also the eternal birth. Religious myths have a rational basis, rational basis which can also claim the laborious fables materialistic, because these myths are the work of a world and known as such. (...)

In a more general, we find ourselves in agreement with Espagnat (...) To challenge the object is the fact that the object exists as an object in object-self, that "nature" exists in nature as nature itself-regardless of the knowledge one can take From this knowledge somehow add-on is inessential and powerless as a reflection to that nature in-itself nature. Similarly, we disagree that there is material in self-respect regardless of the knowledge that we take. The latter expression is also incorrect since it implies that anyway takes knowledge of a subject or even what exists independently of the thought. But it is not. Matter as a region of knowledge is not what knowledge is knowledge but the knowledge itself or at least results. Then knowledge does not acknowledge the "being" that exists independently of thought, but this being destroyed, destroyed its independence. It does not deal with being, it is the destruction of the independence of being. "(Journal of contemporary prehistory, 1982, pp. 140-146)

I do not remember this idea of destruction, expressed here with important nuances in its formulations, has been taken by the author in recent years. Invoking Lautreamont (as in other texts from the same period, Breton), unless I am mistaken, remained the order of the exceptional. Anyway, in 2005, JP Voyer, in a text of a densely , talks about this idea of "dualism modest"

"This allows me to clarify what I heard when I said I was to Dr. Weltfaust, contrary to Hegel and Marx (...), modestly dualistic. I did not say that I feel dualistic mind-matter , But what is the meaning object which is not subject . What is not an object? The appearance, ie the appearance as qu'apparition. This applies, of course, for items that never appear, like the numbers - no one has seen a number and nobody will ever see and yet, judging by Frege, numbers are objects -. I am therefore dualistic because I recognize two orders: the order of objects visible (things) and invisible (invisible, of course, but ... formulable. Forms, otherwise there would be no math), and order appearance. If that does not produce bizarre sentences, it would be unwise to make generalizations visible and invisible in obvious and not obvious . "

- Is dualism still, I do not know, and the distinction kinds of be borrowed from Wittgenstein and Vincent Descombes and discussed later in this passage, could she not, at least in some way be connected to the gradation of depth in the symbolic order that found in the theories of Jean Borella?

Well, that's enough for today ...





... or rather not, because I came across the transcript the wonderful article "Heterosexism," from the Dictionary of Homophobia , led by Tin unfortunate that we found there is little .

I referred in my article lengthy review of this hilarious dictionary in 2006, so it is only fair to inform you of the contents, it is now available online. I will not devote an entire text, life is short, to read it I'll just note how one can be struck not only by the light of historical considerations of the author, by his way of solving the problem by starting its definitions, the confusion, well analyzed by Muray in the time between 'stigma' and 'discrimination' (discrimination mentioned Muray, it was originally, and this can only be, that setting differences, this does not necessarily lead to abuse, in this case, we do not see how the idea of a complementarity between men and women who fit together well as I know, would necessarily result in the submission of the second to first), but also, that in my memory was less attracted my attention, for a reconciliation unfortunately very common between the bourgeois culture of the nineteenth century, indeed as hard to homosexuals as very hypocritical, and the history of the "Christian West" and - to phobia phobia and a half - a dull and unpleasant misogyny my faith quite common among gays.





And this time, good day!




The technique, well ... But the spirit!

Welcome Notes For Invitations

hundred times on the job ...




"Any man who has a conviction whatsoever, there is a God, nay, he believes in God. For any belief postulates the absolute or supplement." (Cioran, 1959)


"Obedience is a vital need of the human soul. It is of two kinds of obedience to rules and obedience to human beings regarded as masterpieces. It implies consent, not not in respect of each order received, but a consent once and for all, subject only, where applicable, the requirements of conscience. It is necessary that it is generally recognized and foremost by the Heads, that the consent and not the fear of punishment or the lure of the reward is in fact the mainspring of obedience, so that the bid is never suspicious of servility. It must be also known that those who command obey their side, and it requires that the full hierarchy is goal oriented and whose value is the same size felt by all, from highest to lowest.

Obedience is a necessary food for the soul, a person who is permanently deprived is sick. Thus, any community is governed by a chief accountant who is sovereign in person lies in the hands of a patient.





Therefore, where a man is set for life at the head of social organization, it must be a symbol, not a leader, as is the case for the king of England must also limit its freedom conveniences more closely than that of any man of the people. In this way, effective leaders, but leaders have somebody above them;

idea that there are, let us recall , Maurras: religion is, or should serve, the strong protect the weak, limiting the power of the strong.

other hand they can without that continuity is broken, replace itself, and therefore each receive its indispensable part of obedience.

Those who submit masses of people through coercion and cruelty to deprive both of two vital food, freedom and obedience, for it is in the power of the masses to give their consent to the authority within that 'they undergo. Those who favor a situation where greed is the main mobile remove obedience to men, since consent is the principle which is not something that can be sold.

Thousand signs show that men of our time had long been starved of obedience. But we took the opportunity to give them to slavery. "(S. Weil, 1943)

Where we touch again the finger at the limits of the Fifth Republic, which, although it was run by a Catholic , not wanting to play on "greed" and the purchase of consent. (I recall that Rooting , whose text is derived, was originally written to feed the ideas of bodies such as CNR, whose program will influence the constitutions of the Fourth and Fifth Republics.) In a time of remembrance Gaulle, it must be remembered that the worm the fruit is long overdue.

(Indeed, to follow SW, capitalism and democracy are simply antithetical. We find again the ambiguities of Gaullism triumphant: there was consent, and that's why it has almost worked. But it was also a consent agreement to growth, "modernization" in comfort ... to slavery - which de Gaulle was at times painfully aware.)

This consent theory also points out that most " lay "of Levi-Strauss . Secular purpose, but without resorting the sentence is very interesting but general Cioran put emphasize it, we should see whether the exchange of reciprocity according to Levi-Strauss founded the state can be developed without a keystone, a kind of absence without greater reciprocity: "It must be also known that those who command obey their side." - At a time they obey God, and it can not be the same reciprocity. Remember Bernanos: "Between us there is that exchange only God gives himself." Not that God is not in an exchange relationship with the holder of power, a kind of system of reciprocal guarantees of legitimacy is that God, himself, may simply give, without reciprocity (and not only, of course, the holder of power): it is this possibility that has s' from the system of reciprocity that allows him to "hold."

(In a hierarchical society, at the other end of the scale can be found without giving the recipient: the renouncing Indian is the prototype, and its essential role in the perpetuation of Indian society. C is that it does not, it does not participate in the system of reciprocity is society, which involves the maintenance of that system.)

Returning to the comparison between Simone Weil and Levi-Strauss, and hypothesize that if the Indians seem to be able in some cases (it should be careful) to dispense with a keystone above is that the separation between sacred and profane, which I alluded hereby , Durkheim support (still not very Jewish Jew .. . it was the heyday of French Judaism) is not the same at home, even this distinction is irrelevant: the savage lives in the sacred, the ceremony ... in a more egalitarian system, which need not be locked at the top and bottom at once because there is not really high and low, and because the sacred is first present in each member of society.

Lawrence James, in a recent conference , detailed the various personifications of power and functions - warrior, religious ... - In traditional societies (broadly defined). This is a story nonlinear and can not be summarized in two words: I issue simply assumed that prioritization of society and secular areas of distinction and sacred are intertwined. This distinction can take very different forms in different places and eras. But it is obvious that a society like ours, which officially does not sacred, which is officially egalitarian (with different modalities such as egalitarianism between French and Anglo-Saxon egalitarianism, cf. Dumont) eventually deprive tools to understand what the consent - the last straw for "democracy"! - And obedience, the syntheses of the Protestant type and / or Kantian (the moral law within me ...) can not, despite their merits, fill all the holes made by modernity.





"conclude." Plato (and Cioran's words with which I began is a kind of "we are all Platonists) to Guenon's thought of the hierarchy is also known that it is strong and consistent. Via Daumal someone like Rene, who read Guénon and has read at Dumont and probably (but I am proof ...) as Simone Weil, this thinking continues to spread in the twentieth century . It is also possible that de Gaulle had personally met Guénon ... in the living room of Daniel Halevy, quai de l'Horloge in the very center of Paris, since Both met him (S. Lawrence, Daniel Halevy , Grasset, 2001, pp. 316-317), about the same period. It would be interesting to have confirmation ... In short, the idea is to revisit, as the brilliantly Simone Weil, the idea of consent, which can evoke democracy, supported the idea of hierarchy (and vice versa ...). This, as I pointed with my memories and modest means, reaching for inclusion in what could be a theory of power who seem, wrongly or rightly, remain the poor relations of the thoughts of the hierarchy and tradition, Indians. Because they are worth it ...