Overblog Suivre ce blog
Administration Créer mon blog
9 décembre 2010 4 09 /12 /décembre /2010 09:15

http://fr-ca.actualites.yahoo.com/blogues/la-chronique-de-normand-lester/arme-thermonucl%C3%A9aire-de-julian-assange-contre-les-usa-.html#mwpphu-post-form

 

Je suis d'accord avec Normand Lester, Julian Assange mérite le prix Nobel de la paix.


Le fait qu'il ait fournis un document crypté à contenu top secret et qu'il menace de relâcher la clef pour sauver sa vie est tres astucieux. Bravo Julian. Il devrait aussi annoncer le relâchement si ses sources sont tuées, enlevées ou mises en prison.


Assange nous propose un travail qui peut nous permettre de protéger et même améliorer nos démocraties en redonnant un peu le pouvoir aux citoyens, à travers une information pertinente.
De plus, on peut apprécier que les grands journaux aient tous cru d'intérets publics de révéler le contenu des ces documents qui, somme toute, confirme ce que nous savions tous mais que nous ne pouvions pas dénoncer du fait du manque de preuve. Maintenant, on ne peut plus se faire ridiculiser d'être paranoiaque ou de chercher des complots. On est donc certain que les services diplomatiques états-uniens ne manigancent pas toujours pour le bien de l'humanité. On peut se rappeler les actions du CIA appuyant le coup d'etat de Pinochet qui détruisit les plus beaux espoirs politiques des chiliens.

On croirait voir une redite de l'Affaire Fairwell qui a fait tomber le KGB et qui mena à la Perestroika.

 

Mais bon, il n'y a pas que l'Occident qui merite de revoir sa copie.

 

Les politiciens du Moyen-Orient ont encore plus de soucis à se faire. Quand on voit les niveaux de corruption, de violence dissimulée et les dérapages policiers des pays comme l'Arabie Saoudite, la Jordanie, l'Iran ou l'Algerie. A quand les Wikileaks des pays asiatiques ? Et que dire de la Chine qui elle-même n'a jamais été un modèle de démocratie et de respect des droits de la personne.

Wikileaks nous montre la vraie nature de nos politiciens.

 

L'homme est un loup pour l'homme quel que soit le pays.

Toute civilisation est fondée sur l`exploitation des affaiblis et des pauvres.

Je n'aime pas ces messages de vengeance qui ne respectent pas les messages de nos religions du livre.

Je connais bien le Moyen-Orient et je puis constater que les gouvernements de ces pays font pire que les occidentaux et n'aident pas leur popullations a vivre dans des meilleures conditions de vie. Leurs politiques ne construisent pas de service public digne de ce nom, de systeme d'education de qualite, de systeme de sante accessible a tous. En Turquie, on prefere fournir des sous a construire des mosquees plutot que de resoudre la misere des gens en limitant les heures de travail et en augmentant les salaires minima, et cela dans un pays tres riche du point de vue economique.

Tous, ils preferent amasser des bombardiers de feus plutot que des bombardiers d'eau.

Avec Wikileaks, nous commencons a faire le menage chez nous, alors, il faudrait que les autres fassent le menage chez eux. 


"Aide-toi et le ciel t'aidra" que disait mon grand-pere, bien catholique.

 

Luc

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
6 décembre 2010 1 06 /12 /décembre /2010 10:09

Un train de passagers chinois brise un record de vitesse en frisant les 500km/h

 

Un grand pas dans la bonne direction pour les raisons d'écologie et de transport en commun efficace et de grande ampleur. La détermination chinoise nous surprendra toujours car ils prenent le direction d'une économie plus verte. La Chine n'hésite pas à faire mieux qu'en France et au Japon. Enfin, la Chine ne jouit encore pas d'une couverture à grande vitesse équivalente à ces pays mais elle pousse les limites sans accidents.

 

Pendant ce temps là, le Canada et le Grande Bretagne font parti de ces pays dits développés mais très conservateurs qui en sont encore à perdre leurs temps à chercher des arguments pour ne pas prendre la direction la plus rationnelle, à savoir la plus efficace, et à investir des masses de sous sur les aéroports et les autoroutes.

 

A quand une mise en réseau TGV de Montréal avec Boston, Toronto et New York à 300 km/h ?

 

"Survival of the fittest"

 

Un pays qui ne se dote pas des moyens les plus performants est voué à se voir laisser rapidement distancer par les pays qui adoptent les méthodes de transport les plus pointues.

 

 

Luc

 

==================

 

PÉKIN, Chine - En atteignant 486 kilomètres/heure pendant un essai routier, vendredi, un train de passagers qui reliera les villes de Pékin et de Shanghai a fracassé un record de vitesse, a annoncé l'agence de presse gouvernementale Chine Nouvelle.

 

Selon Chine Nouvelle, il s'agit de la vitesse la plus rapide pour un train commercial conventionnel non modifié. Des types de trains différents ont atteint des pointes encore plus élevées dans d'autres pays. Ce fut le cas d'un TGV français modifié, qui a roulé à 574,8 kilomètres/heure lors d'un test effectué en 2007 et d'un train à lévitation magnétique qui a enregistré une vitesse de pointe de 581 kilomètres/heure au Japon en 2003.

 

Les images diffusées sur la télévision d'État montrent le train filant à toute allure dans la campagne chinoise de l'est du pays. Il a atteint sa vitesse maximale sur une portion de la ligne ferroviaire longue de 1318 kilomètres qui relie les villes de Zaozhuang, dans la province de Shandong, et celle de Bengbu, dans la province d'Anhui, a indiqué l'agence Xinhua.

Le lien ferroviaire devrait être inauguré en 2012. Il permettra de réduire de moitié le temps actuel du trajet Pékin-Shanghai, qui est actuellement de dix heures. Le projet, qui s'inscrit dans la volonté du gouvernement chinois de relier plusieurs villes grâce à un réseau ferroviaire haute vitesse, aura coûté 32,5 milliards $ US.

 

La Chine possède actuellement le plus important réseau ferroviaire haute vitesse au monde.

 

 

 

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
3 décembre 2010 5 03 /12 /décembre /2010 20:42

Law and Government
------------------
by Alexander Berkman
--------------------

link:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html
 
How do you live? What does your freedom amount to?
 
You depend on your employer for your wages or your salary, don't you? And your
wages determine your way of living, don't they? The conditions of your life,
even what you eat and drink, where you go and with whom you associate, - all
of it depends on your wages.
 
No, you are not a free man. You are dependent on your employer and on your
wages. You are really a wage slave.
 
The whole working class, under the capitalist system, is dependent on the
capitalist class. The workers are wage slaves.
 
So, what becomes of your freedom? What can you do with it? Can you do more
with it than your wages permit?
 
Can't you see that your wage - your salary or income - is all the freedom that
you have? Your freedom, your liberty, don't go a step further than the wages
you get.
 
The freedom that is given you on paper, that is written down in law books and
constitutions, does not do you a bit of good. Such freedom only means that you
have the right to do a certain thing. But it doesn't mean that you can do it.
To be able to do it, you must have the chance, the opportunity. You have a
right to eat three fine meals a day, but if you haven't the means, the
opportunity to get those meals, then what good is that right to you?
 
So freedom really means opportunity to satisfy your needs and wants. If your
freedom does not give you that opportunity, then it does you no good. Real
freedom means opportunity and well being. If it does not mean that, it means
nothing.
 
You see, then, that the whole situation comes to this: Capitalism robs you and
makes a wage slave of you. The law upholds and protects that robbery.
 
The government fools you into believing that you are independent and free.
In this way you are fooled and duped every day of your life. But how does it
happen that you didn't think of it before? How is it that most other people
don't see it, either?
 
It is because you and every one else are lied to about this all the time, from
your earliest childhood.
 
You are told to be honest, while you are being robbed all your life.
 
You are commanded to respect the law, while the law protects the capitalist
who is robbing you.
 
You are taught that killing is wrong, while the government hangs and
electrocutes people and slaughters them in war.
 
You are told to obey the law and government, though law and government stand
for robbery and murder.
 
Thus all through life you are lied to, fooled, and deceived, so that it will
be easier to make profits out of you, to exploit you.
 
Because it is not only the employer and the capitalist who make profits out of
you. The government, the church, tend the school - they all live on your
labor. You support them all. That is why all of them teach you to be content
with your lot and behave yourself.
 
'Is it really true that I support them all?' you ask in amazement.
 
Let us see. They eat and drink and are clothed, not to speak of the luxuries
they enjoy. Do they make the things they use and consume, do they do the
planting and sowing and building and so on?
 
'But they pay for those things,' your friend objects.
 
Yes, they pay. Suppose a fellow stole fifty dollars from you and then went
and bought with it a suit of clothes for himself. Is that suit by right his?
Didn't he pay for it? Well, just so the people who don't produce anything or
do no useful work pay for things. Their money is the profits they or their
parents before them squeezed out of you, out of the workers.
 
'Then it is not my boss who supports me, but I him?'
 
Of course. He gives you a job; that is, permission to work in the factory or
mill which was not built by him but by other workers like yourself. And for
that permission you help to support him for the rest of your life or as long
as you work for him. You support him so generously that he can afford a
mansion in the city and a home in the country, even several of them, and
servants to attend to his wants and those of his family, and for the
entertainment of his friends, and for horse races and for boat races, and for
a hundred other things. But it is not only to him that you are so generous.
Out of your labor, by direct and indirect taxation, are supported the entire
government, local, state, and national, the schools and the churches, and all
the other institutions whose business it is to protect profits and keep you
fooled. You and your fellow workers, labor as a whole, support them all. Do
you wonder that they all tell you that everything is all right and that you
should be good and keep quiet?
 
It is good for them that you should keep quiet, because they could not keep on
duping and robbing you once you open your eyes and see what's happening to you.
 
That's why they are all strong for this capitalist system, for law and order'.
 
But is that system good for you? Do you think it right and just? If not, then
why do you put up with it? Why do you support it? 'What can I do?' you say;
'I'm only one.'
 
Are you really only one? Are you not rather one out of many thousands, out of
millions, all of them exploited and enslaved the same as you are? Only they
don't know it. If they knew it, they wouldn't stand for it. That's sure. So
the thing is to make them know it.
 
Every workingman in your city, every toiler in your country, in every country,
in the whole world, is exploited and enslaved the same as you are.
 
And not only the workingmen. The farmers are duped and robbed in the same
manner.
 
Just like the workingmen, the farmer is dependent on the capitalist class. He
toils hard all his life, but most of his labor goes to the trusts and
monopolies of the land which by right is no more theirs than the moon is.
 
The farmer produces the food of the world. He feeds all of us. But before he
can get his goods to us, he is made to pay tribute to the class that lives
by the work of others, the profit-making, capitalist class. The farmer is
mulcted out of the greater part of his product just as the worker is. He is
mulcted by the land owner and by the mortgage holder; by the steel trust and
the railroad. The banker, the commission merchant, the retailer, and a score
of other middlemen squeeze their profits out of the farmer before he is
allowed to get his food to you.
 
Law and government permit and help this robbery by ruling that the land, which
no man created, belongs to the landlord; the railroads, which the workers
built, belong to the railroad magnates; the warehouses, grain elevators, and
storehouses, erected by the workers, belong to the capitalists; all those
monopolists and capitalists have a right to get profits from the farmer for
using the railroads and other facilities before he can get his food to you.
 
You can see then, how the farmer is robbed by big capital and business, and
how the law helps in that robbery, just as with the workingman.
 
But it is not only the worker and the farmer who are exploited and forced to
give up the greater part of their product to the capitalists, to those who
have monopolized the land, the railroads, the factories, the machinery, and
all natural resources. The entire country, the whole world is made to pay
tribute to the kings of finance and industry.
 
The small business man depends on the wholesaler; the wholesaler on the
manufacturer; the manufacturer on the trust magnates of his industry; and
all of them on the money lords and banks for their credit. The big bankers
and financiers can put any man out of business by just withdrawing their
credit from him. They do so whenever they want to squeeze any one out of
business. The business man is entirely at their mercy. If he does not play
the game as they want it, to suit their interests, then they simply drive
him out of the game.
 
Thus the whole of mankind is dependent upon and enslaved by just a handful of
men who have monopolized almost the entire wealth of the world, but who have
themselves never created anything.
 
'But those men work hard,' you say.
 
Well, some of them don't work at all. Some of them are just idlers, whose
business is managed by others. Some of them do work. But what kind of work do
they do? Do they produce anything, as the worker and the farmer do? No, they
produce nothing, though they may work. They work to mulct people, to get
profits out of them. Does their work benefit you? The highwayman also works
hard and takes great risks to boot. His 'work', like the capitalist's, gives
employment to lawyers, jailers, and a host of other retainers, all of whom
your toil supports.
 
It seems indeed ridiculous that the whole world should slave for the benefit
of a handful of monopolists, and that all should have to depend upon them for
their right and opportunity to live. But the fact is just that. And it is the
more ridiculous when you consider that the workers and farmers, who alone
create all wealth, should be the most dependent and the poorest of all the
other classes in society.
 
It is really monstrous, and it is very sad. Surely your common sense must tell
you that such a situation is nothing short of madness. If the great masses of
people, the millions throughout the world, could see how they are fooled,
exploited and enslaved, as you see it now, would they stand for such goings
 on? Surely they would not!
 
The capitalists know they wouldn't. That is why they need the government to
legalize their methods of robbery, to protect the capitalist system.
 
And that is why the government needs laws, police and soldiers, courts and
prisons to protect capitalism.
 
But who are the police and the soldiers who protect the capitalists against
you, against the people?
 
If they were capitalists themselves, then it would stand to reason why they
want to protect the wealth they have stolen, and why they try to keep up,
even by force, the system that gives them the privilege of robbing the people.
 
But the police and the soldiers, the defenders of 'law and order', are not of
the capitalist class. They are men from the ranks of the people, poor men who
for pay protect the very system that keeps them poor. It is unbelievable, is
it not? Yet it is true. It just comes down to this: some of the slaves protect
their masters in keeping them and the rest of the people in slavery. In the
same way Great Britain, for instance, keeps the Hindoos in India in subjection
by a police force of the natives, of the Hindoos themselves. Or as Belgium
does with the black men in the Congo. Or as any government does with a
subjugated people. It is the same system. Here is what it amounts to:
Capitalism robs and exploits the whole of the people; the laws legalize and
uphold this capitalist robbery; the government uses one part of the people
to aid and protect the capitalists in robbing the whole of the people. The
entire thing is kept up by educating the people to believe that capitalism
is right, that the law is just, and that the government must be obeyed. Do
you see through this game now?

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
3 décembre 2010 5 03 /12 /décembre /2010 20:41

The Capitalist System
---------------------
By Mikhail Bakunin
------------------
 
Is it necessary to repeat here the irrefutable arguments of Socialism which no
bourgeois economist has yet succeeded in disproving? What is property, what
is capital in their present form? For the capitalist and the property owner
they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without
working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not
fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting
the work of someone else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess
neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive
power to the lucky owners of both. Note that I have left out of account
altogether the following question: In what way did property and capital ever
fall into the hands of their present owners? This is a question which, when
envisaged from the points of view of history, logic, and justice, cannot be
answered in any other way but one which would serve as an indictment against
the present owners. I shall therefore confine myself here to the statement
that property owners and capitalists, inasmuch as they live not by their own
productive labor but by getting land rent, house rent, interest upon their
capital, or by speculation on land, buildings, and capital, or by the
commercial and industrial exploitation of the manual labor of the proletariat,
all live at the expense of the proletariat. (Speculation and exploitation no
doubt also constitute a sort of labor, but altogether non-productive labor.)
 
I know only too well that this mode of life is highly esteemed in all
civilized countries, that it is expressly and tenderly protected by all the
States, and that the States, religions, and all the juridical laws, both
criminal and civil, and all the political governments, monarchies and
republican - with their immense judicial and police apparatuses and their
standing armies - have no other mission but to consecrate and protect such
practices. In the presence of these powerful and respectable authorities I
cannot even permit myself to ask whether this mode of life is legitimate from
the point of view of human justice, liberty, human equality, and fraternity.
I simply ask myself: Under such conditions, are fraternity and equality
possible between the exploiter and the exploited, are justice and freedom
possible for the exploited?
 
Let us even suppose, as it is being maintained by the bourgeois economists
and with them all the lawyers, all the worshippers and believers in the
juridical right, all the priests of the civil and criminal code - let us
suppose that this economic relationship between the exploiter and the
exploited is altogether legitimate, that it is the inevitable consequence,
the product of an eternal, indestructible social law, yet still it will
always be true that exploitation precludes brotherhood and equality. It
goes without saying that it precludes economic equality. Suppose I am your
worker and you are my employer. If I offer my labor at the lowest price, if I
consent to have you live off my labor, it is certainly not because of devotion
or brotherly love for you. And no bourgeois economist would dare to say that it
was, however idyllic and naive their reasoning becomes when they begin to speak
about reciprocal affections and mutual relations which should exist between
employers and employees. No, I do it because my family and I would starve to
death if I did not work for an employer. Thus I am forced to sell you my labor
at the lowest possible price, and I am forced to do it by the threat of hunger.
 
But - the economists tell us - the property owners, the capitalists, the
employers, are likewise forced to seek out and purchase the labor of the
proletariat. Yes, it is true, they are forced to do it, but not in the same
measure. Had there been equality between those who offer their labor and
those who purchase it, between the necessity of selling one's labor and the
necessity of buying it, the slavery and misery of the proletariat would not
exist. But then there would be neither capitalists, nor property owners, nor
the proletariat, nor rich, nor poor: there would only be workers. It is
precisely because such equality does not exist that we have and are bound to
have exploiters.
 
This equality does not exist because in modern society where wealth is
produced by the intervention of capital paying wages to labor, the growth
of the population outstrips the growth of production, which results in the
supply of labor necessarily surpassing the demand and leading to a relative
sinking of the level of wages. Production thus constituted, monopolized,
exploited by bourgeois capital, is pushed on the one hand by the mutual
competition of the capitalists to concentrate evermore in the hands of an
ever diminishing number of powerful capitalists, or in the hands of
joint-stock companies which, owing to the merging of their capital, are
more powerful than the biggest isolated capitalists. (And the small and
medium-sized capitalists, not being able to produce at the same price as the
big capitalists, naturally succumb in the deadly struggle.) On the other
hand, all enterprises are forced by the same competition to sell their
products at the lowest possible price. It [capitalist monopoly] can attain
this two-fold result only by forcing out an ever-growing number of small or
medium-sized capitalists, speculators, merchants, or industrialists, from
the world of exploiters into the world of the exploited proletariat, and at
the same time squeezing out ever greater savings from the wages of the same
proletariat.
 
On the other hand, the mass of the proletariat, growing as a result of the
general increase of the population - which, as we know, not even poverty
can stop effectively - and through the increasing proletarianization of the
petty-bourgeoisie, ex-owners, capitalists, merchants, and industrialists -
growing, as I have said, at a much more rapid rate than the productive
capacities of an economy that is exploited by bourgeois capital - this
growing mass of the proletariat is placed in a condition wherein the workers
are forced into disastrous competition against one another.
 
For since they possess no other means of existence but their own manual
labor, they are driven, by the fear of seeing themselves replaced by others,
to sell it at the lowest price. This tendency of the workers, or rather the
necessity to which they are condemned by their own poverty, combined with
the tendency of the employers to sell the products of their workers, and
consequently buy their labor, at the lowest price, constantly reproduces
and consolidates the poverty of the proletariat. Since he finds himself in
a state of poverty, the worker is compelled to sell his labor for almost
nothing, and because he sells that product for almost nothing, he sinks into
ever greater poverty.
 
Yes, greater misery, indeed! For in this galley-slave labor the productive
force of the workers, abused, ruthlessly exploited, excessively wasted and
underfed, is rapidly used up. And once used up, what can be its value on
the market, of what worth is this sole commodity which he possesses and upon
the daily sale of which he depends for a livelihood? Nothing! And then? Then
nothing is left for the worker but to die.
 
What, in a given country, is the lowest possible wage? It is the price of that
which is considered by the proletarians of that country as absolutely
necessary to keep oneself alive. All the bourgeois economists are in agreement
on this point. Turgot, who saw fit to call himself the `virtuous minister' of
Louis XVI, and really was an honest man, said:
 
"The simple worker who owns nothing more than his hands, has nothing else to
sell than his labor. He sells it more or less expensively; but its price
whether high or low, does not depend on him alone: it depends on an agreement
with whoever will pay for his labor. The employer pays as little as possible;
when given the choice between a great number of workers, the employer prefers
the one who works cheap. The workers are, then, forced to lower their price in
competition each against the other. In all types of labor, it necessarily
follows that the salary of the worker is limited to what is necessary for
survival." (Reflexions sur la formation et la distribution des richesses)
 
J.B. Say, the true father of bourgeois economists in France also said: "Wages
are much higher when more demand exists for labor and less if offered, and are
lowered accordingly when more labor is offered and less demanded. It is the
relation between supply and demand which regulates the price of this
merchandise called the workers' labor, as are regulated all other public
services. When wages rise a little higher than the price necessary for the
workers' families to maintain themselves, their children multiply and a larger
supply soon develops in proportion with the greater demand. When, on the
contrary, the demand for workers is less than the quantity of people offering
to work, their gains decline back to the price necessary for the class to
maintain itself at the same number. The families more burdened with children
disappear; from them forward the supply of labor declines, and with less labor
being offered, the price rises... In such a way it is difficult for the wages
of the laborer to rise above or fall below the price necessary to maintain the
class (the workers, the proletariat) in the number required." (Cours complet
d' economie politique)
 
After citing Turgot and J.B. Say, Proudhon cries: "The price, as compared to
the value (in real social economy) is something essentially mobile,
consequently, essentially variable, and that in its variations, it is not
regulated more than by the concurrence, concurrence, let us not forget, that
as Turgot and Say agree, has the necessary effect not to give to wages to the
worker more than enough to barely prevent death by starvation, and maintain
the class in the numbers needed."1
 
The current price of primary necessities constitutes the prevailing constant
level above which workers' wages can never rise for a very long time, but
beneath which they drop very often, which constantly results in inanition,
sickness, and death, until a sufficient number of workers disappear to
equalize again the supply of and demand for labor. What the economists call
equalized supply and demand does not constitute real equality between those
who offer their labor for sale and those who purchase it. Suppose that I, a
manufacturer, need a hundred workers and that exactly a hundred workers
present themselves in the market - only one hundred, for if more came, the
supply would exceed demand, resulting in lowered wages. But since only one
hundred appear, and since I, the manufacturer, need only that number - neither
more nor less - it would seem at first that complete equality was established;
that supply and demand being equal in number, they should likewise be equal in
other respects. Does it follow that the workers can demand from me a wage and
conditions of work assuring them of a truly free, dignified, and human
existence? Not at all! If I grant them those conditions and those wages, I,
the capitalist, shall not gain thereby any more than they will. But then,
why should I have to plague myself and become ruined by offering them the
profits of my capital? If I want to work myself as workers do, I will invest
my capital somewhere else, wherever I can get the highest interest, and will
offer my labor for sale to some capitalist just as my workers do.
 
If, profiting by the powerful initiative afforded me by my capital, I ask
those hundred workers to fertilize that capital with their labor, it is not
because of my sympathy for their sufferings, nor because of a spirit of
justice, nor because of love for humanity. The capitalists are by no means
philanthropists; they would be ruined if they practiced philanthropy. It is
because I hope to draw from the labor of the workers sufficient profit to be
able to live comfortably, even richly, while at the same time increasing my
capital - and all that without having to work myself. Of course I shall work
too, but my work will be of an altogether different kind and I will be
remunerated at a much higher rate than the workers. It will not be the work of
production but that of administration and exploitation.
 
But isn't administrative work also productive work? No doubt it is, for
lacking a good and an intelligent administration, manual labor will not
produce anything or it will produce very little and very badly. But from the
point of view of justice and the needs of production itself, it is not at all
necessary that this work should be monopolized in my hands, nor, above all,
that I should be compensated at a rate so much higher than manual labor. The
co-operative associations already have proven that workers are quite capable
of administering industrial enterprises, that it can be done by workers
elected from their midst and who receive the same wage. Therefore if I
concentrate in my hands the administrative power, it is not because the
interests of production demand it, but in order to serve my own ends, the ends
of exploitation. As the absolute boss of my establishment I get for my labor
ten or twenty times more than my workers get for theirs, and this is true
despite the fact that my labor is incomparably less painful than theirs.
 
But the capitalist, the business owner, runs risks, they say, while the worker
risks nothing. This is not true, because when seen from his side, all the
disadvantages are on the part of the worker. The business owner can conduct
his affairs poorly, he can be wiped out in a bad deal, or be a victim of a
commercial crisis, or by an unforeseen catastrophe; in a word he can ruin
himself. This is true. But does ruin mean from the bourgeois point of view to
be reduced to the same level of misery as those who die of hunger, or to be
forced among the ranks of the common laborers? This so rarely happens, that we
might as well say never. Afterwards it is rare that the capitalist does not
retain something, despite the appearance of ruin. Nowadays all bankruptcies
are more or less fraudulent. But if absolutely nothing is saved, there are
always family ties, and social relations, who, with help from the business
skills learned which they pass to their children, permit them to get
positions for themselves and their children in the higher ranks of labor, in
management; to be a state functionary, to be an executive in a commercial or
industrial business, to end up, although dependent, with an income superior
to what they paid their former workers.
 
The risks of the worker are infinitely greater. After all, if the
establishment in which he is employed goes bankrupt, he must go several days
and sometimes several weeks without work, and for him it is more than ruin,
it is death; because he eats everyday what he earns. The savings of workers
are fairy tales invented by bourgeois economists to lull their weak sentiment
of justice, the remorse that is awakened by chance in the bosom of their
class. This ridiculous and hateful myth will never soothe the anguish of the
worker. He knows the expense of satisfying the daily needs of his large
family. If he had savings, he would not send his poor children, from the age
of six, to wither away, to grow weak, to be murdered physically and morally
in the factories, where they are forced to work night and day, a working day
of twelve and fourteen hours.
 
If it happens sometimes that the worker makes a small savings, it is quickly
consumed by the inevitable periods of unemployment which often cruelly
interrupt his work, as well as by the unforeseen accidents and illnesses which
befall his family. The accidents and illnesses that can overtake him
constitute a risk that makes all the risks of the employer nothing in
comparison: because for the worker debilitating illness can destroy his
productive ability, his labor power. Over all, prolonged illness is the most
terrible bankruptcy, a bankruptcy that means for him and his children, hunger
and death.
 
I know full well that under these conditions that if I were a capitalist, who
needs a hundred workers to fertilize my capital, that on employing these
workers, all the advantages are for me, all the disadvantages for them. I
propose nothing more nor less than to exploit them, and if you wish me to be
sincere about it, and promise to guard me well, I will tell them:
 
"Look, my children, I have some capital which by itself cannot produce
anything, because a dead thing cannot produce anything. I have nothing
productive without labor. As it goes, I cannot benefit from consuming it
unproductively, since having consumed it, I would be left with nothing. But
thanks to the social and political institutions which rule over us and are
all in my favor, in the existing economy my capital is supposed to be a
producer as well: it earns me interest. From whom this interest must be taken
- and it must be from someone, since in reality by itself it produces
absolutely nothing - this does not concern you. It is enough for you to know
that it renders interest. Alone this interest is insufficient to cover my
expenses. I am not an ordinary man as you. I cannot be, nor do I want to be,
content with little. I want to live, to inhabit a beautiful house, to eat and
drink well, to ride in a carriage, to maintain a good appearance, in short,
to have all the good things in life. I also want to give a good education to
my children, to make them into gentlemen, and send them away to study, and
afterwards, having become much more educated than you, they can dominate you
one day as I dominate you today. And as education alone is not enough, I want
to give them a grand inheritance, so that divided between them they will be
left almost as rich as I. Consequently, besides all the good things in life
I want to give myself, I also want to increase my capital. How will I achieve
this goal? Armed with this capital I propose to exploit you, and I propose
that you permit me to exploit you. You will work and I will collect and
appropriate and sell for my own behalf the product of your labor, without
giving you more than a portion which is absolutely necessary to keep you from
dying of hunger today, so that at the end of tomorrow you will still work for
me in the same conditions; and when you have been exhausted, I will throw you
out, and replace you with others. Know it well, I will pay you a salary as
small, and impose on you a working day as long, working conditions as severe,
as despotic, as harsh as possible; not from wickedness - not from a motive of
hatred towards you, nor an intent to do you harm - but from the love of wealth
and to get rich quick; because the less I pay you and the more you work, the
more I will gain."
 
This is what is said implicitly by every capitalist, every industrialist,
every business owner, every employer who demands the labor power of the workers
they hire.
 
But since supply and demand are equal, why do the workers accept the conditions
laid down by the employer? If the capitalist stands in just as great a need of
employing the workers as the one hundred workers do of being employed by him,
does it not follow that both sides are in an equal position? Do not both meet
at the market as two equal merchants - from the juridical point of view at
least - one bringing a commodity called a daily wage, to be exchanged for the
daily labor of the worker on the basis of so many hours per day; and the other
bringing his own labor as his commodity to be exchanged for the wage offered
by the capitalist? Since, in our supposition, the demand is for a hundred
workers and the supply is likewise that of a hundred persons, it may seem
that both sides are in an equal position.
 
Of course nothing of the kind is true. What is it that brings the capitalist
to the market? It is the urge to get rich, to increase his capital, to gratify
his ambitions and social vanities, to be able to indulge in all conceivable
pleasures. And what brings the worker to the market? Hunger, the necessity of
eating today and tomorrow. Thus, while being equal from the point of juridical
fiction, the capitalist and the worker are anything but equal from the point
of view of the economic situation, which is the real situation. The capitalist
is not threatened with hunger when he comes to the market; he knows very well
that if he does not find today the workers for whom he is looking, he will
still have enough to eat for quite a long time, owing to the capital of which
he is the happy possessor. If the workers whom he meets in the market present
demands which seem excessive to him, because, far from enabling him to
increase his wealth and improve even more his economic position, those
proposals and conditions might, I do not say equalize, but bring the economic
position of the workers somewhat close to his own - what does he do in that
case? He turns down those proposals and waits. After all, he was not impelled
by an urgent necessity, but by a desire to improve his position, which,
compared to that of the workers, is already quite comfortable, and so he can
wait. And he will wait, for his business experience has taught him that the
resistance of workers who, possessing neither capital, nor comfort, nor any
savings to speak of, are pressed by a relentless necessity, by hunger, that
this resistance cannot last very long, and that finally he will be able to
find the hundred workers for whom he is looking - for they will be forced to
accept the conditions which he finds it profitable to impose upon them. If
they refuse, others will come who will be only too happy to accept such
conditions. That is how things are done daily with the knowledge and in full
view of everyone.
 
If, as a consequence of the particular circumstances that constantly
influence the market, the branch of industry in which he planned at first
to employ his capital does not offer all the advantages that he had hoped,
then he will shift his capital elsewhere; thus the bourgeois capitalist is
not tied by nature to any specific industry, but tends to invest (as it is
called by the economists - exploit is what we say) indifferently in all
possible industries. Let's suppose, finally, that learning of some industrial
incapacity or misfortune, he decides not to invest in any industry; well, he
will buy stocks and annuities; and if the interest and dividends seem
insufficient, then he will engage in some occupation, or shall we say, sell
his labor for a time, but in conditions much more lucrative than he had
offered to his own workers.
 
The capitalist then comes to the market in the capacity, if not of an
absolutely free agent, at least that of an infinitely freer agent than the
worker. What happens in the market is a meeting between a drive for lucre and
starvation, between master and slave. Juridically they are both equal; but
economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist, even before the market
transaction has been concluded whereby the worker sells his person and his
liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this
terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his
family, will force him to accept any conditions imposed by the gainful
calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, the employer.
 
And once the contract has been negotiated, the serfdom of the workers is
doubly increased; or to put it better, before the contract has been
negotiated, goaded by hunger, he is only potentially a serf; after it is
negotiated he becomes a serf in fact. Because what merchandise has he sold to
his employer? It is his labor, his personal services, the productive forces of
his body, mind, and spirit that are found in him and are inseparable from his
person - it is therefore himself. From then on, the employer will watch over
him, either directly or by means of overseers; everyday during working hours
and under controlled conditions, the employer will be the owner of his actions
and movements. When he is told: "Do this," the worker is obligated to do it;
or he is told: "Go there," he must go. Is this not what is called a serf?
 
M. Karl Marx, the illustrious leader of German Communism, justly observed in
his magnificent work Das Kapital that if the contract freely entered into by
the vendors of money -in the form of wages - and the vendors of their own
labor -that is, between the employer and the workers - were concluded not for
a definite and limited term only, but for one's whole life, it would
constitute real slavery. Concluded for a term only and reserving to the
worker the right to quit his employer, this contract constitutes a sort of
voluntary and transitory serfdom. Yes, transitory and voluntary from the
juridical point of view, but nowise from the point of view of economic
possibility. The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he
the means to do so? And if he does quit him, is it in order to lead a free
existence, in which he will have no master but himself? No, he does it in
order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same
hunger which forced him to sell himself to the first employer. Thus the
worker's liberty, so much exalted by the economists, jurists, and bourgeois
republicans, is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible
realization, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter
falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a
continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom -voluntary from the
juridical point of view but compulsory in the economic sense - broken up by
momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other
words, it is real slavery.
 
This slavery manifests itself daily in all kinds of ways. Apart from the
vexations and oppressive conditions of the contract which turn the worker into
a subordinate, a passive and obedient servant, and the employer into a nearly
absolute master - apart from all that, it is well known that there is hardly
an industrial enterprise wherein the owner, impelled on the one hand by the
two-fold instinct of an unappeasable lust for profits and absolute power, and
on the other hand, profiting by the economic dependence of the worker, does
not set aside the terms stipulated in the contract and wring some additional
concessions in his own favor. Now he will demand more hours of work, that is,
over and above those stipulated in the contract; now he will cut down wages
on some pretext; now he will impose arbitrary fines, or he will treat the
workers harshly, rudely, and insolently.
 
But, one may say, in that case the worker can quit. Easier said than done.
At times the worker receives part of his wages in advance, or his wife or
children may be sick, or perhaps his work is poorly paid throughout this
particular industry. Other employers may be paying even less than his own
employer, and after quitting this job he may not even be able to find another
one. And to remain without a job spells death for him and his family. In
addition, there is an understanding among all employers, and all of them
resemble one another. All are almost equally irritating, unjust, and harsh.
 
Is this calumny? No, it is in the nature of things, and in the logical
necessity of the relationship existing between the employers and their
workers.

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
3 décembre 2010 5 03 /12 /décembre /2010 20:36

 
The Wealth of Nations (1776) - An Excerpt from Chapter 8 of Vol. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
by Adam Smith
-------------
 
What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract
usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the
same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as
possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter
in order to lower the wages of labour.
 
It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon
all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the
other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number,
can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least
does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.
We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work;
but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can
hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant,
though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or
two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not
subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without
employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as
his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
 
We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though
frequently of those of workmen. BUT WHOEVER IMAGINES, UPON THIS ACCOUNT, THAT
MASTERS RARELY COMBINE, IS AS IGNORANT OF THE WORLD AS OF THE SUBJECT. MASTERS
ARE ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE IN A SORT OF TACIT, BUT CONSTANT AND UNIFORM
COMBINATION, NOT TO RAISE THE WAGES OF LABOUR ABOVE THEIR ACTUAL RATE. TO
VIOLATE THIS COMBINATION IS EVERYWHERE A MOST UNPOPULAR ACTION, AND A SORT OF
REPROACH TO A MASTER AMONG HIS NEIGHBOURS AND EQUALS. WE SELDOM, INDEED, HEAR
OF THIS COMBINATION, BECAUSE IT IS THE USUAL, AND ONE MAY SAY, THE NATURAL
STATE OF THINGS, WHICH NOBODY EVER HEARS OF. Masters, too, sometimes enter
into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate.
These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the
moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without
resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other
people. Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary
defensive combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any
provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of
their labour. Their usual pretences are, sometimes the high price of
provisions; sometimes the great profit which their masters make by their work.
But whether their combinations be offensive or defensive, they are always
abundantly heard of. In order to bring the point to a speedy decision, they
have always recourse to the loudest clamour, and sometimes to the most
shocking violence and outrage. They are desperate, and act with the folly
and extravagance of desperate men, who must either starve, or frighten their
masters into an immediate compliance with their demands. The masters upon
these occasions are just as clamorous upon the other side, and never cease
to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous
execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against
the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen. The workmen,
accordingly, very seldom derive any advantage from the violence of those
tumultuous combinations, which, partly from the interposition of the civil
magistrate, partly from the necessity superior steadiness of the masters,
partly from the necessity which the greater part of the workmen are under of
submitting for the sake of present subsistence, generally end in nothing, but
the punishment or ruin of the ringleaders.

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
2 décembre 2010 4 02 /12 /décembre /2010 08:50

Chers tous,

 

le site Wikileaks est devenu très populaire et jouit d'une couverture médiatique importante du fait de ces révélations de documents d'espionnage perpétrés principalement à travers les Ambassades états-unienne.

 

Ces révélations font suite à l'apparation de documents militaires sur les activités militaires en Afghanistan et en Irak.

 

WikiLeaks est un site Web   de ressource et d'analyse politique et sociétale, à la fois ouvert et sécurisé, dont la raison d'être est de donner une audience aux fuites d'information   en provenance notamment « des régimes d'oppression en Asie, aux États-Unis, dans l'ancien bloc soviétique, en Afrique et au Moyen-Orient » tout en protégeant ses sources. Le site se veut également une aide pour « ceux qui, en Occident, veulent porter à la connaissance de tous les comportements non éthiques de leur gouvernement ou de grandes entreprises ». - source : Wikipédia

 

En voici le site:

http://wikileaks.org/

 

Le site divulgue, de manière anonyme, non identifiable et sécurisée, des documents témoignant d'une réalité sociale et politique, voire militaire, qui nous serait cachée, afin d'assurer une transparence planétaire. Les documents sont ainsi soumis pour analyse, commentaires et enrichissements « à l’examen d’une communauté planétaire d’éditeurs, relecteurs et correcteurs wiki bien informés ». Selon son fondateur, Julian Assange, l'objectif à long terme est que WikiLeaks devienne « l'organe de renseignements le plus puissant au monde »  .

 

Je crois fondamental que ce genre de site existe pour nous permettre de retrouver un peu plus de transparence dans les activités de nos élites économiques et politiques menaçant de plus en plus nos démocraties. Si nous voulons vraiment que le peuple soit le réel souverain, (c'est la rue qui ultimement doit gouverner nos pays dans le sens du Res Publica, affaires du peuple), nous devons saluer la venue de ce genre d'initiative et lui donner tout notre support et notre critique constructive car c'est la meilleure façon de protéger les intérêts des petites gens.

 

Ce genre d'initiative relance toute la question de la pertinence de l'espionnage en général. Ce site a obtenue des informations confidentielleset secrètes et cela constitue une crime dans les pays où l'information a été obtenue. Mais, serais-ce finalement un crime politique ? Doit-on accepter que nos démocraties se permettent d'agir illégalement au nom de leur propre sécurité. Viens ensuite la question des intérêts que protège nos espions, ceux des citoyens ou ceux des élites ? Autant, il semble justifié de se doter d'agences de renseignements sur son propre territoire, appelée agences de contre-espionnage comme la DST ou le MI5, pour protéger le citoyen de grandes menaces terroristes. Mais, en quoi leur travail est-il si différent de celui de la police ? Les uns doivent respecter la loi mais pas les autres.On se rappele les activités illicites de la GRC, à savoir de l'espionnage contre les mouvements indépendantistes au Québec tels que défoncer les bureaux de partis et les granges brulées. Le contre-espionnage peut toujours être légalisé avec des lois anti-terroristes. Mais, ces dernières ont aboutit à nombres de bavures, gaffes et dérapages autoritaires contre des personnes normales et honnètes.

 

Enfin, il y a une importante distinction entre les activités d'espionnage hors de son territoire et ceux de contre-espionnage. Tout espionnage hors de chez soi sera toujours un acte d'agression et de trahison pour les pays espionnés. Comment peut-on légitimer leur travail ? On pense à l'implication du CIA dans le coup d'état de Pinochet qui enleva du coup la possibilité à un peuple de vivre dans une grande démocartie généreuse et imposa un régime de terreur et de misère. Le film Missing nous montre cet homme d'affaire qui réagit avec honeur en demandant que le confort de son pays ne soit jamais construit au dépend de celui des autres. Courageux, mais le secret défense à tôt fait de lui couper court à son recours en justice. La démocratie états-unienne venait de vivre un de ces pires camouflets. Le peuple n'aura jamais le dernier mot quand il s'agit de décider de sa politique extérieure et celle de sa défense.  Nos pays ne sont pas mieux surtout quand il y a des royautés sans scrupules à défendre.

 

Cela nous mène au monde des assassinats politiques qui se produisent souvent dans des organismes tels que les Mosshad.

 

Pourquoi les activités offensives d'attaques des autres pays que ce soient de l'espionnage actif, des guerres, etc peuvent-elles être légitimée comme morale ? En vertue de quelles valeurs, si valeurs il y a ? 

 

Je vous propose de prendre très au sérieux les révélations qu'ils annonceront sous peu à propos de la Bank of America.

http://fr.finance.yahoo.com/actualites/Bank-of-America-serait-yahoofinancefr-910221539.html?x=0

 

Depuis, dix ans, nous avons de cèsse de découvrir les fraudes éconoliques de nombres entreprises de finance et ce genre d'outil ne peut que continuer à nous aider à voir clair dans les eaux troubles des relations internationales qui semblent ne connaître aucune valeur morale ou éthique. 

 

Enfin, l'espionnage peut servir les intérêts les plus nobles, à savoir la défenses des droits et liberté des personnes.

 

A propos de Julian Assange:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

 

Luc Rolland

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
25 novembre 2010 4 25 /11 /novembre /2010 13:25

Chers tous,

 

voici une chronique dans Le Monde qui nous permet de réfléchir avec une vision libérale modérée.

 

Chronique

"Les Français vont crier... eh bien, et après ?"

LEMONDE | 13.11.10 | 13h29  •  Mis à jour le 13.11.10 | 13h29

 

http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2010/11/13/les-francais-vont-crier-eh-bien-et-apres_1439520_3232.html

 

Il y a certainement là sujet à débat en profondeur, ce qui manque sérieusement en France et dans le monde entier.

 

J'ai toujours été séduit par le idées de Charles de Gaulle, sans doute le plus subtil des présidents de la France

car il a eu beaucoup de courage à vouloir nuancer et relativiser les choses. Par exemple, allié inconditionnel des USA, il a quitté l'OTAN car il avait vite vu que ce système n'avait plus sa raison d'être, même en 1960.

 

De plus, il a permis à la France de se dotter de ses propres armes pour assurer sa propre défense afin de valoriser ses propres entreprises. Il a eu raison car si les USA n'étaient pas our acheter français, alors la France n'allait pas acheter états-unien, l'esprit du marché libre doit toujours aller dans les deux sens; on en connait un rayon au Canada car nous n'avons jamais pu commercialiser l'excellentissime Avro Arrow CF-105, de loin supérieur aux chasseurs de l'oncle Sam. 

 

En bref, refonder l'économie sur un base neutre s'appuyant sur l'or ne pourrait que relativiser la place de certains pays surenflés et amener certains pays à rembourser leurs dettes et déficits en faisant les ponctions sur le superflus, à savoir leurs dépenses militaires... Il y a dons urgence de refonder l'économie mondiale sur des bases sereines où il faudra adopter un subtil mélange de capitalisme, de socialisme, de libéralité et de conservatisme. Cela demande de sortir de la vulgaire propagande des petite guéguerres de clocher.

 

Luc

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
25 novembre 2010 4 25 /11 /novembre /2010 10:58

Grève générale massive contre l'austérité au Portugal

 

Avions annulés, ports paralysés, métros fermés : la grève générale contre l'austérité était massivement suivie mercredi 24 novembre au Portugal, affectant fortement l'ensemble des services publics mais aussi les grandes entreprises, dans un mouvement d'une ampleur inédite depuis 1988. - Résumé du journal Le Monde.

 

Voici la dépèche de journal Le Monde :

 

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2010/11/24/les-portugais-en-greve-generale-contre-l-austerite_1444170_3234.html#xtor=EPR-32280229-

 

==============================================

 

Le peuple portuguais n'est pas dupe, à savoir qu'ils sont les prochains sur la liste de pressions opérées par le "investisseurs" selon Le Monde. Mais comment se fait-il que se soient les investisseurs, donc une petite clique de compagnies de placement d'argent qui déterminent l'agenda de la gouvernance des pays. Ils ne sont certainement pas autorisés à imposer des règles à des pays souverains sans que la popullation n'aient à dire son mot, i-e une grève généralisée qui n'aura pas duré très longtemps.

 

Aujourd'hui les élites économiques, sachant que les gens ordinaires ne peuvent pas aller en grève très longtemps, comptent sur une paralysie partielle qui n'aura que de faibles retombées sur leurs propres activités. Donc, "cause toujours mon bonhomme, je suis tranquille".

 

C'est bien là le problème de nos pseudo-démocraties : elle sont tenues à la gorge par des élites économiques et la popullation ne peut pas s'énerver trop longtemps sans crever de faim ou subir les matraques des policiers car personne n'acceptera la violence. Bref, les gens ordinaires ont perdu leur pouvoir d'agir. "Circulez, il n'y a rien à voir".

 

On croirait revoir le film Le Temps de Bouffons de Falardeau que je vous recommande car on y montre des gens qui s'en mettent plein la panse en sachant qu'ils sont intouchables.

http://www.pierrefalardeau.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=48

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7kfuo_falardeau-le-temps-des-bouffons_webcam

 

Vivons-nous dans une imposture généralisée ?

 

Luc

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
24 novembre 2010 3 24 /11 /novembre /2010 13:44

Chers tous,

 

je propose ce texte que je troive tout plein d'humanité.

 

Je dédie cette fable aux Israéliens, Arabes et aux Chypriotes.

 

Luc

 

===========================================

 
 
                          cid:3.833850758@web180506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com

 

La fable du porc-épic

C'était l'hiver le plus froid jamais vu. -De nombreux animaux étaient morts en raison du 
froid. Les porcs-épics, se rendant compte de la situation, avaient décidé de se regrouper. 
De cette façon ils se couvraient et se protégeaient eux-mêmes ; mais, les piquants des 
porcs-épics de chacun blessaient leurs compagnons les plus proches, même s'ils se 
donnaient beaucoup de chaleur les uns aux autres. Après un certain temps, ils ont décidé 
de prendre leur distance l'un de l'autre et ils ont commencé à mourir, seuls et congelés. 
Alors, ils devaient faire un choix : accepter les piquants de leurs compagnons ou 
disparaître de la terre. Sagement, ils ont décidé de revenir en arrière pour vivre ensemble. 
De cette façon, ils ont appris à vivre avec les petites blessures causées par l'étroite relation 
avec leurs compagnons, mais la partie la plus importante, était la chaleur qui venait des 
autres. De cette façon, ils ont pu survivre.

 

                           cid:2.833850758@web180506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com

 

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article
24 novembre 2010 3 24 /11 /novembre /2010 10:53

Après la Grèce, voici l'Irlande

 

Un pas de plus dans une ingérence extérieure sur les affaires européennes. L'EU est en train de se faire réorganiser éconoliquement et de force sans que ses popullations n'aient quoi que ce soit à dire.

 

Attaques contre la démocratie où le peuple devrait être souverain, attaque contre la souveraineté même.

 

De plus, nous assistons graduellement au démentellement du système social européen qui finalement fut un exemple de générosité et de solidarité.

 

Il ne faut l'ignoble attitude du gouvernement anglais qui a fait sombrer l'Icelande dans le chaos économique.

 

Je trouve que nous nageons en plein délir.

 

Faut-il faire payer aux gens ordinaires et aux citoyens toute les fraudes de ces banquiers qui ont abusé de la confiance des ces mêmes gens qui leurs avaient confier leurs pécules su durement acquis. Si Dieu existe, tous ces gars sont passibles de péchés mortels car ce crime économique plonge tellement de famille dans la misère.

 

Et de l'autre côté, on se sert de ces histoires de menaces contre la sécurité (terrorisme) pour faire plonger certains pays.

 

Dans les chancelleries, on parle maintenant de régimes de rigueurpour abaisser les dettes. Mais, je voudrais rappeler les gouvernements qu'ils sont là pour défendre les intérets des popullations pas ceux des financiers. Avons-nous sombré dans des régimes d'aristocraties économiques avec des médias pour endormir les peuples ?

 

Après avoir renfloué les banques et brokers,

après avoir dépsensés des milliards pour combattre ce fameux H1N1 qui n'était pas une menace pour le monde (pour engraisser les compagnies pharmaceutiques),

après avoir donné beaucoup de sous aux programmes anti-terroristes (pour engraisser les armées, les policiers, les sécurités privées, les mercenaires de ce monde, etc.),

après avoir sauvés les entreprises états-uniennes d'automobile n'ayant toujours pas compris comment faire une bonne voiture plutôt qu'un vulgaire camion,

nous assistons à l'imposition de ces régimes de rigueur qui je suis certain ne passeraient pas l'étape de référendums

où les gens simples devront vivre de plus en plus dans la précarité quand il y a toujours de gens qui gaspillent leur fric dans les casinos du monde (qu'Al-Quaida aurait déjà attaqués s'ils était sérieux dans leur lutte contre les impostures de l'occident ).

 

Luc

Repost 0
Published by Luc Rolland
commenter cet article