Roman Catholic Diocese of Basse-Terre

Transcription

So, that’s how it happened We have to see the events in their temporal context. It’s the famous judgment of 1983 that scared them. I’ve forgot to tell you the exact words of the court. It was not that "everybody is allowed to say that the gas chamber did not exist" It was, as a conclusion, because there were no lies and no levity, "The value of the conclusions defended by Mr. Faurisson... The Professor of Literature Robert Faurisson, whose first concern was by the critique of Rimbaud and Lautréamont’s works is today one of leaders of the Revisionists stream. ...therefore only depends on the sole appreciation of the experts, the historians and the public. It was a way to say: "you have the right to say what Faurisson says" So they panicked and said that a special law was needed. It was Fabius who headed this campaign - I have all the data - He fought for many years and finally thanks to a scandal developed around the event in Carpentras, [Desecration of the Jewish cemetery in Carpentras 05/1990] because of the emotion was able to make this law - by the majority and not unanimously - voted. Whether there is a Gayssot law or not, the horrible sentence of Jean-Marie Le Pen that "the gas chambers are a detail of history" doesn’t depend on the courts. For me, that doesn’t depend on the courts. It is not a research sentence. [Alain Finkielkraut, writer] I know what he means, and everyone knows what he means. But we can say "there were 50 million deaths, 3 or 4 million in gas chambers, this is a detail." You can say that ! That is horrible to hear such a thing, but unfortunately the freedom of expression is also for the others. To be ready to hear everything that we don’t like to hear. And this is a part of what we don’t like to hear, because it is not denying a fact, it is an appreciation. So the door is open. Some of you may have projects [Pierre Nora, historian] about Vendée, about St Bartholomew probably about crusades excuse me? about Ukraine, it seems obvious. So, if France wants not only to find itself guilty in general of its own past, but as judge of universal consciousness of the World -about America, Indians- so do it. It’s obvious that the inconveniences and gravity of the generalization of the demonization of the past is impossible and very serious, and we must stop this terrible drift. Gayssot Act - article 9 Will be punished (...) those who deny (...) the existence of one or several crimes against humanity such as defined by the (...) international military tribunal annexed by the London agreement of the 8th of August 1945 Hold up on History The Gayssot Act traps a film by Béatrice Pignède The Historian Annie Lacroix-Riz is an Expert in International Relations. She has also studied the strategies of the governing classes that lead to the two world wars. I think that Noam Chomsky does very interesting analysis about US Imperialism, I was very shocked about his intervention about free diffusion of negationist theories . I agree that it is a debate. He assumes that we must allow speech to be spread freely Let the word spread, it is nice but let the lies be institutionalized especially those of the fascist organizations that have been increasingly powerful -they were already powerful when the Gayssot Law was passed- Intervene all the time to explain that Germans had not had genocidal intent and did not realize genocide, it is unjust. At this time, I did not imagine that it could undermine historical research and it’s spreading because the law prescribes penalties -especially financial penalties- for people who said that there was no gas chambers or that there were no gas chambers aimed at gassing Jews and gypsies in extermination camps. Jean Bricmont, with a SciencePHD, is one of the figures of the anti-imperialism movement. He is the writer of numerous publications about international law and freedom of expression. Even before the Gayssot law in the nineties (the Faurisson case was in the eighties), when Faurisson was sued for thought crimes, Chomsky noted that they opened a Pandora’s Box. And it was subsequently confirmed because after the Gayssot Law came the memorial laws about the Armenian and Rwandese genocide. There are some specific historical cases recognized by the French Parliament as having occurred. But I wonder why they limit themselves and are not preparing a Universal Encyclopedia of History where they determine what happened in the Chinese-Japanese war, or the German-Soviet war, etc. So, they could pass a law about Belgian Congo or French Algeria. Why they don’t prepare a law that judges the whole history? Where do they stop? The problem comes when we let the legislators decide what is true in history, what cannot be contested, why do you stop here? There are other historical events that are well known. Why don't you write an official history of Vendée or whatever... So there is a logical coherence problem in Law, and they opened a Pandora’s Box. Jacob Cohen has taught in the Law school of the University of Casablanca. Writer of numerous novels, he is also known for his anti-Zionist commitment. That’s the only historical event in the world that has "benefited" from this law. You can say that the French Revolution did not happen, no one will prosecute you. I can say that Native Americans were not exterminated. That is the only event that is protected by a law, What I mean is that the interpretation of it was fixed once and for all, and that the law prevents its contestation or any other interpretation. Many people think that if we protect this way, maybe there was something fishy. For example, it is not 6 millions, but maybe 3 million. And some people begin to ask questions. I’m afraid that when the power will not be able to resist anymore to the rise of contestation The historical fact -which is incontestable- of the Jewish Genocide will be contested. Professor and US Political Scientist, son of survivors of the Ghetto in Warsaw, Norman Finkelstein is well-known for his book "The Holocaust Industry: Reflection on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet is Jurist in Public Law. She has attended the parliament mission about the Memorial laws and has founded the Observatory of Communautarisms. On what bases have you opposed this law, and on what bases were these oppositions? I teach the right of fundamental freedoms. Jurists of my generation have been educated on the basis that Freedom is the principle its restriction is the exception. That is the liberal doctrine. That is the political freedom, it comes from the 1789’ revolution Freedom of thoughts, freedom of expression these are some of the most valuable rights for the human being. It has been repeated by the European Convention of Human Rights, the Universal Declaration, That is one of the basic liberties, because we don’t have to forget that, it’s one of the preconditions of democracy. There won’t be a democracy if you don’t let people express their point of view and to have a confrontation between opinions. That freedom is truly, absolutely fundamental. So, How not to worry about criminal prosecution of certain statements. Paul Ricœur is a French Philosopher that has studied for many years the identity, memory, and truth in history. I feel very reserved about this judicial prohibition. The ones I accept -that are not related to history- are about defamations. You can defame the honor of a person or a group, a person because of belonging to a group. Which may be ethnic, religious or national. It would always affect the dignity of someone. But when it’s about an event, I do not see how you can censor if not by opposing one another better established history. We haven’t yet introduced another important thing that will be about history rather than memory. There are three levels in history: the documents, archive works and facts. There we can be scientifically established facts. How many were killed, etc. Then there is the explanation. By causes -as economic ones or demographic- or by motives -the reasons to act. Finally, we have big interpretations. It replaces a segment of history, in a more slow and vast movement. What Braudel called “long period history” for example, the movement of a century. At this level, there are various interpretations. For a long period, Alain Benajam has been one of the cadres of the French Communist party He continues his anti-imperialistic commitment at Voltaire Network, of which he is one of the cofounders. In which context was the Gayssot law conceived? [Béatrice Pignède, Film director] Can we understand the purposes, the "good intentions" of the legislators and politicians of that time? As the name of the law shows, it has been designed by Jean Claude Gayssot who was one of the leaders of the communist party at the time of its decline. The period of struggle against fascism has been very significant in the party’s history. And this law was passed in a transitional period: when, at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the party was trying to become "normal". It lost its revolutionary aspect and turned into a "normal Left", we could say. But at the beginning, the party's motives -since it is a law proposed by the communists- their motives were not perverse. The communists were trapped in this case. [Desecration of the Jewish cemetery in Carpentras., 5/1990] More than 10.000 wanted to participate in the ceremony led by the grand rabbi Sitruk. Everyone had a kipah, even myself. It was very emotional. Everyone had participated. We wanted to react. Not only against the desecration but also against the atmosphere of the time when the Front National party was taking market shares. It’s clear that the Front National was progressing. It was obvious that the governing parties wanted to stop the progression of the Front National by making horrific allegations. 100 or 200 thousand protested to say no to racism and anti-Semitism. And for the first time after the liberation, the President of the Republic -François Mitterrand- attended it. It’s difficult to understand how we had so many concerns about the historical truth and repression of denial -negationism- [Annie Lacroix-Riz, Professor of contemporary history] while we had people like Fabius at the highest places of government. At that time, all politicians knew the past of François Mitterrand who is the past of a far-right man. He has devoted much energy to protect far-right people -including his good friend Bousquet- He had a key role on the rise of the Front National. The right wing did the same because they hesitate between boosting the Front National to get their rightist votes or in the situation of a serious crisis, to return to what the right wing loved in the thirties when the general governor of the Bank of France, Clement Moret, recommended to the Reich Bank president a union between all the right wings. It is in the general climate of what happened in France after 1983, when Mitterrand and the left wing abandoned their socialist program. [Jean Bricmont, Professor of theoritical physics] They needed to find a factor that could differentiate them from the right wing because they were making a moderate right-wing policy on socio-economical issues. They no longer wanted to break with capitalism. They substituted to the left wing discourse of anti-racism and anti-fascism. Fighting against discrimination and racist speeches became a kind of manifesto for the left wing. I’m not against that but I should note that equality of opportunity is a liberal slogan, not anti-Capitalist. The traditional socialist doctrine is about relative equality of condition not of opportunity. Racism is widespread but the idea of fascism was totally imaginary. This fight against fascism was done by anti-liberal methods with the establishment of truths guaranteed by the State. That’s a "Soft Stalinism" done by leftists of May 1968 who joined the state apparatus. and have found a meaning to their politics with anti-racism and anti-fascism That includes fighting against people with bad thoughts. So there is racism, then anti-Semitism, and finally, the peak of anti-Semitism is the contestation of what happened in World War II. The denial of the Holocaust is militant anti-Semitism, sometimes propagated by states. [Jean-Claude Gayssot, former minister] If we wait until it is proven by historians in a way that any denial would appear ridiculous. But if meanwhile some use this denial to justify new crimes what will be the responsibility of the states governments and parliaments? Gayssot tells us that we need the law because without it, if we wait for enough proof of the Holocaust, then Iranians could use that to commit another Holocaust. So he doesn’t attack the words, but the actions that they are supposed to cause. But to imagine that Faurisson's works will make Iran launch a suicidal war against Israel is completely silly. But at least we see that, in its argument, he understands that the words themselves should not be censored since he tries to invoke actions that these words are supposed to provoke in order to justify the censorship of these words. Usually, when people are drafting laws against racial hatred, they say that there will be pogroms, etc. But there is nothing. it is not because there is a show of Dieudonné that there are public disturbances Dieudonné shows have been banned because of the risk of public disorder, not because of its content. There is no public disorder apart from the anti-Dieudonné protesters. There is nobody going out of there and wanting to cause troubles. But the way they argue shows that the advocates of censorship understand the differences between words and actions. They want to link certain words to certain actions in order to criminalize words. Unlike the direct relationship between my action of aiming a gun to you and a person who says "shoot!", the connection they make between words and actions is absolutely fanciful. Talking about slavery doesn’t mean that we agree or disagree with it. We have the right to speak freely on any topic. It’s the republic, it’s France. This law is principally aimed at protecting the Jews from attacks by negationists and anti-Semites who want to destroy a kind of legitimacy [Jacob Cohen, writer] that they take from being victims of the Holocaust, the legitimacy of Israel. Every time someone talks about the legitimacy of Israel, they say that they’ll have a second genocide. Some politicians say that the security of Israel should be intangible. But we have never seen a country with such a strike force while not being threatened by anybody. Anti-Semitists, revisionists, anti-Zionists speeches made in front of the world the Iranian president multiplies provocations and threats against Israel. In October 2005, he organized a conference in Tehran, entitled "The World without Zionism", an opportunity to challenge the Holocaust. If you try to say to me that in World War II, 6 million Jews died, if you say that they’ve been burnt in gas chambers, are you telling the truth by insisting on it? So it’s in this perspective that we’ve thought to silence all that can undermine this supreme victimization. It means that what happened to the Jews has never happened before in the history of mankind. The idea that it has been unique throughout history. So it deserves a special law to bar any contestation and any historical study. From the time of these controversial remarks in Cannes, Danish director Lars von Trier, has offered multiple apologies. On Thursday, he said he has sympathy for Hitler. He has been sanctioned immediately by the Festival. The film director has been declared persona non grata. How have you been able to forget and ignore that joking about Hitler and the Jews can be very dangerous? Because, I make lot of jokes in private The only thing that I had forgotten -it's stupid- was that I was talking to the whole world. I was thinking that it was appropriate but suddenly I slipped onto something completely stupid. So I’m really sorry. What could be your idea to reconcile with the Festival? We make an event sacred, by making laws that prevent its contestation. This event has already been sacralized in our culture and it had turned into a center of reference. [Jean Bricmont, Professor of theoritical physics] This center of reference is used in two circumstances: directly, to defend Israel. When one discusses Israel, everybody knows that after 5 minutes, the Holocaust will be invoked. And also about wars. Because each time there is a humanitarian war, in Kosovo or Libya, maybe tomorrow in Syria, in Afghanistan and even to some extent in Iraq It's always about rescuing some people -the Kosovo Albanians, Iraqi Kurds, Afghan women, people in Benghazi, etc.- because we haven’t done this for the Jews. I’ve had lot of conversations with people who could oppose the wars -ecologists, pacifists- but they come back quickly to that point. It’s part of today’s ideology. We have to intervene because we didn’t do so before. Sometimes the Spanish republic is invoked, often, it's about the so called "non-intervention" -I don't exactly know about which intervention they think- [Ad campaign, Médecin du monde NGO, 1993] But this fantasy exists and is used to justify war policies. In addition, the most irritating point of this law is that it encourages skepticism. People wonder why there is a law for only one historical event and not for the others. It means that something is hidden. Give me another example where a truth is supported by a law. In the case of Galilee, he was right but the authority of the church was opposed to him. About Lysenko, the biologists were right, but the Soviet state defended Lysenko. In all the examples throughout history, the law was on the side of falsehood. The Gayssot law claims to be on the side of truth. The people make the opposite induction to conclude that there is something hidden. So we increase the skepticism, we exploit the Holocaust in the service of Israel and we are surprised that the people who are least sympathetic towards Israel -for understandable reasons- like Muslims or people of North African descent skepticism settles. And then we denounce it But they should first blame themselves. It is the Gayssot law that first advertised these ideas then it turned them into a major cause, and increased skepticism by prohibiting talking about it. And developed the clash of civilizations by highlighting a phrase of Ahmadinejad to justify a war with Iran. I’m sure that if we start to protest against this war, they’ll tell us [CRIF website] "Ahmadinejad has said that so you revisionists should shut up!" That’s how the conflict between civilizations is articulated and amplified by this war. A society of "Care Bears" so that no one can offend any community, [Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, Professor of public law] it can go very far away. Then each lobby forbids you to say anything So, we live in a society where there is a choir of mourners. Is that, in a way, to counter the egoism and materialism and consumerism that we turn to compassionate and emotional issues? What does that mean? I don't know, I'm not a philosopher. But, patently, there's a move in Western societies to complain… a kind of whining. But some observers have noticed this tendency. Like a journalist of the Figaro who called it "the tyranny’s of shamelessness". That's a policy of recognition where everyone wants to show himself to others, with all its specificities and also a part of exhibition. I am not able to interpret all this, but it is a phenomenon that we see. There is the Pandora’s Box effect of competition between different lobbies but there is also a very conducive atmosphere to compassion. We don’t have the transcendent -sacred- dimension of a theological view of History anymore. I won’t say that it’s worse. [Paul Ricœur, philosopher] But the price to pay for it was to make sacred some of the human greatnesses. And that brings us to another problem which is totalitarianism. But secular religions has appeared. This is the counterpart of the -partial- disappearance of transcendental religions. Now we have horizontal religions. So if we want to do a work of demystification, it has already been completed regarding the theology of history, it was the task of the Enlightenment. But the Enlightenment itself was overwhelmed by what they had not anticipated -some say they generated it- They granted a sacred value to the highest human achievements. The first and most important one is the Nation. And this implies the sacralization of war. This is the ghoulish that I would like to leave. My indignation comes from that they force me to stay with these horrors. [Robert Faurisson, Professor of Literature] Those are corpses. I’m the first one who wants to get out of all these. I want it to end but the opposite is taking place. It has turned into a religion the Holocaust religion. And its catechism is obligatory for students in high schools, universities in the media and everywhere. It’s stifling. I need air. I would like to breathe. I would want something normal, healthy. What’s this insane, bad smelling and disgusting thing? I’m not interested at all. But I see that some people really live in this and they want me to do the same. For example in Washington, you see a pile of shoes and above it, is written: "We are the last witnesses". They make the shoes talk! What do you see? Shoes. Shoes? Where? [Film-making class, Boisjoly Potier high school] In the port On a dock? Yes. At the seaside They are aligned in the same direction The tips of the shoes point to the same direction. Go on. Lot of corpses Corpses? We can’t see many corpses here. Either the shoes have been taken from the water... They belonged to someone. They belonged to someone and then? to Jews. Why? In the past, they were robbed of their belongings And why the shoes? Why not? I accept this version! How is it possible to collect so many shoes? Because even if they are several hangars, space is still limited There were lot of people in the camps. Answer me with a cinema term, what does this document show? Out of the frame. We can imagine what is off-camera. They’re several possibilities. What is the rationale for choosing such a kind of narration? pathetic descriptive and informative [Philippe Grondin, Professor of Film-making] And how does it influence our memory? The concentration camps is a history that passes from one generation to another, we could not necessary believe it. But with the use of pictures it will be believed as it shows that it has actually happened, that it's not an invention. But today there are more and more photomontages, then it is easy to falsify reality. How do you know all this? From the history class. From personal studies. Personal studies? Why are you personally interested in it? To know the past so that we don’t repeat the same mistakes. OK. We will also talk about it. To know the past so that we don’t repeat the same mistakes. And do you think that the mistakes have not been repeated? It depends: when we watch what’s happening now, the answer is no. Are talking we about concentration camps? No. There has been some improvement but for the Persian Gulf war, it’s the same situation: torture, sequestrations, etc. so they haven't really learned from history. You’ve repeated several times the phrase of "duty to remember" [Béatrice Pignède, Film director] What does that mean, for you? When we compare, the number of victims of genocides in France it is much more important than the ones of slavery in Reunion. The number of soldiers killed is much more important. So it was given less importance. But we think about it anyway. What do you mean by that? Do you believe that our "duty to remember" should not be limited to World War II? They are other events that should be examined. But we leave them behind. Till today I haven’t heard many talks about the Armenian genocide neither in history class or in the news. However, we were told about the WW II for weeks. That's a pity that history classes, in high school and secondary school, do not deal with other issues that may be more interesting rather than focusing always on the same topic. What periods of history are you more interested in, according to what you live now or plan for the future? The French Revolution. I was thinking about it. It’s the historical period that I prefer. Because… That’s when everything changed. We went from a monarchy to a republic early -even as it wasn’t very clear- but it allowed very big changes. Have you finished? Then you suggest it to your schoolmates. Which cinematographic esthetics to... To? To show the camps. "Cinematographic esthetics to show the camps." Yes, we can formulate it like that. Then... For those who haven’t yet seen the movie "Night and Fog", I warn that some images may be very harsh. Rounded up in Warsaw, deported from Prague, Brussels, Athens, Zagreb, Odessa, Rome, internees from Pithiviers, Rounded up from the Vel d'Hiv' Resistance fighters imprisoned in Compiegne The fauna of those who were caught in the act, caught by mistake, caught accidentally set off to camps. Whatever the importance of the issue, serious historians -like Raul Hilberg- have shown that, as real as was this massive destruction, totaling 5 or 6 million, that was a very small issue in the USA. [Annie Lacroix-Riz, Professor of contemporary history] That wasn’t a political question. But it became a great question -as a result of conjectural changes in U.S. policy- from when Israel turned into a key country of the USA’s imperialist expansion in the Middle East. Things had changed. Then, with an evolution in the sixties towards a mutual orientation of the USA and Israel Peter Novick dates a real break from the 6 Day War, in 1967. We know that the voice of France has not been heard Israel has attacked and has reached his objectives in 6 days of fighting. Now, Israel is organizing the occupation on the captured territories And it can’t be done without oppression, repression, expulsions There is a resistance, that Israel qualifies as terrorism. For now, both parties respect the cease-fire required by the UN. But it is obvious that the conflict is only pending and there is no solution except by the international way. Unless the United Nation shreds its own charter A solution must be based on the evacuation of the occupied lands that have been taken by force, the end of any belligerence, and the recognition of every state involved by all the others. What is dramatic is that they use something that must be known that is, the level of massacre that has been committed by an imperialist country in its own history. It’s education for the minds. From this core of truth, -that is important to publicize it- we have reached a situation of exploitation where anyone who opposes Israel's policy i.e. honest historians that criticize Israel's policy -whether Jewish or not- all those opposed to the colonial wars are accused of anti-Semitism and fascist tendencies. Meanwhile, our governments keep promoting the fascists, negationists and revisionists ideas. We are the toys of the imperialism communication system that is very powerful. That system uses numerous intellectuals and thinkers. [Alain Bénajam, Cofounder of Voltaire Network] Must say that the war that imperialism has waged against the people, is primarily a war of information and ideology. That prepares the ground for a real war. We saw it with Libya. And that system is a kind of fascism It is structurally and economically identical to fascism based on the war economy and the military-industrial complex, a state monopoly capitalism, as the fascists have invented. That isn’t a liberal capitalism with free enterprise anymore. It is a monopolistic capitalism held by the states. And if, for example, I was told in the seventies that we’ll wage a war on Libya to topple Gaddafi, the extreme right wouldn’t have dare to say that. But now, even the extreme left has provided humanitarian arguments, has insisted that we intervene. At the beginning, they did some protest in Toulouse. They said Sarkozy wasn’t intervening against Libya because of oil interests. So they asked for military intervention in Libya. But when the Libyan NTC promised 35% of Libyan oil to France, they looked silly. This far left who does not understand anything is not able to oppose the war. So they don’t talk anymore about it. They don’t know what they should say. Their ideology is that we should intervene more. So when the extreme left provides the right wing and the militarists humanitarian arguments, so that they can deploy themselves everywhere it creates a "perfect world". In addition, they have nothing better to do than to attack marginal dissidents like Michel Collon, or the Holocaust deniers, or whatever their target, these are marginal targets They reinforce the thought police against any dissenting thought. So there is "unique thought" The major ideology, is from the right wing. The minor ideology comes from the left, which provides humanitarian arguments to the right. And that is what one might call "unique thought". It's wonderful for the right. Today the ideological situation in France is surrealistic. That’s sad. We live in a period directly inherited from May 1945 and the rise of the USA as a dominant and crushing imperialist power. It became even more crushing in his decline era, i.e. in the second half of the 20th century. Even when the power relations are changing and when the systemic crisis of capitalism will challenge this hegemonic character. We are in the maximum contradiction between the reality and how it’s presented. Faced with this pressure, we have no way to express our views. And today some people like Thierry Meyssan, are more targeted than others, so that it’s impossible to talk about them. In his books, Meyssan raises a number of problems, questions, you agree with that? You've read the book. But you call him "a negationist" in your newspaper! That's because he goes directly to the conclusion and denies the existence of the aircraft [in the Pentagon] I agree, this is polemical. It's serious to accuse someone to be a negationist, do you agree? Yes, its polemical. For me, it's as absurd as saying that the concentration camps did not exist So, they are not conspirationists but negationists. [Pierre Arditi, actor, about 9/11] Those who talk about the Bilderberg, those who speak of a globalist plot, or about Le Siècle, etc. are the same, as you, gentlemen, who ask questions about September 11. So our conversation is over, You think I am conspiracy theorist? No. You are people who ask questions that are quite worrying especially when you're as young as you. And these are the same, who deny the Holocaust. For them, any dissent is far right -they say far right rather than fascist- Myself, I have been categorized in the far right. It is a bit odd. Thierry Meyssan was categorized at the far right. In the background, there is the charge of the Holocaust, and to want to put Jews back in gas chambers. These are the underlying charges. This sounds stupid. But, perpetually repeated on tv, weak minds eventually admit these sorts of arguments. So currently, there are militias that prevent dissidents from talking on the pretext that they would be fascist. Of course, they alter the term "fascist". They do this in the name of real fascism which is the system where we live. If you talk to Annie Lacroix-Riz, she will tell you the same thing. Using Israel was a genial idea. First because it allowed to cover a ruthless imperialist policy disguised under an irreproachable pretext. [Annie Lacroix-Riz, Professor of contemporary history] "We are the heirs of 5 or 6 million victims therefore, we cannot do evil". It is very effective. This also allowed the stigmatization of opponents under the pretext that they would be anti-Semitic, evil, racist, etc.. It has allowed the charging of any form of critical thinking as being a conspiracy theory. Henceforth, no historian can study a particular plot without being accused of being a supporter of conspiracy theories. Do you think that Salvador Allende decided to commit suicide because La Moneda Palace was not nice enough? No. Everybody knows that Allende's fall is the result of a plot involving the United States and the Chilean ruling classes. They feared the progress of this popular unity which tended to change the lives of Chileans and which benefited from an increasing political support. So, we accept some conspiracies in history But when we talk about the strategies of the ruling classes and they are able to foment a plot, therefore, it is forbidden to speak. Some lobbies are blackmailing. They say: "You do not have the moral right to criticize us." [Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, Professor of public law] It is easy ! They gag any criticism. This is very serious! Because, when, in a society, if critical thinking is threatened, it is progress that is threatened. And you cannot say anything. Thus, it leads to a strong threat to the liberal-democratic order. We see that with global warming... -whatever some negationists could say- Negationists ? Yes absolutely. Climate negationism faces reality, I mean... Why do you use words like "negationist" ? Because it is the reality... Why "negationist"? You realize the connotation of this term? Yes, that is... No, we cannot... Jean-Pierre Elkabbach, can we listen Cécile Duflot please ? Is the goal to create an ideological lockdown in France? [Béatrice Pignède, Film director] Is it to silence any objection against Israel? And, more broadly, is it a danger to democracy? Some in the Jewish community, feel that the lockdown no longer exists. Some even dare to say: "We exploit the Holocaust too much" "It doesn't work anymore." People who are above suspicion, and who say, "We exaggerate!" [Jacob Cohen, writer] "We cannot refer systematically to anti-Semitism." "It works less and less" There are aware of that but... You know, I often said that Israel cannot make peace. It is a colonial regime. This is a regime that cannot go back. A colonial regime must go to its own logical outcome. Its logical outcome leads to more and more settlements, etc. A colonial regime never wants an equitable solution when it is still possible. So Israel is on its own road and Jews have to follow it. One cannot do otherwise. And the French power is also required to follow. Until now, anyway. But there are some flaws. For example, the Socialist Party says that we must recognize a Palestinian state. Bertrand Delanoë went to Israel last week, and said that a Palestinian state must be recognized at the UN. This is panic! Because Socialists have been so far the best defenders of Israel. Even this lock is now starting to crack. The charge of anti-Semitism is manipulated and is at the basis of the support of Israel. [Jean Bricmont, Professor of theoritical physics] Some have told me that Israel is the bridgehead of the United States in the Middle East. But it is clear that today this is no longer true. In informal conversations, Obama and Sarkozy say they are fed up with Netanyahu. They would kick Netanyahu's ass, but they can't -especially Obama. Thus, in the U.S., if someone dares to speak, he is accused of anti-Semitism. Even opponents of the war in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or what else... It's not only about Israel, it extends into other issues As soon as you oppose one organization of the so-called representative of the Jewish community, then, you get a volley of insults. The top insult is "negationist". As negationism has been criminalized, even if you are a little below, you are close to the unacceptable, near the nameless. If one puts into question the war propaganda -particularly for humanitarian wars like Kosovo or Libya- for which there were tons of lies about massacres. If we request evidence, The answer is "You are negationists!" This is what happens when one questions the official version. There are also questions about September 11. Personally, I'm not close to the so-called "conspiracy theorists of 9/11" But they too are called "negationists" while they ask questions that they have the right to ask. This is unrelated to Holocaust denial. The problem is that the Gayssot Law has these huge side effects. ust a word on a subject that interests me and of which you may not speak on Sunday at Blois : when the Legislation tries to make history, I'm thinking about the Memorial Law or the Gayssot Law, which punishes revisionism... It is a very important aspect of the current period : my position is very clear, [Robert Badinter former Minister of Justice] the Parliament does not have to tell history, the Parliament makes history. It cannot tell history or determine it, I add that, and one has to take that into account : the Constitution does not allow it. About the Gayssot law, which had not been submitted in 1991 to the Constitutional Council. Robert Badinter had said during the audition by the parliamentary mission about Memorial issues, he said "I was a member of the Constitutional Council at the time of the Gayssot law and I thought that this would have been very interesting if it had been referred to the Council". And well here, in 2010, the Cassation Court considered that this was not a serious issue and refused to send the Gayssot law to the Constitutional Council and give it the opportunity of ruling. Does the Gayssot law question [Béatrice Pignède, Film director] the foundations of the French Constitution, Yes, of course ! the Declaration of human rights, the Enlightenment spirit ? Of course ! Badinter says that the law is unconstitutional but the problem, of course, is there is no scarcity of jurists who say that it is unconstitutional, there is no scarcity of historians who say that they are opposed to it, but what I find curious is that when people are prosecuted, are put in prison because of that law, such as Reynouard: and when there is a petition against him being thrown into prison, which seems logical to me, I mean if you are..., when we were, for example at the time when abortion was prohibited, there were people who were against that prohibition and were also against that law being implemented against those who practiced abortion which was illegal then. Reynouard has done something illegal, but if we are against the law, it is logical to demand his release, even if he made something illegal, that seems logic to do it regardless of what I think about Reynouard, who is actually a fundamentalist Catholic, néo-nazi, etc. He is not prosecuted for his opinions. He could be fundamentalist Catholic, Neo-Nazi, without being prosecuted, if he didn't deny certain facts about the second World War. That is the paradox of the paradoxes. He can be as extremist as he likes, but he can't deny some facts, and if he denies them, he goes to jail. [Norman G. Finkelstein, political scientist] [Courthouse, Paris] When Reynouard goes to jail, I don't know many people who justify that. When I meet people, face to face, they do not have any valid argument. Why has this father of 7 children sat in jail for 9 months? Because he wrote 16 pages on the web challenging certain historical facts , there are not many people who are ready to justify that, straight in your eyes, but none of them dare sign the petition. In my opinion, it is because they are afraid. Because French magazine "Charlie Hebdo" and other "thought policemen" will throw a red pellet on them saying, "ah, you signed... but together with that person who is from the far right, etc.!" I personally have been attacked because of that. I had conferences cancelled because of this case, even in a Physics Department because I had signed this petition. I was told, not informed by letter, but I was told. Therefore I see exactly how the system functions. I know how the pressure works and people do not resist. But of course, everyone seems to claim that they would have been at metro Barbès during the war shooting against the Germans... Everyone would have been the French resistant Jean Moulin... When you listen, they would have been all in the Resistance. But today they do not resist to much lower pressures. [Amateur images of the Liberation] Because these pressures are nothing compared to what the Germans and the Vichy regime could do. You are not tortured, or deported, etc. Therefore, all this is a sinister farce, and in addition, it justifies the current passivity in the name of a culpability transmissible to descendants! Therefore I don't know... We live in an anti-racist ideology, where in a racial way the French, Germans, Catholics... are guilty forever and the guilt is transmitted to their descendants of crimes that they have not committed, 04 that were committed before their birth, and which they have never applauded. I did not have Hitler’s portrait when I was young, it was nothing of that sort. -It is clear that by July they will ask you again, as the French President, to present an apology for what happened at the time of Vichy. Is your position still the same ? They'll wait a long time for something that they won't have. France has no excuses to give, nor even the Republic. I will never accept such a thing. It is an excessive demand of people who do not deeply feel what it is to be French, the honor of being French and the honor of French history... [Abstracts of "F.Mitterrand : conversations with a President"] And would you recommend to your successors, if they are from the Right, to adopt the same attitude? They will do whatever they want to I have no recommendations for them Because the pressure will be done on them as well. These pressures will still exist in a hundred years, maybe ! What does it mean : this is maintaining hatred, but it is not hatred that should govern France. Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. For the first time a French President, Jacques Chirac, admitted the responsibility of the French State in the deportation and extermination of Jews during the Second World War. Yes the criminal madness of the occupier, was, everyone knows, assisted by French people, assisted by the French State. When a President of the Republic, in this case Jacques Chirac, apologizes for that in my name, [Alain Bénajam, Cofounder of Voltaire Network] I am deeply shocked and hurt by that. Now, therefore, the responsibility, the concept of collective responsibility is an open door to racism, it's the same thing as racism, it has the same component as racism. Racism, is to say that all Jews are guilty because there exist Jewish banks, Goldman Sachs exists... Rothschild exists, because of the fact of the existence of Jews in the big capital, because of the existence of Israel and Zionism... which would mean that all Jews are guilty. It is the position of the negationists. It is obvious, that for example, the General de Gaulle wanted to erase Vichy, [Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, Professor of public law] but it was voluntary ! It should have been said that Vichy did not exist. What happened after the speech of the "Vel d'Hiv" -and the State Council jurisprudence change- is that one attributed to the Republic precisely what De Gaulle did not want to be attributed, Admitting "the criminal madness of the Nazis which was that the Republic under Vichy was null and void. So, it was deliberated, it was voluntary. Indeed, in every history there is always and an eraser to erase, slightly anyway, certain aspects. What is important to remember [Paul Ricœur, philosopher] is also what will contribute to the formation of projects, a way to locate in the present and to make projects for the future. So that if you take the memory of people in different times, you can make the history of its own memory -history that in turn, will raise problems : who writes this history, etc., but let's put aside this aspect. I will present an example, just after the war during the trial of Marechal Pétain, what was the charge ? It was essentially the collaboration. [The visit of Marechal Pétain] Why ? because the problem was the break between the resistance and the collaborators. The question was on which side had been Marechal Pétain ? It was not the fact that Pétain had delivered to the Germans German Jews who were under the protection of French hospitality -which for me is the major crime of Pétain- this was not what was written, there was not even an ordered story, or a coherent story, of this. It was not until the trial of [Klaus] Barbie, it took a long time before the emphasis was put on the deportation, the genocide. Why? Because that was the new important issue. The important question was not to know who had collaborated anymore, but who had participated in the genocide directly or indirectly. So, there is a shift, one could say that with Nietzsche, in what was interesting, what represented an interest for life, for the present life, and also the way to project oneself into the future. So one cultivates a different memory. Therefore, the more the insistance was done [Annie Lacroix-Riz, Professor of contemporary history] on the memory, by choosing selected pieces, the more has been obliterated the whole historical field. And it was done -it cannot be without a political objective- it was done by always taking the victim's side, and by promoting certain victims and by forgetting the others, we naturally lost, for example, the meaning of what was the Second World War, that was obviously a war of Jewish persecution, a war established in a process of imperialist war, which logically, viewed from the German side, Pan-Germanism having been what it was, oriented in priority, towards the liquidation of Jews, Gypsies, Slavics, etc. Because they destroyed vital forces excess compared to the rate of profit, to the hoped benefit hoped. Therefore, you further orient the population concerning the productive human force, you direct the population even more towards slaughter, that for decades, you have been explaining to them, that Jews are vermin, that Slavs are vermin and that vermin can have only one fate, which is annihilation. One has to answer this question, why is it that it is only prohibited to challenge the Holocaust, for example, and not slavery etc.? That was the reason why I was against even the Gayssot law, thinking that we were headed for a trap [Pierre Nora, Historian] that we would not be able to get away from. And that all groups, or victims, would jump on this demand. It must be said that there is a problem in our society which is that of the status of the victim. It is likely that if we think about it, we will come to realize that there are no longer in our societies, any positive heroes, any wise or great men, even saints. The victim became, in a certain way, the object of sainthood of history. On the long run, France has long been believed to be on the front guard of humanity. We spoke about French Universalism for a long time. I think that there is another French Universalism, but in different sense. While Universalism was inspiring of the French grandeur, it is likely that the current Universalism goes very far in the direction of moral condemnation. I believe that there is a paradox, which is very difficult, first to elaborate, but also to be integrated in the comprehension we have of ourselves. It is that, there is a memory forcing, by commemorations, maybe because of a memory deficit. We live in a civilization that tends to forget -not only purposely- that I would say not to be facing its own faults of the past, but also because all the technology orientation of our civilization, and I would say structurally, is a civilization of oblivion. Because technology has no memory, when you have a broken washing machine you throw it away. We keep no traces of technological objects because they replace each other. I think that there is structure of substitution and disposability which are absolutely against the memory. And therefore, I think we are brought to a kind of institutional strengthening, a counter current of this orientation of "oblivion", from a technology society which is structurally carried away by its own specific projects. I think that Nietzsche wouldn't write the same thing again. We are not a civilization burdened by history but rather a civilization forced to march towards the future. I am absolutely against these false "memorial celebrations", which have been carried out. I will give an example, the Mattéoli mission, which I explained in my small book "Contemporary History under the Influence" that it was a true scandal. It was about a project that was destined to prevent that France would suffer the same fate as Switzerland, that is to say to be put to the pillory by the United States that quickly overwhelmed Switzerland in 1995, abominable Switzerland, absolutely abominable governing Switzerland ! No one will deny that. There were Swiss banks accused of having kept the capital of the deported [Jews] etc. [Jacob Cohen, writer] Swiss people said that they were ready to do what it takes. They named a Commission that would study the deposits, records, etc. And the Swiss said they were ready to pay. But the Jewish communities said "we must be paid immediately otherwise, New York City will boycott Swiss banks". Therefore, the panicked banks said "we will pay". Something close to 3, 4 billion dollars. And the commission started its job. Only after a year, it was established that there was something between 600 million and 800 million to pay for deposits etc. Therefore, it is well known that there are financial extensions of this history, it is a milking cow, it can reach billions. Instead of explaining... The work of a historian, such as a sociologist work, or whatever scientific work, it is to say to the French people, watch out ! That is what I do in my historical approach, to look to what covers the operation. This [mission Mattéoli] is an operation that helps the State, which is mandated by the State. At the service, it must be told, of French banks, insurance companies. And therefore historians participate in this loaned case. Listen, we fall into the same debate, in the same issues that we discussed : what have become high qualified historians today? They are actually auxiliary elements of the State apparatus. We have seen the economic issues. You know well that at a certain moment there was the issue of compensation for slavery which was put forward by some people. It starts by recognizing, etc. but always ends on by the ringing and stumbling [Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, Professor of public law] at one time or another ! Obviously, as soon as you defend the interests, it leads to... There were very unhealthy things. I didn't like it. At some point it had to be that the French State Council started to add all that has been done to compensate the Holocaust victims in France, and finally said now it is enough. The Public Rapporteur makes this list of all the laws, saying "there is this Act, this law, and these compensations"... And saying that it is kind of pushing too far, now we stop. It is very unpleasant to read but, here are the consequences... Because there is a moment when we say, that's enough. We will never end, because we had to compensate orphans... Then of course you compensate the orphans of the Jewish deportees, the orphans of the political resisters deported and others ask "what about us?" False victims of the Nazis have received large amounts of money. It is a scam that made the headlines in New York. Around 5500 people in the United States received more than 42 million dollars, compensation paid by Germany. 17 people have been charged in New York, 6 of them were part of the association "Claims Conference", which helps the victims of the Holocaust. Compensations reaching more than 400 dollars per month, for people who claim to have lived in the camps. Some of the recipients were not even born at that time and employees of "Claims Conference" took a percentage along the way. [Norman G. Finkelstein, political scientist] In financial terms, according to Norman Finkelstein, it is about billions of dollars. This is not nothing. For example take Germany, the Germans just sold a sixth submarine with a nuclear warhead to Israel with a 50% of reduction. The first three have been offered as gifts. I understand that Germany assists Israel, indeed they have greatly helped them. They have given them tens of billions. But help them to develop a nuclear industry, I do not think that Germany…. There were also many problems with the Germans for this sixth submarine, because the Germans really began to be fed up. But it is so… Israelis must say, "listen, the Holocaust, even", and therefore that is, the Germans have to give them their submarine. There are of course financial extensions, I just cited the example of Germany. Their submarines, it involves enormous amounts of money, I think that a submarine, they made a discount of fifty percent for the last submarine, that is to say it is a gift of 135 million euros. It is not nothing. And in the United States, apart from the 3 billion that they receive, they collect a lot of money. [French Senate] Twenty years after the Gayssot law, which are the well-known consequences, [Béatrice Pignède, Film director] what well-known effects can be seen ? I believe that Pierre Nora was right when he said that this law was the mother of all others. Because from the moment that you have a community protected by the prohibition to say something about them, many, of course, other communities arrive behind saying, why not me? And this is what we saw. And, just like Pierre Nora said. Many other jurists said "but the Gayssot law is special because it is written actually in a more legal manner than other memorial laws, in the sense that it refers to the denial of crimes that have been recognized by a court". So there is, let us say, that the infraction is more determined, more defined than in the others. Nevertheless, it is the mother of all others. Each community, which has in its history a martyrdom, will want also to benefit from the same provisions. And just recently, the day right after the victory of the left wing in the Senate, the next day, François Hollande said immediately, that since the left wing will now be a majority in the Senate, the Senate will vote the famous law on the denial of, the criminalization of the denial of the Armenian genocide, which the Senate had blocked since a number of years. It is clear that this is an election period, therefore, it is to satisfy a community… It is obvious, that this law which was rejected, [Pierre Nora, Historian] I remind you, by the Senate last year, came back because you have a left majority in the Senate, and to cut the grass under the feet of the left, president Sarkozy has taken the initiative of this law to get the 500 thousand Armenian votes in the next elections. 24 hours after the vote by the French Assembly of the proposed law on genocides, the relations between the two countries continue to fester. Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyib Erdogan, among others, accused France of genocide in Algeria. From 1945, France massacred 15 percent of the Algerian population, according to estimates, that is a genocide. They burned the Algerians in furnaces, they were martyrs. The small history lesson, by Recep Tayyib Erdogan, is a real provocation for the French President. Ankara has also frozen all diplomatic, military and economic cooperation. Even in the ranks of the UMP the law is not unanimous. Behind the scenes, former french Prime Minister Alain Juppé has even characterized it as an "unspeakable stupidity". I will not put oil on the fire, everyone knows my position, and I think that this initiative was not opportune, but the Parliament has voted and made its decision. While the diplomatic crisis was open between Turkey and France, a mini crisis also covers within the presidential majority. The Armenians law, we can see very clearly that is related to the relations one has with Turkey. It's funny. Israel was an ally of Turkey. Once they had problems and were almost about to make war. Since then, the Israeli Parliament [Jacob Cohen, writer] has published a law case against them, defending the Armenian genocide. In fact the Government, that is the problem with such laws, that is where you see that in fact, it is based on the opportunity of the political moment. Probably, the most serious aspect beyond Armenia, [Pierre Nora, Historian] are the opportunities that this law will open, to re-open to all ways to put into question the national history itself. Therefore, no one knows where we are headed. It is clear and normal that one only irritates the Turkish Government, which is probably the one that the French President to exclude any hypothesis of a candidacy of Turkey to Europe, to which he objects. Then, if we get into the criminalization of any denial of genocides etc., then let's go with the case of America and the Native Americans, or the Chinese with Tibetans, and it goes all over the world. Finally, the collective memory is relegated and only matter the partial memories. And then, it is the commemoration of this and that, but each one has his commemoration. [Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, Professor of public law] And then, actually, the national body will be in deconstruction. It is normal. It is not a memory shared by all. This is a competition between partial memories. . By definition, there is no need to be an associate professor of law to understand that the National cement becomes dust. Therefore, you need to know what you want It is clear that communautarism which is behind any of this also, from the moment where you divide the nation, it disappears in an aggregation of communities, each one with their own memory, their holidays, their things. It is a choice. A choice that some countries, which have institutionalized communitarist system. It up to us to know what we want. It is the negation of the French Republican model, as it was, together with its lies, but there must be lies. In a family, does one say everything? For them what is the main enemy? [Alain Bénajam, Cofounder of Voltaire Network] For the anglo-saxon imperialism, the main enemy is France and the French ideology. It is important to understand that. We, French people, because of our history and our ideology represent the negation of what may be the Anglo-Saxon ideology. Then, why are we that negation? Because we invented the law, legality, the Republic, the sovereignty of nations, and the formal national membership. The idea that the social bond is purely contractual, that is to say, formed by distinct individual, separated, already armed with legal rights, and then speaking to another individual, [Paul Ricœur, philosopher] saying "we will conclude a Pact together". Then, this is the great tradition of the social contract which is venerable, since Rousseau, the version of Montesquieu, etc. But belonging, to a nation, a social body, is not fundamentally contractual. Because in a contract it can be said that we choose the other Contracting Partie. But we did not chose each other mutually. We happened to be born together. Hannah Arendt had revolved around the idea of "living together". And so there is a kind of cohesion of "living together" which is somewhat equivalent to the result that life is with itself. There is something that I find dangerous, that is the assignment of the individual to its history, its historicity, that is against revolutionary approach and it has a name : reactionary. This is the approach, which is to deny what the philosophers of "the Enlightenment spirit" did, what the revolution brought , that is that we are all equal before the law, abandoning our "belongings". And I am very concerned of seeing more and more the word "belonging", appear in the legislation and we even see a "feeling of belonging". It becomes very surprising. And then, as I am of Breton origin, I can tell you that in Brittany, I am considered of not having taken frankly the Breton cause, and I am regarded as a Betrayer to my roots. We are re-rooting people and I find that claiming to be a slave descendant is absurd. You know like me, that for the people from overseas, that, there they are likely to be either descended from slavery and/or from a slave owner. Why give importance to only a part of the lineage ? To speak like in the middle ages. During the middle ages they talked about lineage. There is something unhealthy about that. Until when can one be descendant of slaves ? [Françoise Chandernagor, writer] Because it has to stop some time. The deportees were a category in the way of natural extinction, if I may say, because after a certain time, there can be no more former deportees. But the descendants of slaves then ? We are already in the sixth or the seventh generation. How long will this go on ? The historic mimicry is striking because as there are the sons and daughters of deported Jews, there is also an Association of sons and daughters of African deportees, in which are some Africans who have directly immigrated to France, and therefore cannot be former deported Africans and who sometimes not only are not victims of the slave trade but can be descendants of African slave owners, since there existed an African slavery. So these are quite dangerous notions when it comes to the constitutionality of some provisions. The least that can be said is that the French contemporary legislature [Anne-Marie Le Pourhiet, Professor of public law] is no longer acting according to his principles, that it contradicts daily. Many parliamentarians became representatives maybe less of the nation, than of lobbies in any kind which make public coverage to their interests. Nobody appreciates narcissistic and egocentric individuals who speak only of themselves and conjugate life in the first person of the singular, who tire out their entourage with their navel gazing. So do these groups, who want to conjugate collective life as the first person plural, bombing their torso to show identity, demanding recognition, repentance and reparation, unloading often a certain aggressiveness and bad faith arguments I always say that culturalism is to the mind what bodybuilding is to the body, a highly unsympathetic narcissistic increase. I was invited on a television plateau, and told to do what journalists call a "round up" [Max Gallo, Historian] that is, a summary of "Napoleon's empire". I innocently and sure of myself, as usual, I sit down, and watch a small film of 4-5 minutes, which was devoted to the restoration of slavery by Napoleon, in 1802. This is an authentic fact. I was asked, and I had the clumsiness, or error, or the stupidity by saying : it is a fault, it is a crime, a spot on the empire, on the person of Napoleon, and perhaps, I added, that in my book I have not given enough room to that event, you are right. One might have to give it more room. I then add, in interrogative form, was Napoleon conscious of committing a crime against humanity? I do not know. What had I say there! Since a law had been voted, deciding that slavery was a crime against humanity and as a result, the denial of that was punishable by the courts. I was indeed taken to the courts. Finally, the moneyed powers must break this French system. So, to break it they need to put forward again the archaic concept of nations, based on a pseudo-community of something. Social belonging, non-explicit and non-formal to a given group is fully submitted to an arbitrary appreciation, of those who rule this given group. There are those who will say, you belong to the Jewish nation but what does that mean ? They are going to say, but you have a Jewish mother, I do not know too much, or to the Jewish people... How far shall we go ? Should we go all the way to put the Jew yaw, and the thing on the head, and the rest ?… There is always a competition in membership. Always a competing bid. Always people who are at the core of the membership and those at the periphery, but who are subject. Membership, or what it is called "cultural identity", is opposed to citizenship. These "cultural identities" have no limits. There are "cultural identities" in France, "wine and pork sausage", people who will eat pork sausages and drink wine at the "goutte d'or" while Muslims are praying. These identity groups call themselves "wine and pork sausage". Hence, the interest of it is that there is never a limit. Communitarianism is a permanent struggle. It can never end. They will keep reducing, reduce the territories, atomize them, then balkanize the territories to the extreme, in order to define cultural identities of the Bretons, Auvergnats, Occitans, Provencals, Savoyardes... Catalans, Alsatians, etc. etc. There are no limits to all this. There is a certain communitarianism, that I would call "a communitarianism of Resistance". It is a personal belief. As this communitarianism either internally here, [Jacob Cohen, writer] or overseas, for example in North Africa, in the Arab countries, etc. or in Germany, or in other countries, it is a reaction to the refusal of these countries, or their established governing powers, to consider these foreign communities in a normal way, to give them the same chances, the same rights. It is true that this awful helplessness in face of the harm that Israel is doing, for example. Daily houses destruction, etc., and at the same time, these large democracies, or so-called democracies, or the international community, etc., who want to impose their modes of thought, the so-called democratic thought, etc. It is literally unsustainable. It makes me laugh somehow, forced laugh shall I say. In Egypt they say 65 percent of Islamism. But it is quite normal. This country has been, since the past 200 years, humiliated by the West, and more, by Israel that has destroyed everything. President Nasser was not Islamist. Nasser wanted the independence of the country. He wanted to nationalize the Suez Canal. So, they sent a tripartite military expedition, British, French and Israel to punish him for having dared to nationalize the Suez Canal. You imagine the humiliation of a great people such as Egypt. And in Iraq there was the embargo, against Iraq... I think that there has been so much happening among these people or communities here, and this can only promote this type of reaction or in any case this kind of identification that enables to resist. That's why I call it "communitarianism of resistance". That is, resisting to this invasion of culture and media, which has become unbearable. We import the conflict from the Middle East in a very vicious manner, by presenting it as a cultural conflict, let's say, about memory. Which produces of course what I sometimes maliciously call [Jean Bricmont, Professor of theoritical physics] the "Zionism of the poor", that is to say people who then say: what about the slave trade, what about colonization in Algeria, the Algerian war? They ask other memories to be sacred. Then we spend our time talking about the past. Now there is the Euro collapsing, our economies going down the drain and we are going cap in hand, begging to China for her to come and save our economy ! We do not realize the historical change of asking help to China. In 1910, around 1910, Lenin wrote an article called "Backward Europe and advanced Asia", which castigated the terms of a loan that Europeans had imposed on China, which at the time, was in full decline. And a century later it is us who would seek China's help. This historic change is absolutely extraordinary. What reflection do we have about this? I mean, all these stories about the duty to remember are religious things that are completely out of the way. They are completely against the spirit of the Enlightenment, anti-republican, anti-everything you want. And they are distractions from the real problems that we have currently. All global wars, I don't know if a general war will take place, but under the current circumstances, it is likely, if nothing is done to avoid it. All global wars that came to crown [Annie Lacroix-Riz, Professor of contemporary history] the crisis of the capitalist system, were preceded by what we call today the communitarianism. Why this communitarianism? In France, a country where immigration is significant, since 1880, it was because the ruling class needed foreign labor to put pressure on wages. And in all countries where you have a massive migration, there is a very large facilitation of course, the ability to put actual and potential victims against each other. Therefore, today we are in a situation strangely reminiscent of the pre-war period of 1914, as well as the pre-war period of 1939. Maybe there is a certain happy forgetfulness to reject, I would say, the haunting that renews the commemoration. But, for that, we should be... Maybe we are not there yet, for example, [Paul Ricœur, philosopher] regarding the traumatic events of our century, that we have not yet reached, we are still between repetition and the work of mourning. I think that this is our cultural situation. But we ought to get to something such as the state in which we are concerning the French Revolution. We are no longer in the debate between Monarchists and Republicans, at the point where you want to cut the king's head, etc. And so, in this sense, there is a pacifying forgetfulness. It is a forgetfulness, I would say, after the memory. Where do we stand on the growing memories of victims ? Is it now a policy that has become [Béatrice Pignède, Film director] a policy of guilt? Yes, of course And aren't the implications of this policy the end of any collective project ? Because this Left that has abandoned any idea of going beyond capitalism, has created a situation where, effectively, we are only busy judging the past. One has the impression that we are at the end of history -which is not the case-, we are at the end of history, all the problems are solved, and then, we return we look at the past : Hitler, Stalin of course are bad guys. What should be said about Leopold II, about the colonization of Algeria ? There are debates, which very interesting... And we live like this, in the judgment of the past, we arrived at the end of history, a kind of Hegelian history, where there is nothing left to do, because it is in an ideal society, you have nothing else to do than to judge the past, and how we got there. It is like that. This is the kind of fantasy in which we are. And then, of course, we must fight, but because there is no actual combat, we are fighting people who think wrongly, who are not in agreement with the consensus, on the judgment that is given on history. And then, the response is political. I mean, we are political animals, who precisely will seek to found another link than the link of utilitarian exploitation of nature of nature and exploitation of other men. And then we fall back on the issues that we discussed, namely precisely, a link that has a memory, and whose memory is constitutive of its own project. And then, with a temperate use of tradition and traditions. We should put traditions to the plurals to avoid falling into the tradition with a capital "T", but traditions, to revitalize them and it can be said to redirect them towards projects. [writing and film directing] [shootings] Resolution of the crisis by any means whatsoever, [documentary research] will make us pass to another stage. [translation] Until then, life will be very hard [design] and probably even harder for critical thinking. [visual animation] [mixing] [music] Ultimately, serve the past real, [editing] is developing a poetry worthy of the poetry of the unreal. It is the poetry of reality. So, is history able, somehow, to reabsorb the prestige of poetry ? That is the question. [thanks] [excerpts quoted videos] [excerpts from newspaper quoted] [english version : Zarin Sajari, Monica Witt] subtitles : Jean-Sébastien Farez and Béatrice Pignède