Réflexions au fil de l’eau : UK, pénurie d’humanité, politique, culture... etc.

Hello, my friends, listen. Tonight is my chance to test a new camera, so I hope we'll get a better quality image than usual. So I wanted to give you some news from the United Kingdom. So yesterday we had a member of Parliament who was killed. He was in a room to meet the public because members of Parliament come here to meet the voters of his constituency. And suddenly a Somali appeared. The word has been out sometimes in the news. A Somali appeared armed with a knife, and then he fell on him. He started stabbing. And that's. So people fled, leaving him alone with the terrorist, who made no effort to escape, you know, the police or anything. They came and arrested him. So without any problems. So among the details that shock me a little, it's the Mayor of London. The Mayor of London. Sadakin, the Mayor of London, who. Who sent out a tweet to offer his condolences to the family. What's quite crazy about this tweet is that he talks about the death. He talks about the death of the mp. So he says, I pay tribute to the deceased MP and all that. And if someone isn't paying attention, you know, to the circumstances of this death, they might think that the guy died of a heart attack. They might think that the man died, lets say, of a completely natural death. There you have it. It's a death. In fact, there's nothing more. The word Islamic attack, condemnation of the violent act and all that, is not part of the vocabulary of the mayor of Lander. So that was quite shocking. The second extremely shocking thing is the fact that the man is a Christian, a Catholic Christian, in fact. Huh. Which is perhaps a little less common. It's a. The majority of Christians here are, let's say, Anglican. There's a lot to talk about, the Anglican Church. We'll have to talk about it one day. Yeah. The fact remains that while he was dying, a Catholic priest came running to his bedside to give him the last rites. You know, it's very important in the Catholic religion. It's really the moment when the person is dying. It represents a sort of. I wouldn't say a coronation. It's not. It's not the coronation, but it's indisputably a culmination. It's the culmination of a journey, the culmination of a life. And it is very important that people of this faith can meet a minister from their church to perhaps provide a form of appeasement. Is it not quite symbolic at this time? And the police prevented the priest from approaching. The police forbade the priest from Approaching the victim. So, just to give you an idea of the type of world we are living in, fuel has returned. It is true we do not have fuel everywhere, but there is some. It is not really a problem anymore. Those who want to find fuel can find it. There is no more rationing. But what bothers me today is not really the shortage of fuel or the shortage of certain chocolate buns or others. You. What bothers me is really the empty hearts. In fact, I just feel like hearts have become empty and that perhaps the greatest shortage we are experiencing today is a shortage of humanity that might be the one that will be our downfall, right? So on the subject of a shortage of humanity, there is another one that struck me a bit. I had heard Zamore say something like that. He blames the degradation of the French language. He blames it on the McGrevians, he blames it on the Americans, right? So listen, he is playing his role, the guy. He is playing his role, right? He always needs this kind of explanation. He does correct analyses, but then he is forced to find a culprit, let's say, ideal, in relation to the electorate that he is currently wooing. For your information, it wasn't the Maghrebis who created inclusive writing. It wasn't the Magrebus who destroyed French with this abominable writing. If you go to the Maghreb, those who still write this language write it very correctly and stick to a more orthodox spelling. It's not the Americans either. To their credit. I know that I'm the first to criticize the Americans. The Americans, you know, their influence in our world isn't all positive, is it? But at the same time, we can't blame inclusive writing, since they don't necessarily know gender agreement in their native language, can we? So it's true that I found the accusation against the Americans and the accusation against the McGrebbi Forciori a bit gratuitous. There you go. I thought there was a kind of gratuitousness in this, but I understand, I understand the man. He's in an election period, so these kinds of outings are part of his repertoire. And he has to use this card from time to time. So I'd also like to tell you something. It's true that his observation on the degradation of the French language intrigues me, but I'll give him a whole other reason. Because in reality, if you look at humans, humans use language, but what does language allow them to express? Language is a means of expression, okay? Language is not a tool for thinking. It's a means of expression to paint or to convey or to give a dimension, or to bring an idea into manifestation and share it with others. But does this idea still have to exist? Now, the problem we have today, and this is where my observation is perhaps sadder than Zamor's, and I am sorry to see this bad news, is that heads are emptying. Heads are empty. There is a decline in intellectual awareness, a decline in sensitivity. There is a decline in culture. There will only be French films. There will only be French films. I am blaming France for this. But you can put England, you can put Germany, you can put everyone in the same basket, in short, all Westerners in the same basket today. But I am talking about a specific case, a specific case of France. It is not the language that makes the intellectual. It is not the language that creates ideas. Now, it would seem that France, after having been a country that invented or was the precursor. I don't want to go too far on this subject, was perhaps the precursor of compulsory education, right? And free and universal. Okay, maybe it's this universality, that's it. But that's another subject that has often been the problem. But what I'm trying to say is that France has come back on that. It means that if it were up to our elites, I say our elites out of solidarity for all my French friends who support me and who offer me their friendship and who sometimes criticize me for the instinctive use of this type of expression, when I say oui or no or whatever, and I include myself in that without meaning to, not out of calculation. I assure you, that's what comes naturally. Ah. I was saying that France seems to have gone back on this choice, which wasn't even a historical choice. I would say it was a civilizational choice. At its core, it's a civilizational choice. And in fact, if it were up to the French elite, France would have gone back on this choice and would have abolished school. Abolished school? But that's not possible. You can't. You can't just show up and say, I'm abolishing school, it's over. Okay? We can't do that. We can't say, I'm going back to Charlemagne. That's not how it works. On the other hand, what we can do is destroy school, empty it of its substance, turn it into a factory of illiterates, turn it into a factory of morons. We can do that. So instead of it becoming it, becoming this place where we would go with time, with a schoolteacher, where we would Learn to write perfectly where we would learn to read texts, to write poems and all that, as illustrated quite amply by the old books and old student homework. Not that old, by the way. Sometimes we see images of temples on the Internet and we see homework from students from the 50s, sometimes even from the 60s. And we are amazed at the quality of this work. And we are, and we are proud learning that it is the work of a nine year old child. It is the work of a nine year old child, A seven year old child. There. Do you see what I mean? So after people. I was saying once again to come back, to come back to my. It's the African in me who thinks like a doll, like a Russian doll. Uh, I was saying that people whose heads are empty, whose heads are filled with Netflix series, people who haven't read a book from COVID to cover in their entire lives, people whose spirituality has been so drained that they end up focusing most of their beliefs on themes that the media gives them and with which they have an most religious relationship. This kind of person. You want this guy to talk to you about the cross? Even if tomorrow we could, it would actually be very, very much in line with what I'm going to say, what I'm going to give as an example. If tomorrow we could open their heads and put a chip in them and give them 50,000. 50,000 words, give them a vocabulary of 50,000 words. Well, they wouldn't speak any more French than they do today. In fact, when I hear them speak, the poverty is not the poverty of the language that strikes me, but the poverty of the spirit that lies behind it. That's the problem. I don't feel like. I can't feel like sometimes we could, we could, we could see it when we have. Lets imagine you're facing an Asian intellectual. Let's imagine an Asian intellectual comes to you and he speaks in French. And sometimes the language betrays him and prevents him from conveying his thoughts in all their richness. Or sometimes when we approach extremely abstract, extremely complex themes, or when we expect to perhaps reach the limits of human language, what human language can convey. So sometimes we are betrayed by language. We see it. I am betrayed by language. Uh, sometimes I give you an example and tell you it's a bad example. That's not really what I mean. But you'll understand me. I'll give you an example. It's just a glimpse of what I want to convey to you. But we understand each other. We don't follow that logic. When I see many young people today I don't get the impression that they're betrayed by language. I get the impression that they have nothing to say, really. That's the problem. There you go. Anything else? Uh, no. Something else. I have to say something else, but I have to say something else, but I can't say it. It's forbidden. You know, we live in an era of censorship and all that. No, I'm not going to say that. No, no, no, A blogger can't say that. Not these days, actually. Not these days. You know, by the way, I saw two things in this case. I just censored something there. I just censored something. There you go. Actually, the thing I wanted to say and what I censored was that the Moore has a sequence of him on social media where he says, I would have preferred instead of being forced or having a form of constraint, a form of indirect, through the intermediary of enforcement and mandatory restrictions, I would have preferred that we be forced to get vaccinated. And then, of course, this video circulated under the title Zamor is for mandatory vaccination. So, you know, I don't always agree with the guy. And I would like to tell you something. During this presidential election that is coming up in France, despite the use of we and no and so on, I will still keep my distance. I will remain a neutral observer as much as a human being can be neutral, right? I declare or claim neutrality, objectivity. But I would like to tell you something. Be wary of any human being who tells you that they are neutral, that they are objective, because that is not true. So I am telling you I am neutral, I am objective. And in fact, while telling you this, I know that it is not true. It is not because I do not have the will to be. It is because I cannot be that. I can always claim to be that I can always want to be this objective and neutral person, but that person does not exist. It is a figment of the imagination. There you go. So I am telling you this, but you know that it is false. You and I know that it is false, but I am telling you it anyway. So, uh, I was saying that that was just a comment in passing. Uh, this expression, this expression that he used is an extremely, extremely, extremely risky expression. Nevertheless. Nevertheless. And allow me, allow me as a blogger to come and add to the master's point, right? It's because personally, I've noticed that every time I use an expression or a logical construction or a complex intellectual construction, I know that it will often fuel misunderstandings, it will fuel certain Comments bordering on belligerence. And it will also fuel a certain number of officine, people who like with their scissors, to take an isolated sentence out of context, as an Islamist would say out of context, to make it say what they wanted to say. Do you understand? So it's a. It's a construction. It's a construction. I don't think he meant that in absolute terms. I prefer someone who comes straight at me than someone who uses these indirect techniques. Yes, I'm not forcing you, but I'm forcing you anyway. You know you can. If you sleep with me, I'll give you until next week. You won't lose your job. But hey, it's not coercion, it's a choice. Right? You do what you want, basically. But I'm not forcing you. Okay? Given the level of moral degradation we've fallen to today, the situation I just gave you, which is completely hypothetical except in the fashion and film circles, uh, I would say that this is a morally acceptable choice and it's a completely dignified position. Right. So I was talking to you about the presidential election. I don't even know what I was talking about in this video, you know, because that's how it is. It's disjointed. It's disjointed. But since when? Since when is human thinking supposed to be sewn together? In any case, we're always sewn together. We may have moments that are less disjointed than others, but deep down, everything about us is really disjointed. So I was saying that there's something I didn't understand about elections. If you can enlighten me. The media are promoting Zamor, knowing that the more Zamor arises, the more the national rally falls. It's a logic of communicating vessels. That is not entirely true. Okay, which is not entirely true. Why? Because there are a lot of people. We shouldn't see the situation as 100% of the people who vote for A Love were people from the national rally. No, that's not true at all. It means that, yes, there are a lot of that. I know a lot of people who were National Rally who today are ready to vote for Zamor. But there are also other people who would never have voted for the national rally, even though to a certain extent they shared the broad concerns, but they would never have taken the step of voting for that party. And at that point they vote for Zamor. So these are people who are not lost in the national rally. They would never have voted in the national rally. But who arrive on the map and who arrive on the proposal. Where I have. Where I have. There is something that I do not understand, isn't it? It's that the media. The media. I start from the. I start from the principle or the assumption that he works for the existing regime. It doesn't matter which regime it is, right? Look at Mr. Sarkozy. At the time. At the time, Sarkozy, the media were behind him. Under. Under your applause and all that. Patrick. Poor Darver jumped for a remark. Uh, for. For a remark. The remark of the little boy to Sarkozy. And finally, finally, if you look, once Sarkozy left, justice fell on him. The trouble, huh? If he finds someone. If he finds someone who gives him a glass of water and calls him Mr. President, huh? Today that's already pretty good. And that will be the case for Macron one day. That's clear. So I'm not saying that I. It's wrong to say. This is the idea I was trying to build. It's wrong to say. It's wrong to say the media are working for Macron. That's not true. The media are working for whoever is in the presidency, no matter who they are. If it's Macron, well, they'll be working for Macron the day Macron jumps and people are chasing him and all that. Don't worry, the media will completely abandon him, criticize him, give him a hard time, and he'll be polishing the boots of whoever is in power, no matter who they are. You understand? That's the logic. I was saying that I don't understand what he's up to. Because let's imagine. Let's imagine I'm in the media, imagining. And I want to get Macron through while I'll do everything to boost the national rally, because I want a second round of the national rally, Macron. And like that, you know, to do that collectively in the media. There, there. No, no. Touch and say yes, Frank Republican. Protect democracy. The honor of France is at stake. We are against hatred. We don't like Macron, you know, but hey, we call on people to vote for him, quote. Do you get the idea? And it works very well. It's been tested quite a few times in recent years. It works. I don't understand what they're doing today. I don't understand. Because the more they boost Zamours, the more there is a disproportionate decline in the National Front. I say non proportional. So let's say for every point, Zamor gains, the National Rally probably loses half a point, although that could accelerate over time. We might even move towards parity at some point towards the end. That's when the ship, when the first deck chairs that I mentioned last time hit the water. But that's for later. I was saying that it's a technical error on their part to bring Zamor back up, because if they end up with a second round of Zamora Macron, Makron is finished. Do you understand? And Zamor, they don't have that history. And besides, they avoid creating it. He doesn't have that history, does he? For example, in the National Rally. The National Rally is very easy to do, despite all their desire for normalization. And yes, we are a party like any other and all that. Uh, it's very easy to demonize. Whereas Zamor, well, he's a bit of a garlic sausage in his remarks. Uh, he's had a few outings like that. He has a repertoire sometimes a bit rich in images, in strong images. But hey, at the same time, uh, at the same time you're not going to get very far with that because the guy, he's a garlic sausage. But at the same time, uh, he's not applying to become the Pope. Right? Okay, you see that he's a politician who speaks loudly and all that. Okay, listen, I'm watching. Honestly, honestly, honestly, I'm watching, I'm watching. I'm noticing that Zamor is going to run. It's clear that he's going to run. Even in these videos, there's a change in the tense. In these videos, this is someone who speaks today almost as if he were in the role. He's in the skin. He's in the skin of the character. So for me it's just that he's keeping the suspense going, isn't it? But it's just a matter of time before he announces so his candidacy. He's got 500 signatures, so we'll see. But what's happening is very, very interesting. It's very interesting. I think I'll stop there. I think I'll stop there. Thank you for following me. I know my ideas were a bit disjointed tonight, weren't they? But there you have it. I like making videos and when you get in front of a camera, it's true that it's a moment. It's a moment. And sometimes I have to share the time of a 10, 15, 20 minute video. I have to share ideas that have perhaps been bubbling away in my head. For days. So collecting them all and lining them up in a video is an exercise that is sometimes not easy. Not simple in fact. Okay, thank you in any case, because I know that listening to this exercise and participating by listening and commenting is not easy either. And I thank you for being here and I have never taken your presence for granted or guaranteed. In any case, I thank you for your support and I'll see you when we see you. And in the meantime, I will continue to think there.