Regarding the April 13, 2004 Arte broadcast on the events of September 11
(series Thema), reader reactions:
April 14, 2004
Film presented by Daniel Leconte: "September 11 Never Happened," by Barbara Necek and Antoine Vitkine.
April 15, 2004, some remarks
Readers are sending letters about this scandalous broadcast aired on Arte on April 13. Some suggest sending the channel a kind of "petition letter," thinking "it would carry more weight." But it's pointless. The content of this broadcast was sufficient to reveal just how deeply corrupted this media outlet had become. It may have always been so—we simply failed to notice. The subtlety lay in those in charge allowing shocking documentaries to pass through, creating the illusion of press freedom. An illusion, because everything is an illusion. Images and statements can be manipulated endlessly. The famous filmmaker Chris Marker demonstrated this in his film "La Jetée." We must learn to doubt everything, trust only ourselves. It's entirely possible to stage a shocking reportage on Pol Pot's massacres in Cambodia while concealing other realities. In our media, in all media, the spotlight only shines where it's directed. When Meyssan appeared on Ardisson's show, it was merely a minor slip-up. There are always small slip-ups in these systems of information manipulation. Ardisson was quickly reprimanded and ordered to retreat into the shadows, just as happened earlier with my friend Jacques Pradel, who paid five years of near-unemployment for his insubordination. The iron control of information must be internalized by journalists themselves, who must develop reflexes of self-censorship. It's a form of training. We live in the world of Big Brother and Brazil. Pradel was too independent by nature. He had preserved his ethics. Ardisson reacted instinctively—trying to spark a debate, which, as this "sociologist" Pierre Lagrange, whom I know only too well, put it, "was entirely unnecessary." I recall the words of this "intellectual" at the moment when Pradel was being attacked from all sides:
- What undermines this Roswell affair is its incredible nature.
When one reads such statements, one is tempted to exclaim: "Is there a sociologist in the room?"
The message delivered to Ardisson, relayed by Thierry Thuillier, head of information on A2, was crystal clear: "What business does your sudden moral conscience have here? You're not here to express it. You're here to entertain the public, to numb it. You've stepped out of line. Don't do it again, or you'll be shown the door."
One must be blind and deaf not to perceive the increasingly astonishing manipulation being carried out by the media on the public. For example, I came across an 18-page dossier in Paris-Match—already old—titled "Following Alain Juppé through his ordeal." Poor man: caught red-handed, this politician had been condemned! It was necessary to evoke his suffering, to gain public sympathy and compassion, to portray him as a man, a family man, a husband, a father—what else?
Now, the only thing we know for sure is that we are being lied to, and that this lie is everywhere. Yesterday I received a renewal notice from the magazine Ciel et Espace. I threw it straight in the trash. I'm tired of seeing this scientific publication echo non-events while concealing important facts. I think of Alain Cirou, now editor-in-chief of the magazine, who, some twenty years ago, as secretary of the French Astronomical Association, had approached me to give a lecture at the former premises of the École Polytechnique. Before I spoke, Cirou wanted to explain that he had faced intense pressure—scientists in power, politicians, journalists—urging him to cancel my talk. He made his "last stand" then. He must remember that day well. Today he serves the soup to the mediocre who dominate the field of science.
It took the independence and courage of Jean-Claude Pecker for me to finally speak in February 2004 at the Collège de France, before a large audience. But apart from him and Narlikar, no other renowned astrophysicist showed up. Too dangerous. I have a quick, precise aim, and more than one has collapsed during seminars, a theorem planted between the eyes. I'm exhausted by these resignations, by these illusions of science. Yesterday I spoke on the phone with a young member of the group who has joined the Epistémotron team. Perhaps it will work. I must help this group, which includes many young people, usually computer specialists, so that something might emerge that could become... "wild research," based on calculations done through "shared computing" by... amateurs. In the sanctuaries of astrophysics, people get bogged down in mediocrity. At the Institute of Astrophysics in Paris, at the Astrophysics Laboratory in Marseille, where I once belonged, theoretical speculation is in the hands of people lacking ideas, imagination, or competence—like Bosma, Athanassoula, Françoise Combes, Omont. They've lost their way. I'm tired of this pseudo-science. Researchers demand: "More positions, more funding." Certainly. But who will clean up these stables of Augeas that the powers-that-be would like to dismantle in order to privatize research in the most foolish way imaginable?
For those who govern us, if they are as greedy as the average of other powers and seek to serve financial interests above all, they are not only dishonest—they are clumsy, incompetent. In the United States, money is undoubtedly wasted, as everywhere. But these people have an extraordinary advantage: they don't have institutions like the École Polytechnique or the ENA. They conduct their research campaigns like wars, replacing losing generals. I've shown in my book what an advantage this has given them. In contrast, how can one explain the blindness of our technico-scientific media toward news such as the "X43 achievement," when the images clearly show nothing more than a simple wind tunnel model? Is this merely incompetence—or have the United States become so powerful that they can manipulate our own media in directions that suit them?
The United States is the most powerful nation in the world. This country possesses weapons capable of erasing any other nation from the map within hours. Which journalist dares mention that the real motive behind America's grip on Iraqi oil fields lies in a geopolitical strategy aimed at preventing China from ever accessing them? Which journalist dares point out that the sheer scale of China's "Long March" rockets might serve purposes other than... colonizing the Moon, just as Russia's "Semiorka," with its initial range of 8,000 kilometers, had goals beyond merely launching a man into space?
We have seen on this site mention of trials...