Utopia or death, said René Dumont.
Utopia or death
September 5, 2004
I no longer remember which deceased ecologist said this phrase or titled a book this way. I believe it was René Dumont. Václav Havel also wrote some compelling pages on this theme. It seems we are facing an alternative. I will update this page as soon as I’ve processed the numerous messages from readers.
The global situation appears to be growing increasingly dire, as no credible alternative seems to emerge. In any case, humanity’s problems bear names: selfishness, lack of sharing, proliferation, waste, irresponsibility. In the final resort, there remains the millennial struggle between the rich and the poor, the obese and the starving. In 1939, Hitler presented himself as a bulwark against communism. In Europe, many said, “All things considered, it’s better to have Hitler than the Bolsheviks.” It’s true that the Bolsheviks had been taken over by a certain Stalin, a great humanist before eternity. Thus, people had only two possible choices: to be shot or hanged.
As the communist enemy ceased being the convenient bogeyman, America manufactured a new one: “international terrorism.” One day, we will surely need to clarify what actually happened on September 11. I fear—and I am not alone in thinking this—that we are living through a pre-war situation, on the brink of a third world war, which may have nothing in common with the two previous ones. Perhaps one day we’ll reach a point where there’s a suicide bombing every twenty minutes, and on the other side, people will imprison, torture with ever-greater brutality, conduct secret trials, and assassinate in silence.
The French channel Arte produced two courageous reports on the atrocities committed by death squads in Argentina and the torture carried out in Santiago’s stadium in Chile. Argentinian military personnel, shielded by an amnesty law, justified themselves by claiming that “in just two years, these strong measures crushed subversion and were highly effective.” In passing, we learned that the French government of that era (mid-1970s) actively assisted the Chilean military junta by alerting them to the return of left-wing militants under false names. This allowed Chilean “authorities” to apprehend them upon landing and make them disappear. We also learned that the French had released many members of the OAS—men with blood on their hands—sending them to South America to train local police in torture techniques.
By evoking these old facts, Arte presents itself as “a channel that digs deep.” But nothing can lessen the devastating impression created by broadcasting the dossier “All Manipulated: September 11 Never Happened” program Thema, a virtual condemnation in absentia of Thierry Meyssan. A reader sent me a DivX copy of this scandalous broadcast, a perfect example of its kind—one that must not be forgotten.
Television devoted brief footage to clashes between ecological activists led by José Bové, who came to destroy GMOs and clashed with CRS forces. The CRS charged, fired tear gas grenades, and injured sixty people, including elderly individuals and children. I received firsthand testimony from one of the demonstrators, who expressed shock at seeing “law enforcement” use their deterrent weapons against peaceful protesters who had not themselves been violent, and without warning—just for some grass. I believe this is a very serious situation in which financial powers demonstrate how they can use “law enforcement” to protect their interests. Personally, I oppose all genetic manipulation, and one day I’ll create a comprehensive dossier on the subject, starting from the basic techniques used. It’s one thing for law enforcement to respond violently to demonstrators destroying buildings or property. It’s quite another when they attack demonstrators trying to destroy GMO plantations. Especially since these demonstrators could have easily destroyed the crops at night, when they were unattended. This is a symbolic act.
It is no longer about protecting property, but about protecting interests.
I remember the first Gulf War. The UN coalition had liberated Kuwait. The Kuwaiti princes returned to their pillaged palaces and immediately contacted decorators to restore everything to pristine condition—before even attending to their own population. I once met a man who had worked for emirs. He told me:
“In the homes of the people I worked for, I installed high-end carpeting in many of their vast palaces. When they ate a barbecue, they’d spill everywhere. So we didn’t clean: we replaced the carpet after every feast.”
At the time, I had an idea. I thought: “Why doesn’t the UN say: This oil is a kind of heritage of humanity. Let’s divide it into three parts. With the first, the emirs could keep spending their money recklessly in Monte Carlo and discreetly hiring call girls. With the second, under UN supervision, we’d help disadvantaged people in Arab countries. With the third, we’d help the underprivileged around the world, focusing on nutrition, health, and education.” But the idea wouldn’t have passed. Something like that would open the door to anything. Why wouldn’t all people on Earth then covet the world’s entire oil resources? After Kuwait, why not Saudi Arabia, or Texas, or the Caspian Sea?
I spoke of oil (did you know that over 300,000 different products are made from it?), but it could be anything. Right away, I’m sliding into complete anarchism. Tell me if I’m wrong. Isn’t it Proudhon who said, “Property is theft”? That brings us back to old ideas. Marxists said that capitalism—which, as everyone knows, never stops “destroying itself”—is the exploitation of man by man. I recall my old friend Vladimir Golubev, who enlightened me when I visited him in Moscow.
I’ll explain. In your country, it’s the exploitation of man by man. In ours, it’s the reverse.
Seen from this angle, things become clearer. I believe we are increasingly facing a choice: become wise, or endure unspeakable suffering, perhaps even vanish altogether. But how to become wise, fair, and so on… and so on…
Utopia, my dear, utopia!
In a previous text, I suggested generously sponsoring mixed marriages in the West Bank, provided that Israeli-Palestinian couples were protected from attacks from both sides. We should then double the height of the wall, or even add a glass canopy to shield the territory from mortar fire by extremists from both sides. Despite these technical challenges, I still believe the experiment would be interesting. I wonder what has become of [that incredible village where two ethnic groups live together](/...