The True and the Plausible
March 14, 2005
If I were a philosophy or French teacher, I’d assign an essay with the topic “The True and the Plausible.”
These are entirely subjective concepts. A mind-blowing piece of news just came out. It was on March 11. One of my readers pointed me toward a report that, according to its source—Yahoo News, quoting AFP, the French news agency—stated that implanting subcutaneous chips had become mandatory in Australia, within the banking sector and the military.
Very quickly, other readers chimed in.
“You risk discrediting yourself. Let’s wait to see if this isn’t just a hoax.”
I chose to leave that text up and state that we were currently verifying it. Three days later, we got the original message, which indeed originated from AFP:
Rereading these lines, I wonder whether I’m living through a nightmare. What’s worse is that I’m thinking this news will probably go almost unnoticed by our “mainstream media.” Yet it’s easy to imagine all the consequences this could bring.
I recall what Otto Hahn, the man who first identified the possibilities of nuclear fission and chain reactions, once said. When his colleagues told him they believed humanity might one day use this mechanism to create weapons of utterly monstrous destructive power, he replied:
“No, God wouldn’t allow that.”
Yet that’s exactly what happened. And God did nothing.
Currently, we live trusting in another god called equilibrium. Even though we’ve experienced major global imbalances through two successive world wars, us Westerners, blessed with Earth’s resources, live under the illusion—the naive belief—that a new equilibrium awaits us in the future, after some “minor readjustments.” Our world will evolve. We’ll have to adapt to new technologies. Subcutaneous chip implantation is just one facet of nanotechnology that will revolutionize our lives. Some envision positive outcomes, such as implanting a chip inside a paralyzed person’s skull to restore mobility via electric actuators. What a wonderful prospect. But can we imagine what dangers such technology might bring? It’s... dizzying, and it’s coming... tomorrow, or even today, under the guise of national security.
There’ll be many other developments too, like adaptive robotics, the dawn of artificial intelligence (“at the service of humanity,” of course). Read “The Year of Contact.” Humanity will have to adjust to all these changes. Maps of power will be redrawn. This won’t make everyone happy, but “you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” That’s what scientists, economists, sociologists, politicians, and military officials “concerned about your safety” would say.
This reminds me of a line from Voltaire’s Candide. At one point, Professor Pangloss says:
“Particular misfortunes make for general well-being. Thus, the more particular misfortunes there are, the better things will be in the best of all possible worlds.”
The great powers, those currently dominating the scene—especially one in particular whose red star is rising—will presumably confront each other mainly on the economic front. There’s also the “bear” nursing its wounds, seeking new breath; and the confused crowd of “common folk.” Eventually everything will settle down, albeit with some destruction and suffering here and there, especially in poor countries. But they’re used to it. Can we imagine a perfect world, free of famine, epidemics, and misery? That... is part of life. Besides, there are lots of people on this planet—too many. Humanity behaves... like one giant living organism. We lose cells every day in all our organs. But we’re immortal; we know that.
But what if it doesn’t happen that way? What if we’re sliding toward a massive, unprecedented catastrophe?
I recall an email from a reader who found me “too pessimistic.” He’d probably prefer I adopt a “positive attitude” à la Raffarin, or a controlled, salon-style alarmism à la Hubert Reeves. But no, I believe the ship is sinking and that events are accelerating right before our eyes. We’re aboard the Titanic. In life, there are only convictions based on personal analysis, which themselves rely on gathered information and lived experience. Let’s not fear words. I’m not trying to be interesting; I have a thousand other ways to do that. I can make you laugh, make you dream. Why choose the most grating tool from this palette?
Because I truly believe it. This AFP news confirms my fears. Reeves speaks of thirty years. I say: less than ten. The countdown has begun. All elements are in place for us to face a spectacular apocalypse; as tradition dictates, people will sleep, drifting toward that abyss as if anesthetized.
Why? Because this prospect is too enormous, too unbearable for them. When people suffer from very serious illnesses, they react in two ways:
Either they want to know the truth, to accept it calmly and lucidly;
Or they prefer to be lied to.
This happens daily, in millions of places worldwide. Thirty years ago, I watched my mother die in two months from liver cancer, surrounded by doctors asking her “what she planned to do once recovered.” That’s what she chose. Yet in six weeks she’d lost 30 kilos. Her skin turned yellow; her body decayed to the point of emitting a foul odor. Still, she obediently, “wisely” swallowed the usual placebos. She kept doing so until the end, until coma. I watched all this unfold helplessly, wondering, “If you were in her shoes, wouldn’t you have made the same choice?” It’s easy to analyze others’ behavior from the outside. But when you’re in that situation, it’s a whole different story.
Few of us contemplate such horrors. But we’re not chronic depressives nor natural pessimists. I love to laugh, to make love, to discover new things and new people with awe. I love people. I believe in humanity’s immense potential, in the benefits science and technology—well managed—can bring us. I think we possess all the tools to pull through, given our current knowledge and technology. Yet I believe humanity is simply sick. Humanity and its technoscience, run by technocrats, techno-idiots, techno-irresponsibles.
The word “Apocalypse” has two meanings: it’s both synonymous with catastrophe and revelation. Regarding the catastrophic side, I believe all the cards are laid out before us—unless we’re blind and deaf. I wrote a text where I tossed out a few ideas at random. It was sort of a test. I was surprised and disappointed by the relatively weak response. I expected more reactions; there were almost none. Yet this text is the most important on my entire site. I try to distance myself, to rise above mere events, the “disaster movie” aspect. But nobody noticed, nobody reacted, nobody heard. I believe it’s because people are afraid to ask themselves questions. Our humanity fears looking into the mirror and admitting that perhaps... we’re merely a kind of “apes” believing we occupy the top rung of the evolutionary ladder. I don’t know if what I suggest is true, but it deserves consideration. Once, a reader wrote to me:
“Thanks for providing questions for my answers.”
Reeves provides answers, in keeping with a flexible scientific mindset. I provide questions. I wonder whether I shouldn’t go further, lay all my cards on the table, even if it means “discrediting myself,” as some warn. I hesitated a long time before posting The Lost Paradigm. I did it. Total flop.
Indeed. How far can one go too far? Look at Senator Byrd’s text: this courageous 82-year-old man, while other senators—corrupt, terrified, or both—hide away (those familiar with history should think of the Roman Senate and Cicero’s “Catiline Orations”). Byrd supposedly belonged to the Ku Klux Klan in his youth—maybe sixty years ago. But that can be used against him. I warn you, that’s all. Nobody’s perfect: I spent six months in the Communist Party in ’68–’69 (it was necessary: joining the Party after ’68! Back then I knew nothing about politics; I wanted to learn. That stint was sort of an ideological “defloration”).
Byrd now compares Bush to Hitler, stating (correctly) that Bush will appoint as many extreme-right judges as possible. Doing so may put his life at risk. “Opponents” may already be plotting his elimination. Kennedy failed miserably when he tried to halt Vietnam operations. But his Vice President Johnson declared, “Elect me President and you’ll get your war.” We know that war was orchestrated via Johnson’s speech reproduced in the film The Right Stuff, through lies, staged events, invented incidents—just like Iraq. Kennedy was an obstacle; he was “handled.”
Byrd isn’t afraid of death. But he’s not U.S. President. He speaks to an empty chamber, the U.S. Senate. Watch the video. Some will say, “Let him speak”; the same folks who say “Let Meyssan and Petit speak.” We’re merely vents, nothing more. In a sense, we’re useful; we let the pus drain out.
I believe the older we get, the less we should fear death and the more we should accept calculated risks. Truthfully, this isn’t even a concern for me. I have no time for such trivialities.
Byrd denounced the lies behind the Iraq invasion. I’d bet he’s questioning the real nature of the “September 11 events.” You’ve seen the evidence, especially what relates to “the Pentagon attack.” It’s all murky, clear as yesterday’s diapers. But who, besides Meyssan—vilified by “journalists”—has dared entertain the unthinkable?
Byrd may have his own views on this matter. But what if he goes further? The general public has its own range of plausibility. Think about it for five minutes: we’re willing to listen only to what seems plausible to us. The rest, we don’t hear it, we don’t perceive it at all. In cognitive psychology this is called “expected signals.” If you see a flying elephant out your window, as in Robin Hood, you’d call it a hallucination; you’d deem it untrue because it’s implausible. If news disturbs you too much, you instantly label it “lie, manipulation, disinformation.” I recall what Edgar Morin told me twenty-five years ago:
“I was a communist, a believer, an activist. During the height of Stalinism, when news arrived from behind the Iron Curtain contradicting our idealistic vision of socialist paradise, we refused to believe it. We allowed only what reinforced our beliefs into our minds.”
You can transpose this to anything; suddenly you realize you experience this daily. A spouse won’t admit he or she erred. The average American won’t or can’t conceive that their leadership is just a gang of crooks and psychopaths working for unscrupulous elites. After witnessing the heroic liberation of Normandy, “the honor of Americans freeing the oppressed,” how can they accept that everything’s changed and that Lincoln’s country has become a spearhead of neo-colonial imperialism?
How can a Christian ever imagine that the current Pope, clinging to life, merely reveals his disbelief and fear of death? Could you imagine Christ riding around in a “Papamobile”? No head of state has ever dared such a thing, protected by an armored glass box. For someone professing faith, isn’t the finest ending martyrdom? Can you imagine the Pope saying:
“Around me, medical staff bustle about. Many people need care more than this old man who’s done his time. Let them help others, not me.”
I recall a historical moment: one man single-handedly stopped a war. Gandhi freed Indians from British colonialism (actually, the British, less stupid than the French in Algeria, negotiated autonomy with Indians like Nehru and Gandhi to avoid bloodshed; the treaty also included partition between India and Pakistan). Later Hindu-Muslim tensions flared. After a bloody clash in Calcutta, Gandhi moved into a Muslim quarter and declared, “I refuse to live in such a world. I’d rather die.” He began a hunger strike. After a month, erstwhile enemies laid down arms before their leader died. (He was later assassinated by a fanatic.)
No, John Paul II isn’t a Gandhi. The French no longer harbor any illusions about their “political caste.” If they doubt it, just imagine their President Chirac living in his state-funded castle, surrounded by land bought by the “Foundation de France,” ostensibly a humanitarian body. A man who narrowly avoided prosecution thanks to a providential re-election. A man who just celebrated “forty years in politics.” Forty years of what? Short-term management, embezzlement, misuse of public funds, fake invoices, phantom jobs. But even if he’d been prosecuted, what would’ve changed? Nothing. Juppé has already regained all lost ground; Mitterrand, after being involved in shady dealings (like the Observatory Gardens affair), still reached the highest office. All the losers among ministers end up as... European deputies.
That’s the second facet of blindness: refusing to look at facts we feel powerless against, crushed by an overwhelming daily reality. For many, thinking is a luxury requiring effort. We understand that. That’s why “people” don’t react. Why bother? To take to the streets? To elect other corrupt figures or hit walls that shatter them? Remember:
God is dead, Marx is dead, and I myself don’t feel so well.
I’m in the same boat as you all. I have no certainty except intuition that this drift is accelerating. This mandatory subcutaneous chip implantation in Australia is a symptom. We scrutinize the world’s turbulence, trying to discern what’s at work. Maybe... nothing, some say. It’s just... how it is; we can’t do anything. But it’s also possible that the undercurrents of our contemporary history exceed even our wildest imagination. Keep this in mind: the bigger it is, the less believable it seems. How many Americans could possibly conceive that September 11 wasn’t just a series of terrorist attacks orchestrated by Machiavellian Bin Laden?
In the past, religions were powerful historical engines, for good or ill. So was science. But for those who see it, this other organized system of beliefs is just another religion.
Is there genuine knowledge? In a sense, yes. Columbus believed the New World he discovered led to India. We know there were other lands, like China, beyond that New World. Alexander the Great, pushing through India, aimed to reach “the edge of the world,” that sea encircling all lands, so he could return home easily. He was mistaken too.
No, planets aren’t light, floating objects as Plato imagined.
But what is man? What’s his purpose?
Let’s rephrase: Does Life have a purpose, a goal, a plan? Or does it simply develop as a “chaotic process”?
This reminds me of a cover story in Science et Vie fifteen years ago. It’d be great if a reader could send me a scan of that cover and article; we could publish it. Chaos was becoming fashionable. A biologist thought he’d identified a “chaotic process” in neural functioning. Science et Vie headline:
Chaos Rules Thought
A phrase rising from the depths of consciousness.
Whatever scientists do, they face an unavoidable fact: we possess consciousness. We have a strange intuitive sense of “good” and “evil.” We face moral choices. Some, like the Nazis, tried to escape this. Ultimately, advocating the law of the strongest, the right to Lebensraum, domination of weaker races by stronger ones—they merely projected Darwinian models onto humans. But it didn’t work; never has. I believe the bodies of Americans who’ve undergone cryogenic preservation will never be revived; they’ll end up as bad corned beef or animal feed. Thus we face two unavoidable questions: “moral choices” and death.
When I lost my son, I stood in the morgue facing his pale, stiffening body. Fifteen years later, I sometimes wake up screaming, hearing the undertaker’s zipper as he sealed the bag containing my child, then pushed the heavy stainless steel drawer shut. I gazed at that collection of cells; yet the boy I loved more than life itself, for whom I’d have thrown myself into flames without hesitation, was gone. Only icy silence remained.
I talked to friends. One, Korthals, was a theoretical physicist in Marseille; his wife was a psychologist. I asked them what becomes of humans after death; they replied “that, in their view, we survive in the memories of loved ones.”
Thus, the memory of ordinary folks fades. If they leave writings, it lasts longer. Sacha Guitry kept recording farewell messages endlessly. But as Plato said, “Cemeteries are full of folks who believed they were irreplaceable.” Moreover, astrophysicists have a broader viewpoint on this matter. Should an asteroid strike, what remains of our writings, statues of great men, archives? What remains of the long-lived trees Reeves planted on his estate? Nothing. This may have happened many times already. It’s... not impossible. Some claim to have found strange artifacts proving technology thousands of years old—like screws in lumps of coal.
It’s undecidable. We know “civilizations perish.” The sturdiest structure on Earth is surely the Pyramid of Khufu, since it’s earthquake-proof. Its limestone and granite can endure millions of years; its existing cracks actually help it withstand violent tremors—until the Big Meteor hits.
The Moon orbits Earth every 28 days; Earth rotates once every 24 hours. Thus tidal effects push the Moon away a few centimeters yearly. It won’t crash down on us. Conversely, Phobos (which orbits faster than Mars itself) is inevitably descending toward Mars. One day, boom.
So, when you bury someone, “perpetual burial” doesn’t exist. Physically speaking, we all end up as dust—whether it’s our bodies or physical traces we wished to leave, even the grandest ones.
So, what’s our purpose? Korthals replies the question makes no sense. In his view, we’re as real as whirlpools in a gutter. We appear “like that” and vanish “like that”; our thoughts and feelings are probably just enzymatic reactions. But none of this makes any sense. If we believe in nothing transcendent, why not do... anything at all?
The “science” religion offers little beyond illusions in this regard; it’s a huge shadow theater. Puppeteers have reached the point they no longer know which superstrings to pull. It’s amusing, if not costly. We’re left to ourselves. I’d love to reuse one drawing from the Geometricon, changing the text so the character turns to the audience and asks:
“Is there a philosopher in the room?”
Of course, you can rush to the nearest church, synagogue, or mosque. I wish I could, but I admit I find it hard. It’s not out of ill will.
What to do on this crazy planet? Which God to turn to? Which saint to invoke? I don’t know, but I believe we must urgently ask ourselves vertiginous questions, re-examine our philosophies and religious beliefs, devise every conceivable strategy. If humanity doesn’t understand itself, it’s doomed. I’ve raised this issue before. I believe it’s just as important, maybe more urgent than worrying about Amazon deforestation or global warming.
Thus, I’ll play another card. We’ve got ongoing research projects. Idea: the geometry of the universe is more complex than we imagine. “There are two”: the universe and the “meta-universe.” We must explore this, gather ideas from everywhere. I believe we have mathematical tools to broaden our understanding. Yes, this requires expanding the number of dimensions of the universe. But the path of “superstrings” with its pretentious claims (“Theory of Everything”) seems to lead nowhere. It’s not about reducing all cosmic evolution to a single equation whence everything stems. Leave that to Hawking. Recall his line in A Brief History of Time:
“If the universe is self-contained and has neither beginning nor end, then what is the role of God?”
That immediately reminds me of Marc Arondel’s remark:
“At a time when metaphysics is in crisis, it’s reassuring to see that barroom philosophy still holds its own.”
Seeking ideas from all sources also means listening to traditions. Einstein said he’d once been a believer, but reading the Torah made him lose faith. Had he paid attention to Genesis, however, he wouldn’t have dismissed a non-stationary universe model, as he foolishly did in 1917.
“Let there be light!”
We shouldn’t take everything at face value; we must listen to texts and narratives. The swastika, so nastily twisted by a former painter into a sinister symbol, was originally a solar emblem. The Sun’s magnetic structure is quadrupolar (two north poles and two south poles, not at the poles but along the Sun’s equatorial plane). Anyone using a coronograph from a point far from the ecliptic plane could observe this. This structure was first identified in the 1960s by a solar probe carrying a magnetometer. Who’s seen those four curved plasma arms resembling water jets? I have no idea. I only know two things:
-
Magnetic structures can flip and poles reverse, especially when an object with strong magnetic moment (like supernova debris) passes nearby (Earth or even the Sun);
-
The solar corona is visible to the naked eye, contrary to what astronomer Guy Monnet told me twenty-five years ago. It’s quite striking during eclipses, no doubt.
We must examine all past messages without prejudice, armed with analytical tools. Charlatans and tricksters, stay away. Check out [our investigation on Mexican mediums](https://www.jp-petit.org/Divers/Cuarto de luz/Cuarto_de_luz.htm). Pathetic. We’ll expose frauds, but bear in mind not everything is necessarily deceptive. Conversely, there are profoundly mysterious traces that scientists refuse to study. Our past history may be far vaster than we imagine.
I feel like making a joke:
“Let go of the supernatural; it’s coming back at full gallop!”
We must also finally analyze present-day messages, focus on “paranormal phenomena” and the UFO issue that frightens scientists so much. It may “discredit” me and cost me a thousand readers; so be it. I learned the CNES plans to form a group to scientifically study this case. As soon as my printer gets fixed, I’ll offer my services to those brave souls. Though they may not appreciate it.
Censoring thought is futile; otherwise we waste time. I propose creating a new organization whose initials would be
C.N.R.S
Translation:
Collective of New Scientific Rationalists
I picture scientists reading these lines; they’d shrug. Sadly, I increasingly doubt anything new will emerge from this congregation of timid old monks obsessed with preserving power and privileges. There may be little to expect from folks too entrenched, too complacent, too titled. If anything arises, it may come from young scientists, fresh minds unburdened by superstring theories, minds able to suspend judgment between
The True and the Plausible.
But I never claimed this would be easy. No, it won’t be easy at all. Can we reach wisdom’s shores while avoiding the billions of deaths our stupidity guarantees?
March 16, 2005: Number of connections dropped noticeably.
“Normal,” a friend tells me, “you scare people; you demoralize them.”
But what should I do? Sing them a lullaby?
True, confirmation of mandatory subcutaneous chip implantation for military and bank workers shook many. But have you seen media reactions? Popular science magazines merely note “nanotechnology’s entry into our world is inevitable.” Only the very young react, though they don’t know what to do. One day, perhaps, they’ll rebel against the world “adults” prepare for them. But “rebel” how? Against whom? Where to?
What de Gaulle called “the grumbling” remains latent: a wave of despair over lies, injustice, the absence of ideals and moral values. May 1968 swept de Gaulle away like a tidal wave. At its peak, he fled to Germany, to General Massu, “hero” of the Algerian battle and torture advocate. The man who wanted to embody “Free France” deserted his post, acting like a lost private, because the Élysée seemed unsafe. His son came to talk to him. It’s in his memoirs:
“Father, face reality; they no longer want you...”
Machiavelli fell into his own trap; manipulation didn’t work either. Clearly, he had no choice but to flee so history’s grand epic wouldn’t end as a farce. We inherited Pompidou, another Chirac. A man who became politically intimate with the General by peeing beside him. That’s when the most powerful “let loose.” Not a bad move.
Rebel against whom? What Bastille to storm?
We must think hard, find alternatives, fast.
Back to News Back to Guide Back to Home Page
Number of visits to this page since March 15, 2005:
A few selected quotes by Michel Gaillard:
“We’ll find a path... or we’ll create one.” Hannibal
“If destiny doesn’t help us, we’ll help it come true ourselves.” Khosrô Ier Anôcharvân
“There’s no need to hope to undertake, nor to succeed to persevere.” William the Taciturn
“Act as if failure is impossible.” Winston Churchill
“Success is being able to go from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.” Winston Churchill
We’ll try....