EDITO – Could it have become certain? Politicians, senior civil servants, and other experts who direct us, decide everything for us, both in the public life of the country and within homes and businesses. For them, it is certain: there is no doubt. These gentlemen and ladies from Science Po, ENA, Normal Sup, Polytechnique et Cie – which Coluche grouped together under the single common name of “technocrats” – our “elites”, have infused science.
However, while the least qualified of ordinary citizens (the “toothless”, for the former socialist president François Hollande), would probably never have the completely absurd idea of going into personal debt over four generations, our elites have achieved this feat. And this up to 3,000 billion euros. A gigantic public debt about which no one seems to have said to themselves at one time: ” This is starting to get a bit much, isn’t it? Too much, even. ” Nope. At no moment. Nor from a hundred billion. Nor from five hundred billion. Neither from a thousand billion, from two thousand… Never.
“Doing” this, these “good for everything and above all bad for nothing” gave full and complete substantiality to the most famous of the formulas of the Papa des Restos du Cœur concerning them:
« The technocrats, if we gave them the Sahara, in three weeks, they would have to buy sand elsewhere. » (1)
And unfortunately for us, grassroots citizens incapable of managing ourselves (this is how the technocrats perceive us), it is not only in the management of public funds that our “elites” know how to show themselves totally ridiculous. No. It is more and more apparent that they work in all areas without exception to go against logic and common sense. And this ” with a serenity in incompetence that commands respect to quote Pierre Desproges this time.
For example, you other taxi drivers, midwives, teachers, nurses, artisans, fathers or mothers at home and others, what types of businesses would you have decided to close to limit the spread of the virus? Would you have closed small businesses, those places where very few people rub shoulders? Or would you have closed the supermarkets, these high places of immediate promiscuity inevitable for thousands of people, closed places even more crowded with people when you add the usual customers of small shops?
Would you have closed the schools, places where there are mainly children, citizens not targeted by the virus? Or would you have closed public transport, places where adults are glued to each other twice a day for hours?
And in your opinion, to fight against the spread of a virus, is it logical, normal, Cartesian and more appropriate, on the one hand, to close the nightclubs (dance hall), and on the other, to leave libertine clubs (spa) open?
Well, obviously, some gossips will not fail to argue on this subject that the virus in question is not sexually transmitted, and that the slogan “all vaccinated all protected”, as the publicity emanating from the Ministry of Health says , is necessarily a true truth. However, promiscuity seems to be much more at its maximum during coitus than during a simple dance, even the hottest of lambadas.
Another example: would you think of withdrawing from sale a treatment (hydroxychloroquine) used successfully in many countries (India, China, Senegal), a treatment that has been the subject of numerous scientific studies which have demonstrated its effectiveness in the face of the virus against which, officially, you are “at war”?
Similarly, would you consider it appropriate to authorize a toxic drug (Remdesivir), as well as a treatment such as Rivotril, which inevitably leads to the deterioration of the patient’s health?
And would you have “questioned” the merits of vitamin D?
Of course not!
Well our “elites”, they do!
And it’s the same in other areas.
The media, meanwhile, are not left out. Failing to question these positions, they endorse them, endorse them, and propose a framework to justify them.
Yes. It is as regrettable as it is sad, but it is so.
Instead of working for a functional world articulated around common sense and reason, do the technocrats impose on us a dysfunctional world et antinomic the most obvious basic logic?
Are they irresponsible?
If I were a conspirator, I would say that such a degree of lack of common sense (not to say nonsense) is akin to a will to harm. But let the justice of the mission determine whether this will is deliberate or not.
However, this observation appears obvious.
Exactly as if, despite having seen the film at least ten times before taking command of the ship, the captain of the Titanic was doing everything possible to go straight for the iceberg (2), the technocrats seem to be working to saw with ever more frenzy the branch on which we all sit. This is what some psychologists/psychiatrists do not hesitate to qualify, sometimes quietly, as “pathological madness”, “collective madness. Before they call themselves conspirators.
So isn’t the real problem the legal irresponsibility of the technocrats who lead us?
Science is not concerned with morality. Science, which is based on doubt and the search for proof, governs itself by correcting its errors in good time. This is why morality must concern itself with science. Le Petit Robert defines Morality as follows: “The science of good and evil, of the principles of human action insofar as it is subject to duty and has the good as its goal. For our “elites”, the question of moral relativism therefore arises, the idea that moral values are dependent on the historical and cultural context. Why ? Because some politicians do not hesitate to claim “their belief in science”. Regardless of the fact that science and belief are incompatible since scientific methodology goes hand in hand with questioning, does not reporting belief in science in a Republic that advocates secularism as the basis of our social contract demonstrate a exacerbated relativism?
However, Voltaire, father of the Enlightenment, underlined it in his Philosophical Dictionary: “There is only one morality as there is only one geometry”. A notion that finds its foundation in natural law. In his Treatise on Tolerance, the philosopher explains: “Human right can only be founded on this right of nature; and the great principle, the universal principle of both, is, throughout the earth: “Do not do what you would not have done to you.” But we do not see how, following this principle, a man could say to another: “Believe what I believe, and what you cannot believe, or you will perish”. Yet this is what our technocrats do: they impose their beliefs and regulate the law which governs civil society on the basis of their subjective dogma. science… without having studied. In short, a science which is only belief. A belief affirmed without just demonstration is only superstition. However, writes Voltaire, “morality is not in superstition”.
Consequently, if the law must not be the expression of the superstitious will of those who hold power, but must, on the contrary, be based on natural law, that is to say the search for justice, then technocrats are legally irresponsible.
(1) as since then (the tirade is from 1977) they’ve gone into overdrive, so I took the liberty of replacing ” five years » par « three weeks ».
(2) this by explaining to us that after taking advice from a committee of cocktail experts, it is in fact a special order which he absolutely must take delivery of: the giant ice cube which was ordered by the ship’s chief bartender, for the VIP saloon