Sunday, April 30, 2017


Apocalypse, Marxist catastrophe, Trotstkyite nightmare


How can someone who is so keen on language and words, a linguist mind you, use the word “Requiem” in his title ignoring – and I am sure he knows about it – that a requiem is composed and performed for something that is dead and has no future, no possible resurrection, or maybe Noam Chomsky has become a Catholic who believes in the resurrection of the dead. The title is of course a provocation both revealing and self-defeating. And that’s what I am going to discuss now.

Ten principles, and it has to be ten to avoid all kinds of symbolism, you know, six and Solomon or David, seven and the holy week of Genesis or the Passion, eight and the Second Coming, nine and the Beast, the hours of Jesus’ death, eleven is the number of disciples with Jesus after Judas has left and twelve are the twelve apostles. No let’s stay mathematical, cold and non-symbolical. So ten it is going to be and the decimal system, the basis of numeration devised by physicists and mathematicians and proclaimed as the end of barbarity by the French Revolution that established the metric system as the future of the world and the real measure of reason and intelligence.

The first point has to do with American history and the US Constitution. It opposes two founding fathers and/or framers. James Madison, the aristocrat who wants to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority of the non-opulent on one hand. And Thomas Jefferson the democrat who believes the US Constitution is there to guarantee equality and democracy for all free men. Naturally, Chomsky knows all this at the time was a real farce since, as he recalls, “free men” were only free white men and they excluded all non-free white men: indentured white men, and all men who had neither real estate property, nor commercial property, nor farmland property, since to be a free citizen you had to have some property and pay some tax for it. These free white men also excluded all women, all Indians, all Blacks, slaves or not slaves. In fact, the body of free white men who could be citizens in that society was maybe a few percent of the whole society, maybe five like in England at the same time. But history is vicious and in spite of all the crimes of this old American history, we have genericized the meaning to a very wide understanding today.

And the crimes were, as Chomsky reminds us,
1- “decimating the indigenous population” (note how he avoids genocide or even holocaust: some speak of 90 to 95% of the native American population exterminated);
2- “massive slavery of another segment of the society” (why on earth does he avoid the terms Black or African American, since anyway 90 to 95% of these slaves were Blacks, and 100% in the South, but this identification would have brought the idea that there were a lot of non-slave black men and women in the North and in the slave states that had been French or Spanish because of the rule of manumission, but that would have brought something that is clear: only the British Protestant and Puritan colonists in the British colonies and then  the USA practiced – and this is still true – the theory of one-drop-of-black-blood, replacing the practice of slavery with the practice of mass racism that is still alive in the USA);
3- “bitterly exploited labor” (and he forgets to explain what May Day is, when and where it started and Sacco and Vanzetti are not quoted: that art with which Chomsky remains generic on such questions is unexplained and probably unexplainable, or at least it’s better it remains unexplained);
4- “overseas conquests” (that’s the wrong word because overseas conquests are rare: Porto Rico and Hawaii: it could have been better to speak of American imperialistic interventionism in the world since the Monroe doctrine expanded after the first world war and the second world war to the entire world);
5- “etc.” (true enough the list is long from Mossadegh to Lumumba, from Korea to Vietnam and to Korea again), not to mention the Middle East.

And his reference to Aristotle is the traditional Western hypocrisy and short memory. Aristotle spoke for a slave society in which the majority of the population was in servitude and the Roman Empire will not be better and Aristotle was rightly used by Calhoun, the Southern slave theorist, to justify his project of a US society that would be a perennial slave society forever. Chomsky of course forgets this reference that totally disqualify the reference to Aristotle.

It is then simple to come to this vision of society that is cut in two: the rich and the poor, the aristocrats or the plutocrats at the top (just a few percent) who have all power and the democrats at the bottom, all the others, all set under the umbrella of “the poor.” This vision is the vision that many in the world under the name of socialism and under the older probably obsolete name of communism still defend when advancing their political projects, especially their populist political projects, be it from the left like in Greece (note the lefty coalition managed to get rid of the most extreme branch of their movement through elections), in Catalonia, in Spain, in Portugal, Italy or in France; or be it from the right in Great Britain, the Netherlands, France, Italy and many other countries, including the USA where that extreme right populist movement was the Tea Party and still is the Freedom Caucus and Trump himself, all of them in the Republican Party, Lincoln’s party mind you. Atrocious history!

The worst part in this dichotomy, in this binary vision of the world, history, and the USA, is that he here and there evokes a third “party” but he never integrates it in his analysis of the society and the political system, just as if the US Constitution had not been able to shift from two parties, Democrats and Whigs to two parties, Democrats and Republicans, with a new party in place of one that died. True enough, any two-party system that is cast in reinforced shielded concrete like the one in the US cannot develop a multi-party system. Let me say here that this political system with indirect vote for the President and the frozen two party system is worse, I dare say FAR WORSE than the one-party system of the USSR or China. But Chomsky does not even consider any reform of it: get rid of the indirect vote for President and make all elections two-round elections. Only one-party systems, Great Britain and the USA, still have that archaic system of a one-round electoral system. In England where they have a three or four party system the winner can be elected with a meager 30% of the electorate if there are four candidates. That is absurd. And it is the people who defend this system who come and give lessons to other countries, the country where it has become common to have a president elected with a minority of the popular vote if we follow Wikipedia: 1824: John Quincy Adams; 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes; 1888: Benjamin Harrison; 2000: George W. Bush; 2016: Donald Trump; plus 1960: John F. Kennedy who is debated because it is impossible to determine with absolute certainty the popular vote of the three candidates.

And yet you will find the ferment of this necessary “third” possibility that should be this necessary “multiple” perspective. The Counterforce as he calls it page 41; “those who are interested in an independent progressive party,” page 102. And as he says page 42 “the only counterforce is you.” But he is not able to really capture what he says here in full contradiction with what he says later on, towards the end of the pamphlet, page 126: “the idea is to try to control everyone, to turn the whole society into the perfect system. The perfect system would be a society based on a dyad – a pair. The pair is you and your television set, or maybe now you and your iPhone and the Internet.”

And he has trapped himself so much in his dyad, in his dual thinking, in his binary vision that he does not see that “you and your television set” (I hope with some programs, not just the set) has a “you” who is passive, even if he has 100 channels and can zap from one vision to the next; and on the other hand “you and your iPhone and the Internet” is a lot more open and can be open to first some active participation, and then  some activity in search and reception of multiple points of view and opinions. He just forgets that Roosevelt was the President elected with the radio, Kennedy with television, Obama with the Internet and email networks, and Trump with social networks. He wants to reduce everything to money and the weight of the big corporations. But he forgets the impact of media and thus he does not see that Trump has captured the daily practice of the discontents today: they use Twitter to express their rage that does not need more than 140 characters to express itself, even often a lot less like “F*** the P*****!” with the use of stars and other symbols to avoid four letter words or non-politically correct entities. But more and more people use their iPhones, their smartphones and the Internet to actually counterweigh the forces of the financialized offshored outsourced system. Counterweigh with information and training and education, all three self-engineered, self-retrieved and self-learned if not actually self-taught.

But what he has completely wrong is his vision of the economy. He more or less accept the division of society in, on one hand, the extreme minority of the plutocrats who advocate plutonomy and plutocracy instead of democracy, and on the other hand the vast majority of the “precariat,” the “precarious proletariat.” The allusion to Marx is so obvious that his vision of the total dictatorship, he says a ‘totalitarian” situation, echoing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie of Marx. We expect the dictatorship of the proletariat, sorry of the precariat. He does not go that far but his vision is just as dramatic as that. He considers that for the first time in history (of course he only speaks of the history of mankind after they invented writing, which is a very short period of time because in the long run the Homo Sapiens species met with survival as a species several times, the most recent ones being when the Ice Age locked them up into running, retreating and trying to survive on reduced territory and reduced resources, and then when agricultural division of labor was introduced in the Neolithic or a couple of millennia before, after the Ice Age any way, that reduced life expectancy to something around 20 or maybe 19 years which brought the reproductive possibilities to at the most three children maybe four with more than a 50% death rate before puberty, some say 75%. If it were that dramatic then we would not be here to testify.

But it is false because between the two extremes there is the majority of the people that used to be called the middle class. But we have to reanalyze it to requalify it as all the people who have jobs on the basis of a partial or total college education, who are highly connected together in family, acquaintance and local networks plus other global networks like Facebook for sure, but more precisely as reviewers on Amazon and other commercial sites, on LinkedIn and other professional sites, on Academia and other independent research sites, on Reverbnation or Myspace and other musical sites for people practicing music in a way or another, or on Medium and other self-publishing sites. That’s the new middle class, the one that counts because they are really representing the future of humanity, discussing, proposing and confronting all kinds of new ideas. Trump was able to capture a section of this new middle class who did not get from Obama what they were hoping to get, but Trump essentially captured the old middle class: white, protestant mostly, working in precarious or non-evolving jobs that can look like blind alleys, who have a house and a mortgage, a couple of cars, and have a high school degree and some of them a partial college degree or a short state university degree, plus those in this group who have been made redundant and have been obliged to accept a job that does not pay as well as before and has little future or is precarious. What’s more he does not take into account the top layer of the new middle class that has reached PhD level and have all kinds of executive positions as university or college personnel including professors, or in average or large private companies. That upper middle class is particularly active and dynamic in hi-tech businesses, in startups, in the big new global companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and many others. This new middle class is not confronted to traditional unemployment like miners, particularly coal miners, or car workers. These have been confronted with robotization and automation for about ten to fifteen years, but the new middle class knows these robots are also coming after their jobs, though most of these new middle class people occupy jobs that would have employed three or more people before the extension of robots and complex computer systems.

This revolution that is taking place under our noses is going to put the plutocrats like Trump in the ditch because mines can be reopened but they will be hi-tech and robotized. No jobs for humans, or very few and highly qualified. Same thing with the car industry. Since people like Chomsky or Trump have not done one single thing to think the problem through and to imagine what is going to happen, they will be confronted with millions of people getting redundant with robots and being fired. The USA are going to face this tremendous transformation without any planning, preparation and strategy. Whereas in China the one child family has been producing over the last ten years and for decades to still come a labor movement that replaces three or four low qualified jobs with one highly qualified job, in the west, the USA and Europe, nothing has been done to face the problem except in countries like Germany that have been facing labor shortage for several decades. In the next few years the USA are going to be confronted to a dire situation. If Ford does not open a factory in Mexico where they could have had some workers still at a rather low salary and open it in the USA, they will multiply by three or more the number of robots. In Flint General Motors had a factory that employer several ten thousand people. The same production today would work with at least ten times less workers and the difference would be half the same number of robots. Chomsky does not see that, does not talk of that at all.

So his announcement that the top plutocrats are not capitalists since they negate the free open market economy that carries capitalism is not going to improve the situation. His call to go BACK to the free open market economy of capitalism is not going to bring a solution at all to the robotization problem. In politics as I have already said he does not propose any reform of the electoral system, of the political architecture in the USA, an architecture that should be modified to enable more people to be part of the democratic system that has to be improved and not invoked like a catch word or a fetish.

His approach of the media is simply narrow minded. He obviously does not know Marshall McLuhan who is the best inspiration you can find to understand the effect of the Internet and smart phones on the psyche, the behavior and the mental intellectual state of younger generations. The Internet requires an active user who uses his mind to search and to find, to extract, collect and restructure information. They are just doing that all the time at work and it becomes a way for them to BE HUMAN in front of these machines: use them creatively. The lowest common activity they practice on their smart phones is communication with others. They have never been so much social. Games and other lower activities are either for the uneducated minority or for relaxing purposes. The few who spend hours playing poker on line are not representative of what the younger generations are doing with the new media.

The worst part of the present wild financial capitalism we are going through is the permanent debts people have that often exceeds what you should have, and are able to really pay back, forcing them to get loans to pay back due loans or debts, thus always remaining under this financial dependence if not crushing weight. That will take a lot of time to “educate” the public and to “regulate” the banking system to prevent such extreme situations. The mortgage system has to be changed too and instead of the capital being indexed on the real estate market, it should be frozen, and the capital thus could go down month after month, and at most the interest rate could be indexed on inflation or some other fair parameter or set of parameters. But here we reach the main contradiction of this pamphlet.

At the end when he evokes the role of trade or labor unions in the past that “were a very educational force” (page 149) he apparently does not capture his contradiction since that’s the only solution he puts on the table, though since unions hardly exist nowadays we can wonder how he is going to do this education. But the contradiction is with what he said before about propaganda and education. One author he calls for help on the subject is Edward Bernays and the document is from 1928. At the time only two media were working: the radio and the cinema and the talkies were just starting to appear on the silver screen (the telephone was still marginal). So let me consider this author is not very helpful in modern times. But since Chomsky invokes him in support of his point of view on the role of education to turn the “bewildered herd” into “spectators, not participants” let me quote what this author says about the subject:

“Is this government by propaganda? Call it if you prefer government by education. But education, in the academic sense of the work, is not sufficient. It must be enlightened expert propaganda through the creation of circumstances, through the high-spotting of significant events, and the dramatization of important issues. The statesman of the future will thus be enabled to focus the public mind on crucial points of policy, and regiment a vast, heterogeneous mass of voters to clear understanding and intelligent action.” (page 133)

In the present situation this approach is all wrong. People are bombarded with all types of data and information, some propaganda, some real knowledge or reflection, and they have to sort all that out all by themselves. In other words, the “statesman of the future” is not enabled to do anything in the line of bringing real and intelligent understanding and action to the “masses” that are regimented for sure but on the basis of what they think, what they feel, what they have experienced, what they have all-sensorially as McLuhan would say received and absorbed. It is no longer propaganda but direct manipulation of people’s emotions and fear and resentment and even hatred.

And as for labor unions Chomsky should reflect on the role they played in building what Chomsky calls “class consciousness,” a concept he borrows from Marx again, this concept coming from a political dyad: there are two basic antagonistic classes in society: the bourgeoisie and the working class. Right now we are living under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. We have to unite to bring the socialist revolution that will get rid of this dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and we will be able to impose the dictatorship of the proletariat under the guidance of the avant-garde party that will bring together in direct action the active class consciousness elite of the proletariat.

Chomsky cannot be that blind. But he is so pessimistic that for him there is no hope, except a dream. What is strange is that the American Dream he had buried in his title, is replaced by some formless, backboneless and unorganized dream:

“There’s is a lot that can be done [Note the irritating passive that is a very negative may to borrow Obama’s motto, “Yes we can,” and make it a totally blind, submissive and abstract phenomenon that does not even depend on our doing: if we demonstrate then a miracle can be performed: how, by whom, when, where?] if people organize – struggle for their rights as they’ve done in the past – and we can win many victories.” (page 150)

And he concludes with Howard Zinn:

“What matters is the countless small deeds of unknown people, who lay the basis for the significant events that enter history.” (page 150)

Rosa Parks sure did a small little act one evening after work but if there had not been someone like Martin Luther King, Jr., and a whole network to inform him and bring him on the scene she would have died in prison or even worse she would have been lynched. We need to have people who are able to use modern media to get in touch with both the new middle class and the old disappointed and discontented middle class and get them into an alliance with all type of active minorities, ethnic, sexual, gender, cultural or whatever to build a majority movement with clear objectives and based on permanent action. I must say the Democratic Party right now is NOT the organization that can take the leading position in this field, though they can play an important role in the grassroots movement that may block some of the suicidal reforms Trump is trying to bring through, not to mention his perilous and absurd foreign policy only founded on military force and naked violence.

P.S. As a linguist who has followed Chomsky’s whole career, I am not surprised by the dichotomic vision and thought he develops here. His linguistics, since the very first publications of his in the mid-1950s till his latest publications at the end of the previous century and the beginning of the present century have been dominated by one formula he has never questioned or modified: S = NP + VP. Without discussing this a priori principle, let me say simply that the simplest of all sentences is composed of three elements (The door is red.); that all languages except the most analytical languages like European languages consider the verb as the center of the sentence that projects its mental structure on the sentence that is of course at least three functional elements; and when there are only two then the only nominal element holds two functional positions. This Chomskyan dictum has in fact blocked many possible developments: being unable to make translating machines effective, then Google and others tried to develop such machines with practical automatic mapping of the corpus of one language onto the corpora of other languages considering correspondences established in such a way provide scientific translation. It is good enough for a hotel booking form, but certainly not for a poem by T.S. Eliot.


Saturday, April 29, 2017


Prove that Israel helping ISIS ??

Suerprising, amazing, astonishing,

Friday, April 28, 2017


Welcome to the catalogue of publications, music and authors

Éditions La Dondaine – Catalogue & @Slideshare. Net (84)


This catalogue contains all the published or produced works from our various authors over the last four years. Some are new in the profession, beginners in fact, some are young and some are of a more advanced age or experience, but they all believe in the freedom of expression and today in the age of cyberspace authors have to be cyber authors. They have more than ever to do everything before publication and now they can also self-publish themselves onto the wings of cyberspace. Then they have to learn how to promote themselves, how to valorize themselves. The tools available for that valorization and promotion are generic and empty, meaning the content is produced by the authors themselves. 
We never have had it so easy to reach out for the realization of our works into a book that can circulate virtually all over the world provided authors use the material networks around them to promote their works from mouth to ear and the virtual social networks at their disposal. What’s new today is that you have to create your own buzz in the world to ever be or become someone or something. This in itself is not knew but the means used to do it are original and so far reaching that you cannot see the end of their extension. 
Be sure more will come and remember a work that is not produced or published will never reach any lasting fame. Jacques COULARDEAU

Ce catalogue contient toutes les œuvres publiées ou produites avec divers auteurs ou artistes au cours des quatre dernières années. Quel que soit leur statut professionnel ils croient tous que la liberté d’expression dans notre âge cybernétique exige que l’auteur devienne un cyber-auteur. L’auteur plus que jamais doit tout faire avant la publication et il ou elle peut aujourd’hui s’auto-publier porté(e) par l’albatros du cyber espace virtuel. L’auteur doit alors apprendre à se mettre en avant, se donner à voir, se promotionner. Les outils pour cette valorisation et cette promotion sont génériques et vides pour que l’auteur puisse y investir son propre contenu, sa propre image, la forêt imaginaire qui doit cacher l’auteur de chair, de sang réel.
Nous sommes ouverts à tous et tous les projets. Le succès n’est qu’huile de coude et graisse de genou. Jacques COULARDEAU

Research Interests:

Asian Studies, Research Methodology, Literature, Humor, Poetry, South Asia, Biblical Studies, and The Apocalypse of John

Thursday, April 27, 2017


All the screens together and at once

Published Research (March 2013 to today) & Reviews (February 2 to December 18, 2016)
Published on Jan 1, 2017

Cinema and television have become obsessions in me over the years and today with the large flat screen we have, with a universal, all zone and all standard DVD reader we can access all the films that are available in the whole world on a digital medium.
 In the following pages, which are more a book than a paper, I have brought together all the full studies published at Amazon Kindle or on (these studies are extensive and I only give the presentation and the front page of them. Then I have collected all the reviews published on various sites, particularly various Amazon national branches over about the last eleven months.
Be sure I also have plenty of music, operas, books and other cultural artifacts in the field of research and reviews (I just finished a 13,000 word article on Benjamin Britten’s operas), plus creative writing (the lastest poetry volume is An Untellable Story, A Dramatic Confession, The Nineteen stations of Saraphic Love, Amazon Kindle, ASIN B00UP4CX88)  and at the same time I go on with my basic research on the phylogeny of language with Homo Sapiens over the last 250,000 years, plus the psychogenetics of language in our modern world from before birth to adult age.
For you to be able to find what is in this volume I have built a full table of contents with hyperlinks. Have a good navigation.

Olliergues, France, December 22, 2016


Screening is inescapable, dixit Kevin Kelly, the Great KK!

They tell us there is no escape from all the screens that are going to invade our life and environment, and be sure, if there is some money to make out of this new slavery they will impose it onto us. We are their guinea pigs and mules and we will cultivate their cotton fields while they crack their whips on well-tempered airs and on our backs if need be.

Imagine the world in ten years when screens are everywhere:
From the screen(s) in our bedroom when we are woken up by the clocking in alarm;
To the screens in our bathroom to tell us to wash properly behind our ears;
To the screens in our kitchen mixing our cereals with milk, sour or not for breakfast;
To the screens in our cars or our buses or our subway trains to go to work;
To the screens at our workplace, everywhere including the toilets to entertain us with live music canned in a screen,
To the same as in the morning when going back home in our cars, in our buses, in our subway trains, in the streets too;
To the screens in our home for supper and for television in the evening and in the bathroom to make sure we brush our teeth on the proper rhythm;
To our bedroom till we go to sleep and yet still going on all night to make sure we learn our lesson properly.

Good morning at all hours in the day not to Big Brother but to Big Regressive and Repressive Womb with a screen all the time there like an umbilical cord that feeds us our submissive sauce, drug, morphine, etc.

What’s more all these screens can be eyes and they look at you, at your face, at your eyes and they know everything about you, even the type of porn you watch in secrecy and in privacy, and even the one you dream of in your mental closet, and they cabn satisfy on the screen in your glasses or on the screen on the microchips embedded in your brain anything you have wanted to see and had never dared ask Mum, Dad, your teachers, the local cops, your bosses, your priests, your friends and even your MPs.

That’s why it is high time we start becoming screen-literate and we learn how to analyze the messages, decipher the shackles they contain and liberate our brains and minds from the gladiator’s net they are throwing onto us to keep us prisoners in that dungeon of multimedia screened slavery.

I dedicate this long collection of views and reviews to those who maybe still want to dream of a world that the screens could not control, and particularly my friends Ivan, Serban, Michel, José, Maïté, Paula and a few others who may know what is coming. If we can’t avoid this inescapable, at least let us learn how to tame it, maybe control it. Catch the elephant by the Trump and look into its eyes and maybe we might be permitted to mesmerize it.

Dr. Jacques Coulardeau, Olliergues, February 14, 2017

Wednesday, April 26, 2017


An adventure conquering the mind of history and the world

From 2009 to 2015 Ivan was my student and then assistant. He played a role that is important for us who want to penetrate the mysteries of the cosmos, at times at the smaller scale of our own little self. He was the one who reacted at first at the chapters of my research I submitted to him for critical reading and such reactions are the sign of something that is not perfect, clear or complete.

Then he moved to bringing some remarks and some data to the research that was being done together and he finally jumped into the shotgun seat and brought his own research on whole chapters of the work. When we confronted our views it was sometimes tense, sometimes emotional, sometimes intense, but always fiery and courteous as if we were in some old tournament trying to conquer for both of us the golden fleece of the legend. . .

Ivan, and more recently Serban, have become part of this long adventure or quest that finds its symbolical vestment in this question: What was Cro-Magnon’s language?

Along with this research I dedicated during these years several books of poetry to Ivan who more or less opened up some gates in my mind that even Sri Lanka and Buddhism had not been able to open, at least completely, though for me Pïdurangala and their Buddhist monastery and school is sacred land.

Just dare explore some of these books and enjoy our diversity. Human life would be so boring if we did not have such meeting of minds and souls that are at times so different but that discover they can work together and reach out to things they could not even imagined before. Some call that love. I prefer calling it life.

Paris & Olliergues, October 10, 2016

[Kindle Edition] Dr Jacques COULARDEAU & Ivan EVE (Authors)

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU & Ivan EVE
Illustrations Annunzio COULARDEAU

Jacques COULARDEAU (Auteur), Ivan EVE (Auteur), 
Annunzio COULARDEAU (Illustrations) 

The US Supreme Court,
A Universal Lesson in Constitutional Right
Jacques Coulardeau & Ivan Eve



& Ivan Eve

Tuesday, April 25, 2017


CIA or the CIA, never mind: they are imperialistic criminals


NEW REVIEW in 2017

It was a nostalgic film in 2006 when the wars started by George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq were turning stale and sinking in the quagmire of all colonial and imperialistic wars. It was of course a comment on these wars like when Edward Wilson says “We are trying to make wars small.” That is sure right if we can say so without sounding sarcastic, even at the time. They were in the process of getting their fingers into Vietnam after the defeat of the Bay of Pigs and Cuba. Of course far worse was to come, precisely Afghanistan and Iraq. They financed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan against the Soviet who pulled out rather fast. And now the USA have to face them and some dissidents or alternative factions in the fields George W. Bush decided all by himself and like a big boy to invade.

That was a time when intelligence was important against Hitler but they met with Soviet spies in Germany and they did not necessarily have the upper hand. In fact, they were infiltrated very early after the war and in spite of what the film implies, that was not the cause of their lack of success and their future failures. They failed because the objective was wrong: they wanted to manipulated governments and states in other countries, hence their objective was imperialistic and that went against the grain of history that was witnessing the fall of all big colonial empires and the withering of any kind of imperialistic ambitions. They also went against the grain of the new phase of our human development that was and still is based on economic growth and welfare state policies.

But the film shows far too well that the life of such spies is not a human life. Far from home, far from wives and children, entangled in all kinds of affairs and constantly the target of rival spying factions that try to get some information and leverage over you by getting something about you that should not become public (blackmail) or by menacing your spouses or your children.

The film is well performed by seasoned actors though the shifting in time is at times difficult to follow in spite of the places and dates given now and then, though not all the time (where is the scene in Africa: Ivory Coast or Congo Kinshasa?). The most difficult problem was simply Matt Damon who was running in the film from the late 30s to the early 60s and he really was the same man not looking in anyway younger when necessary and older when needed. It is surprising because nowadays the make-up department of any studio can do a better job.

At times here and there we have some extremely arrogant and irritating remarks that are supposed to be pieces of humor like the following:

Richard Hayes: I remember a senator once asked me. When we talk about "CIA" why we never use the word "the" in front of it. And I asked him, do you put the word "the" in front of "God"?

That’s the arrogance of George W. Bush who was pushed aside by Obama for eight years in 2008 who in his turn tried to have diplomacy prevail, though he was obsessive and obsessional about cyber security and cyber intelligence and had everyone in the world eavesdropped upon by the CIA. Note I must be old fashioned and from outside the institution because I do say THE CIA, but also THE FBI and a few others.

The film will tell you how foolish of Trump if he were to start another front somewhere in the world. But there is no one more foolish than, a populist politician or a circus clown. The difference is that when the populist politician falls on his face it is in the midst of maximum destruction and mass killings, whereas a clown falls on his face to make children laugh. Sooner or later Trump will be the monster in the closet that will come out “if you do not go to sleep immediately.” How many lateral, bilateral and collateral victims will you count in six months? Already several thousands in just a few weeks.



This is an essential film to understand where the world stands and where it is going in the present period. De Niro signs here a severe and ruthless denunciation of the methods of the US government in the world since they started the CIA at the end of the 30s. A young man, the son of a dead-by-suicide officer of some sort, is recruited by the FBI to find out the identities of the members of a fascist group that is in fact in the hand of an American agent unknown of the FBI. He will then become an essential agent in London during the war and in Berlin after the world, covered as a commercial agent, and it is trade and nothing else, to exchange some fascist scientists who are not too important for the Jewish scientists the Soviets are getting rid of.

This will lead the main character who is the head of the office in Berlin to recruit a KGB agent into his service. What is very strange is that the CIA does not find out this agent is being recruited under the name of another KGB agent (the CIA was un-informed on the subject which means they did not cover the whole world and had weak points, just like the Soviet should not have used the name of another KGB agent) and it is done with the complicity of an English agent. This man will become the mole in the CIA when Cuba becomes communist and when the US tries to organize the re-conquest in the Bay of Pigs.

The failure is so enormous that they decide that there must have been a mole. And they start looking for it. The Soviet then start playing cat and mouse with the main character and manage to compromise his son in the business by making him fall in love with a woman in Africa, or at least have a sudden desire for the woman that turns into love but this woman is one of their agents. That titillates the man and he really digs out what he can dig out and finds out the real mole by some simple action: to check a book that was offered to that mole by some English agent when he was finally recruited by the CIA.

That book should have been checked and was not. Negligence and non-professionalism. And this ex-KGB agent is never the object of the slightest doubt even when another KGB agent arrives and pretends he is the man carrying the name the ex-KGB agent has been recruited under. It is the son who will pay, and pay dearly, for the amateurish caper, indirectly for sure since the woman will be eliminated. So much for love among spies. But what is left after this action is finished, a tremendous action with numerous intertwined though clearly identified flashbacks over the whole period from the 1920s to the mid 1960s?

First that this CIA was born in super-patriotic and super-nationalist secret groups in the US, groups that ignore democracy and in a way human dignity, since the new members have to go through a fight in the nude, in mud and with the older members eventually pissing on them. These circles and groups are dangerous. What's more they are so closed up onto themselves that they lose somewhere the necessary objectivity and a negligence becomes possible and a double agent can infiltrate the whole system. The second lesson is that this CIA is supposed to reshape the world in conformity with what the US wants.

This is also very dangerous, and there the film is totally idealistic: the CIA can do what they want they can only slow down change in the world, not reverse it, Latin America being the best case ever. It has never been so nearly unanimously on the left, dark and deep pink if not completely red, and only as a reaction to the US's use of the CIA to manipulate people. These agents are also extremely inhuman. They have to forget all links with family, friends, relatives, or any acquaintances.

They must be ready to betray all these in the name of their mission and purity and kill every time it is necessary. They are kept under constant surveillance either by the other side or by people on the US side that no one knows. The film finally gives you one example of the El Ghraib torturing methods and that really makes you shudder and shiver. And the tragic end will be all the more pathetic when we know the victim was right and telling the truth. A film you must see absolutely.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?