For more than a decade (most part of the last mandate of Barack Obama), D. Trump has been portrayed as a stupid racist individual. He was not even fit to think about being president.

Episode Raoult and the Covid19 in France

As Raoult, the mob, composed by the media and the politics, was ruthless and attacks furiously Raoult treatment. In one of his last interview animated by Ruth Elkrief, she mentioned the support of Trump an Bolserano as a bad buzz for the Raoult treatment.

The professor Raoult did not fall in the trap; ‘ yes, it was bad, because all trump haters attacked me!’

He never positions himself politically and avoid a supposedly vicious trap.

Just to remind you, Raoult was already a star in his field; he is a world class virologue ranked in the top 5 and was insulted on TV show every time of the day.

One well known Green party representative went too far by shouting: ‘he needs to shut his mouth’

Trump who has been a multi-millionaire twice, can not be that stupid. Lets see the common views of both men…

Episode Officially climatospectic ( me too but not officially)

When you think about it:

First earth history has been subject to dramatic climate changes without human interaction.

Secondly, it has been a change of wording concerning the climate; it was at the beginning ‘global worming’ , the marketing was well done with the melt of the arctic iceberg. In fact, some places on earth were becoming cooler. Therefore, the communities associated to the ‘global worming’ movement became the one of the ‘global change’.

Our opinion should change as well (as the wording), I am not saying the fight against the pollution is useless, but I am not sure of the impact of the humanity on the climate change. (Please think!)

Even when professor Raoult took some of his precious time to do live interview, his speech was systematically truncated for purpose. It is a common tactic to discredit Trump relevance. It is ridiculous and reach such level that information become propaganda.

Episode Trump and Obama

Trump declared that he was not sure that Obama is American. Obama replied ironically by the Lion King video. Implicitly, he played the racial card concerning his African origin. However, it was not the point of Trump.

Obama was put in put in Indonesian public school however due to regulation there was no double citizenship allowed. Therefore, he is possible that Obama put down his American nationality. It is technical but not too irrelevant, most importantly it is not linked to Obama africain origin.

The professor Raoult has never said that the treatment was his idea, he always tells the entire story about the first Chinese research.

In fact, both manage to reach the pic of their fields…

Didier Raoul explained it very well. ‘I am not abused by the elite; I am the elite’

It is interesting to see that in both cases, the media are clearly corrupted. Big pharma was the commun sponsors of Raoult treatment ennemies. For Trump, it was obvious that the fake Republican Democrats rivalry was not relevant anymore. The rhetoric was the same in the Media, they could not allowed a contributor of both parties to take over.

The link with me?

I don’t know… Google knows

check this out www.christiankamtchueng .fr

The marketing is about the market study. In theory, it is the study of the market and the way to influence it. In practise, it is the analyse of the market, the business plan and the execution.

The communication is more about the way you make your services or products visible, the way you influence and interact with your market.

The communication is a tool to succeed your marketing goal.

Before the 2017 election, I rose my concern about the way people process their vote selection; in others words, what are the key elements leading their final choice?

I met few Macronist, for most of them, it was about youth, ambition and vision.

The first video was about a young well educated woman enable to provide an upgrade of his selection process.(videos)

The major issue with Macron was his lack of vision, Macron said it himself:” What’s the point to have a programme!?”

Macron was the candidate of the emptiness; I win for the win. For me focusing on the essence, I could not stand this candidate. What change or revolution could he be the representative, as he was the liberal voice in the ears of the so-called “socialist” Francois Hollande.

After his victory, France woke up confused between the satisfaction to have avoid the far-right party and the dizzy feeling of being raped by this OVNI supposedly “social liberal”.

“Victory of the Youth symbolism of a new era with a program built up from the bottom”.

The promises was huge, and a lot of sceptical wanted to believe on his ability.

The press and social media praised the Macron communication team. I was totally off, I did not see any excellence in Macron communication (different of the candidate communication). It is the opposite, If I respected the run, I could not do the same for the man. I respected the fact that while making huge communication mistakes, he did well. It was far behind the lack of program, he was doing huge fault after fault.

A. Leader?

He went off at his stuff when reading a pitch “who wrotes this? I don’t even understand it!”

B. Never Went to a Train Station?

At station F, he was talking about the train station; people active successful travelling with hope and vision then finished by opposing them to the ones who do nothing.

C. 2 types of people the one with a suit and the unemployed ? (Barnet Simpson way [character of How I Met Your Mother],Gay actor playing a straight player character)

At some point before a conference in the South of France, he told a syndicalist protesting that the best way too have his suit would be to work.

He was presuming that the protestor doesn't work and that every worker has the ability to pay this type of suit.

D. Living with 1K the month ?

Nothing seems to stop him, when asked about the way of life with 1Ke, Macron responded after thinking a bit “I know about it, I used to have 1Ke as pocket money (from my parents) for my study”.

He was not president yet but the worst was the smile on his face; it was a child happy to prove his teacher wrong. He was a clear sign of disconnection from the bases.

E. Right or Left? Capitalist, is not he?

We don’t report all the communication about which part of the political map was his party or himself as person : right or left?

F. Well Educated?

He is supposedly a well-educated individual but can’t put French Guyana in a map. No it is not an island!

G. President with a sense of humour?

Can we talk about his sense of humour when he referred to the kwassa-kwassa (boat) and the comor migration to mayotte, can we ? (please google it, similar to Holland and his joke on surviving from Algeria trip)

Given the limited number of letters, lets just enumerate a few more:

What about his interview and his rhetoric JCVD for the WWF “Money cant be eaten”?

What about his background, is he the French excellence representative?

What about, during an advisory meeting; “ We put a huge amount in the social minimum but people are still poor!”

What about , “If you want your job, you just need to cross the street” It is similar to a Sarkozy line but at least Nicolas would have taken the information of his interlocutor and take action.

Macron was just saying. Clearly he is trying to be Nicolas bis, but Emmanuel don’t have any consciousness of the gap which separates him from the French people.

What about, the party representative stated about the reforms “we have been too smart to be intelligible!”?

It was during the “Gilets Jaunes” (yellow jacket) strike

What about, “I won’t failed to the lazy, to the extreme…”?

Clearly, he has problem to communicate. He does not realise that the artistocratie is a minority, He should be the president of all the French People. Clearly Macron communication is not good, it is quiet difficult for him to realise it as he won. How can his communication team did not adjust at all? He should be more objective and admit that it is a Marketing victory and not a communication victory. The marketing strategy to push for visibility on the mainstream media communication was the main win factor (if not the only) of his victory. Nothing to do with his potential or abilities. More he talk and more he face up with his owns contradiction; socialist liberal or liberalist social? He was well sum up by another candidate Mr Asselineau “Mr Macron agree with everybody”. A lot of people made fun of his “Mais en même temps” which can be translated by “At the same time” a linker able to concatenate one thing and his opposite.

A simple image is the following : take a glass of top water put a micro bite of lemon. Macron is this product which has been sold as the new innovative low calorie drink without additif, colorant or conservator (neither nutritional value). It is how marketing and communication can change the value of a cheap limonade tastless.

Paradoxe of the limonade :

A glass of water is less expensive than Syrup based on concentrated red fruit+ water, the last cheaper than a sparkling water + Syrup, the last is cheaper than Limonade + Syrup= diabolo (extra sugar)… then the trick appears … the last is cheaper than sparkling water with Syrup less concentrate because it is light version,with low calorie (communication). A good way to make you pay more for less. the last is cheaper than Perrier which is just sparkling water supposedly high quality sugar free and natural.

The MMA is the fastest growing sport of the last 2 decades.

The UFC have been bout 4bilion $ by the WME-IM group. It is a huge conglomerate; WME being a talent agency representing movies, television, music and more whereas IMG is an international sports, events and talent management agency.

At this price tag, it is money time for the brother seller but clearly the UFC has now the duty to perform. I can see the trend exposed before the acquisition; Conor vs Diaz, Conor vs Alvarez, Conor vs Maywether, Jon Jones vs DC. But as all the start-up, UFC has to deliver the expected (overperform).

Now, belt vs belt (champion vs champion) will be common, they call it super fight but they would probably arrange super tournament.

In the search of growth (perpetual growth), the UFC has no choice to provide at least 6 super fights per year. Would it be enough?

Would it be necessary?

At the UFC event 232, they moved the entire card to LA. Some claim that they are losing money with this decision.

Lets do the maths

Clearly the uncertainty of the last potential card is the worst case scenario in term of business. Thanks to this LA solution, the business is the only real winner of the bout! The UFC is showing is new way of dealing with problem, it is not about image, fan or sport beauty, this is a Money Business!

Even for a picogramme (or “pictogram”), sanction should be applied. What are the limits?

“It has nothing to do with reinjecting!”

How can we believe it when JJ has been tested positive before. Far from this argument, what is the meaning of being tested positive? What is the goal of the USADA?

The link with the Gilets Jaunes, is the fact that our society are not a meritocracy. In the same way Macron is not working for the people but for the ones who promoted him. Clearly the UFC is not concerned about the fan anymore, this is just business “it is what it is!”

The change of location is not related to JJ but only to business. If G win, it would affect the entire expected profit of the company. Some huge match up wont occur whereasshareholders need a JJ vs DC 3. More than this, they need an invisible Conor. Indeed Tyron and Khabid are ver talented champions but as DC not a huge PPV cow.

JJ is not a problem, the sport business is the issue, Macron is not the issue but our choice of economical system is!

#LA #UFC #JonesBonesJones

It is question?

Saturday night was a great boxing night. In fact, the looser was already known… it was Antony Joshua alias AJ. Indeed, he is the holder of the 4 belts let vacant by the former champion Tyson Fury.

It was an incredible fight, and the draw between these two giants are justified. Be careful, I did not say that it is fair result but legit given the fact that boxing is also links to politics.

Tyson Fury was winning in points, maybe slightly but he was the one boxing during most of the rounds. Yes, he has been dropped twice but I had him winning for a bit. Nevertheless, it would not be fair (yes I use the word) to ignore the fact that Tyson was Knock Down in a incredible damaging fashion on the 12th round. It was so dramatic that the reflex of the referee was to call out the fight. He did not count immediately, Tyson get up at 12 seconds. Therefore, he was knock out.

The only not rational in this fight, was this counting in the 12th round. Don’t get mad, I am not biased but confused because at home the seconds should have been faster.

In term of words, only Wilder delivered, yes, they both declared that they are going to knock out their opponent. Only Wilder was closed to this, he is so confident that he gave 20 pounds to his opponent.

It is important to realise that it was more than a simple fight; these two champions have an history. Tyson was very criticized because of his use of freedom of speech. He has always spoken his mind. The last was lost after depression. He made an incredible come back. On the other hand Wilder is a singular champion, he is almost not known in America mostly because he does not have a proper promoter. He is a free agent which pissed off the boxing industry; how does he dare to be successful by himself. He was its first pay per view.

Both have been declared as the future of heavy weight boxing by a famous boxing trainer.

Where is AJ in this story?

Nowhere to be found.

He lost it, he was the attraction but how can it be the best by avoiding the two-best heavyweight contender? What is he waiting for to unify the division?

Maybe it is not his fault but clearly his legacy is already damaged by the politics around him.

First, I was not impressed by his gold medal which was clearly pushed by Lennox Lewis pressuring the judges. Care must be taken, AJ made his own path by achieving a remarkable series of wins. But too much politics let him on the side… He is now the B-side because of the Boxing Business.

How can AJ decide to fight the winner of White-Chisora?

Wilder has taken risk; by facing Ortiz who has been ducked for many years by many champions and faced last Saturday Tyson Fury without any obligation.

In fact, behind this fighting business, there is a business war between England and USA. The entourage of AJ wants to protect the milk cow. They don’t want to take the risk of losing the lead on the division but by doing so, they discredit the champion.

Je ne suis pas de ce monde…

J’ai arrêté la Télé depuis 2003 !

Je tombe malencontreusement sur le BUZZ du moment, la participation de Mr Jean Claude Van Dame (#JCVD) à l’émission On n’est pas couché (#ONPC). Si les débats avec madame / mademoiselle S(*) ont été assez tendu notamment du fait de l’intervention de JCVD, il est bon de contextualiser la déferlante folle des réseaux sociaux sur des titres provocateurs.

La meute est lancée sur des propos détournés, des raccourcis grossiers. Où va le monde ? que d’énergie perdue dans de fausses polémiques ! La course au buzz n’a pas de fin, ni même de limite. Macho, Conservateur, Bof, Misogynie, Homophobe… quoi d’autres ?

Le ridicule ne tue pas mais là on a touché le fond, dans cette émission et ce lynchage de la “twittosphère” peu FAIR.

Un récapitulatif « objectif » de l’échange entre JCVD et de Madame S s’impose :

JCVD interrompt Mme S en sifflant [ très incorrect]

JCVD pose un réel problème avec des mots simples « si papa travaille et maman travaille qui va s’occuper des enfants » [les chauffeurs de salle ne savent plus quoi faire]

Mme S ne répond pas mais définit le “Manplaining” présupposant d’une expertise [de quelle expertise parle-t-elle ?]

JCVD applaudit

JCVD « J’ai une femme fantastique Gladys », Mme S le coupant « on la salue »

JCVD fait référence aux genres, et aux races

« un homme, c’est un homme. Une femme , c’est une femme. un chien, c’est un chien » opposition à la vision existentialiste que mentionna Mme S.

JCVD fait référence à Weinstein et à la peur de rentrer en contact avec une femme [effectivement, user de son pouvoir semblait être un droit qui donne lieu à des transactions plus ou moins consentantes]

JCVD s’enfonce « Les femmes sont supers, c’est comme les fleurs »

Mme S revient sur la peur des hommes, elle fait du Sarko en balançant une anecdote qui ne répond pas aux questionnent de JCVD. En effet, elle parle de violence conjugale quand JCVD parle de réfraction à la rencontre.

Mr Moix traduit merveilleusement la problématique soulevée, par la même occasion balance sur ses amis qui avaient peur d’être taguer dans le scandale #MeToo

Mme Angot tombe elle la silencieuse dans une confrontation ridicule qui n’a pas lieu d’être. [les chauffeurs de salle réagissent difficilement]

Réponse de JCVD sublime, en fait, il insiste pour la deuxième fois sur la liberté de choix, une femme n’est pas non plu obliger de travailler (la même chose pour un homme). Le réel problème est la destruction du foyer familiale (chapitre Femme Libérée du Manifeste de la raison objective).

Dépassée Madame S décide de lancer un autre débat sans répondre à la question :

« Qui va garder les enfants ?

- Et si c’est un homme avec un homme? »

« Vous êtes à l’ancienne » lui déclare une dame de sa génération.

JCVD ne se laissant pas démonter, continua

« Tu as deux enfants, tu es mariée ? »

- Oui » [pas si sûr …]

« Mon mari travaille, et c’est lui qui s’occupe des enfants pendants que je suis là »

Elle insiste encore pour la 3ième fois avec son étude de cas qui n’a aucun sens car hors propos.

- Et si c’est un homme avec un homme ou une femme avec une femme?

Ce n’est pas lié au genre ni même à l’orientation sexuelle, juste à la protection du foyer familial.

On arrive au fameux contexte…

« Les hommes se marient, les femmes se marient, les chiens se marient… tout le monde se marie, c’est normal que tout le monde divorce.»

Et voilà, une autre Sarko(**) très mal négociée de madame S, « la dernière fois que l’on a fait le parallèle entre l’homosexualité et la zoophilie, c’est un élu du front national… »

JCVD n’a pas parlé de zoophilie, un chien avec un chien n’a rien de zoophile.

JCVD qui revient sur une remarque mathématiques simple, si tous les hommes sont avec des hommes et les femmes avec des femmes… comment on va faire des enfants ? »

“On est loin de ça” répond Ruquier….

Effectivement, nous n’y sommes pas encore !

(*) du fait de son statu et surtout ne voulant pas être coupable de la violence du Web, nous désignerons par S

(**) par Sarko, nous faisons référence à la technique argumentative de l’ancien président qui consiste à revenir sur un fait divers émotif lorsque l’on l’interrogeait sur des thématiques profondes

I realised that our society (occidental or so — called “modern”) was going wild, because of our choice of economic system. After chasing growth by dept and dept by growth, it pushes us to expend what looks like a Ponzi Scheme. The danger of the process has been derived and demonstrated in the Fear Pricing Theory and le Manifeste de la Raison Objective.

I don’t accept neither absorb, I think…

Clearly, I am crazy in this superficial world (*)… some of us are already fed up by the glory of the appearances!

· The world largest old economies are hugely in dept.

· Liberalism does not make any sense, as we are all interdependent not free; we are prisoner of the system!

· We spent time to follow the life of people pretending to live thing …. What a lost of energy!

Kanye, don’t worry, If the world agree to your craziness, take it as a compliment!

Let’s open the doors of a new world full of common sense by supporting our values …

(*) it will end soon. Indeed, we are in transition; some parts of the world are ready for a new era.

Figure 1 Cover of Robert Kiyosaki book

He is almost right on everything. I even recognised my parent’s talk on his description of Poor Dad mentality. Indeed, I come from a poor background with a single parent where education was the key to safe job (state job).

I did student jobs to finance my study, then after having brilliantly graduated, I worked at the City as bankers. I have no clue about my own desire or aspirations. Most part of my dreams have been put in my head but I have been an entrepreneur my entire life: not in serie but a serial in parallel!

Figure 2 two types of achiever, in series and in parallel

I clearly deviated from my mom paradigm. In fact, I went through all the Quadrant.

What a Quadrant?

Let’s back to Robert Theory. We will discuss 4 important comments

1. Missing Part

There is a missing part of the Quadrant (and I totally understand why Robert forget it)

The Quadrant is defined as follow:

Figure 3 Classic Quadrant from Robert Theory

Robert defines:

· E which gives time for security

· S gives his talent and time for stability

· B delegates and monitor E for profit

· I gives money to have more money

E works for someone (B)

S works for himself (S)

B monitors others (E)

I monitors money

It is cleared that B and I have time, we can argue that I needs some people to monitor his money.

The passionate fits in all categories.

Indeed, “passion conducts to excellence and excellence conducts to freedom” (cote from “Genie and Folie: Theorie de l’Infini Perceptible”).

In the passionate’s paradigm time is nothing therefore he does not see any advantage to be as I. He is only concerned by his passion and by being in the passion, he can make time flexible, bend it or contract it as he want.

One can consider that it is just a state of mind but it is a particular type which destroys the conclusion of Poor Dad and Rich Dad Quadrant.

Does it really matter to have time, if you don’t know what to do with?

Passion is an energy, working represents an energy which can be lost or gain.

The passionate cant value with money his time so do the I and B.

· E gives time to a job against money

· I gives money for more money and keep times

Passionate gives time and money to this passion but both have no value in this paradigm.

Figure 4 Quadrant profil what they give for their goal

2. Ponzy Scheme vs Direct Sell

My intern asks me for comment about this book. In one video, I was able to see some conflicts with our new context. First the author put the focus on the direct sell program.

“It is the best way to conduct a business”

As financial analyst and world reader, I recognised something dangerous in this type of marketing. Usually, it works like this

It is the first steps

Figure 5 First Step of a Pyramid Scheme

In order to transform them in future seller, you propose to them to become their own boss or (franchised) they will sell franchise to future seller and get franchise commission trough their sponsoring or filiation.

Figure 6 Pyramid Scheme with a high of 3 with subscription sharing for the N5

To make alternative, we suppose that we go to the bottom.

50% to the seller (sponsor) then 50% of the 50% of the top of the pyramid, we cut again the rest in 50% again. We repeat the process for the rest of the filiation.

Figure 7 Pyramid Scheme with a high of 4 with subscription sharing for the N11

Figure 8 Repartition of the subscription/fees of a client to his filiation of high 5

Note that we can have another scheme.

We could have taken, another distribution fees but this one is exponential and represent a real interest for the owner which won’t be the case in the first scheme.

Figure 9 Revenues for different filiation levels as function of time (at each time, new levee eg new clients)

For me, the link with a Ponzi Scheme is obvious for instance, we could consider a club and a guy nominated as “owner”.

To enter in the club, you have fee which will be given for a part to the sponsor and the rest to his filiation. We retrieve pretty much the same scheme. What are the differences?

The first one could be a masked pyramid. When can we challenge it? What should be the criteria to distinguish direct sell from Ponzi scheme?

Could be the fact that the leaf [ ] don’t feel the need to be seller. If all or a percentage became buyer just to be seller. They are paying to be self-employed and to apply the same recruitment process to others.

Concrete example Roconcourt nominated as ”R” (it is a French con artist who victimised Hollywood, the story is real after his released from prison. He attacked the French market pretending that Tom Cruise will play his role on his story movie. He managed to catch attention but also the eyes of a beauty queen)

He pretends to be a boxing champion and declare to people that producers are about to make a movie out of his life. He explained that he is looking for the last producer as the realisation has been delayed because of funding issues.

a. He finds the first two producers. Each of them will give 100 to finance the rest of the movie.

b. When realising the fraud (there is no movie)

a. R will propose to give them back half of the money 50 and for the rest they will need to find two other potential producers each.

c. R will receive 200 from each of his first producers (when they accomplished they sponsoring mission). He will give them back 50, in order to restore their initial investment.

He has been greedy because, he was the only one to cumulate exponential profit from the scheme. By sharing his gain with producers, he could have continued for a while.

Figure 10 Repartition of the subscription/fees of a client to his filiation of high 5 for a Roconcourt Scheme

3. Author Contradiction

The author is very famous by his conference and his vision but let’s be real. No one knows what is his main income. I could easily say that it is his conferences because, I will have notice in his instruction something about his legitimity.

I don’t say that someone has to be successful to do workshop on success but I just try to think (sorry it is a reflex). Let’s say 80% of his income come from seminar, workshop and conference then we realised that even if he owns an empire, he is still a S because as the author, he is the main attraction. In fact there is not any other attraction. His business rely on him.

“it is like someone you see on TV but you forgot why he has been there in the first place!”

4. Quadrant are not valid anymore!

Yes, I said it. It is a very important point which can make everything say by Robert in perspective.

Because of the infernal circle of the capitalism liberal, saturated markets are weakened by instabilities and chronicle crisis. It is exactly what happen in 2008. After a bubble on the credit market (subprimes and derivatives associated with it), we have seen a lot of bankruptcy the systemic risk spread and I become a E replaceable and useless. Indeed money and time were under attacked.

E gives more times to be less safer whereas I gives money putting his own capital at risk even in the supposedly riskless transaction. (see the Fear Pricing Theory and Introduction to the Fear Pricing Theory).

B and S have still some control in order to adapt to the context but at the end of the day, they are all govern by state rules, states who are governs by capitalism and capitalists. The paradox is that the capitalist and capitalism can have an opposite direction and destroy each other.

Christian Kamtchueng

entrepreneur and writter

twitter : ckamtchueng

instagram : c.kamtchueng

author of Mister Dockins Wishes

Quelle horrible polémique… Que dire par ce récidiviste friand de la controverse qu’il est bon de relancer son nom en pleine promotion…Comment osa t-il associé ses idées à la mort de Johnny. Il s’incruste à la fête comme aurait aimé le faire son ami et client.

J’avais décidé de me taire mais la polémique contagieuse en entraîne une autre puis une autre…

Une inconnue s’est lamentablement illustrée, défendeuse des causes perdues, elle s’en est allée de raccourci à raccourci.

« J’y étais et effectivement c’était très blanc !»

Son expérience faisait état de validation, elle insista même jusqu’à l’incident (sur l’incident). Alors qu’on la reprenait sur le fait que Paris ne soit pas si accessible et que 800 000 à Paris ne soit pas représentatif de toute la France et des téléspectateurs, elle osa la réplique suivante :

« Il faut les voir sortir à chaque match de l’Algérie ! »

Chanceuse, Pascal Pro s’empressa de stopper le dérapage en rebondissant sur le Mondial 98 et « cette France Black Blanc Beur sur les Champs Elysées ». Anecdotique non, il est temps d’agir contre cette violence et ce racisme banalisés. Ma France n’est pas raciste, ma France est fière de sa pluralité… J’espère que je ne me suis pas laissé bercer par le marketing.

Que dire de ces attaques sur Mme Rokhaya Diallo et de ce silence complice sur les paroles de Mr Alain Think Pas Trop avocat et grand défendeur de Monsieur Polansky ?

Que dire des diffamations à l’encontre de Monsieur Yassine Bellatar humoriste de profession ? Comment avons-nous pu laisser passer une campagne de défense irrationnelle sur cette jeune fille droguée et violée qui aux yeux de ce grand philosophe a contre elle des expériences érotiques?

Il n’y a plus de honte, le clown académicien mériterait son Valls !

L’espace médiatique français mérite mieux que cette médiocrité. L’exemplarité et l’intégrité doivent reprendre leur droit.

Maintenant voici la couverture du parisien : Peut-on (encore) rire de tout ?

La question n’est pas anodine mais relance le débat Dieudonnesque.

Pour Tex dont le métier humoriste ne justifie pas l’acte ou l’incident, la sentence a été rapide. Que fait-on de Think Pas Trop ce comique multirécidiviste ? A-t-on le droit de comparer l’humour d’un humoriste au sérieux d’un philosophe? Quelle sentence pour ce texte proposé par « l’élite » de l’académie française qu’est supposé représentée Alain ?

Tolérer ce biais c’est être pour la destruction de ce concept du « vivre ensemble ».

Rappelons qu’Alain mentionna le « Petit Blanc » qu’insinuait-il que “les grands non blancs” ne sont ou ne peuvent être fan de Johnny ou par le « petit » s’adressait -il à la masse des « sans dents » qui avaient osé repousser Mr Polansky de cette cérémonie.

Peu importe le contexte, les propos sont déplacés et irrespectueux. Lui, l’homme de lettre et de philosophie, les a pourtant choisis. Il continua avec un terme polémique, le fruit de son imagination « non-souchien ». Les soutiens de Think Pas Trop sont les soutiens de Mr Zemours et donc de la liberté d’expression et donc du « on peut rire de tout » et donc contre Think Pas trop.

Quand condamnera-t-on France Télévision d’inviter sur scène ce genre de personnages « peu recommandables » dont l’académie française se passerait bien à s’en embellir de justice?

Je ne voulais pas vous prendre personnellement à parti, je pense que vous êtes un indigné — derrière vos chroniques piquantes, je peux ressentir une colère sincère.

A ces awards, il y avait effectivement du « beau » monde ; Entre les ministres monsieur Mahjoubi et monsieur Darmenin… il n’y avait pas de place pour moi ; Qui suis-je ?

Ce fut votre première question, qu’avez-vous tiré de mes réponses au-delà de leur côté « disruptif » ?

Il est bon de faire rire ou même de rire d’un monde dont nous n’acceptons pas la laideur ou l’irrationnel… « nous avons tous un pouvoir » vous ais-je dit.

Journaliste, vous vous seriez renseigné sur Afrisia puis sur ma personne et enfin sur la Raison Objective.

Vous aussi avez votre part de responsabilité ; allons-nous passer notre temps à rire ou pleurer de nos choix sociétaux ou passer à l’action ?

La passivité émotionnelle que représente la première solution me répugne autant que la direction de notre société.

Quand allez-vous, vous média, mettre en avant l’excellence et l’exemplarité ?

Vous vous plaignez du manque d’intégrité et d’équité des grands capitalistes, mais que faites-vous quand vous voyez un entrepreneur intègre dans une démarche noble qui va dans le sens de vos valeurs ?

Nous avons chacun notre part de responsabilité…

Guillaume, gardez cet enregistrement car il se pourrait que vous ayez ce soir la « interviewé » l’homme le plus sage que vous n’ayez jamais rencontré !

Christian K

www.afrisia.info

PS : si un seul mot, arrogant, ressortait de cette lecture, allez sur ce lien et n’hésitez pas à me googler.

Ce qui est peut-être dû à l’estime que je me porte. Voici, justement, un équivalent arrogant = haute estime de soi…

J’ai du mal à voir le défaut de sa propre appréciation.

De qui devons-nous attendre l’appréciation ?

Qui doit être le légitime curseur ?

Depuis quand la confiance en soi est une tare ? Qu’il y a-t-il de mal dans cette détermination ?

Est-ce le fait d’être à la hauteur et de dire cette vérité ou de laisser à des âmes extérieurs l’initiatives ou même qu’elle soit juste démesurée au vu des faits ?

Comment pouvons-nous avoir le droit de se voir intelligent mais pas le droit à la confiance en soi. L’arrogance est le problème des autres et de leur perception de cette énergie positive dont le supposé arrogant s’est s’entouré.

Prenons les footballeurs par exemple ; Ibrahimovic qualifié d’arrogant mais ne délivre-t-il pas ?

Oui mais il n’a jamais gagné de grands trophées (Coupe du Monde, Jeux Olympiques, ligue des champions)

Que dire d’Etoo alors ?

N’étant pas dans une méritocratie, l’estime de soi qui devrait être une défense naturelle contre le manque de repères “juste” dans notre société. La vérité fait mal, ils n’en sont point responsables — ces « arrogants ». Même s’ils font une erreur de jugement dans leur appréciation, peut-on leur en vouloir quand notre environnement loue l’imposture, glorifie le paraître et méprise l’excellence.

Pourquoi avons-nous peur de l’excellence ?

Elle conduit à la liberté, la liberté individuelle clairement mais aussi à celle des peuples car un leader intègre peut fédérer mais aussi ouvrir au possible.

PS: J’ai récemment félicité un de mes amis pour le lancement de sa compagnie « j’ai connu ce jeune entrepreneur il y a un an, je suis fier de son parcours et du chef d’entreprise qu’il est devenu ». Ce soutien fraternel devint une annonce paternaliste ; le « jeune » transformé en « petit » aux yeux de certains… la communication mais surtout l’interprétation d’une parole suite à un positionnement qui n’est pas de votre fait. La phrase est vraie, ma fierté est grande mais synonyme d’admiration et non d’une quelconque participation. Il ne le doit qu’à lui-même… tout comme ces interprètes qui ne contextualisent pas mais projettent leur sentiment sur mes paroles — ils ne doivent leurs ressentiments qu’ à eux mêmes.

Je l’ai connu à mon retour en France, il y a deux ans lors des Déterminés, la première promotion parisienne. Porteurs d’idées, donner de la chance à vos projets!