This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Freelance translator and/or interpreter, Verified site user
Data security
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Services
Translation, Editing/proofreading
Expertise
Specializes in:
Poetry & Literature
Philosophy
Religion
Government / Politics
Also works in:
Food & Drink
Education / Pedagogy
More
Less
Rates
Portfolio
Sample translations submitted: 4
Italian to English: Italian Lesson
Source text - Italian WAV
1002 English Italian Literal Translation
1 I speak. Io parlo. I speak.
2 my friend il mio amico the my friend
3 with my friend con il mio amico with the my friend
4 I speak with my friend. Io parlo con il mio amico. I speak with the my friend.
5 I am talking with my friend. Io sto parlando con il mio amico. I am talking with the my friend.
6 I am speaking with my friend. Io sto parlando con il mio amico. I am speaking with the my friend.
7 You are talking with my friend. Tu stai parlando con il mio amico. You are talking with the my friend.
8 He speaks with my friend. Lui parla con il mio amico. He speaks with the my friend.
9 All of you are speaking with my friend. Tutti voi state parlando con il mio amico. You all are speaking with the my friend.
10 They are speaking with my friend. Loro stanno parlando con il mio amico. They are speaking with the my friend.
11 We are speaking with my friend. Noi stiamo parlando con il mio amico. We are speaking with the my friend.
1 The green monster slobbers.
He has six crazy eyes; however, he is very friendly. Il mostro verde sbava.
Lui ha sei occhi pazzi; pero lui è molto amichevole. The green monster slobbers.
He has six eyes crazy, but he is very friendly.
2 You are a great bowler.
Tu sei un bravo giocatore di bocce.
You are a great player of bowling.
3 My favorite number is zero.
It looks like a wheel to me. Il mio numero preferito è zero.
Mi sembra come una ruota.
My number favorite is zero.
To me it seems like a wheel.
4 The boy has a big number three.
It is yellow and very soft. Il ragazzo ha un grande numero tre.
È giallo e molto morbido. The boy has a big number three.
It is yellow and very soft.
5 I like to shake hands.
I see two hands. Mi piace stringere le mani.
Io vedo due mani. To me it pleases to shake hands.
I see two hands.
6 In pool, you don’t want to knock in the eight ball because if you do, you will lose the game. Quando giochi a billiardi, non vuoi tirare la palla otto perché se lo farai, perderai il gioco. When you play pool you don’t want to shoot the eight ball because if you will do it you will loose the game.
7 I think that the number seven is very lucky.
What is your lucky number? Io penso che il numero sete porti fortuna.
Quale numero ti porta fortuna? I think that the number seven brings luck.
Which number brings you luck?
8 Have you ever found a four-leaf clover? Hai mai trovato un trifoglio con quattro foglie? Have you ever found a clover with four leaves?
9 The number one has a red and white stripe. Il numbero uno ha una striscia rossa e bianca. The number one has a stripe red and white.
10 I have nine classmates that I play with at school. Io ho nove colleghi di classe con cui io gioco a scuola. I have nine classmates with whom I play at school.
11 Most hands have four fingers and one thumb, which make five digits. La maggior parte delle mani ha quattro dita e una pollice, cioé cinque digiti. The most part of hands have four fingers and a thumb, that is five digits.
12 The puzzle of the United States has fifty pieces.
I want to put it together. Lo puzzle degli Stati Uniti ha cinquanta pezzi.
Io voglio metterlo insieme. The puzzle of the United States has fifty pieces.
I want to put it together.
13 Let’s buy some food for the monkeys!
And don’t forget the fish! Compriamo del cibo per le scimmie.
E non dimenticare i pesci! We buy some food for the monkeys.
And don’t forget the fish (plural)!
14 The boy wants to trade with the monkey.
But the monkey does not want to give up his banana. Il ragazzo vuole commerciare con la scimmia.
Pero la scimmia non vuole perdere la sua banana.
The boy wants to trade with the monkey.
But the monkey doesn’t want to loose his banana.
15 The beaver is very proud to be a Canadian. Il castoro è molto fiero di essere un canadese. The beaver is very proud to be a Canadian.
16 Peter is so happy because his mother just bought him a shiny new horn. Pietro è cosí felice perché sua madre gli ha appena comprato un nuovo corno risplendente. Peter is so happy because his mother for him bought a new horn shiny.
17 Oh no, now I am all wet.
Somebody needs to fix the water fountain. Managgia, adesso sono tutto bagnato.
Qualcuno deve riparare la fontana d’acqua. Oh no, now I am all wet.
Somebody must repair the fountain of water.
18 This pig has a mop and is eager to mop the floor.
What a nice pig. Questo maiale ha uno straccio e ha voglia di pulire il pavimento.
Quale maiale gentile. This pig has a mop and has desire to clean the floor.
What a pig nice.
19 I think that bullfights are so dangerous.
I like to cheer for the poor bull. Io penso che le correde siano cosí pericolosi.
Mi piace tifare per il povero toro. I think that bullfights are so dangerous.
To me it pleases to chear for the poor bull.
20 The worker is checking the luggage to make sure it does not contain anything dangerous. L’operaio sta controllando i baggagli per assicurarsi che non contengono qualcosa di pericoloso. The worker is checking the luggage for to make sure that they don’t contain something dangerous.
21 Oh no! The sword is in the fencer’s rear end. Caspita! La spada è nel sedere dello schermidore. Oh,no! The sword is in the rear end of the fencer.
22 The boy is losing the game of checkers, and he really wants to win. Il ragazzo sta perdendo la partita di dama, e lui vuole vincere veramente. The boy is losing the game of checkers, and he wants to win really.
23 This man is crazy, and he likes to talk on the telephone in the shower.
He must have a waterproof phone! Quest’uomo è pazzo, e gli piace parlare al telefono nella doccia.
Il suo telefono deve essere resistente all’acqua! This man is crazy, and to him it pleases to talk on the phone in the shower.
His telephone must be resistent to water!
24 The boys have so much fun when they fly kites. I ragazzi si divertano cosí tanto quando volano gli aquiloni. The boys have fun so much when they fly the kites.
25 Hang on, hang on!
A helicopter is on the way to save you! !
Un elicottero viene a salvarti! !
A helicopter is coming to save you!
26 Oh no, the boy licked the toaster, and now his tongue is stuck to the toaster. Managgia, il ragazzo ha leccato il tostapane, e ora la sua lingua si è appiccicata al tostapane. Oh, no, the boy licked the toaster, and now his tongue has stuck to the toaster.
27 John loves the fall because he gets to rake leaves and makes a lot of money. Giovanni ama l’autunno perché ha l’opportunità di rastrellare le foglie e guadagnare molti soldi. John loves the fall because he has the opportunity to rake the leaves and to make a lot of money.
28 The mouse wants to eat the cheese, but he knows that it is in a trap.
Smart mouse! Il topo vuole mangiare il formaggio, pero sa che è in una trappola.
Topo furbo! The mouse wants to eat the cheese, but he knows that it is in a trap.
Cunning/Shrewd mouse!
29 The little boy is very happy because he has a pet bird.
I hope the bird does not fly away.
If so, he will be so sad. Il piccolo ragazzo è molto felice perché ha un uccello domestico.
Io spero che l’uccello non voli via.
Se succede, lui sara cosí triste. The little boy is very happy because he has a bird domestic.
I hope that the bird does not fly away.
If it happens, he will be so sad.
30 The arrow hit the bull’s-eye.
The archer is very skilled. La freccia ha colpito l’oblò.
L’arciere è molto esperto. The arrow hit the bull’s-eye.
The archer is very skilled.
31 The boy is climbing the rope.
I hope he doesn’t fall. Il ragazzo si sta arrampicando sul fune.
Io spero che non cada. The boy is climbing the rope.
I hope that he doesn’t fall.
32 The leprechaun is inside a pot of gold.
He is so rich! Il leprechaun è dentro una pentola pieno d’oro.
Lui è cosí ricco. The leprechaun is in a pot full of gold.
He is so rich.
33 The woman’s husband is moving the sofa.
His back hurts, but he wants to please his wife. Il marito della donna sta spostando il divano.
Gli fa male la schiena, pero vuole fare piacere a sua moglie.
The husband of the woman is moving the couch.
To him it does bad the back, but he wants to make pleasure to his wife.
34 The boy has been fishing all day.
He hopes to catch a lot of fish. Il ragazzo pescava tutto il giorno.
Lui spera prendere molti pesci. The boy was fishing all the day.
He hopes to take many fish.
35 The passenger is snoring in the taxi.
This is a bad manner. Il passagero sta russando nel taxi.
Questo è mal usanza. The passenger is snoring in the Taxi.
This is a bad manner.
36 The friends like to ice skate. Agli amici piace fare pattinaggio sul giaccio. To the friends it pleases to do skating on the ice.
37 There is a fierce storm.
Luke needs to get inside before he is struck by lightning. C’è una burrasca ardente.
Luca deve andare dentro prima che sia fulminato. There is a storm fierce.
Luke must go in before he is struck by lightning.
38 Jessica likes to work in her garden, and her favorite vegetables are carrots. A Jessica piace lavorare nel suo giardino, e le sue verdure preferite sono le carrote. To Jessica it pleases to work in the her garder, and the her vegetables favorite are the carrots.
39 Marie is afraid that Paul has no idea what he is doing, and that he might saw her in half! Maria ha paura che Paulo non abbia nessun idea di quello che fa, e che forse lui potrebbe segarla in due. Marie has fear that Paul doesn’t have any idea of that which he does, and that maybe he her will saw in two.
40 Steven likes to play with his puppets.
He hopes to be a famous puppeteer someday. A Stefano piace giocare con i suoi burattini.
Lui spera di diventare un giorno un burattinaio famoso. To Steven it pleases to play with his puppets.
He hopes one day, a famous puppeteer to be.
41 The woman is going to pour the lemonade on the head of her son. La donna sta per versare la limonata sulla testa di suo figlio. The woman is about to pour the lemonade on the head of her son.
42 The teenager loves to sing rock and roll songs, and play in front of large, screaming crowds. L’adolescente ama cantare canzoni di rock and roll, e suonare davanti a grandi folle urlanti. The adolescent loves to sing songs of rock and roll, and to play in front of large crowds screaming.
43 When the coach gave Johnny a chance, the little boy missed the ball. Quando l’allenatore ha dato a Gianni un chance, il piccolo ragazzo ha mancato la palla. When the trainer gave to Johnny a chance, the little boy missed the ball.
44 The Indian girl made a blanket for her grandmother. La ragazza indiana ha fatto una coperta per sua nonna. The girl Indian made a blanket for her grandma.
45 The tourist was eating the corn when he realized that he had missed his flight home. Il tourista mangiava il mais quando si è reso conto di aver mancato il suo volo. The tourist was eating the corn when he realized to have missed the his flight.
46 The grapes have been picked from the vine. Le uva sono state colte dalla vigna.
The grapes have been gathered from the vine.
47 The man would have watched TV all day, but his daughter needed his help with her homework. L’uomo avrebbe guardato la televisione tutto il giorno, ma sua figlia aveva bisogno del suo aiuto con i suoi compiti. The man would have watched the television all the day, but his daughter had need of his help with her assignments.
48 The girl was building a snowman when her friend called her on the phone. La ragazza faceva un pupazzo di neve quando la sua amica le ha telefonato. The girl was making a puppet of snow when the her friend to her called.
49 The Joey gave its mother a nice gift. Lo Joey ha dato un buon regalo a sua madre. The Joey gave a good present to his mother.
50 The student will take a break from school today, and she will play on the beach all day. La studentessa fara una pausa dalla scuola oggi, e lei giocherà sulla spiaggia tutto il giorno. The student will today from the school a break make and she will play the entire day on the beach.
51 The boy would have ridden the horse, but he could not find a saddle. Il ragazzo avrebbe cavalcato, ma non poteva trovare una sella. The boy would have ridden the horse, but not could find a saddle.
52 The man swept up all the cash that had fallen from the money tree. L’uomo ha raccolto tutti i soldi che sono caduti dall’albero dei soldi. The man gathered all of the money that had fallen from the tree of money.
53 Joe would eat pizza all day if his mother would let him. Giuseppe mangiarebbe pizza tutto il giorno se sua madre lo permetesse. Joe would eat pizza all the day if his mother it would allow.
54 The mouse was waiting for the dynamite to explode, when the fuse went out. Il topo aspettava che esplodesse il dinamite, quando la valvola si è spenta. The mouse was waiting that exploded the dinamite when the fuse went out.
55 If Tony had had more time, he would have talked about North America all day. Se Toni avesse avuto più tempo, lui avrebbe parlato dell’America del Nord per tutto il giorno. If Tony had had more time, he would have talked about Americ of the North for all of the day.
56 The girl was riding the horse in the rain.
She likes to do that. La ragazza cavalcava nella pioggia.
A lei piace fare ciò. The girl was riding the horse in the rain.
To her it pleases to do that.
57 Thomas is a joker who likes to play practical jokes on his older brother.
If he catches him, he will be in trouble. Tommaso è un birichino a cui piace fare scherzi al suo fratello maggiore.
Se lo prende, sara nei guai. Thomas is a joker to whom it pleases to do jokes on his brother older.
If he catches him, he will be in woe.
58 If the boy gets any free time, he will play with his toy rocket. Se il ragazzo trova del tempo libero, lui giochera con il suo razzo. If the boy finds some free time, he will play with his rocket.
59 Annie likes to throw snowballs at her friend Rebecca. Ad Annie piace lanciare palle di neve alla sua amica Rebecca. To Annie it pleases to throw balls of snow at her friend Rebecca.
60 Henry is sad when his video game comes to an end. Enrico è triste quando il suo video gioco finisce. Henry is sad when his video game finishes.
61 Brett owns a theater that is always sold out.
He is almost a millionaire. Brett è proprietario di un teatro che sempre vende fuori.
Lui è quasi un milliardario. Brett is the owner of a theater that always sells out.
He is almost a millionare.
62 My uncle is a hard worker.
He has been laying tile for my mother all day.
He must be tired, but still, he smiles as he works. Mio zio è uno sgobbone.
Lui istalla matonelle per mia madre tutto il giorno.
Lui deve essere stanco, ma ancora lui sorride mentre lavora. My uncle is a hard worker.
He installs tiles for my mother all the day.
He must be tired, but still he smiles as he works.
63 The diver was so excited when he discovered the treasure chest.
He had dreamed of this for years. Il tuffatore era cosi emozionato quando lui ha scoperto il baule di tesoro.
Lui avevo sognato di questo per anni. The diver was so excited when he discovered the chest of treasure.
He had dreamed of this for years.
64 The student has been reading for more than three hours.
His bottom is getting sore. Lo studente sta leggendo da più di tre ore.
Gli duole il sedere. The student is reading for more than three hours.
To him it pains him his bottom.
65 My aunt had taken a bath every day before the frog jumped into the tub with her.
Now, she will only take a shower. Mia zia aveva fatto un bagno ogni giorno prima che la rana saltasse nella vasca con lei.
Adesso, lei fara soltanto la doccia. My aunt had taken a bath every day before the frog jumped into the tub with her.
Now, she will take only the shower.
66 The Arab would have paid less for the pitcher, but the salesman told him that there was a genie inside, and took advantage of him. L’Arabo avrebbe pagato di meno per la brocca, pero il venditore gli ha detto che c’era un genio la dentro, e si è approfitato di lui. The Arab would have payed less for the pitcher, but the salesman to him told that there was a genie inside, and took advantage of him.
67 Sally likes to go shopping with her neighbor, Cindy.
Today they bought enough groceries to have a great birthday party for their cousin, Robert. A Sally piace fare le spese con la sua vicina, Cindy.
Oggi hanno fatto spese abbastanza per fare una grande festa di complianno per loro cugino, Roberto. To Sally it pleases to do shopping with her neighbor, Cindy.
Today they have done shopping enough to do a great party of birthday for their cousin, Robert.
68 Jack is very smart.
His intelligence is famous throughout the entire elementary school. Jack è molto intelligente.
La sua intelligenza è famosa in tutta la scuola elementare. Jack is very smart.
His intelligence is famous in all of the school elementary.
69 When Andy turned 40, he screamed.
He would have cried all day, but later that day, he got word that he had won the state lottery for 25 million dollars. Quando Andy ha compiuto quaranta anni, lui ha gridato.
Lui avrebbe pianto tutto il giorno, ma più tardi quel giorno lui ha saputo che aveva vinto il lotto per 25 millioni di dollari. When Andy fulfilled 40 years, he screamed.
He would have cried all the day, but later that day he found out that he had won the lottery for 25 million dollars.
70 The cousins ate ice cream as they waited for the bus.
They were very excited about going to the movies together. I cugini mangiavono gelato mentre aspettavano l’autobus.
Loro erano molto emozionati di andare al cinema insieme. The cousins ate ice cream as they waited for the bus.
They were very excited to go to the cinema together.
71 Tania loves Billy.
She hopes to marry him someday.
However, Billy does not know that Tania exists. Tania ama Billy.
Lei spera sposarsi con lui un giorno.
Cionondimeno, Billy non sa che Tanie esiste. Tania loves Billy.
She hopes to marry herself with him one day.
However, Billy not knows that Tania exists.
72 If Paul gets rescued, he will be very happy.
If he spends one more day on that island, he will go crazy. Se Paulo viene salvato, lui sara molto felice.
Se lui trascorre un giorno di più su quell’isola, lui impazzira. If Paul gets saved, he will be very happy.
If he spends one day more on that island, he will go crazy.
73 I told the alligator to have a good time at the beach party.
He is a reptile who knows how to enjoy himself. Ho detto all’aligatore di divertirsi alla festa sulla spiaggia.
Lui è un rettile che sa divertirsi. I said to the alligator to have fun at the party on the beach.
He is a reptile that knows how to have fun.
74 The general told the new soldier to practice shooting all day.
The soldier could not hit the target no matter how hard he tried. Il generale ha detto al soldato di praticare a tirare tutto il giorno.
Il soldato non poteva colpire il bersaglio anche se provava molto duro. The general told the soldier to practice to shoot all the day.
The soldier not could hit the target even if he tried very hard.
75 Jack and Jill love to pedal the boat all around the lagoon.
I hope that they don’t get sunburned. Jack e Jill amano pedalare nella barca attorno la laguna.
Io spero che non prendano una scottatura del sole. Jack and Jill love to pedal in the boat around the lagoon.
I hope that they don’t get a burn of the sun.
76 The weight lifter wants people to notice his big muscles. Il WEIGHT LIFTER vuole che la gente faccia caso ai suoi grandi muscoli. The weight lifter wants people to notice his big muscles.
77 The bee likes to get nectar from the flowers.
Yesterday, he was in the garden for at least four hours buzzing around. All’ape piace prendere il nettare dai fiori.
Ieri, lui era nel giardino per al meno quattro ore ronzando in giro. To the bee it pleases to take nectar from the flowers.
Yesterday, he was in the garder for at least four hours buzzing around.
78 The seesaw goes up and down. Il SEESAW va su e giù. The seesaw goes up and down.
79 The merry-go-round makes me very dizzy.
I can’t stand to watch it any more. La giostra mi fa venire i vertigini.
Non ce la faccio più a guardarla. The merry-go-round to me makes to come dizziness.
I can’t stand anymore to watch it.
80 The man went up the ladder, then he went down the ladder.
He must have done that twenty times today. L’uomo ha salito la scala, poi lui è sceso la scala.
Lui l’ha fatto forse venti volte oggi. The man went up the ladder, then he went down the ladder.
He it did maybe twenty times today.
81 I told Peter not to eat any more cookies.
I don’t want him to get fat.
He needs to stay skinny. Io ho detto a Pietro di non mangiare più biscotti.
Io non voglio che lui ingrassi.
Lui ha bisogno di rimanere magro. I told to Peter to not eat more cookies.
I don’t want that he get fat.
He has need to remain skinny.
82 Terri’s mother told her to write daily.
Sometimes Terri forgets, and her mother gets very sad. La madre di Terri le ha detto di scrivere ogni giorno.
A volte Terri dimentica, e sua madre s’intristisce molto. The mother of Terri to her said to write every day.
Sometimes Terri forgets, and her mother gets sad very.
83 Yesterday, Jack’s Father told him to rake the leaves, but Jack forgot.
So, his father told him not to go to the movies with his friends for a whole week. Ieri, il padre di Jack gli ha detto di rastrellare le foglie, ma Jack ha dimenticato.
Quindi, suo padre gli ha detto di non andare al cinema con i suoi amici per una settimana intera. Yesterday, the father of Jack to him told to rake the leaves, but Jack forgot.
So, his father to him told to not go to the cinema with the his friends for a week entire.
84 Mary asked the waiter to bring her a cup of coffee.
The waiter was happy to do so. Maria ha chiesto al cammeriere una tazza di caffé.
Il cammeriere era felice di farlo. Mary asked to the waiter a cup of coffee.
The waiter was happy to do it.
85 The children like to jump rope.
Their parents told them all to have a good time, and to play nicely together.
Ai bambini piace fare salta corda.
I loro genitori gli hanno detto di divertirsi, e di giocare bene insieme. To the children it pleases to do jump rope.
The their parents to them said to have fun, and to play well together.
86 The cowboy was riding his horse backwards.
Somebody paid him five dollars to do that. Il cowboy cavalcava al rovescio.
Qualcuno l’ha pagato cinque dollari di farlo. The cowboy rode on his horse backwards.
Somebody to him payed five dollars to do it.
Translation - English WAV
1002 English Italian Literal Translation
1 I speak. Io parlo. I speak.
2 my friend il mio amico the my friend
3 with my friend con il mio amico with the my friend
4 I speak with my friend. Io parlo con il mio amico. I speak with the my friend.
5 I am talking with my friend. Io sto parlando con il mio amico. I am talking with the my friend.
6 I am speaking with my friend. Io sto parlando con il mio amico. I am speaking with the my friend.
7 You are talking with my friend. Tu stai parlando con il mio amico. You are talking with the my friend.
8 He speaks with my friend. Lui parla con il mio amico. He speaks with the my friend.
9 All of you are speaking with my friend. Tutti voi state parlando con il mio amico. You all are speaking with the my friend.
10 They are speaking with my friend. Loro stanno parlando con il mio amico. They are speaking with the my friend.
11 We are speaking with my friend. Noi stiamo parlando con il mio amico. We are speaking with the my friend.
1 The green monster slobbers.
He has six crazy eyes; however, he is very friendly. Il mostro verde sbava.
Lui ha sei occhi pazzi; pero lui è molto amichevole. The green monster slobbers.
He has six eyes crazy, but he is very friendly.
2 You are a great bowler.
Tu sei un bravo giocatore di bocce.
You are a great player of bowling.
3 My favorite number is zero.
It looks like a wheel to me. Il mio numero preferito è zero.
Mi sembra come una ruota.
My number favorite is zero.
To me it seems like a wheel.
4 The boy has a big number three.
It is yellow and very soft. Il ragazzo ha un grande numero tre.
È giallo e molto morbido. The boy has a big number three.
It is yellow and very soft.
5 I like to shake hands.
I see two hands. Mi piace stringere le mani.
Io vedo due mani. To me it pleases to shake hands.
I see two hands.
6 In pool, you don’t want to knock in the eight ball because if you do, you will lose the game. Quando giochi a billiardi, non vuoi tirare la palla otto perché se lo farai, perderai il gioco. When you play pool you don’t want to shoot the eight ball because if you will do it you will loose the game.
7 I think that the number seven is very lucky.
What is your lucky number? Io penso che il numero sete porti fortuna.
Quale numero ti porta fortuna? I think that the number seven brings luck.
Which number brings you luck?
8 Have you ever found a four-leaf clover? Hai mai trovato un trifoglio con quattro foglie? Have you ever found a clover with four leaves?
9 The number one has a red and white stripe. Il numbero uno ha una striscia rossa e bianca. The number one has a stripe red and white.
10 I have nine classmates that I play with at school. Io ho nove colleghi di classe con cui io gioco a scuola. I have nine classmates with whom I play at school.
11 Most hands have four fingers and one thumb, which make five digits. La maggior parte delle mani ha quattro dita e una pollice, cioé cinque digiti. The most part of hands have four fingers and a thumb, that is five digits.
12 The puzzle of the United States has fifty pieces.
I want to put it together. Lo puzzle degli Stati Uniti ha cinquanta pezzi.
Io voglio metterlo insieme. The puzzle of the United States has fifty pieces.
I want to put it together.
13 Let’s buy some food for the monkeys!
And don’t forget the fish! Compriamo del cibo per le scimmie.
E non dimenticare i pesci! We buy some food for the monkeys.
And don’t forget the fish (plural)!
14 The boy wants to trade with the monkey.
But the monkey does not want to give up his banana. Il ragazzo vuole commerciare con la scimmia.
Pero la scimmia non vuole perdere la sua banana.
The boy wants to trade with the monkey.
But the monkey doesn’t want to loose his banana.
15 The beaver is very proud to be a Canadian. Il castoro è molto fiero di essere un canadese. The beaver is very proud to be a Canadian.
16 Peter is so happy because his mother just bought him a shiny new horn. Pietro è cosí felice perché sua madre gli ha appena comprato un nuovo corno risplendente. Peter is so happy because his mother for him bought a new horn shiny.
17 Oh no, now I am all wet.
Somebody needs to fix the water fountain. Managgia, adesso sono tutto bagnato.
Qualcuno deve riparare la fontana d’acqua. Oh no, now I am all wet.
Somebody must repair the fountain of water.
18 This pig has a mop and is eager to mop the floor.
What a nice pig. Questo maiale ha uno straccio e ha voglia di pulire il pavimento.
Quale maiale gentile. This pig has a mop and has desire to clean the floor.
What a pig nice.
19 I think that bullfights are so dangerous.
I like to cheer for the poor bull. Io penso che le correde siano cosí pericolosi.
Mi piace tifare per il povero toro. I think that bullfights are so dangerous.
To me it pleases to chear for the poor bull.
20 The worker is checking the luggage to make sure it does not contain anything dangerous. L’operaio sta controllando i baggagli per assicurarsi che non contengono qualcosa di pericoloso. The worker is checking the luggage for to make sure that they don’t contain something dangerous.
21 Oh no! The sword is in the fencer’s rear end. Caspita! La spada è nel sedere dello schermidore. Oh,no! The sword is in the rear end of the fencer.
22 The boy is losing the game of checkers, and he really wants to win. Il ragazzo sta perdendo la partita di dama, e lui vuole vincere veramente. The boy is losing the game of checkers, and he wants to win really.
23 This man is crazy, and he likes to talk on the telephone in the shower.
He must have a waterproof phone! Quest’uomo è pazzo, e gli piace parlare al telefono nella doccia.
Il suo telefono deve essere resistente all’acqua! This man is crazy, and to him it pleases to talk on the phone in the shower.
His telephone must be resistent to water!
24 The boys have so much fun when they fly kites. I ragazzi si divertano cosí tanto quando volano gli aquiloni. The boys have fun so much when they fly the kites.
25 Hang on, hang on!
A helicopter is on the way to save you! !
Un elicottero viene a salvarti! !
A helicopter is coming to save you!
26 Oh no, the boy licked the toaster, and now his tongue is stuck to the toaster. Managgia, il ragazzo ha leccato il tostapane, e ora la sua lingua si è appiccicata al tostapane. Oh, no, the boy licked the toaster, and now his tongue has stuck to the toaster.
27 John loves the fall because he gets to rake leaves and makes a lot of money. Giovanni ama l’autunno perché ha l’opportunità di rastrellare le foglie e guadagnare molti soldi. John loves the fall because he has the opportunity to rake the leaves and to make a lot of money.
28 The mouse wants to eat the cheese, but he knows that it is in a trap.
Smart mouse! Il topo vuole mangiare il formaggio, pero sa che è in una trappola.
Topo furbo! The mouse wants to eat the cheese, but he knows that it is in a trap.
Cunning/Shrewd mouse!
29 The little boy is very happy because he has a pet bird.
I hope the bird does not fly away.
If so, he will be so sad. Il piccolo ragazzo è molto felice perché ha un uccello domestico.
Io spero che l’uccello non voli via.
Se succede, lui sara cosí triste. The little boy is very happy because he has a bird domestic.
I hope that the bird does not fly away.
If it happens, he will be so sad.
30 The arrow hit the bull’s-eye.
The archer is very skilled. La freccia ha colpito l’oblò.
L’arciere è molto esperto. The arrow hit the bull’s-eye.
The archer is very skilled.
31 The boy is climbing the rope.
I hope he doesn’t fall. Il ragazzo si sta arrampicando sul fune.
Io spero che non cada. The boy is climbing the rope.
I hope that he doesn’t fall.
32 The leprechaun is inside a pot of gold.
He is so rich! Il leprechaun è dentro una pentola pieno d’oro.
Lui è cosí ricco. The leprechaun is in a pot full of gold.
He is so rich.
33 The woman’s husband is moving the sofa.
His back hurts, but he wants to please his wife. Il marito della donna sta spostando il divano.
Gli fa male la schiena, pero vuole fare piacere a sua moglie.
The husband of the woman is moving the couch.
To him it does bad the back, but he wants to make pleasure to his wife.
34 The boy has been fishing all day.
He hopes to catch a lot of fish. Il ragazzo pescava tutto il giorno.
Lui spera prendere molti pesci. The boy was fishing all the day.
He hopes to take many fish.
35 The passenger is snoring in the taxi.
This is a bad manner. Il passagero sta russando nel taxi.
Questo è mal usanza. The passenger is snoring in the Taxi.
This is a bad manner.
36 The friends like to ice skate. Agli amici piace fare pattinaggio sul giaccio. To the friends it pleases to do skating on the ice.
37 There is a fierce storm.
Luke needs to get inside before he is struck by lightning. C’è una burrasca ardente.
Luca deve andare dentro prima che sia fulminato. There is a storm fierce.
Luke must go in before he is struck by lightning.
38 Jessica likes to work in her garden, and her favorite vegetables are carrots. A Jessica piace lavorare nel suo giardino, e le sue verdure preferite sono le carrote. To Jessica it pleases to work in the her garder, and the her vegetables favorite are the carrots.
39 Marie is afraid that Paul has no idea what he is doing, and that he might saw her in half! Maria ha paura che Paulo non abbia nessun idea di quello che fa, e che forse lui potrebbe segarla in due. Marie has fear that Paul doesn’t have any idea of that which he does, and that maybe he her will saw in two.
40 Steven likes to play with his puppets.
He hopes to be a famous puppeteer someday. A Stefano piace giocare con i suoi burattini.
Lui spera di diventare un giorno un burattinaio famoso. To Steven it pleases to play with his puppets.
He hopes one day, a famous puppeteer to be.
41 The woman is going to pour the lemonade on the head of her son. La donna sta per versare la limonata sulla testa di suo figlio. The woman is about to pour the lemonade on the head of her son.
42 The teenager loves to sing rock and roll songs, and play in front of large, screaming crowds. L’adolescente ama cantare canzoni di rock and roll, e suonare davanti a grandi folle urlanti. The adolescent loves to sing songs of rock and roll, and to play in front of large crowds screaming.
43 When the coach gave Johnny a chance, the little boy missed the ball. Quando l’allenatore ha dato a Gianni un chance, il piccolo ragazzo ha mancato la palla. When the trainer gave to Johnny a chance, the little boy missed the ball.
44 The Indian girl made a blanket for her grandmother. La ragazza indiana ha fatto una coperta per sua nonna. The girl Indian made a blanket for her grandma.
45 The tourist was eating the corn when he realized that he had missed his flight home. Il tourista mangiava il mais quando si è reso conto di aver mancato il suo volo. The tourist was eating the corn when he realized to have missed the his flight.
46 The grapes have been picked from the vine. Le uva sono state colte dalla vigna.
The grapes have been gathered from the vine.
47 The man would have watched TV all day, but his daughter needed his help with her homework. L’uomo avrebbe guardato la televisione tutto il giorno, ma sua figlia aveva bisogno del suo aiuto con i suoi compiti. The man would have watched the television all the day, but his daughter had need of his help with her assignments.
48 The girl was building a snowman when her friend called her on the phone. La ragazza faceva un pupazzo di neve quando la sua amica le ha telefonato. The girl was making a puppet of snow when the her friend to her called.
49 The Joey gave its mother a nice gift. Lo Joey ha dato un buon regalo a sua madre. The Joey gave a good present to his mother.
50 The student will take a break from school today, and she will play on the beach all day. La studentessa fara una pausa dalla scuola oggi, e lei giocherà sulla spiaggia tutto il giorno. The student will today from the school a break make and she will play the entire day on the beach.
51 The boy would have ridden the horse, but he could not find a saddle. Il ragazzo avrebbe cavalcato, ma non poteva trovare una sella. The boy would have ridden the horse, but not could find a saddle.
52 The man swept up all the cash that had fallen from the money tree. L’uomo ha raccolto tutti i soldi che sono caduti dall’albero dei soldi. The man gathered all of the money that had fallen from the tree of money.
53 Joe would eat pizza all day if his mother would let him. Giuseppe mangiarebbe pizza tutto il giorno se sua madre lo permetesse. Joe would eat pizza all the day if his mother it would allow.
54 The mouse was waiting for the dynamite to explode, when the fuse went out. Il topo aspettava che esplodesse il dinamite, quando la valvola si è spenta. The mouse was waiting that exploded the dinamite when the fuse went out.
55 If Tony had had more time, he would have talked about North America all day. Se Toni avesse avuto più tempo, lui avrebbe parlato dell’America del Nord per tutto il giorno. If Tony had had more time, he would have talked about Americ of the North for all of the day.
56 The girl was riding the horse in the rain.
She likes to do that. La ragazza cavalcava nella pioggia.
A lei piace fare ciò. The girl was riding the horse in the rain.
To her it pleases to do that.
57 Thomas is a joker who likes to play practical jokes on his older brother.
If he catches him, he will be in trouble. Tommaso è un birichino a cui piace fare scherzi al suo fratello maggiore.
Se lo prende, sara nei guai. Thomas is a joker to whom it pleases to do jokes on his brother older.
If he catches him, he will be in woe.
58 If the boy gets any free time, he will play with his toy rocket. Se il ragazzo trova del tempo libero, lui giochera con il suo razzo. If the boy finds some free time, he will play with his rocket.
59 Annie likes to throw snowballs at her friend Rebecca. Ad Annie piace lanciare palle di neve alla sua amica Rebecca. To Annie it pleases to throw balls of snow at her friend Rebecca.
60 Henry is sad when his video game comes to an end. Enrico è triste quando il suo video gioco finisce. Henry is sad when his video game finishes.
61 Brett owns a theater that is always sold out.
He is almost a millionaire. Brett è proprietario di un teatro che sempre vende fuori.
Lui è quasi un milliardario. Brett is the owner of a theater that always sells out.
He is almost a millionare.
62 My uncle is a hard worker.
He has been laying tile for my mother all day.
He must be tired, but still, he smiles as he works. Mio zio è uno sgobbone.
Lui istalla matonelle per mia madre tutto il giorno.
Lui deve essere stanco, ma ancora lui sorride mentre lavora. My uncle is a hard worker.
He installs tiles for my mother all the day.
He must be tired, but still he smiles as he works.
63 The diver was so excited when he discovered the treasure chest.
He had dreamed of this for years. Il tuffatore era cosi emozionato quando lui ha scoperto il baule di tesoro.
Lui avevo sognato di questo per anni. The diver was so excited when he discovered the chest of treasure.
He had dreamed of this for years.
64 The student has been reading for more than three hours.
His bottom is getting sore. Lo studente sta leggendo da più di tre ore.
Gli duole il sedere. The student is reading for more than three hours.
To him it pains him his bottom.
65 My aunt had taken a bath every day before the frog jumped into the tub with her.
Now, she will only take a shower. Mia zia aveva fatto un bagno ogni giorno prima che la rana saltasse nella vasca con lei.
Adesso, lei fara soltanto la doccia. My aunt had taken a bath every day before the frog jumped into the tub with her.
Now, she will take only the shower.
66 The Arab would have paid less for the pitcher, but the salesman told him that there was a genie inside, and took advantage of him. L’Arabo avrebbe pagato di meno per la brocca, pero il venditore gli ha detto che c’era un genio la dentro, e si è approfitato di lui. The Arab would have payed less for the pitcher, but the salesman to him told that there was a genie inside, and took advantage of him.
67 Sally likes to go shopping with her neighbor, Cindy.
Today they bought enough groceries to have a great birthday party for their cousin, Robert. A Sally piace fare le spese con la sua vicina, Cindy.
Oggi hanno fatto spese abbastanza per fare una grande festa di complianno per loro cugino, Roberto. To Sally it pleases to do shopping with her neighbor, Cindy.
Today they have done shopping enough to do a great party of birthday for their cousin, Robert.
68 Jack is very smart.
His intelligence is famous throughout the entire elementary school. Jack è molto intelligente.
La sua intelligenza è famosa in tutta la scuola elementare. Jack is very smart.
His intelligence is famous in all of the school elementary.
69 When Andy turned 40, he screamed.
He would have cried all day, but later that day, he got word that he had won the state lottery for 25 million dollars. Quando Andy ha compiuto quaranta anni, lui ha gridato.
Lui avrebbe pianto tutto il giorno, ma più tardi quel giorno lui ha saputo che aveva vinto il lotto per 25 millioni di dollari. When Andy fulfilled 40 years, he screamed.
He would have cried all the day, but later that day he found out that he had won the lottery for 25 million dollars.
70 The cousins ate ice cream as they waited for the bus.
They were very excited about going to the movies together. I cugini mangiavono gelato mentre aspettavano l’autobus.
Loro erano molto emozionati di andare al cinema insieme. The cousins ate ice cream as they waited for the bus.
They were very excited to go to the cinema together.
71 Tania loves Billy.
She hopes to marry him someday.
However, Billy does not know that Tania exists. Tania ama Billy.
Lei spera sposarsi con lui un giorno.
Cionondimeno, Billy non sa che Tanie esiste. Tania loves Billy.
She hopes to marry herself with him one day.
However, Billy not knows that Tania exists.
72 If Paul gets rescued, he will be very happy.
If he spends one more day on that island, he will go crazy. Se Paulo viene salvato, lui sara molto felice.
Se lui trascorre un giorno di più su quell’isola, lui impazzira. If Paul gets saved, he will be very happy.
If he spends one day more on that island, he will go crazy.
73 I told the alligator to have a good time at the beach party.
He is a reptile who knows how to enjoy himself. Ho detto all’aligatore di divertirsi alla festa sulla spiaggia.
Lui è un rettile che sa divertirsi. I said to the alligator to have fun at the party on the beach.
He is a reptile that knows how to have fun.
74 The general told the new soldier to practice shooting all day.
The soldier could not hit the target no matter how hard he tried. Il generale ha detto al soldato di praticare a tirare tutto il giorno.
Il soldato non poteva colpire il bersaglio anche se provava molto duro. The general told the soldier to practice to shoot all the day.
The soldier not could hit the target even if he tried very hard.
75 Jack and Jill love to pedal the boat all around the lagoon.
I hope that they don’t get sunburned. Jack e Jill amano pedalare nella barca attorno la laguna.
Io spero che non prendano una scottatura del sole. Jack and Jill love to pedal in the boat around the lagoon.
I hope that they don’t get a burn of the sun.
76 The weight lifter wants people to notice his big muscles. Il WEIGHT LIFTER vuole che la gente faccia caso ai suoi grandi muscoli. The weight lifter wants people to notice his big muscles.
77 The bee likes to get nectar from the flowers.
Yesterday, he was in the garden for at least four hours buzzing around. All’ape piace prendere il nettare dai fiori.
Ieri, lui era nel giardino per al meno quattro ore ronzando in giro. To the bee it pleases to take nectar from the flowers.
Yesterday, he was in the garder for at least four hours buzzing around.
78 The seesaw goes up and down. Il SEESAW va su e giù. The seesaw goes up and down.
79 The merry-go-round makes me very dizzy.
I can’t stand to watch it any more. La giostra mi fa venire i vertigini.
Non ce la faccio più a guardarla. The merry-go-round to me makes to come dizziness.
I can’t stand anymore to watch it.
80 The man went up the ladder, then he went down the ladder.
He must have done that twenty times today. L’uomo ha salito la scala, poi lui è sceso la scala.
Lui l’ha fatto forse venti volte oggi. The man went up the ladder, then he went down the ladder.
He it did maybe twenty times today.
81 I told Peter not to eat any more cookies.
I don’t want him to get fat.
He needs to stay skinny. Io ho detto a Pietro di non mangiare più biscotti.
Io non voglio che lui ingrassi.
Lui ha bisogno di rimanere magro. I told to Peter to not eat more cookies.
I don’t want that he get fat.
He has need to remain skinny.
82 Terri’s mother told her to write daily.
Sometimes Terri forgets, and her mother gets very sad. La madre di Terri le ha detto di scrivere ogni giorno.
A volte Terri dimentica, e sua madre s’intristisce molto. The mother of Terri to her said to write every day.
Sometimes Terri forgets, and her mother gets sad very.
83 Yesterday, Jack’s Father told him to rake the leaves, but Jack forgot.
So, his father told him not to go to the movies with his friends for a whole week. Ieri, il padre di Jack gli ha detto di rastrellare le foglie, ma Jack ha dimenticato.
Quindi, suo padre gli ha detto di non andare al cinema con i suoi amici per una settimana intera. Yesterday, the father of Jack to him told to rake the leaves, but Jack forgot.
So, his father to him told to not go to the cinema with the his friends for a week entire.
84 Mary asked the waiter to bring her a cup of coffee.
The waiter was happy to do so. Maria ha chiesto al cammeriere una tazza di caffé.
Il cammeriere era felice di farlo. Mary asked to the waiter a cup of coffee.
The waiter was happy to do it.
85 The children like to jump rope.
Their parents told them all to have a good time, and to play nicely together.
Ai bambini piace fare salta corda.
I loro genitori gli hanno detto di divertirsi, e di giocare bene insieme. To the children it pleases to do jump rope.
The their parents to them said to have fun, and to play well together.
86 The cowboy was riding his horse backwards.
Somebody paid him five dollars to do that. Il cowboy cavalcava al rovescio.
Qualcuno l’ha pagato cinque dollari di farlo. The cowboy rode on his horse backwards.
Somebody to him payed five dollars to do it.
French to English: From the H-Bomb to the Human Bomb
Source text - French André Glucksmann, first draft
De la Bombe H à la bombe humaine
Par quel mystère insondable, par quelle incommensurable naïveté, le passager du XXIème siècle se condamne-t-il à jouer le surpris quand la haine force sa porte ? La haine l’assaille du dehors autant qu’elle grogne en chacun. Il a déjà, directement ou non, et ses pères avant lui, et les pères de ses pères, vécu des guerres énormes, des révolutions totales et totalement meurtrières, des génocides spécialités du siècle qui l’a vu naître et croître. D’où vient qu’il s’est senti immunisé ? Le 11 septembre 2001, dans le petit matin new-yorkais, les Américains comptèrent plusieurs milliers des leurs assassinés d’un coup. Sans motif . Ils se trouvaient là, bêtement, sur place, au travail, au bistro, noir, blanc, jaune, femme de ménage ou banquier, pour soudain se découvrir jouets d’une volonté de tuer sans appel et sans tri.
By what impenetrable mystery or measureless naiveté does the passenger [traveler] (yes) of the twenty-first century condemn himself to act surprised when hate breaks down his door? Hatred assails him from without just as it seethes within each individual. He has already, along with his fathers and his fathers’ fathers, directly or indirectly experiences(d) enormous wars, total and totally murderous revolutions, and the genocides that were the speciality of the century whose birth and growth he witnessed. How is it then that he takes himself to have been immunized? September 11, 2001, in New York’s early morning, Americans saw several thousand of their own assassinated all at once. Without motive. There they were, unsuspecting, in their usual places, at work or at a café [bar/bistro], white, black, or yellow, (black, white or yellow?) housewife or banker, suddenly to find themselves the playthings of a will to kill without appeal and without discrimination.
Les citoyens des Etats Unis choqués, abasourdis, furent davantage stupéfaits de constater qu’une bonne majorité des citoyens du monde manifestaient touchant les auteurs du désastre une complaisante compréhension . Seul un reste de décence a retenu certains d’applaudir. D’aucuns néanmoins firent éclater leur joie. Des esthètes glosèrent sur le feu d’artifice qui venait d’engloutir pas mal de leurs semblables. Pourquoi tant de détestation ?
The shocked, stunned citizens of the United States were still more stupefied to discover that a fair majority of the citizens of the world exhibited a sympathetic understanding towards the authors of the disaster. Only a vestige of decency restrained some from applauding. Some nevertheless could not repress their joy. Esthetes waxed eloquent concerning the fireworks that had just consumed a fair number of their fellows. Why such detestation?
Un attentat n’est réussi que s’il taille dans la cervelle des survivants. Rendre fou le bourgeois, tel était déjà l’objectif de la « propagande par le fait » prêchée jadis par nos Ravachol de préfecture, lorsqu’une marmite infernale interrompait au café Terminus de Paris les parties de cartes et la langueur des valses. A la « Belle Epoque » comme aujourd’hui, le terroriste veut vaincre, pas convaincre. S’il frappe n’importe qui et massacre au hasard des êtres inoffensifs, c’est que son action paie, non point en donnant à penser, mais en empêchant de penser. Il sidère. Peu importent les idées, peu chaut le prétexte, « le sage amassera assez de dynamite pour faire sauter la planète. Quand elle roulera par morceaux... une satisfaction sera donnée à la conscience universelle, qui d’ailleurs n’existe pas ». Ainsi Anatole France résumait-il en toute ironie le catéchisme nihiliste des poseurs de bombes. Les Emile Henry version laïque et pointure amateur font désormais florès en version théologique.
An attempt does not succeed until it carves into the brain of the survivors. To drive the common man to madness, such was already the objective of the « propaganda by deed » once preached by our Ravachol of (police ?), when an infernal cauldron in the Terminus café of Paris interrupted the card games and the languor of the walz. During the « Belle Epoque » as today, the terrorist wants to win, not to convince. If he strikes anyone and randomly massacres innocent beings, it is because his action pays, not by provoking thought, but by preventing it. He flummoxes. Ideas do not matter, (peu chaut le pretext ?), « the wise man will amass enough dynamite to make the planet jump. When it rolls to pieces… satisfaction will be given to the universal conscience, who does not exist somewhere else ».
L’horizon d’Hiroshima
The horizon of Hiroshima
L’actualité s’annonce impitoyable. Les pouvoirs de l’inhumain et l’efficacité des haines mutent dangereusement. Une génération éprise d’écologie travaillait à « sortir du nucléaire », la voila à son insu poussée vers un horizon plus difficile à envisager que celui qu’elle rêvait d’exorciser. Il lui faut à nouveau frais penser l’impensable, quitter l’ère de la bombe H, passer à l’heure des bombes humaines.
Reality presents itself pitilessly. The inhuman powers and the effectiveness of hate change dangerously. One generation (eprise d’ecologie) worked toward « exiting the nuclear », la voila at its inception pushed toward a horizon more difficult to imagine the that which he dreamed of exorcising. It is necessary for him to (a nouveau frais) to think the unithinkable, leave the era of the H-bomb, and travel to the time of human bombs.
Tôt ou tard, de gré ou de force, nos catégories mentales et morales seront bousculées. Depuis Hiroshima, un demi siècle durant, la capacité inouïe de mettre un terme à l’aventure humaine demeura le privilège d’une, puis deux et finalement sept puissances nucléaires. Cinq milliards de terriens vaguement concernés vaquaient à leurs occupations en déléguant, démocratiquement ou non, à quelques « Grands » le soin ultime de leur survie. Cette confortable et générale insouciance parait désormais hors saison. A partir du 11 septembre 2001, chacun sait ce dont presque chacun serait capable. L’apocalyptique faculté de siffler la fin de partie, jadis dévolue aux Dieux, puis monopolisée par les super-puissances, tombe à portée du grand public. Si armé d’un simple cutter, je peux, tu peux, il peut détourner un avion et le précipiter sur le Pentagone, aucune centrale nucléaire ne parait hors d’atteinte. Le pouvoir dévastateur propriété des détenteurs de l’arme « absolue » se dissémine et tombe dans l’escarcelle du plus grand nombre.
Sooner or later, by (gre ?) or by force, our mental categories will be shaken (jostled, jolted ?). Since Hiroshima, a half century later, the unheard of capacity to put a term on the human adventure remained the privilege of one, then deux, and finally seven nuclear powers. Five million (terriens… earthlings ?) vaguely concerned (vaquaient… like bosser ?) in their occupations in delegating, domocratically or not, to some « greats » the ultimate care of their survival. This comfortable and general unworriedness ? seemed from then on out of season. Since Semptember 11, 2001 one knows that which one would be capable of. The apocalyptic ability to whistle the end of (partie),
Deux générations à peine nous séparent de la révélation d’Hiroshima qu’elles tentèrent au fil des décennies de neutraliser. Sur le coup, soufflé par l’inédit de l’évènement, Sartre opère, en nombreuse compagnie, une rupture de première grandeur, qu’il nous faut aujourd’hui réitérer : « la communauté qui s’est faite gardienne de la bombe atomique est au dessus du règne naturel car elle est responsable de sa vie et de sa mort : il faudra qu’à chaque jour, à chaque minute elle consente à vivre ». Cette responsabilité toute neuve est définitive. Elle vaut après comme avant Manhattan. Elle s’impose à qui croit au ciel et à qui n’y croit pas. « L’absolu est descendu sur la terre par la voie de la terreur », ose en écho le philosophe chrétien, Jean Guitton, ami du pape Paul VI. L’évènement casse l’histoire en deux, aussi décisif que la descente de croix. « Désormais la métaphysique et la morale ne sont plus reléguées dans les consciences privées. Elles ne dépendent plus des religions. Elles quittent le secret des consciences et des oratoires. Elles s’inscrivent dans l’expérience, dans la politique, dans les problèmes internationaux, dans les conquêtes stratégiques...Une évidence va remplacer la foi. Danger de mort, ces mots sont inscrits (invisiblement) partout ».
Cette inquiétante condition humaine, dès lors irréversiblement dotée du pouvoir de dynamiter le monde, est définie par sa capacité universelle d’homicide, donc de suicide. Sartre poursuit à chaud : « Il n’y a plus d’espèce humaine... après la mort de Dieu, voici qu’on annonce la mort de l’homme ». Mais très vite, on oublie, les consolations foisonnent. L’équilibre de la terreur tempère les angoisses des piétons comme des philosophes. La cohabitation au bord du gouffre parait relever du raisonnable. La perspective d’un néant égal pour les blocs rivaux glace les ardeurs belliqueuses. La guerre devient entre les Grands, mais entre eux seulement, « froide ».
La possibilité d’une paix dissuasive, fondée sur le risque partagé, ne tenait qu’à un fil, celui d’une hypothèse fragile que Sartre et ses contemporains espéraient acquise. « La bombe atomique, écrit-il, n’est pas à la disposition du premier venu, il faudrait que ce fou fut un Hitler ». Sur cet axiome optimiste, un demi-siècle a construit ses paix extérieures et intérieures. D’où un immense désarroi, quand une telle certitude se désagrège au grand jour. Les bombes humaines de Manhattan ont pris l’euphorique hypothèse dissuasive à contre-poil. Oui ! un pouvoir d’annihilation d’envergure nucléaire est devenu l’apanage d’un quelconque premier venu. Oui ! une volonté de dévastation équivalente aux rêves nazis s’acharne sur les civils et promeut le massacre des innocents en argument suprême. Hitler en kit, do it yourself.
Comment contenir, raisonner, paralyser une bombe humaine ? Jadis le terrorisme relevait d’un bouquet de mesures répertoriées avec soin – répressions policières, précautions économiques et sociales, procédures pédagogiques. Aujourd’hui un défi sans frontières interpelle hic et nunc nos raisons de vivre, nos espérances de survie et notre courage devant la mort. Il nous éduque plus qu’il ne se laisse éduquer. Il interroge chacun dans son rapport aux autres, au monde, à lui-même. Il est devenu notre problème philosophique n°1.
Freudienne désillusion
L’histoire contemporaine se noue autour d’inattendues fractures. Le 11septembre n’est que la dernière du genre. Des révélations fortes à vous couper le souffle font advenir la face calcinée d’une condition humaine, trop troublante, trop sidérante pour être perçue et reconnue en temps ordinaires. Peu nombreux , mais décisifs, des moments de vérité, de « dévoilement », court-circuitent les opinions courantes. Les traditions respectées cèdent devant une fulguration plus forte qu’elles. L’évènement éclate, dit-on, comme l’éclair dans un ciel serein. On parle alors de tempête, puis de naufrage. Ces pauvres métaphores traduisent mal rétrospectivement l’irrésistible emballement des journées d’Août 14, qui virent plonger dans l’abîme une Europe et une Belle Epoque, éclairées, inconscientes, tranquilles.
La déclaration de guerre, l’enthousiasme inattendu, la mobilisation joyeuse de toutes parts bouleversèrent de fond en comble les fondations matérielles, économiques et sociales du vieux continent, le péquin est touché dans sa chair et son esprit, ébranlé dans ses convictions et sa foi. L’époustouflant renversement des valeurs ne vient au jour qu’après coup, et petit à petit. Freud , parmi les premiers, dès 1915, décèle la prodigieuse « désillusion », le rejet « de toutes les limitations auxquelles on se soumet en temps de paix ». La « rage aveugle », que loge à leur insu nos civilisations, « renverse tout ce qui lui barre la route, comme si après elle il ne devait y avoir pour les hommes ni avenir ni paix ». Et l’inventeur de la psychanalyse de détecter au coeur de la condition humaine une énigmatique « pulsion de mort ». Elle creuse en silence, au delà du principe de plaisir, lovée sous les bruyantes roucoulades et fourberies d’Eros.
Quatre ans plus tard, la paix signée, rien n’est réglé. Comme l’avant-guerre parut jobard aux gueules cassées et aux revenants des tranchées ! On ne pouvait plus écrire, poétiser, philosopher, prier et politiser en rond comme avant. Ceux qui s’obstinaient à sacrifier aux bonnes pensées dormitives furent en moins de vingt ans balayés. « Les cons ! », chuchote Daladier plébiscité par les Français pour avoir sauvé « la paix » en cédant devant l’Allemagne nazie. L’ébranlement de 14-18 n’avait produit que des quarts de vérité. L’histoire répéta en pire ses tragiques avertissements.
L’homme sans visage
La Deuxième guerre mondiale à peine close, l’exigence de penser contre son passé fit immédiatement surface. Revue phare des années 50, les « Temps Modernes » allaient donner le la pour une génération entière, quitte à se déchirer autour des enjeux fixés par les deux directeurs de la publication Merleau-Ponty et Jean Paul Sartre.
Le premier, dès le numéro inaugural, en 1945, enterre peu respectueusement, sans fleurs et sans couronnes, les maîtres à penser qui avaient bercé ses somnambuliques études. « On nous invitait ,à retrouver le moment où la guerre de Troie pouvait encore n’avoir pas lieu... Nous savions que les camps de concentration existaient, que les juifs étaient persécutés, mais ces certitudes appartenaient à l’univers de la pensée. Nous ne vivions pas encore en présence de la cruauté et de la mort, nous n’avions jamais été mis dans l’alternative de les subir ou de les affronter ».
Le second, à quelques pages de distance, enfonce le clou. « Nous avons cru sans preuve que la paix était l’état naturel et la substance de l’univers, que la guerre n’était qu’une agitation temporaire de sa surface. Aujourd’hui nous reconnaissons notre erreur : la fin de la guerre c’est tout simplement la fin de cette guerre ». Et s’il en allait de même , aujourd’hui, en fin de guerre froide ?
On peut douter que les oeuvres et les engagements d’après 1945, bientôt antagoniques, qui suivirent aient répondu ou seulement correspondu à la radicalité de la question posée. Par deux fois, en un siècle, l’interrogation forée par des conflits inouïs s’est retrouvée plus importante, plus profonde, plus décisive que les réponses, servies à la va-vite, déclinées par l’élite pensante pour s’innocenter et consoler des âmes fragiles. Les réponses camouflaient le vertige. La question, elle, renvoyait l’image véridique, brouillée et déchirée, de l’homme et d’une humanité réduits à néant. « Il est généralement dans le fait d’être homme un élément lourd, écoeurant, qu’il est nécessaire de surmonter. Mais ce poids et cette répugnance n’ont jamais été aussi lourds que depuis Auschwitz. Comme vous et moi, les responsables d’Auschwitz avaient des narines, une bouche, une voix, une raison humaine, ils pouvaient s’unir, avoir des enfants : comme les Pyramides ou l’Acropole, Auschwitz est le fait, est le signe de l’homme. L’image de l’homme est inséparable, désormais , d’une chambre à gaz »
Prêcheur amoral, censé ne s’offusquer de rien, gourmand du marquis de Sade, apôtre des transgressions les plus « épate-bourgeois » de son époque, Georges Bataille dresse le constat angoissé de ce qu’on commence, alors, à appeler « la mort de l’homme ». L’université occidentale s’était targuée, deux siècles durant, de répondre avec les Lumières aux questions critiques : que peut-on savoir ? Que doit-on faire ? Qu’est-il permis d’espérer ? Trois manières savantes, morales et religieuses de formuler, selon Kant, la question des questions : qu’est-ce que l’homme ?
Après 1918 et plus encore après 1945, l’image de l’homme devint inimaginable et l’idée de l’homme rien moins qu’équivoque. A la lumière sombre des charniers de plus en plus planétaires, une question préalable s’impose : qu’en est-il de l’inhumain de l’homme ? De quoi faut-il désespérer ? Questions premières.
Repérons en cet effet que Freud nomme « désillusion », et que je peux traduire aussi « désenchantement », la soudaine lucidité que la tourmente a provoquée ; elle s’irradie rétro-prospective, en deça et au delà de l’évènement proprement dit. Comme si débordant sur l’avant et l’après guerre, la bataille ne livrait pas seulement la vérité de l’être en uniforme, mais celle de l’homme tout court, tout nu. De l’homme expulsé des illusions d’une paix romaine ou moderne, extérieure et intérieure, garantie. Les terribles épreuves arrachent les individus à leurs abris fallacieux ; elles tirent l’individu de ses songeries rose-bonbon et somment la société d’abandonner une comique « Coucouville les Nuées » pour affronter la dureté tragique du principe de réalité. Dans le meilleur des cas, m’enseigne Eschyle , la leçon paie . On passe alors du « pathein » au « mathein », de la passion à la raison, ou, plus exactement, de l’expérience de la souffrance au savoir de cette expérience. Intelligence de la condition humaine, intelligence de ses limites.
Plus souvent, pourtant, on bute sur les limites de l’intelligence . A peine le gros de la tempête passé, on s’emploie à « tourner la page ». C’est à dire à replâtrer les illusions d’antan, à réhabiliter les voies sans issues, à redorer les clochers de « Coucouville ». On se détourne du principe de réalité et de ses vérités ni faciles à vivre ni bonnes à dire. On a tôt fait de refouler.
L’instant nihiliste
Qui est terroriste et qui ne l’est pas ?
Le despote ou l’envahisseur disent : sont terroristes toutes les opérations d’une guerre irrégulière menée par des combattants sans uniformes contre d’autres en uniformes. C’est la définition de Napoléon aux prises avec les guérillas espagnoles et russes, des nazis face aux mouvements de résistance.
Au contraire, je nomme terroriste l’attaque délibérée des civils menée par des hommes en armes contre des populations désarmées. Est terroriste l’agression ourdie contre des civils en tant que civils, inévitablement surpris et sans défense. Que les preneurs d’otages et les massacreurs d’innocents soient revêtus d’uniformes ou pas, emploient des armes blanches ou pas, ne change rien. Qu’ils se réclament d’idéaux sublimes, ne change rien non plus. Seule compte l’intention avérée, opérationnelle de dégommer n’importe qui. Le recours systématique à la voiture piégée, aux attentats suicide, tuant au hasard le plus de passants possible définit un style d’affrontement spécifique. Quand, après la chute de Saddam Hussein, les attentats terroristes se multiplient en Irak, ils n’épargnent d’entrée de jeu personne et surtout pas les Irakiens, les écolières dans les bus, les hommes et les femmes au marché, les enfants sur les trottoirs et les fidèles dans les églises.
Tandis que les naïfs, les faux naïfs et les salauds s’obstinent à pratiquer l’amalgame pour conforter leurs positions idéologiques préalables et baptisent « résistant » le tueur d’innocents, des esprits plus lucides, pas systématiquement pro-américains, loin de là, dévoilent un tout autre paysage stratégique. « Nihilisme » titrait un éditorial libanais, publié alors sous contrôle de l’occupant syrien, donc peu suspect de tendresses américanophile :
« l’opération d’hier contre le siège des Nations Unies à Bagdad relève de cette mentalité de la destruction. Expulsons tout médiateur. Bannissons chaque organisation internationale. Que la situation s’effondre. Que l’électricité et l’eau soient coupées. Que le pompage du pétrole s’arrête. Que le vol prévale. Que les universités et les écoles ferment. Que les affaires fassent faillite. Que la vie civile s’arrête. Et au bout du chemin l’occupation échouera. Non !, proteste Joseph Samara, au bout du chemin, ce sera une catastrophe pour l’Irak et une demande accrue pour que les Etats Unis restent. Il poursuit : « l’attaque contre le siège des Nations Unies à Bagdad appartient à un autre monde ; c’est une forme de nihilisme, d’absurdité et de chaos qui se cache derrière des slogans fallacieux, qui prouve la convergence entre les responsables de cette action, leur limitation intellectuelle et leur comportement criminel ».
Joseph Samara a raison, nous sommes entrés dans un autre monde . Il ne relève plus des anciennes catégories. La menace d’un nouveau Ground Zero, mini ou méga, avance masquée. Elle est par définition impalpable. La bombe humaine hérite de l’ancien terrorisme la prétention de frapper n’importe où, n’importe comment, n’importe quand. Elle étend désormais sur l’univers sa menace nocturne, invisible donc imprévisible, clandestine donc insituable, dans un jeu d’ombres où les rôles s’inversent sans cesse et filent entre les doigts. Le terroriste sans frontières nous rappelle à son souvenir là où nul ne l’attend. Sans l’accidentel retard sur les rails, quelques petites minutes, la pulvérisation des deux trains madrilènes, en gare d’ Atocha, promettait plus de 10.000 victimes, trois fois plus qu’à Manhattan. Puis ce fut Londres. A qui le tour ? Combien ? Et chacun d’attendre la prochaine explosion recroquevillé dans un cocon de plus en plus surréel.
VIETNAMISATION OU SOMALISATION ?
l’Irak pleure chaque jour ses brassées de civils égorgés, explosés, abattus par les nostalgiques sanguinaires de Saddam Hussein.
Le péché mental des militaires occidentaux fut longtemps de plonger dans les conflits du jour avec une guerre de retard. Cette aboulie atteint désormais les états-majors pacifistes qui s’étourdissent des pseudos leçons du passé en reprochant à Washington de s’enliser dans un « nouveau Vietnam ». Rien n’est plus naïf : Zarkhaoui n’était pas Ho Chi Minh. Aucune donnée géopolitique ne permet de plaquer sur l’actuelle confusion irakienne les schémas de la dernière grande guerre chaude de la guerre froide.
Ouvrons les yeux et faisons les comptes : chaque mois trois mille Irakiens tombent au hasard, victimes indiscriminées de terroristes irakiens. Le même chiffre, 3000, dénombre les soldats américains tués en 4 ans. En Irak, sévit une guerre de terreur contre les civils et non une guerre d’indépendance menée contre une armée d’ occupation étrangère et ses soutiens militaires autochtones. Nous avons changé d’époque, le Vietnam est loin. Ceux qui regrettent Woodstock, nostalgie compréhensible, veulent oublier qu’en 4O ans le monde a muté.
La menace qui pèse sur la société irakienne n’est pas une « vietnamisation », mais la « somalisation ». Souvenez-vous, patronnée par l’ONU, une troupe internationale débarque, Américains en tête, à Mogadiscio (Opération « Restore Hope », 1993). Il faut assurer la survie d’une population affamée et massacrée par des clans rivaux. Ayant perdu 19 des leurs dans un piège effrayant, les GI’s rembarquent. La suite est connue, Clinton échaudé jura « jamais plus » et refuse un an plus tard d’intervenir au Rwanda (avril 1994) – où il eut suffi de 5000 casques bleus pour interrompre le génocide qui emporta un million de Tutsis en trois mois (record d’Auschwitz battu rapport vitesse/nombre de victimes).
La suite de la suite n’est pas moins connue, la peste exterminatrice se répandit sur l’Afrique tropicale, on compte des millions de morts au Congo et alentours. Observez que les maîtres d’œuvre diffèrent. L’ONU est responsable au Timor. L’OTAN (avec une forte participation européenne) en Afghanistan. Le Pentagone en Irak. Pourtant les situations se recoupent, car l’adversité à contrôler et réduire est fondamentalement la même. Le modèle réduit somalien essaime sur la planète.
Prises en otages, effrayées, sacrifiées les populations deviennent butins de guerre des caïds locaux sans foi ni loi .Prétextant des bannières volatiles - religion, ethnie, idéologie bâclée raciste ou nationaliste, devoir de mémoire falsifié – des commandos se disputent le pouvoir à la pointe des kalachnikov. Ils se battent contre des populations désarmées, 95 percent des victimes sont des femmes et des enfants. Le terrorisme, défini comme l’attaque délibérée des civils en tant que tels, n’est pas l’apanage des seuls islamistes. . Remarquez que le procédé a été et reste employé par une armée régulière (bénie par des popes orthodoxes) et des milices aux ordres du Kremlin en Tchétchénie, où l’on dénombre des milliers d’enfants morts. Lorsque les tueurs se réclament du Coran, c’est encore les passants musulmans, qui agonisent. L’Algérie, La Somalie, Le Dafour sont des laboratoires in vivo de l’abomination des abominations : la guerre contre les civils.
Entre 1945 et 1989 ( date de la Chute du Mur de Berlin) la guerre entre les blocs fut froide, tant en Europe qu’en Amérique du Nord. Partout ailleurs fusèrent révolutions et contre-révolutions, coups d’état et massacres millionnaires. Jamais dans l’histoire, les sociétés humaines ne furent autant secouées qu’en ce court demi siècle où s’effondraient les injustes empires coloniaux, tandis que trop souvent les guerres de libération, soulèvements et insurrections accouchaient de nouveaux despotismes plus ou moins totalitaires. Dans la tourmente, les traditions millénaires valsaient. Régimes, coutumes et liens séculaires furent systématiquement détruits. Au sortir d’un tel séisme historico mondial, les deux tiers de nos semblables ont perdu leurs repères. Ils ne peuvent vivre comme avant. Et pas davantage (pas encore, dit l’optimiste) exister comme les citoyens tranquilles des états de droit occidentaux.
Aux quatre coins de notre univers se perpétuent des viviers de guerriers jeunes et moins jeunes, débraillés ou en uniforme, également avides de conquérir à tous prix logements, galons, femmes et richesses. Quitte à quadriller, à la mitrailleuse et au mortier, campagnes et méga-bidonvilles en faisant exploser voitures piégées et bombes humaines pour dominer sans partage. Quitte pour les Etats ambitieux et sans scrupules à puiser dans ces viviers de tueurs afin d’accéder ,en parrainant divers terrorismes, à la puissance par la nuisance. Au début de l’Allemagne de Weimar (1920), Ernst Von Salomon prophétisait « la guerre de 1914-18 est finie, mais les guerriers sont toujours là » et les demi soldes peuplèrent les sections d’assaut hitlériennes. A la chute de l’empire soviétique, le dissident Vladimir Boukovski avertit : « le dragon est mort, mais les dragonnades se répandent ». Et les ex-armées rouges dévastèrent l’une, sous Milosevic, l’ancienne Yougoslavie, l’autre, sous Eltsine et Poutine, le Caucase du Nord.
Eût-il mieux valu ne pas renverser Saddam Hussein en l’autorisant à compléter pendant une décennie supplémentaire son horrible palmarès de tortures, d’éclopés et de cadavres – un ou deux millions de victimes en un quart de siècle ? Les Irakiens malgré les menaces de meurtre se sont rendus aux urnes par trois fois, massivement, ils ne semblent pas regretter la chute du dictateur. Convient-il aujourd’hui que les GI’s et leurs alliés décampent illico comme en Somalie ? Même les gouvernements les plus anti-américains croisent les doigts pour qu’il n’en soit rien et que la coalition n’abandonne pas le terrain aux trancheurs de têtes.
Le combat pour éviter la « somalisation « de la planète commence tout juste et dominera probablement le XXIème siècle. S’ils résistent aux sirènes de l’isolationnisme, les Américains apprendront de leurs erreurs. L’Europe ou bien se résoudra à les aider, ou bien s’abandonnera aux bons soins du pétro-Tsar Poutine, prêt à gendarmer le vieux continent en prêchant le terrorisme antiterroriste, sa dévastation de la Tchétchénie à l’appui. Le défi sans frontières des guerriers émancipés esclaves de leur bon plaisir accorde peu de loisir à nos atermoiements. Il faut choisir. Soit on accepte la « somalisation » générale en cherchant refuge dans une illusoire forteresse euro asiatique. Soit on ressuscite une alliance démocratique, militaire et critique euro atlantique.
Le terroriste nouvelle donne s’affiche nihiliste. Sans tabous. Sans règle. Sans foi ni loi. Pourquoi dissimulerait-il sa haine effrénée ? Il la brandit comme une baguette magique. Elle décuple la frayeur qu’il diffuse. Aucune limite géographique, politique, morale, idéologique, ne trouve grâce à ses yeux. Il massacre les siens et pas moins l’étranger, les promeneurs et les militaires, les nourrissons, les fillettes et les vieillards. Dans cette permanente transgression de toute règle édictée par les us et coutumes, il affirme la terrible fureur, hybris grec, furor latine, où les anciens pointaient le ressort de la tragédie et la dynamique des catastrophes. Alors que le guerrier traditionnel s’échine à dompter en lui et contenir en l’autre une rage sauvage dont il veut rester maître et non finir esclave, le possédé d’aujourd’hui fait bloc avec sa fureur, sans distance, sans scrupule, sans retour en arrière.
La levée des interdits
Le propre du terroriste est de terroriser, énonce Lénine, maître incontesté en la matière. Le fin du fin réside dans l’inversion des facteurs . Mode d’emploi : je prends des otages, je leur tranche la tête, je l’exhibe ; ceux qui implorent quelque clémence doivent s’adresser à leurs gouvernants, seuls et véritables responsables de mes crimes ; mon hybris est leur problème. Plus elle s’annonce sans freins, davantage elle se donne à craindre et plus tôt vous plierez en pleurant.
« Pendant qu’Abou Rachid explique son « devoir de tuer », on se remémore les cris de bête de Nick Berg, l’otage américain, qui agonise pendant que ses bourreaux s’acharnent laborieusement sur son corps recroquevillé : « vous savez, quand nous décapitons, nous y prenons plaisir », tient à nous faire savoir en anglais l’un des hommes assis à la droite de l’émir... « Nous ne kidnappons pas pour effrayer ceux que nous retenons, corrige-t-il, mais pour exercer des pressions sur les pays qui aident ou s’apprêtent à aider les Américains. A quoi pensent-ils, ceux qui viennent dans un pays occupé ? ... Ce n’est pas une bonne chose que de décapiter. Mais c’est une méthode qui marche. Au cours des combats, les Américains tremblent. Et regardez la juste réaction des Philippines. Grâce à leur attitude, qui nous a permis de libérer notre otage, nous avons pu montrer au monde que nous aussi nous aimions la paix et la clémence... D’ailleurs, j’ai essayé de négocier l’échange de Nick Berg contre des prisonniers. Ce sont les Américains qui ont refusé. Ce sont eux les vrais responsables de sa mort »
L’hybris terroriste tire argument de ses pulsions incontrôlables : c’est plus fort que moi : cède ! Pareille stratégie de la rationalité de l’irrationnel ponctue les scènes de ménage et pave les cours de récréation – retiens moi ou je fais un malheur ! Le terroriste raffine, il fait durer son plaisir, il prolonge la mort , il égorge lentement, il martyrise la vie au delà d’elle-même. La mise en scène terroriste parle. Même au sourd qui refuse de l’entendre.
Ressusciter les morts, fut-ce en image vidéo, afin de les exécuter une seconde fois ; cette pulsion d’au-delà de la guerre qui la prolonge à l’infini de l’autre côté de la vie, c’est cela la haine pure. Laisser libre cours à l’hybris meurtrière, signale la tragédie antique, provoque la peste et programme l’enfer sur terre. Une guerre traditionnelle , si sauvage soit-elle, se termine. La guerre terroriste, en revanche, abandonnée à la fureur sans limites, ne connaît pas de cessez-le-feu.. Elle substitue à la démonstration de force la démonstration de haine, qui, nourrie de ses propres abominations, devient inextinguible.
Les animaux croqueurs de cadavres accourent empester la cité, insiste Sophocle. La maladie éminemment contagieuse est à prendre au pied de la lettre, la haine diffuse la peste, la peste s’inocule à tous adversaires et amis, la haine distille son venin en guise d’antidote. Infligeant sévices, tortures , humiliations à leurs prisonniers, des soldats, en principe civilisés, en viennent à traiter des vivants comme des morts pour franchir allègrement les frontières qui séparent la république du jour de la tyrannie de la nuit . « Qui–a-la-haine » ne connaît en lui et ne reconnaît autour de lui que l’infection qu’il propage comme une législation unique et universelle.
Le défi post-nucléaire
Les astrophysiciens repèrent, me suis-je laissé dire, dans l’immensité étoilée d’énormes « trous noirs » baladeurs. A leur contact des soleils lointains disparaissent avec leurs planètes, avalés par d’insondables bouches d’ombre. Depuis toujours, les civilisations humaines ont côtoyé d’analogues abîmes, d’où monte la préfiguration d’une fin de toutes choses. Dans la tradition, pareille annihilation implique une divinité jalouse ou vengeresse, parfois des démons malveillants. En termes plus sobres, les premiers penseurs de la Grèce antique ont évoqué une infinitude menaçant d’engloutir la vie et les vivants, comme à la manière de Mallarmé : « dans ces parages du vague en quoi toute réalité se dissout », l’océan impose au naufragé « la neutralité identique du gouffre ».
S’exerçant à penser les trous noirs qui menacent les sociétés, les comparant aux cataclysmes naturels, aux séismes, aux volcans et aux épidémies, les inventeurs de la philosophie occidentale refusaient d’y déceler une sanction surnaturelle et n’entendaient pas nier la responsabilité des mortels. Si dieu est hors de cause, soit parce qu’il n’existe pas, soit parce qu’il est trop loin, la flamme qui risque d’emporter l’humanité est humaine, irréductible à une fatalité impersonnelle et automatique. Le principe destructeur nous habite, que nous le sachions ou non, martèlent les auteurs tragiques. La haine rampe comme la « peste » de Thucydide, non pas une affection bubonique purement physiologique, mais un dérèglement essentiellement mental, qui s’empare des corps, des têtes et de la collectivité.
Inopinés et tâtonnants explorateurs du XXIème siècle naissant, n’avons-nous encore rien vu ? Peut-être viendrons-nous à considérer, avec nostalgie, la chance paradoxale du siècle passé qui pourtant écopa d’Auschwitz et d’Hiroshima .... mais séparément. Peut-être. Aurions-nous ignoré le pire à distinguer encore deux pôles d’infortune ? Peut-être. Le terrorisme nouvelle donne s’emploie à en mixer les ingrédients en mini-cocktails d’épouvante. Ce n’est qu’un début ? Peut-être.
La guerre froide suivait la logique intangible de l’affrontement entre deux camps et sacrifiait à une dualité indépassable des menaces. L’une était dissuasive, inter-blocs et d’annihilation réciproque. L’autre, terroriste, cantonnait à l’intérieur de chaque camp l’extermination sauvage des populations civiles. Conflit mondial et insurrections locales mobilisaient des haines implacables qui, pourtant, ne fusionnaient pas. Aujourd’hui, le terrorisme mondialisé élimine les frontières géostratégiques et les tabous traditionnels. Les dernières secondes des condamnés de Manhattan , d’Atocha et du métro de Londres nous ont transmis deux messages en un. « Ici abandonne toute espérance », injonction dantesque portée par une Bombe qui fait table rase. « Ici il n’y a pas de pourquoi », évangile nihiliste des SS à tête de mort. Hiroshima a signifié la possibilité technique, définitivement acquise, d’un désert de proche en proche absolu. Auschwitz, la poursuite délibérée, clairement assumée d’une annihilation totale. La conjonction de deux volontés de néant gargouille dans les trous noirs de la haine moderne.
Imre Kertesz, deux fois survivant, rescapé des camps de la mort et rescapé du communisme, sauvé par la littérature, premier prix Nobel de Hongrie, écrit : « on devrait un jour analyser la masse de ressentiments qui entraînent l’intelligence contemporaine à faire fi de la raison, on devrait entreprendre une histoire intellectuelle de la haine de l’intellect ».
Racismes, chauvinismes, fanatismes, les apparentes renaissances d’une agressivité qu’on croyait révolue étonnent. Ne faudrait-il pas s’étonner de cet étonnement ? La ronde des « faits divers » trop quotidiens indique la multitude des feux qui couvent sous la fragile paix civile . Ne sommes-nous pas trop polis pour être honnêtes ? Les régimes totalitaires tranchent, ils censurent les nouvelles déplaisantes, ils ont trouvé le bon moyen pour empêcher toute réflexion. Même chez nous, en bonne démocratie, les bien-pensants s’épuisent à n’en pas tenir compte. Le choix, fort compréhensible mais quelque peu malhonnête, de dormir tranquille à tous prix motive une obstination à refouler les durs rappels que l’actualité inflige.
Translation - English From the H-Bomb to the Human Bomb
André Glucksmann
Modern terrorism seeks to combine the annihilating power of Hiroshima with the nihilistic gospel of Auschwitz.
With what measureless naivety has the twenty-first-century democratic citizen managed to be surprised when hate breaks down his door? He has—along with his father and his father’s father—witnessed, directly or indirectly, wars, murderous revolutions, and the genocides that were the last century’s specialty. How could he believe himself immune? “Not here, not me,” he told himself. But then, on September 11, 2001, Americans saw several thousand of their own assassinated, for no reason. There they were, unsuspecting, in their usual places, at work or at a café, white, black, and yellow, housewife and banker, when they suddenly realized that they were targets of an indiscriminate, merciless will to kill.
A pitiless new day is dawning. The powers of the inhuman and the efficacy of hatreds mutate dangerously. A generation that worked diligently to tame the threat of nuclear war finds itself driven toward a horizon more frightening to contemplate than the one it dreamed of avoiding. Now it must try again to think the unthinkable, to leave the era of the H-bomb and enter the time of the human bomb.
Barely two generations separate us from the shock of Hiroshima, whose terrifying force we have tried over the decades to neutralize. At the time, overcome by the unprecedented event, Jean-Paul Sartre, along with many others, described a fundamental break in history: “The community that has made itself the custodian of the atomic bomb is above the natural realm, since it is responsible for life and death: it will now be necessary that each day, each minute, it consent to live.” Irreversibly endowed with the power to blow up the world, mankind became defined by its capacity for universal homicide, and thus for suicide. The previously unimaginable capacity to put an end to the human adventure remained the privilege first of a single nuclear power, then of two, and then of seven.
But soon, people grew used to the new condition. Coexistence on the edge of the cliff, a balance of terror, seemed more and more reasonable. The prospect of mutual annihilation for the rival powers chilled bellicose passions. Five billion vaguely concerned men and women attended to their affairs and delegated—democratically or not—the ultimate care for their survival to a small number of political leaders. For half a century, we fashioned our peace, both external and internal, according to Sartre’s fragile axiom: “The atomic bomb is not available to just anyone; the crazy person [who unleashed Armageddon] would have to be a Hitler.”
Great confusion understandably resulted when this certainty disintegrated before our eyes, exploded by human bombs in Manhattan. An annihilating power is available today, or will soon be available, to just about anyone; the destructive will of an enemy without borders, equivalent to Nazi dreams, targets civilians: this combination amounts to a do-it-yourself Hitler kit. How can one make sense of, how can one neutralize, a human bomb?
The history of our last 100 years consists of a number of unexpected ruptures, of which September 11 is the most recent. Revelations so powerful as to rob us of breath have confronted us with the scorched face of a human condition too troubling, too overwhelming, to perceive during ordinary times. Rare but decisive moments of truth have short-circuited current opinions. Respected traditions have yielded to the greater strength of a searing realization. The events broke out like lightning in a calm sky, like the storm before the shipwreck.
These poor metaphors inadequately represent the irresistible enthusiasm of August 1914, which plunged Belle Époque Europe—enlightened, unaware, and tranquil—into the abyss. The declaration of war, the unexpected zeal, the joyful mobilization on all sides—in the end, these overturned the material, economic, and social foundations of the old continent, wounding civilians in their flesh and in their spirit, shaking their convictions and their faith. But this amazing reversal of values came to light only after the fact, little by little. In 1915, Freud, among the first to describe it, unveiled the prodigious “disappointment” or “disillusion” of the war, a war that rejected “all the restrictions pledged in times of peace.” The “blind rage” that our civilizations unknowingly harbored “hurls down . . . whatever bars its way, as though there were to be no future and no peace after it is over.” The inventor of psychoanalysis detected at the heart of the human condition a “death wish,” burrowing silently beneath the pleasure principle, the musical and deceptive call of Eros.
Four years later, the peace treaties were signed but nothing was settled. Those who insisted on worshiping at the altar of soporific right thinking—those who thought that conflict had become obsolete—were swept away in less than 20 years. “The asses!” whispered France’s prime minister, Édouard Daladier, after winning a plebiscite for saving the “peace” by backing down from Nazi Germany; he had expected—wanted—to lose. The upheaval of World War I had produced only partial truths; history would repeat its tragic warnings more harshly still.
World War II was hardly over when the need to think through its horrors—Auschwitz, the atom bomb, millions dead—became pressing. Les Temps Modernes, the journal for European intellectuals after the war, set the tone for a whole generation, at least until disagreements between its founding editors, Sartre and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, tore it apart. Even in its first issue, in 1945, Merleau-Ponty showed scant respect for the sleepwalking intellectual elders who had guided his studies: “We knew that the concentration camps existed, that the Jews were persecuted, but these certainties belonged to the universe of thought. We did not yet live in the presence of the cruelty of death; we had never confronted the alternative of submitting to them or confronting them.” Sartre, a few pages removed, was no more sanguine: “We believed without proof that peace was the natural state and the substance of the universe, that war was only a temporary agitation on its surface. Today, we recognize our error: the end of war was merely the end of this war.”
It is doubtful whether these authors’ writings and commitments after 1945 truly addressed the radicality of the existential problem that they raised here. Indeed, twice in one century, unprecedented conflicts drove a kind of questioning that turned out to be more important, more profound than the answers that intellectual elites dispensed to prove their innocence and to comfort fragile souls. The answers camouflaged the truth. The questioning, by contrast, reflected the true image—scrambled and torn—of man reduced to nothing.
Western universities had for two centuries taken pride in responding in Enlightened terms to critical questions: What can one know? What must one do? For what may one hope? These were, according to Immanuel Kant, three different ways—learned, moral, and religious—to formulate the question of questions: What is man? After 1918, and still more after 1945, the idea of man became equivocal. In the dark light of mass graves that assumed an increasingly planetary scale, other questions took priority: What about the inhumanity of man? About what is it necessary to despair?
The European conflict offered not just the truth of the man in uniform but that of man stripped naked—the truth of man purged of the illusions of guaranteed peace, whether a Roman or a modern peace, an internal or an external one. Terrible ordeals tear individuals from their false shelters and rose-colored dreams, summoning society to face the hardness of reality. In the best case, Aeschylus teaches, the lesson enables one to move from passion to reason, or, more precisely, from the experience of suffering to the knowledge of that experience. This tragic understanding consists of awareness of the human condition and of its limits.
More often, though, one runs up against the limits of awareness. The worst of the storm has barely passed, and one is busy “moving on”—renovating dead-end roads, regilding the clocks of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land. We turn away from reality and its truths, which are neither easy to live with nor pleasant to talk about. Before long, repression is complete.
Will repression overtake us again as we get further from the revelation of 9/11? “Who is a terrorist?” we increasingly hear. The despot or invader says: Terrorists are all those who take part in irregular warfare, led by nonuniformed combatants against those in uniform. This was Napoleon’s definition as he engaged Spanish and Russian guerrillas; and the Nazis’ as they hunted down resistance movements.
A better definition of terrorism is a deliberate attack by armed men on unarmed civilians. Terrorism is aggression against civilians as civilians, inevitably taken by surprise and defenseless. Whether the hostage-takers and killers of innocents are in uniform or not, or what kind of weapons they use—whether bombs or blades—does not change anything; neither does the fact that they may appeal to sublime ideals. The only thing that counts is the intention to wipe out random victims. The systematic resort to the car bomb, to suicide attacks, randomly killing as many passersby as possible, defines a specific style of engagement. When, after Saddam Hussein’s fall, terrorist attacks multiplied in Iraq, they spared no one, especially not Iraqis: schoolchildren in buses or on sidewalks, men and women at the market, the faithful at prayer.
When the naive, the falsely naive, and the downright evil blur categories in support of their ideological prejudices and christen the killer of innocents a “resistance fighter,” more lucid minds disclose a different landscape. Consider an editorial published in a Lebanese paper on August 20, 2003, the day after a bomb-laden cement truck destroyed the United Nations’ center of operations in Baghdad: “Yesterday’s operation against the Baghdad headquarters of the United Nations exemplifies this mentality of destruction. Expel all mediators. Banish every international organization. Let things collapse. Let electricity and water be cut off, and the pumping of oil cease. Let theft prevail. Let universities and schools close. Let businesses fail. Let civic life cease. And at the end of the day the occupation will fail. ‘No!’ protests Joseph Samara, ‘at the end of the road, there will be a catastrophe for Iraq. . . . The attack against the United Nations’ headquarters in Baghdad belongs to another world: it is a form of nihilism, of absurdity, and of chaos hiding behind fallacious slogans, which proves the convergence among those responsible for this action, their intellectual limitation and their criminal behavior.’ ”
We have entered another world. The threat of a new Ground Zero, small or great, advances behind a mask. The human bomb claims the power to strike anywhere, by any means, at any time, spreading his nocturnal threat over the globe, invisible and thus unpredictable, clandestine and thus untraceable. The terrorist without borders makes us think about him always, everywhere. Without an accidental delay on the tracks—just a few minutes—the pulverization of two trains in Madrid, at the Atocha station, would have claimed 10,000 victims, three times more than in Manhattan. Then there was London. Whose turn is next? Each of us waits for the next explosion.
The business of terrorists, after all, is to terrorize—so said Lenin, an uncontested master in the field. The ultimate refinement lies in the inversion of responsibility. Operating instructions: I take hostages, I cut off their heads, I show them on video; those who beg for mercy must address themselves to their governments, who alone are to blame for my crimes: my hubris is their problem. The less the terrorist’s restraint, the more he causes fear and the sooner you will yield in tears, or so he believes.
Recall the cries of hostage Nick Berg, agonizing as his torturers persisted laboriously over his bent body. “You know, when we behead someone, we enjoy it,” one of them informs us. “We did not kidnap to frighten those we hold,” another corrects him, “but to put pressure on the countries that help or might help the Americans. . . . It is not a good thing to decapitate, but it is a method that works. In a fight, Americans tremble. . . . Besides, I tried to negotiate an exchange of prisoners for Nick Berg. It was the Americans who refused. They are the ones truly responsible for his death.” Terrorist hubris bases its arguments on uncontrollable drives: I can’t help myself—give up! A similar strategy shows up on playgrounds: Stop me or I’ll do something terrible! The terrorist refines this rationale; he draws out his pleasure, prolongs death, cuts the throat slowly, goes beyond physical torture.
To resurrect the dead, if only by video, in order to execute them a second time: this compulsion prolongs war infinitely from the other side of life. It is pure hatred. A traditional war, however savage, comes to an end. Terrorist war, given over to limitless fury, knows no cease-fire. For the demonstration of force it substitutes the demonstration of hatred, which, nourished by its own atrocities, becomes inextinguishable.
Nowhere is this demonstration more visible than in Iraq. For a long time, the mental sin of Western armies was to dive into a new conflict as if they were fighting the previous war. This weakness now affects pundits and politicians, who reproach the U.S. for getting bogged down in “another Vietnam.” But Zarqawi was not Ho Chi Minh. No geopolitical fact permits us to impose the framework of the last great hot war of the cold war on the current situation in Iraq. Every month, thousands of Iraqis fall, indiscriminate victims of terror—over 500 peaceful Iraqi Yezidis on August 14 of this year, in the deadliest terrorist attack since September 11—while the total number of American soldiers killed in four years is approximately 3,600. In Iraq, then, what rages is a war of terror against civilians, not a war of independence against an occupying foreign army and its indigenous military supporters. Vietnam is far away; those who miss Woodstock forget that the world has changed in 40 years.
What threatens Iraqi society is not Vietnamization but Somalization. Recall Operation Restore Hope, in which an international force, led by Americans, disembarked in Mogadishu in 1993, seeking to ensure the survival of a population that was starving and being massacred by rival clans. After losing 19 in a horrific trap, the GIs left. The rest is well known. An angry President Clinton swore “never again,” and a year later refused to intervene in Rwanda, where 5,000 blue helmets would have been enough to interrupt the genocide that wiped out as many as 1 million Tutsi in three months.
The Somalian model has spread across the planet, from the Congo to chaotic East Timor to Afghanistan, where the Taliban have violently resurfaced, to Iraq. Populations are taken hostage, terrorized, and sacrificed, the spoils of wars by local gangsters. Under various pretexts—religion, ethnicity, makeshift racist or nationalist ideology—commandos contend for power at the point of AK-47s. They fight against unarmed populations; most of their victims are women and children. Terrorism is not the prerogative of Islamists alone: the targeting of civilians has been used by a regular army and by militias under the command of the Kremlin in Chechnya, where the capital city of Grozny was razed to the ground. Where the killers appeal to the Koran, it is still primarily Muslim passersby who suffer. Algeria, Somalia, and Darfur (at least 200,000 dead and millions of refugees in just a few years, with the Sudanese government, protected by China and Russia, acting with impunity) are live laboratories of the abomination of abominations: war against civilians.
Between 1945 and 1989, the war between Eastern and Western blocs was a cold one, in Europe as in North America. Everywhere else, however, there were outbreaks of revolution and counterrevolution, coups d’états and massacres. Never before were human societies so shaken as during that brief half-century, in which colonial empires crumbled, but in which, all too often, the uprisings, insurrections, and wars of liberation gave birth to new despotisms. Centuries-old regimes, customs, and bonds were destroyed. As a result of this world-historical earthquake, two-thirds of the globe’s population lost its bearings. These people can no longer live as before. Nor can they—yet, says the optimist—exist as tranquil citizens of Western-style liberal democracies.
Across the world, breeding grounds have as a consequence formed for young and not-so-young warriors, who—uniformed or not—prove equally eager to conquer homes, women, and wealth, equally ready to use machine guns or mortars to take control of the countryside or to use car bombs or human bombs to dominate urban slums. Ambitious and unscrupulous forces readily exploit these breeding grounds, sponsoring diverse terrorist groups to gain power.
The war unleashed this process in Iraq. Would it have been better, therefore, not to have overthrown Saddam Hussein and to have allowed him another decade to complete his horrible record of tortures, mutilations, and corpses—1 or 2 million victims in a quarter-century? The Iraqis, despite the threat of murder, have gone to the polls three times, en masse; they do not seem to regret the dictator’s fall. Should the GIs and their allies now withdraw, as in Somalia? Even some anti-American governments must cross their fingers against the possibility of abandoning the terrain to the beheaders.
The fight to avoid the Somalization of the planet is just beginning, and it will probably dominate the twenty-first century. If they resist the sirens of isolationism, Americans will learn from their mistakes. Europe will either resolve to help them or abandon itself to the care of the petro-czar Vladimir Putin, who stands ready to police the old continent, while preaching antiterrorist terrorism, with his devastation of Chechnya as a case in point. The borderless challenge of emancipated warriors allows us little leisure for procrastination.
Astrophysicists have found, wandering in the starry expanse, certain black holes. When faraway stars come into contact with them, the stars disappear, along with their planets, swallowed by bottomless darkness. From the beginning, human civilizations have existed alongside analogous moral abysses, which foreshadow an end of all things. According to tradition, such annihilation suggests a jealous and vengeful divinity, or malevolent demons.
In their endeavor to understand the black holes that threaten societies, the inventors of Western philosophy, comparing them to natural cataclysms, earthquakes, volcanoes, and epidemics, refused to see in them a supernatural sanction or to deny the responsibility of mortals. If God is not a cause, the darkness that threatens to overtake humanity is human, irreducible to an impersonal fate. The destructive principle inheres in us, whether we know it or not—this is the persistent message of the tragedians. Hate moves like Thucydides’s plague, not a purely physiological condition but an essentially mental disorder, which takes over bodies, minds, and society. The idea of a contagion of hatred must be taken literally: hatred spreads hatred, an outbreak that inoculates itself against all who oppose it.
Maybe one day, we will view the last century with nostalgia, even if it was dealt Auschwitz and Hiroshima. For today’s terrorism strives to mix these two ingredients into new cocktails of horror. During the cold war, the threat to man was dual: one, between two blocs, involved reciprocal annihilation; the other, terrorist, confined the savage extermination of civilian populations to the interior of each camp. Today, global terrorism eliminates geostrategic borders and traditional taboos. The last seconds of the condemned of Manhattan, of Atocha, and of the London Underground sent us two messages: “Here abandon all hope,” the Dantesque injunction carried by a bomb that wipes the slate clean; and “Here there is no reason why,” the nihilist gospel of SS officers. Hiroshima signified the technical possibility of a desert that approaches closer and closer to the absolute; Auschwitz represented the deliberate and lucid pursuit of total annihilation. The conjunction of these two forms of the will to nothingness looms in the black holes of modern hatred.
Imre Kertész was twice a survivor, once from the death camps and then again from Communism; saved by literature, he was Hungary’s first Nobel Prize winner. He writes: “Some day we should analyze the mass of resentments that bring the contemporary mind to scorn reason; we should undertake an intellectual history of the hatred of the intellect.” The various forms of racism, chauvinism, fanaticism, and the apparent rebirth of an aggression that was thought to be a thing of the past surprise us. Should we not be surprised at our surprise? The understandable but wrongheaded choice to sleep peacefully, whatever the price, puts us all in jeopardy.
André Glucksmann is a French philosopher. His books include The Master Thinkers and, most recently, Une Rage d’Enfant. His article was translated from the French by Ralph C. Hancock and John C. Hancock.
French to English: Time on Putin's Side
Source text - French Selon André Glucksman, philosophe et essayiste, quand les médias occidentaux adoubent Vladimir Poutine, ils font le choix de la peur.
«Time» sait que son choix va choquer, bonne pub ! Pour conserver une apparente respectabilité, le magazine se défend péremptoirement : l'homme de l'année «n'est pas un boy-scout», il n'est pas un démocrate, il compte parmi les très puissants qui façonnent le destin du monde «pour le meilleur et pour le pire». Time ne précise pas quel «pire». Chaque lecteur peut l'imaginer : l'armée de Poutine a massacré la population tchétchène dans la proportion d'un civil tué sur cinq habitants ; la police du tsar de l'année a supprimé l'essentiel de la liberté des médias de masse (TV, radios, journaux), quitte à assassiner les journalistes courageux pour discipliner les autres. Pauvre Anna, encore une bassesse, encore une lâcheté.
Par contre, les rédacteurs de Time précisent quel est le «meilleur» que Poutine apporte à son peuple et au monde : une «stabilité» que la Russie n'a pas connue depuis un siècle. Order before freedom. Autant dire que le choix de Time Magazine est à la fois naïf, irrationnel et immoral.
De facto, il n'y a pas de stabilité quand les diverses mafias au pouvoir se démolissent et s'exécutent à l'ombre du Kremlin, au point qu'un général du FSB, à la tête d'une des factions (la police des «narcotiques»), appelle, à la une d'un quotidien moscovite, au cessez-le-feu faute de quoi la belle machine s'écroule.
De plus, il faut volontairement ignorer les règlements de compte, les meurtres sous contrats, les emprisonnements, les soins spéciaux en asiles psychiatriques et les déportations arbitraires (Khodorkovski) pour baptiser «stabilité» cette distribution et redistribution des richesses entre oligarques et galonnés du FSB. Combien de milliards de dollars l'homme de l'année a-t-il prélevé sur les ventes de gaz et de pétrole (certains, comme le Guardian et Die Welt, parlent de 40 milliards de dollars en huit ans de présidence) ? Les camarillas du Kremlin s'enrichissent sur le dos du peuple russe, dont l'espérance de vie est de vingt ans inférieure à la nôtre. Stabilité des cimetières ?
Enfin, il faut n'avoir ni cœur ni cervelle, il faut fermer son âme, pour couronner garant de la sécurité mondiale un autocrate dont la profession de foi est «tchékiste un jour, tchékiste toujours» et dont l'intelligence historique assène que «la plus grande catastrophe géopolitique du XX e siècle, c'est…», devinez quoi : les deux guerres mondiales, Hiroshima, Auschwitz, le goulag ? Vous n'y pensez pas ! La catastrophe dont parle l'homme de l'année c'est : « La dissolution de l'Union soviétique » (en 1991 par Eltsine). Certes Poutine osant une telle déclaration publique en avril 2005 avait le mérite de la sincérité, mais le Time qui y décèle une promesse de stabilité n'a que le mérite de l'absurdité.
En justifiant son choix par la pseudo-stabilité poutinienne, Time donne tête baissée dans la propagande du Kremlin : l'ordre règne dans un village Potemkine. En apprenant l'assassinat de Paul Klebnikov, rédacteur en chef de l'édition russe du magazine Forbes, Anna Politkovskaïa écrit : «C'est indéniable, la stabilité est revenue en Russie. Une stabilité monstrueuse, telle que personne ne demande justice… Telle que seul un fou oserait encore réclamer la protection des forces de l'ordre gangrenées par la corruption. La loi du talion remplace désormais le droit dans les esprits et les actes. Le président lui-même montre l'exemple.» Anna ne peut apprécier Time, elle fut à son tour assassinée le 7 novembre 2006.
La Russie est une grande puissance, par sa rente pétrolière, par son arsenal nucléaire, par son armée et ses structures de force pléthoriques, par ses multiples capacités planétaires de nuire et de faire chanter nos démocraties. Laissons à Time l'assurance qu'en supprimant les libertés, l'opposition, la libre information, les ONG humanitaires, Poutine assure la «sécurité» de ce potentiel baril de poudre. Tous les dictateurs anciens et modernes, soft ou sanglants, ont chanté pareils hymnes à la sécurité. Ouvrez un livre d'histoire, oubliez les contes de fées, Poutine n'est pas le magicien d'Oz et Time mérite le bonnet d'âne ou la palme d'une ironie qui n'arrive pas à s'exprimer…
Contemplez la Une, regardez dans les yeux le poisson froid de l'année, la mort vous fixe. Plus avant, sur son trône, elle vous toise. Lisez Time Magazine, la bêtise vous parle.
Translation - English André Glucksmann
Time on Putin’s Side
No “boy scout,” indeed
4 January 2008
Time knows that many will find its choice of Vladimir Putin for Man of the Year shocking—but any publicity is good publicity! The magazine presents a peremptory defense: the Man of the Year “is not a boy scout,” he is not a democrat, but he numbers among the very powerful, those who shape the world’s destiny “for better or for worse.”
Time does not specify this “worse.” The reader can take his pick: Putin’s army has massacred the Chechnyan population; the Czar of the Year’s police force has essentially eliminated the freedom of the mass media, ready to assassinate courageous journalists in order to keep the others in line. On the other hand, Time is quite specific concerning the “better” that Putin brings to his people and to the world: a “stability” that Russia hasn’t known for a century.
But can one call it “stability” when the various mafias in power demolish and execute each other in the Kremlin’s shadow, to the point where a general in the Federal Security Bureau (FSB), the head of one of the factions, uses the front page of a Moscow daily paper to call for a cease-fire, lest the beautiful power machine crumble?
One must, moreover, ignore the score-settling, the contract murders, the imprisonments, the special treatments in psychiatric wards, and the arbitrary deportations to consider “stability” the permanent Valentine’s Day Massacre that determines the distribution and redistribution of wealth among the oligarchs and the top brass of the FSB. How many billions of dollars has the Man of the Year skimmed from the sales of gas and oil? Some, like the Guardian and Die Welt, claim $40 billion in eight years as president. The Kremlin cliques grow rich on the backs of the Russian people, whose life expectancy is 20 years lower than ours in the West.
Finally, one must lack both heart and mind to coronate as the guarantor of world security an autocrat whose profession of faith is “once a Chekist, always a Chekist,” and whose historical intelligence assaults us with the notion that “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century is”—guess what: the two world wars? Auschwitz? the gulag? wrong!—“the dissolution of the Soviet Union.” True, one must credit Putin with sincerity for daring to make such a public declaration in April 2005; but Time, detecting in it a promise of stability, deserves credit only for absurdity.
In justifying its choice for Putin’s pseudo-stability, Time falls for the Kremlin’s propaganda: all is in order in the Potemkin village. Upon learning of the assassination of Paul Klebnikov, editor-in-chief of Forbes Russia, Anna Politkovskaï¡ wrote: “It is undeniable that stability has returned to Russia—a monstrous stability, such that no one demands justice . . . such that only a fool would still dare to claim the protection of the forces of a regime riddled with corruption. ‘An eye for an eye’ has replaced the rule of law in people’s minds, as in their acts. The president himself provides the example.” Anna is unable to appreciate Time’s choice; she was assassinated on November 7, 2006.
Russia is a great power, by virtue of its oil revenues, its nuclear arsenal, its army, and its manifold military assets—by its multiple planetary means to do harm and to blackmail our democracies. Time can have its assurance that, by eliminating rights, opposition, and freedom of information, Putin is guaranteeing the “security” of this potential powder keg. All dictators, ancient and modern, mild or murderous, have sung the same hymns to security. Open a history book, set aside the fairy tales: Putin is not the Wizard of Oz. Contemplate Time’s cover, look its Man of the Year in the eyes: death stares back at you. Further on in the magazine, on his throne, he is taking your measure.
André Glucksmann is a French philosopher and author of many books, including The Master Thinkers and the forthcoming Mai 68 expliqué à Nicolas Sarkozy, co-authored with his son Raphaël.
Translated by Ralph C. Hancock and John C. Hancock.
French to English: Unjust Justice (copy editing- not translation)
Source text - French I assisted with the copy editing of this book. I was not the translator, but I worked from the french text in checking the translation and making corrections. The book is called La Grande Meprise - check it out:
Translation - English Unjust Justice
Against the Tyranny of International Law
Written by Chantal Delsol
Translated, with an Introduction, by Paul Seaton
Publisher: ISI Books
once again, I did not translate this book, but was given the opportunity to copy edit after the translation had been completed.
More
Less
Experience
Years of experience: 18. Registered at ProZ.com: May 2007.
I am an enthusiastic learner. I enjoy family, serving others, research, writing, athletics, art, and good music. I enjoy work. Among my best qualities are the ability to communicate with people from various backgrounds (including French, Italian and Spanish) and a strong capacity for analytical thinking. I especially enjoy learning about the peoples, languages and cultures of the Near East, ancient and modern. Io amo l'Italia. J'aime la France. Ha chaim tovim!
Expertise 
CV/Resume (DOC)