Pierre Rabhi, loved or hated, in any case disputed

By werdt27/08/2022542 Views

The article in Le Monde Diplomatique on the Rabhi System, made many keyboards vibrate. Some were satisfied that a journalist finally attacked the Rabhi icon and others castigated an incriminating article. In any case, he unleashed passions. In this article I would like to centralize the different questions that Mallet asks through his article and his TV appearances, the answers of the main protagonists and of course I couldn't help but give my opinion.

JBM = Jean Baptiste Mallet, PR = Pierre Rabhi

Before reading - Presentation of the protagonists:

Before reading this article, and if you haven't already, I invite you to read Jean Baptiste Mallet's article on Pierre Rabhi that you will find freely available on the diplomatic world: https://www .monde-diplomatique.fr/2018/08/MALET/58981 .

On France Inter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=735CQFuTauY&feature=youtu.behttps://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/l-interview/l-interview-15-septembre -2018

There is also JBM's interview on LeMediaTV which is an ambitious new WebTV of which I am a member: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPLt-yd0jQo

For its defenders there is the blog article by Fabrice Nicollino, initiator of the movement we want poppies, friend of Pierre Rabhi and incidentally editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo: http://fabrice-nicolino.com/? p=4615

There is the response of the Colibris founded among others by Pierre Rabhi and Cyril Dion, which offers MOOCs to create oases of life for alternative societies, for agroecology and permaculture: https://www.colibris -lemouvement.org/magazine/notre-ambition-mieux-articulate-changes-individuels-et-collectifs

The response from Cyril Dion, actor and director of the film "Tomorrow" and soon "After Tomorrow", which is the most successful environmental film. He is also responsible for the “Domaine du possible” collection at Acte Sud and author of the book “little manual of contemporary resistance”: https://www.facebook.com/cyril.dion2/posts/10155873495218602?hc_location=ufi

Terre & Humanisme which is an association for the transmission of agroecology and permaculture techniques founded by Pierre Rabhi: https://www.facebook.com/notes/terre-humanisme/droit-de-r%C3%A9ponse-de-terre -humanism/1737929382996397/

The response of the Amanins which is founded by Michel Valentin supported by Pierre Rabhi and in which we find a vegetable garden in agroecology, an alternative school… https://www.facebook.com/notes/les-amanins/droit-de -r%C3%A9response-des-amanins/1516366431798963/

Answer from Bernard CHEVILLIAT, President of the Pierre Rabhi Endowment Fund on the LaCroix website:

https://www.la-croix.com/Debats/Forum-et-debats/Beaucoup-bruit-rien-defense-chiffree-factuelle-Pierre-Rabhi-2018-09-27-1200972009

Answer from Gabriel Rabhi and Pierre Rahbi: http://systeme-pierre-rabhi.do4change.com/

Jean Baptiste Mallet, meanwhile, is the journalist who investigated the tomato industry and wrote this book: "the empire of red gold", to investigate on Amazon, on theosophy and the anthroposophy.

As for me, I prefer to explain who I am to understand where my reasoning comes from. My ambition is to set up an oasis of life, by mixing participatory housing and a permaculture garden, so the Oasis training courses are very interesting for me. Of course I also get information from permaculture books by Bill Mollinson, Steve Holmgren, Steve Read and others. I am an atheist, I do not believe in religions, but I accept them. At the political level, I am rather between the program defended by Benoit Hamon and the common future of Jean Luc Mélenchon. I am very interested in alternative schools and I learned about Montessori, Freinet, Steiner, Alice Miller… I have already seen Pierre Rabhi's lectures on the internet which I find are interesting, but which quite often say the same thing. I saw Sophie Rabhi's talk on TEDx and she is inspiring.

Okay, after this rather long presentation, let’s go straight to the article:

Guru and scammer

For his first review, Jean Baptiste Mallet, wants to show that PR is a crook-guru. To do this I let you read this passage:

“I must have listened to Pierre Rabhi ten times; he always says the same thing, but I never get tired of it, ”says a spectator. "Fortunately he's here! Adds her neighbor without taking her eyes off the scene. With Pierre, you are never disappointed. ". The enthusiasm echoes in the adjacent hall, where, behind their stalls, peddlers sell machines "for revitalizing and restructuring water by vortexing", capsules for "protecting and repairing DNA" (cures of three to six months) or the latest model of a “scalar wave medical machine” sold for 8,000 euros.

And in the LeMédiaTV interview, he says this:

4.50: "He is invited by organizations that smell of sulfur, he is close to places with sectarian drift"

5.30: “we sold machines to purify water”

For JBM, PR is a guru in the eyes of some people and the conference organizers will be able to sell any wacky object to these people manipulated by the charms of PR.

For me, it's quite manipulative to do it this way since it's indirectly attacking PR for things it's not responsible for:

I find it easy to criticize these points of view, but JBM wants to make it clear that if PR is invited to this kind of show/conference, it's because PR is part of this whole cove of charlatans and that its aura would allow a good return of sale.

I attended a PR conference, I take the liberty of saying that in this conference I could buy books on Montessori pedagogy, books on permaculture and agroecology, but to my great disappointment I could not not buy an A1 poster with PR's head on it...

This is a recurring criticism on the left, we do not support people who have notoriety. Calling them gurus is easy, since inevitably in the batch of people attending the conferences some are indeed in admiration. But it is underestimating the left to think that most of us are sheep. PR is a public figure like others and I remain convinced that those who listen to PR also listen to other people and form an opinion with this mixture. We don't think highly of others in our own political camp.

It is so true on the left that for 2012 we had Hollande who has no charisma and in 2017 Hamon. As for JLM, it is the UFO that resists and the exception that proves the rule, even if I did not rank it among the gurus.

PR is the powerful of politics

In Paris too, Rabhi does not leave anyone indifferent. Prime Minister Édouard Philippe quotes him when he presents his "anti-waste plan" (April 23, 2018). "This man came as a real light in my life", says its former editor, now Minister of Culture, Mrs. Françoise Nyssen (2). “Pierre allowed my consciousness to blossom and become clearer. He taught her and he fed her. Somehow, it was its revealer,” adds Mr. Nicolas Hulot, Minister for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition (3).

Streets, parks, social centers, hamlets bear the name of this secular saint, promoted to Knight of the Legion of Honor in 2017. In the media, the author of Towards happy sobriety (Actes Sud, 2010) enjoys such popularity that France Inter can transform this morning into a special edition live from his home (March 13, 2014) and France 2 devote thirty- five minutes, at lunchtime, on October 7, 2017, to praise this "peasant, thinker, writer, philosopher and poet" who "proposes a revolution".

We feel that what bothers JBM is that PR can inspire ordinary people as well as politicians. We have :

JBM then shows that PR is more powerful than it seems through his humble peasant attitude.

PR cannot be held responsible for political clawbacks. I think it's easy to understand that the alleged inspiration of Édouard Philippe is facade and that he uses PR to clear his conscience and to communicate... What bothers me is that if one day Marine Le Pen is inspired by Macron, can we say that Macron is close to Marine Le Pen? It is like qualifying Étienne Chouard as an extreme right by the simple fact that these remarkable works on the European constitution and on the constituent workshops are taken up by extreme right personalities whom I will keep quiet so as not to give them publicity.

JBM in a critical future shows that PR is the movements that stem from these do not make politics. Finally, if PR discusses with politicians, we can call it Lobbying, soft lobbying, I imagine... but it's still politics.

It's something recurring on the left, the fact that we will try to highlight the least frequent people. This is what happens to Edwy Plenel with the debate organized with Tarik Ramadan and therefore Edwy was Tarik's ally.

It's easy to highlight this kind of encounter and to hide most of the other encounters, it quickly discredits the ideals by attacking the person. It's as ridiculous as this example: Hier j

I bought a sandwich at Carrefour, that makes me the sheep of capitalism, but what we won't say is that on other days I buy local and above all not in a supermarket.

The Vichist acquaintances of PR

PR is close to Doctor Pierre Richard because he works to create the Cévennes National Park and finally he facilitates the installation of PR in Ardèche.

“Sir,” he wrote to Dr. Pierre Richard, “we got your address from Father Dalmais, who told us that you were concerned about the protection of nature, that you have actively participated in the creation of the Vanoise park, and that you are trying to obtain the creation of that of the Cévennes. We are sensitive to all these questions and would like to take an active part in returning to this nature that you defend. »

Pierre Richard and Rabhi become very close:

In a photograph of the wedding celebrated in April 1961, Doctor Richard offers his arm to the bride, Michèle Rabhi, while Pierre Rabhi offers his to the wife of the country doctor .

Here is the description of Pierre Richard according to JBM:

Instructor at a youth camp near the Villemagne mines (Gard), on Mount Aigoual (5). This hygienist, nationalist and paramilitary experience had a lasting influence on him. In December 1945, he defended a medical thesis which assumed an "obvious bias": "The health of man is affected, and that of the peasant in particular, and, beyond that, that of the country, the nation, writes Richard — integral health of body, mind, material goods, soul (6). Fourteen years later, in 1959, Doctor Richard played his own role as a country doctor in a ruralist propaganda film entitled Nuit blanche, where he castigated urbanization, the centralizing state, tin cans and the recruitment policy. public enterprises which uproot the peasants from their "roots".

And to say this in the interview with LeMediaTV

6.30: “At the time (year 60) he was an intransigent Catholic”

8.00: "I don't blame PR for thinking what he thinks"

9.00: “PR to recover this intellectual heritage (Gustave Thibon)

Richard took part in instructions for the Vichy regime, as Fabrice Nicollino says: "It's not glorious, but we don't know how long stayed there." This does not prevent JBM from writing that this experience has a lasting influence on him. Before going any further, it is important and I invite you to take a short break on this site which describes who Pierre Richard is: http://ahpne.fr/spip.php?article79

In short, he is an ecologist doctor, who defends the creation of the Cévennes National Park which is also very (too) Catholic. According to his family he would have been part of the resistance during the war of 39-45.

To dismantle Pierre Richard, JBM talks about propaganda films. But what are the ideas defended by this film:

JBM glosses over the complexity of Dr. Richard's thinking and actions. It's a shame, especially since it does not enrich the debate and his detractors will be able to attack him on this.

If we are talking about agriculture and rurality, I have the impression that JBM does not really know the challenges of tomorrow on peasant agriculture and the maintenance of peasants in rurality. On these points, Pierre Richard is a pioneer. Today we have fewer and fewer peasants, yet the population is not decreasing. In a few years, the question of food sovereignty will arise, and if the peasants disappear, it will be necessary to mechanize the land more and more and to own more and more of it. We will therefore gradually move closer to a local monopoly to the detriment of diversity. In the interview on LeMediaTV, I even have the impression that JBM has a certain contempt for peasants and those who want to return to the Earth.

Basically, JBM wants to demonstrate how Pierre Richard's ideas on the return to the earth trickled down to Pierre Rabhi and he wants to show that the soil of this "return to the Earth" is religious and vigilist ideas.

The absurd idea behind JBM is that we take 100% of our mentors' ideas. It sounds absurd, but otherwise how can he be sure that PR was listening to this kind of talk and that he had appropriated it? If I listen to and approve of Pierre Rabhi's ideas of returning to the Earth, of happy sobriety, does that make me a supporter of the Vichy regime or a Catholic? JBM doesn't believe that PR is smart enough to figure out what's good to take and what isn't. prefers to make the shortcut to emphasize his point.

This criticism is like the others recurring on the left. The people we listen to, that we read should be free from any problem, any ambiguity, any paradox and share our values and our ideas. We can't stand gray areas, we can't stand the complexity of man despite the daily experience of the simplicity of our media caricatures... We can't stand our contradictions. It is all the paradox on the left not to believe in the providential Man, but to castigate each Man who would not be one. We mix up all the fights and in the end we don't share fights that can bring us together because on others we don't agree.

In hollow JBM makes an introduction for his next two reviews which is the reactionary (extreme right) and mystical (Catholic and anthroposphe) side of Pierre Rabhi through Pierre Richard, then Gustave Thibon and Rudolf Steiner.

Soon after, the apprentice farmer met the Ardèche writer Gustave Thibon. Acclaimed by Charles Maurras in L'Action française in June 1942 as "the most brilliant, the newest, the most unexpected, the most desired and the most cordially acclaimed of our young suns", Thibon was one of the intellectual sources of the ruralist ideology of Vichy. "It was not my father who was a Pétainist, it was Pétain who was a Thibonien", his daughter (8) would say. Although his thurifers never fail to recall that Thibon hosted the philosopher Simone Weil in 1941, this monarchist, intransigent Catholic, visceral anti-Gaullist and, later, defender of French Algeria regularly made common cause with the far right.

Wikipedia on Thibon's profile:

Twice, at the beginning of the 1940s and then at the beginning of the 1960s, Gustave Thibon found himself in the spotlight of the news, because his thought struck a chord with the immediate concerns of the time and the ideology fashionable: reflection on the causes of the collapse of France and "return to the land" in 1940, reflection on the impasses of industrial progress in 1970. In the 1940s, the Vichy regime, which was looking for guarantees intellectuals, tries to recover him, he who has always refused any kind of social distinction that his work could have brought him (official position, chair, decorations, academic chair).

(…)

In 1949, a British commentator, Vernon Mallinson, measured the importance of Thibon's activity at that time, showing how "the publication of his books during the years of the German occupation was an important event, because that they contained an implicit challenge to the defeatism and apathy into which many of his contemporaries in France had fallen. »

Answer from Bernard CHEVILLIAT:

He stigmatizes the so-called "considerable influence" of those he calls his "Vichysso-Ardèche associates" of the sixties: an infamous qualifier and gratuitous speculation, especially when one knows the independence of spirit and the exceptional dimension metaphysics of the work of a Gustave Thibon (with whom Rabhi will have in all and for all only 4 to 5 spaced meetings and whom he never quotes in his books) or the facts of resistance of Dr Pierre Richard, the creator of the Cévennes National Park (cf. Ahpne website) who died in 1968. The track of a decisive influence of ideas reputed to be right-wing in the ideological corpus of Pierre Rabhi is clearly a dead end. Its philosophy is mixed and it owes more to Krishnamurti and Edgar Pisani than to any other thinker.

And that of Fabrice Nicollino:

Gustave Thibon. I do not dispute it: this philosopher who died in 2001 had ideas that I completely reject. He was a monarchist, probably Maurassien, and he was used by Vichy and its epigones. Nevertheless, Malet, once again, pecks at what serves his original purpose, forgetting essential points. By hackneyed casuistry, Malet presents Thibon as a declared supporter of Vichy, which however did not manifest itself during the war. Did he receive, like others, the Francisque? Did he write words of horror in the collabo press? No, no and no. He was one of the founders, in 1941, of the journal Économie et humanisme, with priests – yes, he was a Catholic – and the well-known economist François Perroux. We are still far from the Militia, aren't we?

But there is much better. Still in 1941, he met Simone Weil, the great, admirable Simone of the Spanish Civil War and the strikes of June 36. She was, he would say, the great meeting of his life. Simone preciously entrusts her notebooks to her when she leaves for the United States and Thibon will draw from them in 1947 a posthumous book of the great philosopher, gravity and grace. So, fascist, Thibon?

It has to be, since we have to put Rabhi down. At the time when Rabhi was seeing Thibon, he was a devout Catholic, like the latter. Did he espouse far-right ideas for all that? I don't know, I don't believe it, but above all Malet, who is content with the insinuation, so convenient, in no way establishes it. And it is serious.

A funny character, this Gustave Thibon, Mallet knows it and takes the lead in announcing that he has rubbed shoulders with Simone Weil. Once again one cannot reproach a man for the political recoveries of his work. However, it would be nice if JBM gave us more information on Thibon's work instead of this list of a sinister character: "this monarchist, intransigent Catholic, visceral anti-Gaullist and, later, defender of French Algeria" . As for Dr Richard, JBM does omit what else recalls and I am quite disappointed. I think that JBM makes shortcuts to serve its purpose which is that PR has Vichy friends which would explain that the return to the Earth comes from Vichy, fascism and the Catholic religion.

The PR Mystic

Now JBM uses Steiner's Anthroposophy to end his critique of PR's spiritual foundation and introduce his next critique which is PR's pseudo-experiment on agronomy

In addition to his Vichysso-Ardèche frequentations, Rabhi counts among his intellectual influences Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), founder of the Universal Anthroposophical Society. “One day, Doctor Richard came to my house, triumphant, and he put in my hands the book Fertility of the Earth, by the German Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, a disciple of Steiner, he says. I adhered to the ideas of Steiner, as well as the principles of anthroposophy, and in particular biodynamics. When it came to farming, Rudolf Steiner came up with some very interesting things. So I ordered biodynamic preparations in Switzerland and started my agricultural experiments. »

Pierre Rabhi, loved or hated, in any contested case

Steiner's anthroposophy has been studied by JBM, as well as another movement which is Krishnamurti's Theosophy. Personally, I found the articles, like that of Rabhi, quite caricatural, but interesting of what JBM can produce. I have the impression that he seeks to deconstruct idols, but always makes a biased reading of it when you know a little more about what he is talking about.

Rudolf Steiner in his time was the initiator of the pedagogy that bears his name: Steiner-Waldorf. This pedagogy is inspired by nature and for example uses natural objects instead of "complex" objects as is done in Montessori pedagogy. Steiner's recurring criticism would be anthroposophy, which is perceived as a sect and above all "sprawling". It is in any case one of the works of JBM. You will find the article here: https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2018/07/MALET/58830

And the answer here: https://anthroposophie.fr/2018/07/03/communique-du-3-juillet/ and here: https://aether.news/lire/2018/8/3/transparence -of-anthroposophy

I have often heard criticism of anthroposophy as a sect with particular rites and a strange spirituality. Critics often don't really know the reality of what anthroposophy is. First of all, I see it as a religion, as ridiculous to my taste as Christianity, Judaism or Islam, however it banning any of these practices is out of the question. We will attribute the word sect to anthroposophy to disqualify it from the outset. Without looking at its mode of governance and its principles. A sect is a religion that does not have as many followers. The spirituality of anthroposophy is as ridiculous as believing that Mary had Jesus as a virgin, that Noah built an ark for the flood or that we are all descended from Adam and Eve… Anthroposophy sells itself for having a mode of horizontal governance, which is not the case with Christianity and our current society. The most ethical banks are directly or indirectly linked to anthroposophy, for example La Nef, which is a cooperative and the only ethical bank in France. Here is an excerpt from one of the answers on anthroposophy:

In reality, the dominant feature of these banks is investment in the real economy, with priority given to associative initiatives that carry out projects that take into account human beings and the environment, in no way reserved " in support of anthroposophically inspired enterprises” as the author suggests. Second, they do not participate in financial speculation (thus they were not affected by the banking system crisis of 2008) (3). Contrary to the "occult" obscurantism practiced so widely in the banking world, they practice transparent management by publishing their accounts: this is precisely one of their characteristics. In addition to those mentioned by the author, such as Triodos in Holland, GLS in Germany, then La Nef in France, there are many others in different countries, including Freie Gemeinschaftsbank in Switzerland, Ekobanken in Sweden, Cultura Bank in Norway, Mercury in Denmark. It is interesting to note that these anthroposophically inspired banks are for the most part ranked first in their respective countries in terms of ethics and transparency. (4) All are independent creations, born during the second half of the 20th century; they have working links with each other and with non-anthroposophical banks that pursue similar ethical goals in the Global Alliance for Banking on Values and the Institute for Social Banking networks.

Unlike banks in general, joint-stock companies, therefore claiming dividends, they are constituted as a cooperative, not for profit. The members own shares which, most often, are not remunerated and can only be sold under certain conditions. They therefore have the character of a gift. The members of the cooperative waive all or part of the interest on the deposits, which reduces the interest to be borne by the borrowers.

JBM therefore introduces biodynamics as the main agricultural method that inspires PR and which is linked to a lot of mysticism and spirituality. It is true that biodynamic practices are strange, and unscientific, but we must not forget that biodynamics has made it possible, among other things, to question our production methods. Steiner is one of the pioneers on this point.

http://blog.m2rfilms.com/l attacked-du-monde-diplo-contre-pierre-rabhi-et-la-biodynamie/

René Dumont, who in a book co-authored with Jeanne-Marie Viel (L’Agriculture Biologique: Éditions Entente, Paris, 1979) writes: “Steiner was one of the first to sense the notion of ecosystem. For him, the biodynamic farm is a real organism, which must be self-sufficient. The basic unit of an agricultural landscape endowed with sustainable health and production capacity, it is the guarantee of the stability of a society in the face of the political and economic crises that may arise.

On this site: you can find the basic principles of biodynamics: https://www.bio-dynamie.org/biodynamie/presentation/

As early as the 1920s, farmers were concerned about noticing certain phenomena such as the degeneration of cultivated plants, the loss of fertility in herds or the reduction in the quality of food. They then appealed to Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), Austrian philosopher and scientist known for being the founder of Anthroposophy, a current of thought which integrates the psychic and spiritual components of the world into its scientific approach. Rudolf Steiner then gave 1924 a cycle of eight lectures known as Courses for Farmers, where he laid the theoretical and practical foundations of this agriculture which seeks to grasp the deep nature of the earth, plants and animals in order to work while respecting them.

The practices specific to biodynamics are based on three fundamental principles:

Conceive the farm or garden as an agricultural organism, an autonomous and individualized entity.
Use “biodynamic preparations”: preparations made from medicinal plants, cow dung and quartz which act energetically for the balance of the domain.
Working with the “cosmic rhythms”, that is to say taking into account the influences of the Sun, the Moon, the planets and the zodiac.

I believe that the observation for biodynamic and organic agriculture is a good thing. Principle 1 does not bother me, principle 2 however makes me smile when we look at biodynamic preparations, I rather prefer to use compost in a more natural way. Principle 3 does not shock me, but I will not apply it. Some results in farmers show a relationship between the phases of the moon and the growth of seedlings, others don't, I don't want to bother, but maybe one day science will confirm it, like the Moon which acts on the effects of the earth's tide.

So not everything is to be thrown away as JBM claims.

His ideas close to the extreme right

His vision of the world contrasts with the libertarian neo-rurality of the post-May period. “I consider dangerous for the future of humanity the validation of the “homosexual” family, when by definition this relationship is fruitless”, he explains in the book of interviews Pierre Rabhi, sower of hopes (Actes Sud, 2013). On the relationship between men and women, her opinion is this: “Equality should not be exalted. I rather plead for a complementarity: that the woman is the woman, that the man is the man and that love brings them together.

Before going any further, let's dissect the most controversial phrases in PR:

PR considers it dangerous for humanity to validate the homosexual family. It means he is against same-sex marriage. Do we consider today that a person who is not for same-sex marriage is homophobic? I don't think so, although personally I'm for marriage and I disagree with PR. However, he does not say that he is against homosexuality, he remarks that homosexuality will not allow human civilization to reproduce itself. His sentence is correct, but ridiculous for the simple fact that he goes to an extreme which is a 100% homosexual population.

I don't think PR is homophobic as JBM and PR critics Cyril Dion insinuated in one of his comments:

His second sentence does not cause me so many problems in the sense that everyone can imply what they want and argue. Some will interpret it as follows: a woman must have a lower salary than a man, a woman must stay at home and raise children, a woman given her physique and her morphology will be easier to do such actions than a man or vice versa...

We could rather give meaning to this sentence with the actions carried out by PR or rather how his descendants appropriated his "very strict teaching of women": Sophie Rabhi undertook to set up an oasis of life " Hameau des Buis” where the children are accompanied thanks to alternative pedagogical methods such as Maria Montessori, Freinet, Alice Miller, Krishnamurti.

The pseudo agriculture of PR

PR goes to the Sahel to initiate farmers with these biodynamic and compost techniques alone: criticism of René Drumont, the first ecologist to stand for the presidential election:

The environmentalist candidate for the 1974 presidential election is appalled by what he discovers. If he approves of the practice of compost, he denounces a lack of scientific knowledge and condemns the overall approach: "Pierre Rabhi presented compost as a sort of 'magic potion' and cast an anathema on chemical fertilizers, and even on manure and liquid manure. He also taught that the vibrations of the stars and the phases of the Moon played an essential role in agriculture and propagated the antiscientific theses of Steiner, while condemning [Louis] Pasteur. »

But René Dumont in another book thinks something else of Steiner:

JBM concludes on agriculture:

This episode sheds light on an important facet of a character sometimes presented as an "international expert" on agricultural issues, preface to the Manual of Agroecological Gardens (Actes Sud, 2012), but who has never published an agronomy book or a scientific article

(…)

Rabhi does not just exalt the beauty of nature as an artist would in his work. He mobilizes nature, the work of the land and the evocation of the peasantry as instruments of revenge against modernity. This battle is a good illustration of the misunderstanding on which certain ideological currents prosper, denouncing the "excesses of finance", the "commodification of life", the opulence of the powerful or the ravages of technosciences, but which only advocate as a solution a withdrawal of the world, an intimate asceticism, and is careful not to question the structures of power.

And in his interview on LeMediaTV:

3.15: "PR has never signed any scientific article in agronomy"

3.30: "In agronomy the thought of PR is very limited"

First, compost is a base for agrology and permaculture. Here is an example among others:

https://www.facebook.com/TerreDeDemain/videos/710604989301637/?fref=gs&dti=413912175295682&hc_location=group

Bernard CHEVILLIAT's response:

In any case, Malet affirms that no scientific study confirms the validity of agroecological techniques and that he prefers the "rationality" and the singular ecology of a René Dumont, follower of chemical fertilizers (see for proof Utopia or death, 1973, p.32: "The most important agent of agricultural progress is still the use of chemical fertilizers"). Malet thus misses the vast boom in agroecological and biodynamic agriculture, which is far from being the work of amateurs or fanatics, and he is unaware, for example, that Cuba, where Terre & Humanisme has operated for more than a year, has been able to develop a remarkable organic agriculture, imaginative and without chemical inputs, due to the embargo imposed on it. He also serves on a plate - and this is a paradox on his part - arguments to all the natural opponents of Pierre Rabhi that are the conventional agricultural organizations, the big seed companies and the industrialists of agricultural chemistry.

Answer from an employee of Terre et Humanisme (Stéphane Jansegers)

Pierre is not an academic, he makes do with what he is, and he does a lot of it already! that does not prevent people like Marie-Monique Robin, Dominique Soltner, Jean Ziegler or Olivier de Schutter, from being in his companions in action and on the road, once again, dialogue, exchange, projects and respect... but no worship!

Pierre Rabhi is not an agronomist, he only learns from what he has been able to experience, while keeping in mind his principles and in particular not to harm the Earth by using pesticides. With this, it made it possible to think with other people about the agroecology taught in several training centers, including Terre & Humanism, at the farmhouse of Beaulieu. It is normal to say that Pierre Rabhi is not a scientist and that his words have no scientific value, but in the way he writes JBM, leads one to believe that the only agriculture advocated by PR is biodynamics, whereas PR's heritage is rather agroecology.

As Bernard Chevilliat says, what is distressing and paradoxical for an ecologist is that scientifically only agricultural systems using chemical fertilizers and pesticides are effective. But the question we all ask ourselves is for how long. I invite you to read the conferences and writings of the Burgundians (not the beef): http://www.lams-21.com/artc/1/fr/

Agriculture is so interconnected with the living with its environment that it is difficult to prove things scientifically. In some parts of the world, farmers use the lunar cycles dear to Steiner to make their production and in comparison they have a better yield, for others it does not work. In permaculture, INRA sought to find out if the Bec Hellouin farm could be a solution to the current agricultural crisis, and that seems possible. https://www.fermedubec.com/ and http://www.inra.fr/Chercheurs-etudiants/Agroecologie/Tous-les-magazines/Ferme-du-Bec-Hellouin-la-beaute-rend-productif

Linda Bedouet on her permaculture farm allows her to live with her husband on a salary of €700 per month. She could have a minimum wage, but prefers to put aside just in case and to pay for one trip a year in January.

JBM then criticizes the association founded by PR: Terre et Humanisme

Founded in 1994 under the name Les Amis de Pierre Rabhi, the Terre et humanisme association, a third of whose budget comes from donations from the Agir financial products of Crédit coopératif (more of 450,000 euros per year), continues the work begun by Rabhi in Burkina Faso by leading training courses in Mali, Senegal, Togo, as well as in France, on a one-hectare plot cultivated in biodynamics, the Mas from Beaulieu, to Lablachere.

Here is an excerpt from Terre et Humanisme's response:

The Mas de Beaulieu in Lablachère in Ardèche is the head office of the association. This is not Pierre Rabhi's place of residence. Cultivated gardens (on a small area: 800m2) are teaching aids for transmitting agro-ecological gardening techniques. Under no circumstances is this place a farm with a vocation for production or profitability. The food produced in the gardens is consumed directly by the public welcomed and the employees of the association. The Mas de Beaulieu is not a “Potemkin farm”, but a place of experimentation and agroecological learning.

That of an employee of Terre et Humanisme (Stéphane Jansegers)

Then concerning Mallet, he moved to the association Terre & Humanism (20 employees, independent of Pierre and autonomous on his organization) and my colleagues spent two hours explaining to him the actions and missions of the association, missions which all revolve around educational functions, experiments, and transmission of knowledge and know-how -to do agroecology (which by the way goes far beyond the sole spectrum of biodynamics!! But let's move on...), and he, to the sad summary of Terre & Humanism as being a farm!! ... and that she was ONLY doing biodynamics ... Basically, he didn't understand anything!! THIS IS NOT A FARM!!! If it was indeed one, it would be time to ask questions about the merits of agroecology! Aren't there hundreds of agroecological farms that still work?? What a prank! It's like walking into a class in an anatomy class and coming out saying it's a hospital that doesn't work... You're talking serious.

Terre et Humanisme and Amanins volunteers

JBM like many others who criticize the legacy of PR attack the number of volunteers in this kind of association and in particular at Terre et Humanisme

between 2004 and 2016 there have been 2,350 volunteers, the "volonterres", who work for several weeks in exchange for meals and accommodation under the tent.

Response from Earth and Humanism:

In addition, we welcome people in our gardens (“volonterres”) on immersion stays. They come to learn how to cultivate the land, accompanied by our gardener-animators who are constantly with them to teach them agroecological techniques and answer their questions. This solidarity program (free transmission of know-how) is an agreement between the two parties: the "volonterre" participates in the life of the gardens, in exchange for which it receives a transmission of knowledge and know-how on a daily basis, the free access to all meals, a space to pitch your tent, as well as participation in workshops (non-violent communication, sensory activities in nature, etc.). This program cannot be called “free labor”. The time devoted to the educational support of the public, which is our main vocation, is less time dedicated to pure food production. The objective of our gardens is not to be a model farm in agroecology, but to transmit agroecological gardening techniques to as many people as possible.

Same criticism for the Amanins

Aux Amanins (La Roche-sur-Grane, Drôme), the agrotourism infrastructure born in 2003 from the meeting between Rabhi and the entrepreneur Michel Valentin (who died in 2012) , which has devoted 4.5 million euros of its fortune to the project, extends over fifty-five hectares. It hosts business seminars, vacationers, but also people wishing to train in market gardening. Vegetable production is based on two part-time employees (twenty-eight hours a week each) supported by a squadron of civic service volunteers or voluntary workers, the wwoofers (a word made up of the acronym of World-Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms, “reception in organic farms around the world”): “In exchange for room and board, the wwoofers work here five hours a day, explains the management of the Amanins. We do not pay social contributions, and it is legal. »

In this example, let's not forget that "Terre et Humanisme" is a training space and a non-profit association. Volunteers are there to learn farming techniques and methods.

For the eco-village like the Amanins or the hundreds of eco-villages created by the Colibris or the associations of Hubert Reeves, they use a lot of volunteers as a workforce.

Criticism of the relationship with volunteers exists and is used a lot to discredit Hummingbird Oasis projects, agroecology projects, but not permaculture or Hubert Reeves' oases. I think it's necessary to respond to it and explain the context because I really feel that those who criticize do not understand how everything fits together. Criticism is useful, but you have to know how to compare from time to time with what is being done and imagine alternatives.

First of all, I think it is necessary to remember some important things: traditional agriculture is undergoing waves of rather worrying suicides, this agriculture is attracting fewer and fewer people and the new farmers are turning instead to organic or permaculture. /agroecology. It is important to remember that the profitability of a farm is very complicated, whether in conventional, organic or alternative agriculture. The conventional is becoming more and more mechanized, awash in debt, buying plots to benefit from the CAP (common agricultural policy) which gives subsidies per hectare. If the farmer survives, once retired he has no successor, because he is too indebted and because the area is too large. In addition, conventional agriculture poisons us with pesticides, the seeds are not reproducible and food sovereignty is in the hands of lobbies and multinationals like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer... some farmers who farm conventionally do not even eat their production. , and they struggle to attract young people. Based on this observation, organic has appeared with techniques that are more sensitive to the environment and to humans, and to go further to emerge Permaculture and Agroecology. The latter are experimenting with agricultural work without oil, with more labour, less vegetable area and more forest area. But to build this model, you need help. Caregivers are ready to do either internships or training to learn how it works. For example, there is Wwoofing to make an exchange: I work on the farm for 8 p.m. and in exchange I am fed, housed and I learn the techniques. It's the same when you're an au pair or an au pair abroad to learn a language, for example. There are training organizations such as on the UPP (popular university of permaculture) website. Terre et humanise is a training organization and apprentice permaculturists pay to learn the theory and practice of these production methods. As for the exorbitant prices, I let you be the judge with Terre & Humanism:

Earth & Humanism are recognized as “Training Organizations”. We offer a long professional training in Animation in Agroecology, registered in the inventory of the CNCP (National Commission for Professional Certification) as a certifying training. Our all-public training courses provide us with resources that balance the related costs (costs of educational engineering, trainers (employees and service providers), administration and reception on site (electricity, heating, water, meals)). Our average price for a training day is generally lower than that of other training organizations not co-financed by the state.

For my part, I did an introduction to permaculture in Paris and I paid €150 for two days. This is what happens in the profession. I then learned the theory of permaculture and participated in educational work on the garden of the training organization. I allowed to make seedlings, I planted cabbages on a mound and I removed the weeds, it is normal to have a little experience in the field and not to remain only in theory. If I believe Mallet, I was exploited... Of course I see things differently as for the majority of volunteers or apprentices.

It is often for an exchange and transmission. I have seen a lot of eco-village projects being built and a lot of people coming to lend a hand for the construction of a house or a garden… For the moment, these are alternative methods of designing a place to live and I think we should congratulate ourselves on the enthusiasm it takes. Try to build your house and ask your neighbor to come and help you! In the case of eco places, in addition to your neighbour, people from all over France will come to help you of their own free will to learn new methods to later apply them to themselves or not. Individualism plagues our world, but when collective projects emerge it poses a problem because the individuals in this collective do not ask for any financial compensation in exchange!

Volunteers do not enrich the owners, but provide a breath of fresh air. It's a kind of return to barter and time swapping.

Volunteers are an integral part of France, whether in sports associations, trade unionists, environmentalists. Without volunteers there would be no Greenpeace, Sea Shepard, nor Terre et Humanisme or Colibris, nor sports associations.

You would think that Earth and Humanism are enriched on the backs of volunteers and here is their answer:

Our operational team is made up of 20 full-time or part-time employees. The team operates under shared governance and has created decision-making bodies on the basis of election without candidates or on a voluntary basis, for certain decision-making, in conjunction with the Board of Directors. The gap between the highest and the lowest salary is 1.34.

The Board of Directors is made up of 15 directors, members and volunteers, who wish to make a commitment to provide the association with their skills to support it in its project and its development.

What PR does not work

This is a very strong criticism of JBM or PR detractors. Agroecology, eco places are not profitable and do not change the face of the world.

Despite the size of the site and the abundant labor force, the Amanins claim not to achieve food self-sufficiency and buy 20% of their vegetables. “I saw people leave, slamming the door, complaining of being exploited, testifies Ms. Ariane Lespect, who worked voluntarily at Mas de Beaulieu, managed by land and humanism, as well as at Amanins. But I don't think they understood Pierre Rabhi's message. Getting out of the system, rediscovering a human exchange, means agreeing to work for something other than a salary, and to give. »

The peasant-prophet derives no monetary benefit from these voluntary commitments. But these apprentice gardeners without much experience or agronomic knowledge who dig the soil of the "Potemkin farms" give the "counter-model" Rabhi a telegenic image of economically viable organic farming - while these farms make a significant part of their turnover business by charging for training.

As mentioned above, neither for Earth and Humanism nor for the Amanin the objective is to achieve self-sufficiency. But the results are still encouraging.

He calls them “Potemkin farms”, in other words booby traps, facade farms “where it is good to play the guitar around the fire with young people in the evening”. But did these Training and Conference Centers ever claim to be “self-sufficient” farms? Who can imagine that with the small gardens of the Mas we can feed trainees, volunteers (who are also learners!) and employees? Have these structures ever claimed to be economic models? Of course not. These are experimental associative spaces that have no claim to autarky even if the statement should be weighed in view of the food autonomy of 80% of Amanins and the 33,000 meals served each year. Blaming them for economic dependence and amateurism is a polemical process.

Food self-sufficiency reaches 80% overall. We are, by serving 33,000 meals a year, self-sufficient in market gardening, dairy, meat and eggs. Oil, condiments, spices, teas and coffee account for most of the 20% on which we are dependent on external inputs.

We must remember one important thing: PR has certainly initiated with others associations such as Colibris, Terre & Humanism or the Amanins. But criticizing PR by trying to dismantle these associations seems complicated to me. First of all, PR no longer manages anything in these associations, as the latter replied. But even if it means criticizing hummingbirds or Earth and Humanism, you might as well do a real investigative job to see if the projects resulting from these training sessions manage to achieve profitability? So JBM out of hand excludes all life oasis initiatives, but also those of alternative agriculture. Permaculture and agroecology are two almost identical things except that permaculture in a broader sense and agroecology is confined to agriculture. We could simplify by saying that agroecology can represent a way of doing agriculture in permaculture. The problem is that some farms achieve profitability, by mixing, market gardening, training and the help of Wwoofer. Others allow food self-sufficiency. I invite you to consult the following sites to get an idea of what it is possible to do with the principles of permaculture and/or agroecology:

Pascal Poot's tomatoes: https://www.lepotagerdesante.com/

JBM explains in the interview on LeMediaTV who does not believe in the individual actions of the Hummingbirds

30.50: It must be said that among hummingbirds there is absolutely no political action (..) In the libraries of Earth & Humanism we find books on biodynamics, homeopathy, but not in social criticism. These are people who organize a bubble in society and it can be interesting... to recharge your batteries, to do a little gardening, to do market gardening, to find yourself with empathetic people, but to think that it can represent a real alternative to hummingbirds. Hummingbirds are not an alternative.

Pierre Rabhi does not bother anyone, it is a harmless ecology, but it is not with this ecology that we transform society.

Ok already, we can see how JBM skews its argument by associating Earth & Humanism with biodynamics and homeopathy… Forgetting to specify agroecology and the other books that Terre & Humanism. We find among others:

Stéphane Jansegers writes:

Sankara was very influenced by the thought of Pierre, how many countries have pushed the model of Agroecology to this point... His assassination in 87 when he had instructed Pierre to rethink with him the production models of the country ... is reminiscent of all the other murders of defenders of life and "poor" populations (I put quotes, because wealth is not just a question of money !!).. .serious question, we're not bad, aren't we? ! ... And why the hell Mallet does not mention the hundreds of successful projects by African partners?? When we read his article we really have the impression that Pierre is a screwed up character, go and visit the AIDMR center in Burkina and we'll talk about it again! https://aidmr.wordpress.com/our-villages/ ...

If we look at the map of the Hummingbird-style oases, we see that it is not to be thrown away either since there are more and more people who create this kind of oasis, whether with the Hummingbirds or the nature oases with Hubert Reeves:

https://www.colibris-lemouvement.org/projects/project-oasis/card-oasis

http://www.humanite-biodiversite.fr/qu-est-ce-que-les-oasis-nature

It is on this argument that we see a little more why JBM criticizes PR. The two visions diverge, here are a few sentences from JBM's review on LeMediaTV:

5.35 p.m.: PR has its own utopia in mind, that we are all peasants close to the earth linked to a form of spirituality, in fact it is a nostalgia of the old regime (…) it is a conviction that is specific to me (…), but in reality it is that PR has a nostalgia for what was done before.

7.45 p.m.: I think we waste a lot of time wanting to adopt a form of moral purity, setting an example. We know of phones in our pocket made in Asia by exploited people, but we didn't choose it, we don't have to feel guilty. This idea of guilt is a religious idea and I think we have to get rid of it.

23.30: we must change our way of life and ask the bosses of multinationals to change themselves, I think it's a somewhat naive view of the balance of power, it's harmless ecology.

28.10: individual change, the fabliau of the Hummingbird, but what Rabhi does not say is that in the legend the Hummingbird dies of exhaustion, without succeeding in reaching the unsold and I think that we must take into account consider the legend as a whole and see that individual hummingbirds will inevitably die of exhaustion.

29.55: It is not simply by having individual actions, by having a small vegetable garden that we will transform our society, it is by organizing a collective force and a balance of power that this kind of thing will happen .

Pierre Rabhi does not bother anyone, it is a harmless ecology, but it is not with this ecology that we transform society.

Finally JBM does not believe that the Hummingbirds offer an alternative society model, I would like to know what an alternative society can be according to him? If we throw hummingbirds in the trash, then we also throw away permacultural farms, nature oases, AMAPs, Alternatiba... Let's just keep Greenpeace, SeaShepard, EELV. Except that these associations are structured by an ecological conscience and by individual actions.

For my part, instead of having such a clear-cut position, I would say that we need both first individual experiments, which will become collective to show a possible path and more politically committed people to propose a model alternative from these experiments. Or rather several alternative models. What JBM does not understand, I think, is that the model advocated by these oases is precisely not to produce an infinitely imitable cooking recipe, it is rather to create a multitude of local systems and not centralized. So thousands or even millions of different projects.

I think that for the moment no one is able to imagine an alternative project for a complete society. But the Hummingbirds want to offer one:

The association (Colibris) places personal change at the heart of its raison d'être, convinced that the transformation of society is totally subordinate to human change. Colibris has made it its mission to inspire, connect and support citizens engaged in an individual and collective transition process.

Les Colibris is also training on agroecology, free software, shared governance, democracy... the field is actually wide and allows each citizen to get a clear idea of the issues.

JBM does not believe it for a single second and I think he is wrong. Changing individually means above all refocusing on your vital needs, on the meaning you want to give to your life. Who agrees to eat tortured animals, who agrees to make children work to have a smartphone, who agrees to use modern slaves to make our clothes, who agrees to give data at GAFAM, who agrees that fish eat more and more plastic? Nobody, but it takes a long time to change, to find solutions, but without questioning and without changing nothing will change at the political level and the speech will ring hollow... This is what JBM criticizes PR for: that it does not happy sobriety does not apply to oneself. (We will see this passage later)

Its consumption is a political act. People who choose to eat organic, in bulk, locally open up to a new network, to spontaneous mutual aid. They are happier because they choose their consumption. Changing yourself is also an opportunity to agree with your values even if we all have our contradictions. It is also to be able to transmit by example and not by authority. If a father says to his child: “No! you must not play on the tablet” while he spends his time on it. What message does the child receive? "Do what I say, not what I do", no in the education of children it does not work, so why in adults it works... making these small changes allows you to better transmit your ideals and values. It is by changing my habits myself that I become more and more aware of the impact that my actions can have, those of multinationals, those of politicians. Finally, changing yourself is also and above all sharpening your critical mind, because to change you have to learn.

It is Krishnamurti's whole struggle to get rid of his traditions, to have no guru and to change himself to change the world. Albert Einstein said this:

Everyone wants it to change, but no one wants to change.

The way of thinking that created a problem can never solve it

However, this is certainly not enough. Politicians, environmental activists must seize these alternatives. This is what Alternatiba, Friends of the Earth and ANV-COP21 (Nonviolent Action) are doing. ANV-COP21 carries out actions of civil disobedience based on data from Friends of the Earth and offers the alternatives proposed by Alternatiba. Alternatiba says it acts on its two legs: That of alternatives and those of politics with non-violent actions of civil disobedience. Vincent Verzat of the chain Share it's nice also think that political commitment is an issue, that we have to put pressure. It is true that is one of the challenges, but I think that we have not yet convinced the majority of the population of the need to apply these changes. The example of Aurélien Barrau is interesting. When he asks the government to be ecologist first, to make laws and measures related to ecology, even if it confuses the majority of the population, he is called a dictator.

So, in a sense, those who do their part to change consciences are funny sores that are useless and will not change things from a political point of view. On the other hand, when a guy says that politicians have to shake their ass to propose laws that are in favor of biodiversity and our future, we shout at the dictator because the population is not ready ...

To respond to JBM on the fact that the changes will mainly take place in politics, I ask him some questions: have the politicians taken different paths without the majority of the population? What are the actions that raise awareness of the ecological impact of each? Why don't people project themselves? Can we mobilize unconvinced people? Are the majority of convinced people mobilized to make the balance of power?

The argument we often hear is the following: "I can't manage to project myself in a positive way on a more sustainable world" the reality is that people who are not convinced are waiting for a positive solution to the change in the model of society and that no one is capable of sketching its portrait. In truth, just the fact of “waiting” is a problem. For my part, I do not believe at all in the speech of the director France of WWF on ONPC which is that the solutions on the problem of collapse will be done with the current technologies manufactured in mass and with the new technologies, but can be that JBM is agree with him and it can be an interesting debate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdoaThzPJgk

And earth is humanism to conclude

Pierre Rabhi was at the origin of many structures, born on his own initiative or from his ideas: Terre & Humanisme, the Movement of Oasis everywhere, the Amanins agro-ecological center, the Children's Farm-Hameau des Buis, the Colibris movement, the Pierre Rabhi Endowment Fund. After 40 years of commitment, we are grateful to him for his work and his many shares.

To date, each structure is independent both in its governance and in its financial management. They each work for the dissemination and experimentation of lifestyles that respect nature and human beings.

Agroecology is much more than a set of practices: it helps to create a balance between agriculture and ecology, quality and quantity, human activities and biodiversity, philosophy and techniques, ecosystems and social systems.

Pierre Rabhi financial sobriety is for others

This criticism does not appear on the article of the diplomatic world, but rather on a video and interview of JBM at France Inter and on LeMediaTV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=735CQFuTauY&feature=youtu.be

JBM says PR won $500,000, but it's bigger to advertise it like, "Half a million dollars from these book sales in 10 years." In addition PR invoices part of these conferences between 1000 and 2000€ which makes him a gain between 7000 and 10000€ depending on the month.

Here are the answers Bernard Chevilliat, President of the Pierre Rabhi Endowment Fund. (it's long, but worth it)

As proof of his good faith, which was called into question, Pierre Rabhi even agreed to produce to Mr. Malet his last 5 tax forms produced by an approved management center. This truncates the truth and above all betrays the trust placed in it.

Since the beginning of his investigation, Jean Baptiste Malet has interpreted that the thousands of books sold and the dozens of conferences given have enriched their author and decrees that Pierre Rabhi should have allocated these funds to associations or structures that claim to be his or that he created. These, totally independent of Pierre Rabhi, do not ask anything, but the journalist intends to speak for them. He just forgets to specify that apart from his royalties which fluctuate over the years, Pierre Rabhi only has to live on a peasant's pension (788€) and that he is not present in these associations. only on an honorary basis (with the exception of the Friends of Solan, of which he still chairs), that he has no organic link with them and that it is therefore totally abusive to speak of a "system".

Besides, Pierre attributed to one of them – Hummingbirds – the copyright of the Manifesto for the Earth and Humanism, which did not sell "little" as Jean too quickly brushes it off. Baptiste Malet since sales to date exceed 130,000 copies across all networks, or 11 to 12% of sales of all books. Pierre Rabhi has also directed the rights to a collective work (to change to change the world) towards the Endowment Fund.

The sales recorded by the GfK indicate that Pierre Rabhi has actually sold 1,167,000 books (cumulative to June 2018), but these are all the sales combined for a long life as a writer and the major part of these sales was made in paperback formats. For us to understand, we must know that in pocket format the royalties are divided by two and indexed on the public price of the book which is low. We are therefore talking about a few euro cents per pound.

Pierre and Michèle Rabhi, who have five children, do not have a villa or a swimming pool. They are just usufructuaries of the farm in which they have lived since 1963, which they have largely repaired and transformed with their own hands.

They do not hold any securities or real estate or any life insurance contract and their lifestyle has remained unchanged for years. Their only savings are limited to a passbook A and a sustainable development savings account. No offshore accounts, artwork or electronic gadgets! A Peugeot 308 (from 2015) and a 206 for all luxury.

Given the irregularity of the income, it is in any case fundamentally misleading to affirm that Pierre Rabhi earns from 7 to 10,000 euros per month and that he can therefore easily assume the salary and expenses of an assistant ( 43,000 euros per year) or redistribute sums to the structures it has created. Smoothed over ten years, pensions included, the income of Pierre Rabhi and his wife is less than 45,000 euros a year even if they have recently experienced some temporary growth.

Of the 30 to 35 annual conferences, half of them are actually free. The other half is most often invoiced between 1000 and 1200€ and, to get a better idea of the amount actually collected, we must deduct 40% of contributions, which leaves 700€ in the end (for the record, a speaker the notoriety of Pierre Rabhi willingly monetizes his intervention between 6000 and 10,000 euros per conference). What is more, very often and especially during his trips abroad, Pierre Rabhi bears his travel expenses. Here too, compared to what is commonly practiced by the first speaker to come, the cost is extremely low in relation to his notoriety and his age. Even Jacques Monin, when he interviews him on France Inter, shyly admits that "it's not huge", but Jean Baptiste Malet pretends not to hear him.

Jean Baptiste Malet says that the Endowment Fund is full of subsidies and that we receive huge sums of money.

That's wrong. We manage to painfully raise 50 to 60,000 euros per year which, compared to other foundations or funds, is very little and this is on average what we redistribute. Since its creation, from 2014 to 2017, the Fund has supported around thirty projects and distributed 250,000 euros in aid. We must also specify that apart from the operating costs, the funds collected can only be used, in accordance with our statutes, for the creation of training centers in agroecology or for targeted actions directly linked to the promotion of agroecology. The same goes for the only significant bequest collected to date (only two years ago) that the generous donor had reserved for Pierre Rabhi and his actions. We therefore strive to manage as a “good father” rather than squandering the funds entrusted to us. What is more, the major "model village" project dear to Pierre's heart - with precisely the creation of a training center for agroecology in an arid environment - that we have been carrying out for a year in Maaden in Saharan Mauritania will require funds very important. In 2018, to date, we will distribute more than 150,000 euros, including a third for the Mauritanian project. This being said, I would like to point out that all the members of the Endowment Fund are volunteers and that they bear all their travel expenses. The only employee of the Fund is its secretary who also supports Pierre Rabhi in the management of his agenda. In return for this aid, he makes three rooms in his house available to the Fund free of charge, including a meeting room and an office. Nothing to make a fuss of.

In the end, JBM makes assumptions, but they turn out to be inaccurate. The virtue of JBM's questions is to have received an answer on what PR earns and what it does with it. What I remember is that Pierre Rabhi receives a lot of money through these books and these conferences. These are sums that do not shock me, unlike JBM and other people against PR. Authors are too often in a precarious situation that PR cannot be blamed for earning money in copyright. What we could blame him for is having several polluting vehicles, having money in tax havens, having materialistic impulses, a yacht... But this is not simply the case, since this money is given to associations and to help the projects of his children and his friends.

PR is the powerful multinationals

From 2009, a year marked by Rabhi's participation in the summer university of the Mouvement des entreprises de France (Medef), the founder of Les Colibris met leaders of large companies, such as Veolia, HSBC, General Electric, Clarins, Yves Rocher or Weleda, in order to “raise awareness”. The activity reports of the Colibris association refer at this time to the creation of a “laboratory of Colibris entrepreneurs” responsible for “mobilizing and connecting entrepreneurs in search of meaning and coherence”. “We can bring together a CEO, an association, a mother, a farmer, an elected official, an artist, and they organize themselves to find solutions that they would never have imagined alone”, we read.

Eager to stimulate this imagination, Rabhi has also received at his home, in recent years, the billionaire Jacques-Antoine Granjon, the general manager of the Danone Group Emmanuel Faber, as well as Mr. Jean-Pierre Petit, the highest French executive of McDonald's and a member of the multinational's management team. "I admire Pierre Rabhi (...), I go to all his conferences", proclaims Mr. Christopher Guérin, managing director of the cable manufacturer Nexans Europe (26,000 employees), who flatters himself in the same breath to have “multiplied by three the operational profitability of European factories in two years” (Le Figaro, June 4, 2018). Rabhi also had lunch with Mr. Emmanuel Macron during his campaign for the presidential election. "Poor Macron, he does what he can, but it's not easy," he told us. He is willing, but the complexity of the system means that he does not have a free hand. »

Answer from Gabriel Rabhi

On France Inter, this journalist denounced Pierre's frequentation, in particular friendships with big bosses: and it's true, just as he frequents many modest and discreet people. But one wonders if Mr MALET has read and understood Pierre's message. For him, the class struggle has little or nothing to do with ecology. Pierre considers that ecology is neither right nor left, and he is right. It is "above" political questions, upstream of all life. We don't eat right-wing potatoes, we don't drink left-wing water. Pierre sees the ecological emergency as a major issue that concerns everyone, modest and powerful, and he is very right. This is what motivates him to never be co-opted or associated with a political movement and to exclude no one, as a matter of principle.

Answer from Fabrice Nicollino:

Phew, I save the furniture by pointing out that I learned some things in the last paragraphs. And I add without embarrassment that these facts bother me. I am indeed for the destruction of transnational corporations, which I see, which I know are aggravating the planetary ecological crisis with each passing day. Such is their deep nature, like the scorpion in the fable. I therefore find Pierre Rabhi's encounters with people from Carrefour and McDonald's distressing. Knowing the zebra, I am quite certain that he does not see well, pushed by a Rabhi galaxy which exceeds him, the consequences of these exchanges. That said, I am not looking for an excuse for him, and like everyone else, he is responsible for his actions.

But shouldn't we go further? The big bosses who come to see him make me think of those who thought they were curing scrofula by obtaining royal hands on their necks. Put yourself in their place! If most are perfect imbeciles, all occupied with their greed and their eternal power struggles, some inevitably have a singular sensitivity. Why not call it a soul? Although unable to change their inner being, the direct contact with Rabhi must surely calm in them that existential pain that every truly human can only feel in the face of the ongoing disaster.

(…)

In truth, this does not hold water. Did the capitalists received by Rabhi receive anything? Can they wear a certificate of good conduct signed by him? Did they pay him for a villa in the Canary Islands or Mallorca, did they open an account for him in the Cayman Islands? Last I heard, no. These capitalists have come to expiate, by a new penance, some of their misdeeds. Let them believe.

Answer from Bernard CHEVILLIAT

This absurd assertion that runs the networks is false. Apart from Emmanuel Faber (Danone) – whom he has not seen for 4 or 5 years – and with whom he once forged friendships, Pierre Rabhi does not spend any time with big bosses. The few meetings of leaders of multinationals – often polite and brief which could have been organized by this or that intermediary and never on his initiative – did not have any follow-up. Pierre Rabhi is not responsible for recoveries or short-lived speeches by one or the other.

On this subject, we have the impression that he rubs shoulders daily with the powerful of this world who, as we know, do not really aspire to return to Earth in their daily actions. I think the truth lies between the assertions of JBM and this Bernard Chevilliat. But I think PR is in line with his ideas that you have to change yourself to change the world and that ecology goes beyond class struggle and political opinions. Even if for my part I think it's a waste of time for this kind of person. Not that it is evil by nature, but that the interests and the inertia of the companies they lead do not allow in-depth transformation of these companies.

In the end

Finally, whatever PR thinks, its heritage (the hummingbirds, the Amandins, earth and humanism, the boxwood hamlet, etc.) does not reflect the vision of JBM (extreme right, reactionary, mystical, Catholic, etc.), the projects who come out of it have neither the reactionary vision, nor the mysticism, nor the agronomic poverty of the detractors of PR.

To use Hummingbirds, I believe that political action can take different and complementary forms. I am attached to thinking the "AND" and not only the "OR". Whether in institutional political life, whether in acts of resistance or civil disobedience, or in popular education and citizen empowerment, there are many ways to participate. Colibris is not a party, Colibris is often not involved in advocacy or revealing injustices either. However, these actions have their raison d'être and are part of a systemic change, but also that other structures do it very well. In a complementary way, Colibris is a movement of individual and collective emancipation that accompanies those who want to "do their part". This posture is not contradictory with other means of action, on the contrary. At the same time, I believe in the value of consistency and the power of example. As such, these individual or collective transitions are models, prototypes and catalysts for more political change. I believe in the power of experimentation and demonstration. Thus local action can be the soil on which the broader change will germinate.

To end the article, I will quote the conclusion of the Amanins:

If indeed the little hummingbird dies of exhaustion trying to put out the fire on his own, do the other jungle animals get out of it safe and sound?