Lhe prophets are persevering; the apostles are stubborn. This law of civilizations alone explains the collapse of La France insoumise. Of a leader determined to transform the ideological software of a breathless left, there is nothing, or very little, left. The parade the day after the legislative elections will have ended, a few weeks later, in a precipice where contradictions, excesses, stupidity are piling up. Should we be surprised by the text in dubious taste written by Mathilde Panot, where she accused Emmanuel Macron of paying homage to Marshal Pétain on the day of the commemoration of the Vél ‘d’Hiv roundup, without specifying that the victims were Jews? It is in reality the conclusion of a process of decay.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon has so much talent that agreeing with him doesn’t matter. He is a great actor, cultured, provocative, relevant, sometimes brave. Almost ten years ago, he spoke of the French Revolution with such fervor that he appeared, and it was moreover sympathetic, as the first of the crusaders of a healthy, just, unitary Republic. He was the strange yet compelling encounter of Saint-Just and Huber Matos. Since then, he has made blunders, let’s not say provocations, with regard to Judaism. He does not deserve to be called an anti-Semite, no, but he has, for incomprehensible reasons, play with Israel, implying we don’t really know what about Zemmour’s Judaism and his political career. He is weird; and this oddity is embarrassing. He showed himself benevolent towards Vladimir Putin, who was certainly not yet the executioner of today, but who was not an example of a humanist and enlightened sovereign either. The rebels were the only ones in the National Assembly not to recognize, by a vote of abstention, the genocide of the Uighurs. There again, to hear them, there were excellent reasons not to do so. The word “genocide” was perhaps imprecise, but why refuse symbolic solidarity towards a people who, as we know, were already basically martyred? Is it being French to distinguish oneself, in diplomatic matters, by the almost systematic defense of oppressive regimes?
Foolishness makes you mean; and brutes, Voltaire wrote to Rousseau, are often famously ignorant.
General de Gaulle was not wrong to declare, in The oaks that we cut down, that there is “a twenty-century pact between the greatness of France and the freedom of others”. And we will spare here declarations of friendship to Hugo Chavez. It would not be right to attack this party in the name of morality. After all, and they like to repeat it, the Democrats, starting with the Americans, are also capable of monstrosity. It’s true, why be democrats if democracy is imperfect? As much to pour in the most primary authoritarianism. Despite these slips, La France insoumise scored a goal on the evening of the presidential election. However, and she will realize it too late, she is now in an entrenched camp of which, since the League in the XVIe century, no one goes out in France: that of the rebels, of the slingers. The French never give them power. Their bad faith, their lack of empathy and their violence worry more than they seduce. Personalities like Alexis Corbière or Clémentine Autain, reasonable and reasoned, are overtaken by political commissars whose virulence is inversely proportional to intelligence. Whose opportunism equals impotence. Foolishness makes you mean; and brutes, Voltaire wrote to Rousseau, are often famously ignorant.
READ ALSOTom Bower: “Corbyn and Mélenchon, it’s cousin cousin”
Mathilde Panot is stubborn, does not understand that the excitement caused by her declaration does not come from a hatred of the left, but from the indecency of her remarks. This pathetic chaos is reflected in the bravado of college students, such as the one that consists in not wanting to wear a tie in the National Assembly, in playing ever louder, ever worse, a role from which the voters would have liked them to leave. Finally, what about the spectacle given by the Éric Coquerel affair?
READ ALSO#MeToo, LFI’s Frankenstein experience
La France insoumise will have achieved the extraordinary performance of becoming a decadent party less than a month after its peak. As for France, he no longer speaks of it. The French this, the French that, of course, but that is to forget that the French react according to their rallying point: their nation and their culture. Which leads to a tragic and yet inevitable conclusion: this party which had tried to think of the left by placing France and its sovereignty at the center is no longer interested in it. The evils with which they are overwhelmed would be the fruit of a media cabal, of a press in love with the President of the Republic, of corrupt journalists? In The Gay Knowledge, Nietzsche writes: “It happens one day that what others know about us (or think they know) throws itself on us, and now we recognize that this is what is most powerful. You’re better off with your bad conscience than with your bad reputation. »
Book references:
Andre Malraux, The oaks that are felled, Paris, Gallimard, 1971.
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay KnowledgeParis, Le Mercure de France, 1901.