Étiquette : immigration
-
Pour comprendre un étron politico-médiatique de la taille de Zemmour, le Discours de la servitude volontaire (La Boétie) ne suffit plus, d’autant qu’il se pique lui-même de le citer entre deux Napoléonismes en peau de Pétain.
Pour adhérer à pareille fiente, il faut aussi, outre le légendaire masochisme populaire, avoir été profondément marqué au fer rouge du ressentiment, cette constipation de l’action, cette rétroaction intériorisée du malheur, cette « digestion qui n’en finit pas », cet « empoisonnement du corps et de l’âme » (Nietzsche) ; bref, cette faiblesse existentielle radicale qui se cherche aveuglément un bouc-émissaire parmi plus faible que soi, et ne se sent forte qu’en faisant foule derrière le « petit homme » (Reich) devenu « grand » : le même que soi, aussi rigidifié, aussi étroit, mais en plus grand.
La psychologie de masse du zemmourisme est fondée sur cette inversion spectaculaire ordinaire : « ils sont méchants, donc nous sommes bons. » (Généalogie de la morale, Nietzsche), tout comme le nazisme, ou le « communisme » version petit père du peuple.
Plutôt que de faire le constat lucide de la dépossession généralisée – qui n’épargne évidemment pas les immigrés -, le névrosé de la-marchandise-qui-ne-brille-pas-pour-lui, en veut aux étrangers de ce que le monde lui est devenu étranger, alors qu’évidemment « tout se serait passé de même s’il n’y avait pas eu un seul immigré » (Debord).
Le zemmourisme est la maladie sénile de l’aveuglement volontaire.
American translation of the video (Debord’s text) :
Everything is false in the « question of immigrants », exactly as in any question openly asked in the present society; and for the same reasons: the economy – that is to say, the pseudo-economic illusion – has brought it, and the spectacle has treated it (…). Like the waste of the atomic industry (…) the immigrants (…) will remain because it was much easier to eliminate the Jews of Germany at the time of Hitler than the North Africans, and others, from here to now: because there is neither a Nazi party nor the myth of a native race in France! Should we assimilate them or « respect cultural diversities »? Inept false choice. We can no longer assimilate anyone: neither the youth, nor the French workers, nor even the provincials or old ethnic minorities (…). The diffusion of the concentrated spectacle can uniformize only spectators. We gargle, in simple advertising language, with the rich expression of « cultural diversities ». Which cultures? There are none left. Neither Christian nor Muslim; neither socialist nor scientist. Do not speak about the absent ones. There is not more, to look at one moment the truth and the evidence, that the spectacular-worldly degradation (…) of any culture. (…). Some put forward the criterion of « speaking French ». Laughable. Do the current Frenchmen speak it? (…) Are we not clearly going, even if there were no immigrants, towards the loss of all articulated language and all reasoning? (…). We have become Americans. It is normal that we find here all the miserable problems of the U.S.A., from drugs to the Mafia, from the fast-food to the proliferation of the ethnic groups. (…). Here, we are nothing: colonized people who did not know how to revolt, the yes-men of spectacular alienation. What pretension, considering the proliferating presence of immigrants of all colors, do we suddenly find ourselves in France, as if we were robbed of something that would still be ours? And what is it? What do we believe, or rather what do we still pretend to believe? It is a pride for their rare days of celebration, when the pure slaves are indignant that the metecrats threaten their independence! The risk of apartheid? (…). The ghetto of the new spectacular apartheid (…) is already there, in the current France: the immense majority of the population is locked up and stultified there; and all would have happened in the same way if there had not been a single immigrant. (…). And now one pretends to regret this only particular result of the presence of so many immigrants, because France « disappears » thus? Comical. It disappears for many other causes and, more or less quickly, on almost all the grounds. Immigrants have the most beautiful right to live in France. They are the representatives of dispossession; and dispossession is at home in France, so much so that it is in the majority, and almost universal. Immigrants have lost their culture and their countries, very notoriously, without being able to find others. And the French are in the same case, and only slightly more secretly. With the equalization of the whole planet in the misery of a new environment and a purely deceptive intelligence of everything, the French, who have accepted this without much revolt (…) are ill-advised to say that they no longer feel at home because of the immigrants! They have every reason not to feel at home anymore, it is very true. This is because there is no one else in this horrible new world of alienation but immigrants. There will be people living on the face of the earth, and right here, when France is gone. The ethnic mix that will dominate is unpredictable, as are their cultures, their very languages. We can affirm that the central question, profoundly qualitative, will be this: will these future peoples have dominated, by an emancipated practice, the present technique, which is globally that of simulacrum and dispossession? Or, on the contrary, will they be dominated by it in an even more hierarchical and slavery-like way than today? We must envisage the worst, and fight for the best.
Guy Debord, Correspondences, 1985.Le PDF (bilingue) du texte de Guy Debord : ici.
L'Observatoire situationniste - The Situationist Observatory. 