English translation of the French transcript, made with AI and not yet proofread — click a paragraph to jump to it. Show the French original
Gaza and Olympus: the opening image 0:00 Fifteen days already since our last conversation, already fifteen days. And so I'll start by — you'll tell me once makes a habit, but I can only thank Pierre-Alain once again for helping us find that roughly ideal periodicity, which, depending on everyone's availability, starting with mine, Pierre-Alain's, and yours of course, this fifteen-day periodicity would be good.
1:00 There you go, but anyway, that's a bit the title of tonight's episode: we're in a period of turbulence, we do what we can to keep on course. And I presume you've seen our card, our opening image, as a visual title sequence if you prefer. Well yes, now that the election is over, might as well admit it, we are antisemites, aren't we?
1:35 Yes, according to the criteria of the mainstream media, since I dare show the horror of being an inhabitant of Gaza, all ages, all social conditions combined. A crushed society. Babies having their arms amputated without anesthesia.
2:06 I'm engaging in antisemitism. I'll tell you — but Arabs are Semites too. Well, you see what I mean, there are Semites and Semites. Some are worth more than others. Ah yes, that's another term we have to abandon, like "Western." Ah yes, Western — wait, let's not mix things up, Gaza is down below, you saw the image. And up above, there are the gods. We're on Olympus, aren't we? There are the laborers down below, the Titans, the giants, who work for the gods while being in conflict with them, right?
2:42 And then there are the gods, you saw them. And especially the king of the gods, the one who doesn't quite know, right, whether to go left or right once he's stopped talking in front of a microphone. Well, the psychically most unstable head of state on the planet — that's not from the Western world, mind you. You see how many quotation marks I put around "Western," I'm about to say why. And this most powerful head of state on the planet, right?
Two fascisms and the dinners at Thierry Solère's 3:15 In that state, the one with his finger closest to the red button of the Apocalypse. So I'm following on from our last conversation, for which I must apologize. I forgot to make clear that there should be a question mark after "toward a fresh and joyful apocalypse."
3:45 Question mark. Are we, do we really hold — like those madmen up there. Those at the top, the leaders of the West. I'm going to — you'll see, you'll see, and you'll see a follow-up to what I just said. The leaders of the West are raving warmongers. And it keeps growing. Here come the F-16s.
4:16 So much the better! people shout. From left to right. Strange left. Right, we know that one. Far right. Ah! Let me sum up what came out of our last conversation before continuing on with it, to repeat: so, for newcomers, so as not to go back over it and to move on to something else, the main thing we got out of last time.
4:49 It's my proposal to never again talk about fascism, about being for or against fascism, without specifying which fascism we're talking about, given that I've proposed a model. It's a proposal, it can be discussed. These are subjects that can be discussed, that's actually a good thing. That's all we do right now. Except that we get tangled up in contradictions, paradoxes, denials, or on the contrary, in masks falling, for lack of remembering that we're not talking about the same fascism.
5:27 Or rather, when the two tend to merge, then it's even worse, it's the crisis at its peak. I'm going to clarify all this, I'm going to make very clear what is most serious. I'll recall the two fascisms I'm talking about. There's traditional fascism, currently represented by the RN. The fascism I call, for reasons I'll immediately explain, local fascism: in France, the RN; in Germany, the AfD, and lots of neo-Nazi parties; in the Scandinavian countries, in Austria; it's the former MSI, right, which carried on Mussolini's legacy, Italian fascism, and which has now become the party from which the current head of the Italian government, Ms. Meloni, emerged — she who swears only by Brussels and by NATO.
6:29 Ah yes, you thought fascism, NATO, that's what protects us from the extremes, of course, ah yes, from communism and Nazism, yes, Hannah Arendt, groupie of the most Nazi of philosophers — no, that doesn't work anymore, the masks are falling. The masks are falling. Look, a few days ago, what am I saying, three days ago, some strange dinners took place, didn't they?
6:59 It's well known, I mean, except that no conclusions will be drawn from it. The dinners that brought together the Macron circle, the person, the best friend of Macron, well, one of his oldest friends — I can never remember his first name — Thierry Solère, who's used to gathering at his place people not normally used to talking to each other. But you know the president sent you a letter — he's not "the head of state" here — saying: the party that came out on top, in number of MPs, that of the New Popular Front, I don't give a damn about it, I'm trying to stay polite, but instead I'm passing you the hot potato, it's up to you to sort out how to get along, provided it's neither...
7:59 nor, right, LFI, nor — we're back to it — nor the far right. You see, we're talking about fascism, so that's fine then, but what do you have against this president, it's really something to lump together, I'll start there, the extremists — right — who dare bore us with the children of Gaza, and me, and to lump them together with their supposed symmetrical opposite, right, the Rassemblement National — yes — ah no, no, it's not yes, no, it's no, because they're gathering with them, no, they're not opposing each other, they're having dinner — well, three days ago they were having dinner — with the former prime minister, Philippe, right, you know, the one who's first in the current context, but chronologically, the first said,
9:09 we can get along with anyone as long as it's neither the Rassemblement National nor LFI — at least he's clear, no, he's not clear, that's what he just had for dinner, ah no, mustn't ask too much, which shows it's not as symmetrical as all that. Because the Rassemblement National, they were at the table: Bardella was there, Madame Le Pen was there, and this Thierry Solère was there — yes, Thierry, I don't know why I'm stuck on his first name, thank you — this Thierry Solère, and the minister Philippe, they must have said to Macron, it's fine, we've got hold of the right end — as for me, it's just the cat's tail, so, this seems complicated, that's why, so you don't get lost in these complications, that I've proposed — I'm very, very troubled to be the only one doing this. Some people boast when they're the only ones doing something; for me, it worries me to be the only one trying to clarify what should be taught in primary schools,
Response to a PCF member who says he feels lost 10:19 the nature of fascism. So, before continuing, let me refer you to two comments I received, very different ones, on my last talk two weeks ago, "toward a fresh and joyful apocalypse," right? A first one I'd call pathetic — I apologize, I don't mean it in the theatrical sense, but in the etymological sense of pathos, someone who suffers, right?
10:50 I'm thinking of our friend Jean-Pierre Tesseron, comrade even, right? Who tells me: Mr. Pagani, what you say is quite right, it's not very cheering, I'm lost, that's what bothers me, you see. I'm a member of the PCF, listening to you, the PCF is nothing but the name — yes, I'm willing to believe it's a soft Communist Party, a little slip that the Communist Party is soft — but which group should I get closer to, who should I vote for? The PCF's program isn't bad, it seems to me, unless it's all lies, I'm lost. What sincerity in these words. I'm proud to get this kind of comment. I'm lost — on Sunday, I intend to vote for the New Popular Front, but Jean-Pierre, I'm the last person who would dissuade you from that.
11:45 And as for the Communist Party, to be clear about my position on the PC, I don't militate in any organization, as they say, when one has a political conscience, as they say — in no party. I don't boast about it, it's actually a misfortune, especially when I speak to young people. And I urge them not to hesitate to militate wherever they feel the path is best.
12:17 That said, — because often we have an influence, whether we want it or not, on these young people, right? And so what you do, what you say, doesn't resonate at random. You can serve as an example without having meant to. So if people absolutely want, right, to look for inspiration in your servant here, I'd say this about being committed to a political party: I'm not registered in any party. First. Second, it's a misfortune. There's no reason to say "ah well, you're quite right, it's all rotten."
12:48 No, it's a misfortune. There's nothing to rejoice about. Third, if I had to join a political party, it would be the French Communist Party. Even if it meant speaking ill of its leaders, contesting the line, I would not militate in any other organization. There, Jean-Pierre, I wanted to tell you: be at ease, you're in what is best from a collective standpoint. Collective — it's been a long time since the party, right, since the party leadership — although I'm one of those who don't much like using the dichotomy of leadership and base — but here we really need to realize it's been a long time since I've talked about the emails or messages that were allegedly sent on a train by one of the general secretaries of the Communist Party.
The historical record of the French Communist Party 13:44 We're far from the meetings submitted to the central committee, submitted to comrades for discussion. No, it's been a long time since the leadership drifted away from its base — and still, to reassure Jean-Pierre Tesseron about belonging to the glorious French Communist Party, the one that can historically claim, from a distance, the most glorious record. The only one not to vote — unlike the socialists of the time, let alone the right — for full powers to Pétain, as an organization; as for individuals who joined the Resistance who were neither communists nor Freemasons,
14:28 there were even a few royalists, there's all sorts, but overall, in numbers, it was above all communists on the left and Gaullists on the right who made up the Resistance. But that's not what I'm talking about here. At the moment of voting full powers, people didn't yet talk about collaboration — or, on the contrary, were beginning to talk about it seriously, whichever you prefer. The only one who didn't do it. And at the end of the war, it's to them that you owe, every day, including those who spit in the soup against the Communist Party, right, your paid holidays.
15:00 That goes back to '36 — without the strikes of the Popular Front. I salute the Popular Front of its origins. The women who brought food to the strike pickets, to the striking workers in the locked-out factories, as they say, right? Or rather the opposite, to those who had shut themselves in at their workplace — those women had precious little to do with #MeToo.
15:30 What a fall! What a fall! You look ravishing today with that skirt. You raped me, sir. You see where that leads? Are you proud, Tesseron, Jean-Pierre? Very much in the party. But on the other hand, one must be unhappy. I can't dissuade you from saying you're lost. Not lost — betrayed.
16:04 Ah yes, when I see that this party, right, that was shot at with live rounds when the socialist Jules Moch was in power just after the war, at the start of the Cold War, because the CGT dockers in Marseille wanted to seize the weapons that were to be sent to our soldiers to organize the repression against the people of the country where I was born, in Vietnam, which was called Indochina at the time.
16:45 Because it included, besides Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos — that's already a lot. There you go. They were shot at. But wait, they, they were seizing the weapons, they were stopping the madmen, the — what do you call them — the warmongers, the worst of the warmongers, from going to "kill Viets."
17:15 As they used to say, right — I ran into, in Marseille, a legionnaire who wanted to show me, since I was from Indochina, he thought I was one of his kind, he wanted to show me his collection of Fellagha ears. Yes, that's what we're going to send to Ukraine. Yes — no — yes, it's unfortunate, Jean-Pierre, it's unfortunate. There you go. So don't be lost.
17:45 Well, I'm trying to make sure we're not. And for that, I go back to my distinction. We need clarification. Here's the course. It's not — there's this local fascism represented by the Rassemblement National. Before talking about the second one, I'll take them in the reverse order from last time. Last time, I'll start with the one I'll go into detail about afterward. I'm not losing my thread. But first, I'd like to read the second comment I received on my last talk.
Second comment: Ulysses and the detour 18:23 So, this is quite the opposite of Jean-Pierre Tesseron. I'll read this. "If I read correctly what's said between the lines" — ah really? Ah, well, it's been about ten years already that I've been doing this. The time it took Ulysses to make his tour of the Mediterranean. Ulysses, whom I mention in the references I'm about to point you to right away. Yes, yes, yes. Ulysses, who starts with a massacre, the sack of Troy, the first Western hero, the first one with the habit of repeatedly killing whatever belongs to the East.
19:03 Troy. You think I'm joking, or that ever the — wait, let's stick to the letter of the text. He starts with a massacre, the sack of Troy. He's the one behind the trick of the horse. For now, I mean, fine, he wages war, he does what benefits his side. But now I'm exaggerating — I say it ends in a massacre, not at all. "Happy who, like Ulysses, has made a fine voyage," a long voyage. "And then, come back, full of experience and reason, lives among his kin the rest of his age" — who has come back to his house.
19:38 That's a happy ending. What are you talking about, massacre? What a lie! It's a magnificent poem by du Bellay, 16th century. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Homer's text, the original. In it, when he comes back, he carries out an appalling massacre, the killing of the suitors. Maybe he hadn't stolen anything. I note that this man spends his time repeating the massacre. Perhaps his immense detour, instead of going from Troy — the war is over — home, giving reason to du Bellay, "living among his kin the rest of his age."
20:13 There's an enormous detour — all this, I go into it in detail, in the very first videos I made, ten years ago, I'm not losing my thread. Like Ulysses, I am a Westerner. Right? Ten years ago, in a video you'll find on our website, the links will be given at the end of this video.
20:46 On our site, as soon as you land on the homepage, you immediately find two videos, that is, this one, the first, titled, so you don't get confused, "Can one speak without detour?" Yes, because Pagani takes detours, but I say, "But can one speak without detour?" Because when I say "Y equals F of X," I'm not speaking, I'm writing, or thinking in my head, I'm stating, but I'm not speaking.
21:18 Because to speak of it requires words — that's not words, those are mathemes. But when I say "the day is breaking," many of my listeners are familiar with the distinction I'm making here. "The day is breaking" — I'm no longer in science, I'm in poetry. Because the day hasn't gone to bed, it's an image, no big deal, we understand each other perfectly, it means "oh, it's time to get up, to go to school, to go to work, to make my breakfast, or for someone to make it for me." But the way it's said, the expression, is a metaphor.
21:52 The day has no sheets, no bed, and it isn't even the one moving. It doesn't rise, it doesn't set. It's us who move, it's the earth, you know all that. But we don't forget it. So I have to remind you of it. Can one speak without detour? No, as soon as you speak everyday language, you see, you're in poetic detours, it's curious. Well, all right, let's be serious. All that, because — "if I read correctly what's said between the lines" — I've been striving, for ten years, I go back to my thread, to leave nothing between the lines, to make explicit as much as possible of what is said and expressed.
22:28 I try to conform to an unforgettable adolescent named Arthur Rimbaud, to whom his mother said, "But what are you writing, these poems of yours, one can't understand anything." And Rimbaud said to her, "I said what it says, literally, there's nothing to look for between the lines, literally and in every sense. I said what it says." That — the writer who needs to add a voiceover for his text to be understood, that's what I meant to say — it means he's a bad writer, it means he didn't manage to say it, since he has to keep explaining what he meant.
23:04 Well, that means he failed to express it. No, no, no, no. What's his name? Omar Jabali. Don't look between the lines. Leave that to those who have a lot to hide. So, "if I read correctly" — you're reading badly, if you look for what I mean between the lines, look closely at the lines. "Dominique Pagani, who doesn't wish to call for abstention" — it's true I said I don't advocate voting for any party, I don't want to influence the vote, that's a matter of honesty — "logically prefers to vote for the RN rather than the NFP."
Never again: the traditional far right and the Green Khmers 23:40 It's extraordinary what they make me say. Because if I refer you back — I go back to the reference I just gave you, on our site, from the very beginning — let me remind you that I was born in 1945, at the end of the greatest carnage of all time, and that if there's one motto that has governed me since then up to today — I'll be 80 next year — it's never again. Never again Nazism, fascism, the far right, the real one.
24:16 That's a bit much. I spend my time denouncing it, so much so — and that's what they can't forgive me for — that I show it also exists where it isn't customarily called the far right. So it's not that I minimize it, on the contrary, I extend it. That's worrying. Well yes, what do you want me to say? From the moment the president you elected has dinners like that, unofficial, off-the-record, informal, with Madame Le Pen.
24:47 Bardella, the former prime minister, while abstaining, while saying he'll never endorse a prime minister who'd come from LFI. There you have it, the symmetry of the extremes. No, no, it's not even on the same level, the RN and LFI. Proof: he dines with the RN, he doesn't dine with Mélenchon. Mélenchon, the odious antisemite who dares to show you, to insist on the carnage down below, in the photo that opens this video.
25:22 If that's what you call antisemitic, let me define fascism. All right, now I can talk about the second one — the first, you understood, is the traditional far right. For historians, you know, for those who are Catholic, church, family, honor, fatherland — the land does not lie. The environmentalists on the side — the land does not lie. How dare you say that mixing environmentalists with Vichy?
25:55 Yes, I have the time. Listen, come on, do you think I'm wandering off? On the contrary, I'm sticking to the point I'm raising, I come back to those strange dinners, very close to the Élysée, very close, both literally and figuratively, right? But what did they have to do with them, with ecology, that there was, besides Mrs. Le Pen, Bardella, the former Prime Minister Philippe, and of course the one hosting, organizing all of it, one of the longest-standing friends of Thierry Solère, of our president, of Emmanuel Macron, who was there?
26:46 Lecornu, the Minister of Defense, the one who manages to get people talking about him. Days on end, people talk about it a bit, because things are stirring in geopolitics right now, that's the least you can say, so there's Séjourné, who is supposedly the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as if France still had an autonomous foreign policy outside of the Pentagon.
27:16 So Lecornu was there, but was he an environmentalist? Did he used to be active with the Greens? Do you believe that? There's work to be done, we need to work on this. Those who have followed me for a few years know that I don't talk about the Khmer Rouge — I don't do them the honor of calling them red. I call them the Khmer Vert, the green Khmer, the perpetrators of the greatest massacre of the postwar period along with Rwanda.
27:48 In both cases, the Russians have nothing to do with it. It's strange, it's strange, because they're pushing us toward war, all those gathered at the top of the photo, they're all for waging war there too. But not against those responsible for that carnage. But to stick with the Khmer massacre, why do I call them green? Am I making unacceptable amalgamations? Listen, historically — don't take my word for it, I always say that, I do the opposite of a guru, I don't want people to just believe me, I want them to verify it independently.
28:21 Their first major political action was to empty the capital, Phnom Penh, to bring, you see, the inhabitants — more than a million — to work and to perish, right, through labor, in the rice paddies, in short. Emptying the city to go to the countryside, based on their deep conviction that the city is corruption — that, that should remind you of things that are quite far from what people call the Khmer Rouge.
28:51 He'll be nice later because he loves animals, yes, that's it. An SS officer who would take a prisoner in the morning and shoot him for breakfast, but who would well up with tears when he saw a mistreated dog — and people think that because a kid loves animals, that's it, he'll turn out kind later. I'm not saying you shouldn't love animals, I'm saying that if that's the only criterion used to decide who counts among the good guys, while on the other side there are the Jews, the communists, in short, the bad guys.
Domestic policy and foreign policy are no longer separate 29:28 Yes, Lecornu, our minister, but what was he doing there, the Minister of Defense? Listen, you're getting confused, you keep drifting off into foreign policy, Ukraine, Russia, whereas right now, what matters is domestic policy — but I am talking about domestic policy. Bardella! Le Pen, Philippe, domestic policy, discussing the election results and how to piece together a majority.
29:58 Do you know our president's letter? Be open to yourself. Be open to reasonable people. They are neither the far left nor the far right. The far right that we just had dinner with. You're starting to see clearly. It's good, Jean-Pierre Tesson, to stay in the Communist Party, because when you see what's out there otherwise — I'm not saying the Communist Party is good, but there's so much worse out there, the rest of it.
30:28 Don't be lost, keep your bearings. The Communist Party will be whatever the communists make of it. I gave a talk recently — no, I'm not jumping from one topic to another. I continue to say all the good I think of the communists. You can think what you want of their leadership, and you know what I think of it. But nonetheless, it's within the Communist Party. I started militating in a rural cell, I wasn't even 30 yet, in the Drôme.
30:59 I don't know. It's within the Communist Party that I met the finest specimens of humanity I've ever been in contact with in my life. I couldn't put it more simply or clearly. I recently gave a talk in Castelsarrasin at the request of the local Communist Party branch. So, I want to reassure Jean-Pierre Tesson, I am not against the Communist Party, I would so wish it had different positions on crucial points, and I come back to foreign policy.
31:29 We can no longer separate the two, since the Minister of Defense — you see, I'm going back and forth — was at the heart of a meeting that was supposed to be about what's at the core of domestic, national, hexagonal policy. French, let's say. And they didn't forget to bring in the overseas territories. Oh, he was Secretary of State for Overseas Territories, is that so? Yes, the same one, Lecornu. And he took such measures against certain social benefits over there that our comrades in Guyana and elsewhere nicknamed him the new Minister of the Colonies.
32:13 Ah yes, quite a strange dinner, all this. Philippe saying we must treat the RN and LFI as equally bad, LFI plotting with the RN, the Defense Minister of the European country most explicitly engaged in the war against Russia, Europe. If it weren't for the Pentagon behind it, it wouldn't be so bold.
32:46 It would be shaking with fear. Our executive — I'm speaking, I'm not talking about specific individuals in particular, I don't like to attack individuals personally. Here I'm talking about the Defense Minister of such a government, who had a meteoric rise, who is the youngest Minister of Defense in the history of the Republic since the French Revolution. Oh yes, everything I'm saying here is purely factual, it's not at all a matter of opinion, let alone my own.
33:23 It's unfortunately objective, but nobody talks about it. There you go. I needed this introduction to get back to — for those who would really make the same enormous misreading as in the second comment I just read you, claiming that I called for voting RN, you really have to go out of your way to get there. And on top of that, I gave a talk just before the vote, when I saw that comment, precisely to avoid any misunderstanding, to say that, however one goes about it, in every case the priority is to prevent the National Rally from winning.
34:06 But apparently that's not enough for this gentleman, who has every right to hold whatever opinion he likes, but I'm showing you here what it's worth compared to evidence that's easy enough to establish otherwise, simply insofar as what I said is documented. I mean, it left traces, I refer you to our website. The one continuity running through all my public statements is: never again. Never again the 50 million dead between 1939 and 1945.
The extreme center and Atlanticist imperialism 34:43 Not only because of Hitler, but because those who could have opposed him instead said 'better Hitler than the Popular Front.' Well, well, well, well, well — and those are the very same people lecturing us now, because it's the same camp. Yes, yes, the camp I've called — they didn't see themselves as far right, still less as far left, they were in the center, you're taking the words right out of my mouth. That famous extreme center that I denounced in another video, Mr. Moderate, echoing the title of a play by our late comrade Arthur Adamov from the 60s, 70s.
35:27 Mr. Moderate — yes, it plays on 'Mr. Damned,' the one who always wants to be moderate and who ends up causing millions of deaths. Those who had collaborated with the worst regime France has ever known kept a low profile after the Liberation — it was in their best interest. And when they wanted to return to politics, when they weren't too tainted, you see, they managed to slip through the cracks with their past unnoticed, they ran under labels — I quote — 'unaffiliated,' 'various moderates,' 'various right,' 'center-right,' 'center-left,' 'center-right,' 'center-left' — Mitterrand, center-right, Giscard — you have the whole prewar generation coming back, and that's who governs.
36:20 It's the extreme center, with a De Gaulle on the right and the communists on the left, you see, kept from resurging, and afterward, Cohn-Bendit, '68, after the blossoming of the liberal-libertarians. I come back to the first globalizing fascism, the one that becomes prevalent on American campuses. It is that extreme center which triumphs once there are no longer the only two forces that opposed it.
36:52 You know that I never speak ill of Americans, but of Atlanticism. Because the first fascism, you guessed it, is Atlanticism. That's why I don't like the word 'the West' — because it prevents us from naming the real adversary, which is Atlanticism. Atlanticist imperialism, if you prefer the adjective to the noun. And yes, 3 million dead in Korea, that starts right at the end of the war, in the 1950s. 3 million dead in Vietnam, right after, one after another, that's already 6 million.
37:23 6 million — doesn't that remind you of something? 6 million, but that's only the beginning! There are the massacres in Congo — they're Black people, in the Great Lakes region — what happened there in the 1960s. Go on, I refer you to that. In the former Belgian Congo, right? Adding Rwanda and Burundi, which are part of Belgian Africa, so to speak, Belgian-speaking — well, French-speaking.
Munich, Ford and Stoddard: the sources of Nazi racism 37:58 ...they're constantly embodied. That's Atlanticism, which was formed to fight the communist contagion. People thought, you see, that Hitler would rid us of communism, that he would march into the Soviet Union, right? Let's go back to Munich, Chamberlain, Prime Minister of England.
38:32 Careful, I'm not talking about marginal figures — he comes back saying, 'Mr. Hitler is a gentleman.' We mustn't listen to those communists who say Hitler must be stopped, that he must be prevented from doing harm. He won't wage war on us, he'll do the Drang nach Osten, right, the push toward the East. And there you go, boom, the Soviet Union, you see, cuts the grass out from under his feet, and Hitler is told: you can make war if you want.
39:04 My boy, but don't start with us. Non-aggression pact. While England had just signed all sorts of pacts, a naval pact, look it up. All the countries that made treaties with the Third Reich and now denounce the German-Soviet pact — that's laughable. Never forget that Hitler kept a portrait of Henry Ford in his office, his idol, and that all those eugenics ideas have their roots in an Anglo-Saxon tradition, English in particular, at a time when the United States didn't count for much yet.
39:39 But of course, of course, of course. Don't forget that the notion of 'sub-humans,' a hugely central notion in Nazi discourse, symmetrical to 'super-humans' — if there are super-humans, then there must be sub-humans, you and me. Hitler said the French were 'neo-Whites,' by the way. The notion of sub-humans first existed in English, 'undermen,' before existing in German, 'Untermensch.'
40:11 ...from the pen of the unbelievable Lothrop Stoddard. Yes indeed, no, I'm not making anything up, people think it's a comedy, it's anything but comic. Lothrop, L-O-T-H-R-O-P, sounds like a Central European first name. Lothrop, let me call you Lothrop. Stoddard, S-T-O-D-D-A-R-D, a theorist, thoroughly racist, 150% American, who lived in the late 19th century and had classified humanity into races, with one race towering above all the others, superior.
40:50 It's the Scandinavians, the Germanic peoples — but careful, the Germanics, the Scandinavians. The further south you go, the more you get to mongrels, sub-humans. And he was stuck with the Swiss. What to do? The Swiss are somewhere in between Sweden and Italy. And I laugh, you know, because it's nerves, but he even talked about an 'Alpine race.' Let's be serious. He said the greatest danger to the superior races were those sub-humans, the Jews.
41:27 No, no, that's in Europe. The Jews were in ghettos, in neighborhoods that we would now call 'the projects.' The projects, yes, yes. The neighborhoods where Jews were confined, the ghetto, in every major European city at the time, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, were regarded then the way the casbah was regarded. You may not believe it, but don't take my word for it, I ask you to never just take my word for it.
41:57 I speak in a documented way. I'm quoting an author of the period, from the late 18th century, German — we're still far from the Third Reich, from the 19th century — an excellent writer, but antisemitic like nearly all of the German petite bourgeoisie, right? Achim von Arnim, a very great writer. I'm surprised that screenwriters looking for material have never brought a novella like Isabella of Egypt to the screen.
42:32 Come on, let's not stray. A great writer, but read this novella called 'The Heir of the Entailed Estate.' You'll see how he talks, because his window looks out onto the ghetto, in the German town where he lives. And you'll see that it's the poor, working classes at that time who are the target of hatred. There aren't many Jews in Wisconsin or the Midwest. Between the cowboys and the Indians, it isn't Jews swarming there, no.
43:04 On the other hand, there are the Indians. So he says, look, the great dangers threatening the superior races are the Blacks — there are some of those in the United States — the Indians, the Yellows — that started a bit on the Californian coast, the Japanese and Chinese migrations — the Yellows, and, yes, I know, it always makes people laugh, but it's terrible because he's so stupid, so stupid, that he ends up admitting it has nothing to do with color.
43:36 He says, and finally, to conclude, 'and the white socialists who support them.' And we come back, you see, to us who support — we would like to support, I would like to do more to support — those in Gaza. No, no, but I'm not straying off topic. The most immediate current events are always underlying everything I discuss in my talks, even when I'm talking about the quest for the Grail or Racine's Phèdre.
Presentation of the text "Clarification" 44:09 You can never be more than your time, but at best you will be fully of your time. Yes, yes, back to that. No, we're not supporting them, but the simple fact of being surprised that people don't talk more about their suffering makes you suspected of being antisemitic. That's where we've gotten to! So now I can introduce the subject of this second interruption I'm making to the Grail cycle we were immersed in not so long ago, and which I'll pick back up soon, don't worry.
44:52 ...and, as I just told you, that didn't fundamentally raise all the issues I've just raised, but which will nonetheless be more pleasant, more sublimated, as they say. I come back to the text which I said that making it known, reading it, would be one of the most relevant and useful things to do in these times — this text which appeared, as I told you, on Benjamin Lelouarn's blog titled 'Le gros rouge qui tâche' [The Cheap Red Wine That Stains].
45:36 Right? Which I cannot recommend enough. And... sorry, I must have disappeared there. So, how do I find my little duck again? There we go, I can't find it anymore. Good grief. That's true about that. There, that's it. Sorry. And which... which is titled 'The Clarification,' to stick to the point.
46:06 Clarification. So I'm quite glad that others are making an effort to find their way through this tangle, this labyrinth I've just shown, which seems almost to discourage any desire for clarification. So already, it's good to talk about clarification. That's what we need. And I pay tribute here to Jean-Pierre Tesseron, who, by repeating over and over that he's lost, is calling for clarification.
46:37 We're going to try to contribute to that with our friends. There you go. So, since it's a very long text and I don't want to abuse your patience, I'll come back to it another time, but for now I'd like to summarize the introduction for you, and then we'll get straight into the text by calling in its main author, I'm thinking of Victor Sarkis, who wrote it together with Étienne Burle, right?
47:08 And comrades familiar to those who follow us. Let me remind you that I'm broadcasting live from Brittany, at the home of Benjamin Lelouarn, who opened this blog, very rich both literarily and politically and philosophically, called 'Le gros rouge qui tâche,' not so long ago. While I was staying at Benjamin's invitation in Brittany, resting for a few days, he asked me whether we could reclaim the work of the poet Hölderlin, right?
47:53 ...from the base task to which it has been reduced within the Heideggerian field, right? And I recalled that Hölderlin had concluded his essay on Oedipus and Antigone by saying, 'Sophocles, the republicans.' There can be nothing more opposed to Heidegger than someone who says that at a time when everyone who said 'Republic,' right, was accused of belonging to the French party — the revolutionary party, at the time.
48:25 Oh dear! We're clarifying things a bit. When you see what a 'republican' means now in Macron's mouth, you see how all these words have become perverted. I... he wrote an introduction. Victor — great literary, historical culture, even though he's a philosophy professor — and of course philosophical too. I'd like to tell you in advance, I'm sure he can hear us, so we'll call him in anyway, because I wouldn't want to speak on his behalf.
48:58 I'd like him to take part one day in one of our own livestreams, as we already did once on the relationship between Hegel and Marx — but this time to have him introduce us better to a field he knows better than almost anyone: that of Arab philosophy in its historical unfolding. Anyway, we might call him — I mean the style — oh yes?
49:30 So yes, I'm told that technically it's not, but in fact I was sure he was following us, and that's the first tribute I pay him, isn't it? It's to put ourselves face to face with his text. Yes, I'll sum up for you: in his introduction he alludes to the Roman emperors — you can guess we're going to talk about decadence — but often, to point the finger at the worst of the Roman emperors, people bring up Nero, Caligula. And Victor, who is very well informed, knows very well that the way Nero and Caligula are attacked is not at all because they were worse than the other emperors, far from it, but because they had the favor of the population, the least aristocratic population of Rome, which was part of the populares, as they were called at the time — I don't need to translate — as opposed to the optimates, isn't that right?
50:26 those to whom, isn't it, we should reserve the name of the elite — I'm outraged that among those who talk about "the elite," people only ever mean the richest, isn't it? No, elite means the best — it's Mozart, it's Einstein, it's Charlie Chaplin, it's whoever you like, it's Pascal, it's Marie Curie, it's Jean Moulin, sorry, you see how many I'm forgetting, but it's certainly not Arnault and his bank balance. No, it's strange what language has become. So yes, he already begins by recalling that this is a historical distortion, isn't it?
51:12 it's to punish them for having the popular classes on their side that they were attacked, whereas there are others who got off easy who are appalling — I refer you to their article, it's not a clarification, I refer you to the title of the blog where it's found, on Facebook, "Le gros rouge qui tache," it's a text by Victor Sarkis and Étienne Burle, and I'll go straight to the two strong moments of their article, which I wouldn't want to skip — what it says about the two main forces resulting from the second round, which hadn't happened yet the last time we met, so I'm quite glad I set a date beforehand — so, after of course discussing the bloc that governs us, because now they say there are three blocs, I'm talking about those who are supposed to challenge the established power, even though, according to
The union of the left and the Pavlovian antifascist reflex 52:22 the dinners I mentioned, some of those in the opposition seem more sympathetic than those on the left, isn't that right? So you see, they start by, um, by warning against the ambiguity of both sides, starting with that of the so-called union of the left, isn't it. I read: the second big bloc that needs permanent invective — I've been insulted, but you don't need us to know that, it's in all the media — suddenly reconstituted in record time, this is of course the umpteenth edition of the endless saga of the union of the left, for a NUPES 2.0. I've talked enough with Victor — that's why I regret he's not here live with us — to guarantee you that when he refers to this endless story, he's not alluding to the original Popular Front of the 1930s, he's alluding to the union of the left as it was dubbed, isn't it, in the 60s, 70s especially, isn't it, so, um, alliances at the top
53:34 between the Socialist Party and the Communist Party — and let's never forget the role of the small parties, the so-called left-wing radicals, isn't it, whom Mitterrand used to break up the union of the left. Go watch the videos, look up Mitterrand, Marchais, Fabre — he was the secretary general of the left-wing radicals — and you'll see live this incredible, isn't it, this sketch, isn't it, of how the union of the left was broken up live in front of the cameras and microphones. There would be much to say, Victor says, about the fraud of this new name — it's obvious that when I made the comparison earlier, isn't it, between the women who brought food to the workers holed up in their factories... anyway, I won't read the whole text, but I mean Victor rightly says that to already call it a Popular Front is to claim, isn't it, an analogy that is really so far removed that you have to have some nerve to invoke it
54:44 somewhere, especially when you're doing exactly the opposite. So let me explain, let me justify, isn't it — we can scroll, thank you Pierre-Alain, because I'd like to get to the passage precisely — um, there, a bit more, there, I say this, he recalls things you know but that are never said in order — that's what's important, to put these things in order so there's no confusion, I'm thinking of Jean-Pierre, so we feel less lost — but it's, roughly, the results, roughly the things — a bit more, we'll scroll, there, um, a bit more, um, ah sorry, no no, excuse me, I'm confusing it with part 5, excuse me
55:54 um, we'll go straight to, um, yes, the moment where he talks about the National Assembly — excuse me, you'll see, my mistake — so the charge, I can sum up, there, um, and finally, not the least, the last blind spot of this whole united left for a new Popular Front: its complete blindness to the true nature of fascism, and its Pavlovian reflex of antifascism served up hysterically without any basic reflection. So you'll say, but wait, this is worse than you — he actually says that when we call ourselves antifascist, I mean, we're being Pavlovian — what does he say — hysterical without any basic reflection. Listen to what follows, let's not read between the lines, let's read the lines — let's be clear, fascism is the mortal enemy — I was about to say of all peoples, of the working class, which, Marxists that we are, isn't it, is the core of the people — only, to fight it properly and be a consistent
Global fascism: Libya, the World Bank and the IMF 57:05 and effective antifascist, you first have to have properly identified fascism in our historical sequence, in our present, in our era, otherwise you risk being completely mistaken by projecting onto our era categories that are not actually at work there. You see why my point about the two fascisms — the international fascism, in short Atlantism, Atlanticist imperialism and its millions and millions of dead — I'm only talking about the dead, I'm not even talking about the countries, look at the state Libya is in today. I used to fly over Libya when I was working on Africa, but it made all the African countries envious — there were gas stations that you couldn't find anywhere else, freshwater canals across 1,500 kilometers of desert — and the people, the inhabitants of Niger, I say "the people," I'll be precise, the last country where I was posted, as they say, and who were my close colleagues
58:15 but who were part of the Nigerien street, in the poorest country in the world — as soon as I went on leave, they'd go look for work in Libya, at Gaddafi's. I was never pro-Gaddafi, I just note the gulf between him and the other countries backed by the World Bank, the IMF, all those in the Sahel who are now being called to account — I'm talking about the World Bank and the IMF, and France in particular, for some time now — but let's not stray, that's international fascism, Atlantism, imperialism, the World Bank — you don't know what it is, a World Bank arriving in one of the poorest countries in the world, Niger, Mali, Chad, Burkina Faso, saying: you're living beyond your means, get rid of all these state-owned companies that are parasites wasting money, hand it all over
59:25 to the private sector — does that ring a bell — give them private status and double the price of essential goods, staple foods as they call them, in countries where there's not much else besides staples — when you're lucky, rice depending on the region and altitude, rice, yams, corn, millet, in the driest regions cassava, etc. And if you do all that, we might lend you 3 billion at favorable rates, but in installments, not all at once — we'll see first if you apply our ultra-liberalization of your economy. You see the result afterward — it causes protests, deaths, the World Bank experts leave, and behind them there are corpses — the hunger riots, as they're called. Yes, so there's the first fascism, it's planetary — I talked earlier about local fascism — this one is a global fascism. We are witnessing the merging
Clouscard in 1976: the announced union of the two fascisms 1:00:35 of the two — I come back to the text, we'll move to the text, to Michel's text, the text I read to you last time, I insist on repeating it — I should never have given the date, I should have asked you to guess when it was written — you'd have said it was written between the two rounds. Look carefully at the text — so, excerpt from Michel Clouscard's text, excerpt from the open letter to the French Communist Party — we can send it, yes, no problem, I have it too, thank you. So you see, I introduced it with three lines: the wedding — this was written before the first round, by me — the wedding of Macroute and Bardeluche, announced 50 years ago, but yes Jean-Pierre, there's reason to be worried
1:01:45 there's reason — not to feel lost, but to feel unhappy, I admit, seeing that what I denounce, these two fascisms, which are never as dangerous as when they merge — I'll get to that thanks to Clouscard — in this text, which isn't recent, isn't from the second round — that's what's serious, that everything was done for us to end up here by those who present themselves, whether now those who are going to vote for the National Rally, or a good part of those who think of themselves as on the left. Let's not forget, perhaps one of Marx's most important philosophical statements: just as we do not judge an individual by the idea he has of himself, we do not judge an era by its self-consciousness — you have to look at its realities, that era, its realities, and not what the actors say about it, but the way they live, produce, consume. So, to simplify: the wedding of Macron and Bardeluche, announced 50 years ago — too late, given what's happening
1:02:56 right now, you might say it's too late — no doubt for those who have been sinking for half a century, 50 years, into liberal-libertarian neofascism — I won't go over it all, isn't it, that's the fascism I mentioned second, not the one that America, as the Atlanticist imperialist world — because there are actually many Americans who oppose it, let's not slander, we speak of America in an abstract way — sinking for half a century into liberal-libertarian neofascism — liberal-Pompidolian, someone correct me — libertarian, you know the one who said, I was libertarian in '68 and liberal in '78, not me, I'm just discovering the change now — it's Hollande who said that. This warning, stated by Michel Clouscard as early as 1976 — I quote Clouscard, and I'll stop the voice-over — the recent metamorphosis of French society can thus be defined according to this scheme
1:04:06 the shift from state monopoly capitalism in its ascendant phase — I'll add a note, the Trente Glorieuses — to state monopoly capitalism in crisis, in its degenerate phase, where we've been since the early 1970s. That's roughly the crisis — the exploitation through the infernal pace of work that made growth possible — when he says Trente Glorieuses, it's not to dance for joy either — at what price? — the exploitation through the infernal pace of work that made growth possible was followed by austerity and mass unemployment. How is it that the French Communist Party, to whom this letter is addressed, failed to exploit these situations? You see, Jean-Pierre, he's like you, he thinks the Communist Party was best placed, isn't it, to capitalize, dare I say, on the discontent arising from this shift, isn't it, from the Trente Glorieuses to the thirty shameful years, or forty shameful years as he'll say in another article a bit later in L'Humanité. How is it that the French Communist Party
1:05:16 failed to exploit these situations to accumulate electoral gains? To do so, it would have needed to propose a radical distinction — listen carefully, just as I distinguished the two fascisms, it's connected — between the new middle strata, those that appear roughly after the war, not the old middle class that has existed since the 19th century, the bourgeoisie, which is always a middle milieu, a center milieu between the peasantry and feudal nobility. It's not about the middle class, which is too vague, too abstract, especially since within the middle class, as long as you're not drowning in the Mediterranean like those coming from south of the Sahara, nor belonging to the MEDEF either, in between there's the middle class, which is a somewhat broad notion. So he proposed a distinct concept: the new middle strata, those that appear with new occupations — I won't repeat it all — advertising, leisure, the playful, the libidinal, the marginal, as he calls it. So most observers confuse the two in this nebulous
1:06:27 middle class — they at least have an excuse, they're not Marxists. In other words, when you're a Marxist, you're even less excusable for confusing the two. A Marxist who makes a mistake in what Lenin rightly called the concrete analysis of a concrete situation — that's the exact opposite of saying, accuse him, what do you think, I'm innocent, your honor, so acquitted, yes. You have to judge an individual by the idea he has of himself, to quote Marx — that would be quickly settled, I'm the best, good, there. Just as we do not judge an individual by the idea he has of himself, we must not judge an era by its self-consciousness — we must judge that era, and here we get to it, by the class analysis of which it is the result. They at least have an excuse, they're not Marxists, but it must be noted that most communists also confuse these opposites. The crisis can therefore allow — you see, Jean-Pierre, where the decline of the Communist Party comes from, it's confusion in the analysis — the crisis can therefore allow the Communist Party to recover a large part of the body of capital
1:07:37 a small part of the new middle strata and of the traditional middle class. It must fight against the two great perverse effects of economic and cultural liberalism, to restore to workers their professional dignity — we'll see what follows — and moral dignity, and pay attention to the sentence that follows, which sends us straight back to what is currently happening, I announce it to you here, the two rounds that just took place, the two ballots that just created the situation we're living in: it is all the more urgent in '76, since what could become a neofascism is looming in '76, which would be the sinister and heterogeneous collusion of the privileged of liberalism — that's the clan of globalized fascism, Macron on the French level, that's no shortage — the new English prime minister, who don't want to give up any
1:08:49 of their acquired privileges — and merged with that, and what? — with the old vengeful right, there's the National Front wanting to become the National Rally, which wants the old right to reconquer what's theirs — and yes, because after the Liberation it kept a low profile, now it has to reconquer, isn't it, the privilege we know, before bowing before the Gaullists and the communists. I'm quoting you this text to show you the problem has existed for a long time. So people tell me, well, by dint of attacking what you call the false left, you're playing into the hands of the National Front — but that's incredible, incredible. So if you don't understand that I spend my time, since I make videos, warning against the danger of neofascism, then, I mean, why are you complaining about the result we're arriving at, precisely — 60-70 years of liberal-libertarianism, that is, the exact opposite of what's in the heads of National Front voters
1:09:59 because, just as I distinguished earlier the Communist voters from their leadership, I'm careful not to make the National Front voters bear the same responsibility that I place on their leadership. It's not the National Front voters who dine with the Minister of Defense, Édouard Philippe and Thierry Solère — thank you — that brings us to 10:12 p.m., I'm wondering if I shouldn't hand over the floor — there may be quite a few, I'll check some questions, but there are very few questions — if you want, keep reading the part in — in that case, let's go back to the text since questions haven't piled up, there, I'm scrolling down
One cannot superimpose 1936 onto 2024 1:11:09 to the page we were at last time, the last paragraph that begins with "On this point, one can only be dismayed" — you see, there, that's good, because Pierre-Alain is scrolling back up, there, so we can go to the top of the quote — on this point, one can only be dismayed to hear a well-known historian of Nazism, whose academic work is otherwise interesting — it must be Chapoutot, that's a hypothesis I'm making, Victor will confirm or deny it — but as he says there's work all the more interesting since I've cited him, I used a whole video of his that I made a point of showing when I dealt with the return of Nazism, in a series in our videos called, if you look at our YouTube channel, "The Return of the Logic of the Subject" — let's not interrupt — on this point, one can only be dismayed to hear a well-known historian of Nazism, whose academic work is otherwise interesting, declare that one can superimpose — even interesting people
1:12:19 say that, where are we heading — 1936, the first version of the Popular Front, onto 2024, since we're still quoting the historian — the social structures and interests of the social actors haven't changed much. So you'd better be sitting down to hear this: the class struggle is the same in structure as in 1936 — let me skip three lines so it's clear to everyone — ah right, where are the factories and the big productive industrial apparatuses of 1936 in 2024? To illustrate this first point of difference, Victor, I recall that at the end of the 1950s the Queen of England herself — she hadn't been reigning long — came on a visit to France, not even to Paris, she went to Roubaix to see the great French spinning mills, the great textile industry which at the time made the wealth of the region and hence the wealth of France to a large extent — it's the regions that made France's wealth, the Lorraine steelworks, the textiles
1:13:29 of the North, and I'll spare you the rest — the metalworkers — but above all these two activities, which are now the most abandoned regions, the poorest, the most ruined, the most deindustrialized — so, back to it — where are the factories and the big productive apparatuses? Yes, she went to visit there, she didn't even come to Paris, that's how much England admired it — and we know the role the textile industry played in the takeoff of English capitalism, the examples Marx uses about the ton of cotton in Manchester — still in textiles — where are the factories and the great productive industrial apparatuses of 1936 in 2024?
1:14:09 look at what EDF has become — where is the great working-class party? The coal mines of France, which have disappeared — where is the great working-class party that was the PCF of the 1930s? You walk down the street, here in Paris, you see 4 people, you know that out of the 4, one of them votes communist — 25%, when they get 2.5% now they're happy, in that party — where is the USSR?
1:14:42 where are the Croix-de-Feu? I remind you the Croix-de-Feu were behind the fascist riots of February 6, 1934 — I don't know if the demonstrators had razors on the ends of poles, like this, with which they cut the hamstrings of the gendarmes' horses, sorry, and they nearly stormed parliament, it was that close — yes, where are the Croix-de-Feu, the veterans of a great war, the relays of an NSDAP, Hitler's party in France, those relays, very numerous in France at the time — today, where today is the traditional petty bourgeoisie, one of the social bases of French fascism of the 1930s, swept away by the post-Marshall Plan years? Where today is the competition among imperialisms of equivalent size? Nowhere — all that has disappeared. On the other hand, yes, the imperialisms — you saw how they're all gathered together, the NATO summit — for a long time now they've only fought each other's wars... it's fine, except that it's to
1:15:52 prepare the war against China and Russia, and believe me, that one — Einstein used to say there won't be a third world war, or rather — you've heard it — with the atomic weapon, or, if there is one, the fourth will be fought with stones, that's it — in any case, I warn against this, and it means we can't separate foreign policy from domestic policy when we see that our country's leaders do everything to impoverish our economy except in everything that can contribute to war, against those who have the least interest in war, those who are developing, those trying to escape millennia of poverty. So nowhere has all that disappeared — on the other hand, where was liberal-libertarianism in the 1930s? Where in the 1930s was "it is forbidden to forbid"? All that, no, it was daddy's capitalism, based on values like effort, work, savings, etc. It's the exact opposite: it is forbidden to forbid, or to live
1:17:03 and get off like pigs — I don't remember exactly, but something like that. I don't know, the new urban, educated, unproductive middle strata — in the 1930s there weren't any — a hypertrophied tertiary and financial sector, industry disappears and finance takes over, but that's not wealth, it's a shift in the location of money, not new wealth being accumulated. The simple fact of asking the question shows the absurdity of a comparison that would be a pure and simple superimposition of the situation. In other words, if you do a serious analysis, you can't identify fascism — this one is formidable, all the more formidable because it doesn't correspond to a determined economic population, unless it deceives its own voters. It's obvious that when there's no longer the Communist Party, whose disappearance Jean-Pierre Tesseron
Concrete analysis, poor abstraction, and Engels's maxim 1:18:13 rightly regretted earlier, the disappearance of the Communist Party doesn't eliminate the suffering of capital's victims, which keeps getting worse — but simply those victims then turn toward whatever's left, and what's left is what pretends to oppose capital while dining with it behind your back, behind their backs. There: the simple fact of asking the question shows the absurdity of a comparison that would be a pure and simple superimposition of situations. To understand present-day fascism, one must make a concrete analysis of it; without concrete analysis, one risks falling into empty, Pavlovian verbiage — that's not your humble servant, and his Hegelian reference privileged over others, even though I recall that I am neither a Marxist, nor a Hegelian, nor a Clouscardian, and even less a "Paganian," because I question every night what I may have thought since morning — because I do put Marxist, Clouscardian, Leninist and Hegelian references
1:19:23 allow me to understand all the other points of view, without the reverse being true — so these are the richest, for me, that's why I privilege them, but I haven't said I accept them 100%, no — but above all what's very Hegelian in what Victor is saying is that he's critiquing bad abstraction, isn't it — if we stop there, these are abstract and perfectly empty concepts, abstract in the sense of abstracting away the essential — to give them content and do a real Marxist analysis, you have to do what nobody on the left dares to do: open the Pandora's box of economics, stop talking about gays and straights, blacks and whites, men and women, and talk about exploiters and exploited. You know, I often say, on purpose, a bit provocatively, that Arabs have never been so well received in France — people jump when I say that on the left, or even more so when there are comrades
1:20:34 coming precisely from Arab or Muslim countries of origin — I remind you the two biggest Muslim countries in the world, Indonesia and Pakistan, neither one is Arab. How to put it — in Germany, a Frenchman is a little guy with a mustache who doesn't know his geography well, I was saying that to provoke — yes, Arabs have never been so well received, how — I was listening, I was this morning on the Champs-Élysées, well right nearby, at the Hôtel George V, I saw the Emir of Kuwait arriving with his entourage, they rolled out a red carpet for him, His Majesty, etc. Three weeks earlier I'd seen the King of Morocco, the welcome he received — ah but that's outrageous, your comparisons, but it's not the same — that's exactly what I'm telling you, it's not the same, it's not a matter of Arabs and Westerners, it's a matter of exploiters and exploited. There are Moroccans who exploit Moroccans, there are French people who exploit French people, and among those who bombed Vietnam there were gays, straights, there were not many yet
1:21:45 women pilots — there are more now — young, old, blacks, whites, all abandoned, that's it, those are the false divides, all those that fill the TV panels. The Marxists — there, the Marxists should say, to conclude, Victor — Marxists should more often meditate on this wise maxim of Engels, Marx's companion: there is action and reaction among all these factors, within which the economic movement ultimately makes its way through, as a necessity, a rationality, through the infinite crowd of chances, of apparent chances — that is, of things and events whose intimate connection with one another is so remote — that's why I try to connect them — so hard to demonstrate that we can consider it nonexistent and neglect it. Otherwise, if application doesn't make these connections — the application of theory to any historical period would, admittedly, be easier if it were not so complicated, as easy as solving a simple equation
1:22:55 of the first degree, which a ninth grader knows perfectly how to solve. More than one Marxist and more than one academic seem to confuse class-struggle analysis — there are rich and poor, that's not enough — with a first-degree equation. There we go, all right, I'll move on to the questions now, while thanking again for the enormous work, to which I refer you for the details, of Étienne Burle and Victor Sarkis, whom I salute again this evening, and it won't be the last time in the times to come, and I thank Benjamin Lelouane for opening this blog so rich in content. There's a very direct question about what you just said, let's go, Julien: when will people understand that we can keep talking about exploiters and exploited, in short about class, while also talking about race, gender, etc., without being anti-Marxist? Bravo, but yes, on condition
Question: speaking of race and gender without being anti-Marxist 1:24:06 of seeing the relationship between the two, it's not that hard, what's surprising is that it's never done. If I say "Africans," "Blacks" — yes, I don't say "Afro-whatever," I'll say that, I leave that to American universities, well to those who exercise intellectual terrorism on American campuses — I say that because Africans themselves don't say "Eurocaucasians" to talk about us, they say "whites," everyone knows very well what's being talked about, isn't it, that doesn't mean for them that it's homogeneous, they know very well there are differences, there. So if I say "the blacks" or "the Arabs," immediately we have mental images — yes, I'm being precise by being vague, because you have to start from reality — we have images, the economic average of the people I picture when we say "the Arabs" is poor — that's where there's a junction with class relations, so the word "Arab" ends up no longer being
1:25:16 quantitative but qualitative — we forget there are Arabs like the emirs, the kings of Morocco or Kuwait or the Gulf, who are far richer than you or me, but since they're a minority, you see, we tend to connote the word "Arab," "Black," etc., with a social average — that's where I say, to paraphrase Julien, that it's not just non-anti-Marxist to talk about race, gender, etc.
1:25:52 on condition of always coupling it with economic reality — whereas the "woke" crowd say we can't reduce everything to economics — it's not about reducing, it's about recalling the essential, which is that whoever rolls out the red carpet for the Arabs who arrive with an entire court and billions at the Hôtel George V is not the same Arabs — so let's stop talking about "Western Arabs," and as for the Westerners, I don't want to correct you, isn't it my Socratic approach, our patron, the philosophers, I'm obliged to recall it, isn't it, when I ask what the West is, because at that very moment, all the time, "the Westerners" have just gathered in Washington and warned Russia that the F-16s would soon carry nuclear payloads — yes, we'll never forgive the Soviet Union, we'll never forgive Stalingrad for having thwarted the plans to let Hitler settle accounts with those subhumans of the East — look at the texts of the time, I'm not inventing anything, these subhumans
West, sovereignty and Russia 1:27:02 those who occupied Russia with the most appalling massacres in human history, in quantity and intensity, with the slogan: in Russia, we need Russia without the Russians — we've seen that before — we need America without
1:30:43 who himself says, I repeat, libertarian in '68, liberal in '78, it's not — and all these Maoists we've seen among, among the Greens, I'm thinking of Weber and so many others, anyway — whereas de Gaulle denounced the Vietnam War, didn't want this loss of sovereignty that is Brussels' Europe, that is, the imposition of an, of an enlarged sovereignty, isn't it — I recall that I defend the notion of sovereignty and condemn sovereigntism — no, that's not contradictory at all — sovereigntism is an ideology that would reserve sovereignty for itself while denying it to the Vietnamese when they demanded their independence, to the Algerians — no, I am for sovereignty
1:31:54 for them as for us, for the peoples who decide it, there — no, no, let's not try to muddy the waters, it's not that he isn't fascist — he isn't fascist in the sense — because history has intervened between the two — in the sense of, and with the realities that existed under the Third Reich — that doesn't mean he's less dangerous. Nuclear war is a danger it poses to humanity like never before — I'll be 85 next year, I've never seen such a danger of generalized war with nuclear weapons, never, with my country at the forefront in Europe, to send your children there, our children, agreed — this war, of which Einstein says that after it, if there's another one and there are survivors, it's with stones that there will be a fourth world war, if there are still survivors — it's not to downplay fascism, it's to underscore the gravity of this new fascism that Victor denounces, and far more serious than the fascism he says — no, that's not that fascism, no, we mustn't try
1:33:04 to slip between the raindrops or read between the lines, there — not me. Putin is exploiting his nostalgia, look at that, suddenly we're in psychology, there's no more economic reality, there are no more nuclear missiles that were aimed at Russia from Poland and Romania well before the Ukrainian problem arose, and a fortiori before the Russian intervention — well before, because we tell ourselves, since it's the aggressor, Russia attacked us — imagine if the Russians had put nuclear missiles on the Canadian and US border, and to the south in Mexico, and a few in Cuba — don't you think the Americans would have gone to war long ago, and that they'd have been right to do so, I'm the first to say it — so to put all that down to Soviet nostalgia — me, I have Soviet nostalgia, fine — but you really have to understand nothing about Putin, or not listen to him, you have to read between the lines once again
1:34:14 whereas it's very clear — he hates the communists, Putin — he even says it's Lenin's fault that Ukraine got autonomy, sovereignty, it's the Bolsheviks, as the communists say — well yes, it's not my camp, but I will always defend Putin's Russia against NATO, it is infinitely less deadly — do the math from 1945 until now, we can't go back to Versailles, that's just postwar rhetoric — and if we're not under the Nazi boot, it's thanks to the Red Army — I pay tribute to the boys who landed on the beaches of Normandy, I would even have wished they'd come sooner, as the Soviets demanded, but by the time they intervened, the Popovs were at the gates of Berlin — so the goal of the operation wasn't to fight Nazism — already they'd had to stomach that Hitler started with a Western country because of that cursed Nazi-Soviet pact, instead of turning directly on the USSR, and afterward they would have
1:35:24 shared the world between superior races of the east and west of the Atlantic — that was the plan, but it failed thanks to the Red Army, which crushed the swastika under its boots — that's what he's never forgiven for. Me, I'm nostalgic for that, but Putin, no — Putin has the policy of a man who sees his country being strangled by the most powerful armada of all time, which is NATO, for now, in order to be backed in these dirty dealings, very well — there's a term, a well-analyzed, well-researched political term, how to use communist nostalgia, exasperated — that's what you need to know to be revolutionary and not reactionary. Well, are we agreed that we'll leave this gentleman to argue with those on his level — Geoffrey, hello Geoffrey, good evening — China dominated the world technically without invading Europe, do you think there are cultural or racial biases, or a genetic sociopathy
Question: China dominated the world without invading it 1:36:35 In the West's imperialist will — what an interesting question, rich, multiple, multi-problematising, if I may say so. China dominated the world technically without invading it. China was — I've alluded to this already, but since it's not very widely known, I'll say it again, though it is verifiable and no specialist on China or its history disputes it — China was the leading economic power for the longest period in human history, in history I mean, not prehistory. One had to wait practically until the colonial era for China to begin declining, and it has recovered its pre-eminence in recent times, the pre-eminence it had when it was the leading economic power in the world. It didn't use that to invade the planet — quite the opposite: invasion was what it feared, hence the Great Wall, you've heard of it — it was mainly the nomads from the north, as Kafka says in an admirable short story, a series of short stories.
1:37:45 called The Great Wall of China, which I recommend to you. So China dominated the world technically without invading it. Let's not forget that the greatest suffering imposed on humanity during the two world conflicts both came from what you call, what is called in the media, "the West." Well, one has to ask questions about that — it wasn't even from Russia or China. So what question does this violence raise, which I alluded to earlier — you understand better now the continuity of my thinking over the last ten years — the figure of Ulysses, who begins with a slaughter and ends with a slaughter, who is the first Western hero after the Eastern heroes like Gilgamesh, and so on, with the transition between the two being the mediation of the Sea Peoples — not the Cretans and the Phoenicians, let's not complicate things — and Phaedra at the labyrinth, with you having gone down you would have found yourself again, or lost yourself, he poses the problem
1:38:57 that deserves to be posed: what accounts for this difference in behaviour between Europeans, between European belligerence and their relative Chinese pacifism? Do you think there are cultural or racial biases, or a genetic sociopathy — well, I'll tell you right away that I set aside everything in that parenthesis, in the West's imperialist will. If I had the answer to such a question I'd be delighted to lay it out for you, but I'm not saying this to dodge the issue, but to open up a line towards an answer to the question. I was born practically within that sphere, that Far Eastern sphere — I'm from Vietnam, that's not China, but well, may my Vietnamese friends forgive me if I remind you that it's somewhat the southern appendix of the vast Chinese civilisation — that's a bit what Vietnam is, unlike the Khmer, who are closer to the Malaysias, to India and so on, let's not complicate things, I'll come back to Vietnam. I had a Vietnamese friend who was a bit of a rogue, which is fairly rare, who did a bit of cigarette trafficking
1:40:07 a bit of theft, that sort of thing, and he was, he was on very bad terms with his father, who was a traditional Vietnamese man. He told me: "I was raised in the suburbs in France, and one day I wanted to go to Vietnam for the first time, when I was around twenty, to see what could have produced a man like my father." You see, he said, "I understood once I was there." I have two answers to give Geoffrey, so here's the first, through this friend as intermediary: he told me, when you're in Vietnam, someone says to you, "Here, take these glasses" — I have glasses here — "take these glasses and put them down over there." I do it. He says, "There." We were in a restaurant, I said to myself, "There's an ashtray, put it over there. Now put it back where it was." I do it, I say, "There, that's the spot." He says, "No, it wasn't there, it was there," and he moves it by millimetres. "It comes there, that's it, there." I come back to what he calls, in a rather vague way, cultural biases
1:41:17 like that, but which opens up well the line I'm talking about. Now I'll give the second answer, which is more developed. When you walk into an Asian restaurant, most of the time — it's quick, I have a preference, for purely biographical reasons, for Vietnamese cuisine, even though many say it's a bit like the French of the Far East, for the way they love to eat, and even if you could say it's a southern appendix of Chinese cuisine, of the Chinese cuisines — it's a whole continent concentrated within it — where is the religious dimension? We had convulsions, wars of religion, it was atrocious, between Catholics and Protestants; even now the world is run by countries with a Puritan Protestant majority, and therefore Puritan — you know, people who don't like shaking hands or touching each other — though there are qualities in the Reformation too, I'm not a racist, but I'm on guard
1:42:27 against a lot of things that can backfire. So what's the equivalent of that religious signal in each restaurant? Look carefully, there's a small altar, barely visible, somewhere in a corner of the restaurant — you bend down to see it — you see a little statue of Buddha with a candle, a mango, a banana, offerings, full stop. That's religion, it's not convulsions dragging millions of people along like Islam, like Christianity, like — no — like the Crusades, it's not that, it's the household gods, "maquilles" as they say in Vietnamese, it's a bit like what the Romans called the Lares, the gods of the door, of the ceiling — the spirits that mean it's better to have good spirits than bad spirits in the family and in the house. It doesn't go very far, what matters is the family, it's family solidarity, which explains economic success — these are lines I'm opening up like this, I mean, if you dig deep enough into these cultural biases, you suddenly understand why, in my last talk,
The true division of humanity 1:43:37 I said that the dichotomy isn't East versus West, it isn't North versus South, it isn't Blacks versus Whites, gays versus straights, all that nonsense — I mean the opposition itself is nonsense, I didn't say that gays or straights are idiots, men, women, young, old, people come and go, and the Hutus and the Tutsis, well there you go, that only ever made a million and a half dead, no — what matters is the great divide running through the world, through humanity today — I'm not talking about the planet, the planet will still be there once we're all dead, what does it risk, I've seen stones die, when you're not alive you don't risk dying — but the great divide running through humanity opposes those who have an interest in war and those for whom it would be the worst, the worst of events, given the efforts at development they are in the process of making. That's what I'll conclude for tonight, I've given you a concept for you to work out which country corresponds to what I'm saying, which one is declining
1:44:48 which one is developing, which one is rising — I'll say towards the East — I can't do questions and answers here. Right, I think we can leave it there for tonight, I'll say more on the rest, in a somewhat more developed way, in the symbolic order, when we take up again our quest for the Grail. I thank once again our friends at the Gros Rouge qui Tache, and I thank Pierre-Alain for making this meeting possible. That's it, thank you for your questions, and until next time, which I hope won't be too long from now.