Onfray-Zemmour the great confrontation or the great confusion?

Once is not custom in these summer heats of July, wandering at the whim of the station, I took the liberty of buying a special issue of the magazine Valeurs Actuelles, announcing a great confrontation, not to say confusion (2)if not the depression of the two debaters.

Michel Onfray social-libertarian living room (3) nevertheless underlined to the irreducible Zemmour like a Gargamelle obsessed with the Smurfs, er with Islam and Muslims, that the providential man could not exist and that sovereignty could only belong to the providential people. People’s question on which they managed to agree by including all the French whether they are left or right and corresponding to the image of Epinal (4) sweet France sung by Charles Trenet (5), and under the symbolic and memorial tutelage of General de Gaulle. Of course the Gaullist coup and the end of the OAS, nothing about the hyper-presidential regime of the Fifth Republic (6).

And as Michel Onfray sarcastically reminds us, the providential figure like Georgia Meloni, muse of the far right and president of the Council of Ministers in Italy, will quickly be overtaken by reality like Syriza or Podemos. (7) and submitted to the Maastrichtian oligarchy to have subsidies from the European Union not that of the Nations but of the Banks. But the little troublemaker, not knowing what to answer, is delighted with the closing of the borders by Orban, the other populist of Hungary (8). It gives us an idea of ​​what this great defender of pension reforms and his friends in the RN will do when they are in power, like a certain president who promised to fight finance…

Eric Zemmour’s great confusion when he confuses Christianity with Christianity, while Michel Onfray explains to him that one can come from Christian civilization while being an atheist or a critic of Christianity, and that is what founded Western modernity.
What about the amalgam that the former presidential candidate makes between liberal-libertarian, which is a current rather of globalist or globalist tendency (9) like the multi-billionaires at the head of multinationals like Elon Musk or Jeff Besos etc., and social-libertarian who has nothing to do and rather an anarcho-syndicalist tendency of Proudhonian influence among others (10)…

Eric Zemmour to retort that the left movements whether they are wokists, islamo-leftists, transhumanists are the products or the grandchildren of this left from which Michel Onfray comes. Putting the individual and the claims of minorities at the center. Strange to be indignant for this right for everyone when Mr. Zemmour claims to be the father of the pension reform which is against the common interest of all French people (11). Unless the heiress of Saint-Cloud does not also have problems at this level, spared by the tax exemption on wealth.

What about the great Zemmourian confusion in the absence of a Great Replacement on the question of Islam and Muslims. No reference to Islamocapitalism of which Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the ideological stronghold and matrix of what he calls the Islamization of France. No complexification of the debate on the multiple reality of French people of African origin and of Muslim faith or culture whether they are atheists libertarians liberal anarchists socialist feminists communists abstentionists declinists conspiratorial extremists close to the right or even the far right, apart from his unique example of the Kabyle grandmother who prays discreetly as in the 60s and 70s, perfectly assimilated or invisible, unlike Salafist Muslims.

Eric Zemmour pretends to ignore the globalized West (12) while surfing on Holy Ignorance, that the shock of modernity and Westernization of the world affects all nations, all peoples, including Muslim societies. What about Americanization? (13) on a planetary scale to the depths of the Amazon where the indigenous tribes wear T-shirts with the image of Coca-Cola. And that the escalation of a symbolic Islam in a Wahhabo-Salafist way is only the manifestation of this resistance to modernity or commodification (14)not to say schizophrenia (15).

Moreover, what Eric Zemmour deliberately conceals is everything that Georges Corm explains in his historical works on the complexity and evolution of Arab thought from the tanzimats or reforms of the Ottoman Empire to the movement of Nahda and the multiparty system and the process of democratization of the Arab and African world in the aftermath of (pseudo) independence often halted by geostrategic and energy interests (neocolonialism), even if it means supporting dictators to the detriment of the people. What about the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists supported by the CIA to thwart the rise of Arab and African socialists in the parliamentary hemicycles. It is necessary to read on this subject Georges Corm (16)The religious question in the 21st century and Thought and politics in the Arab world to measure the complexity and reality of the debate that has animated African Arab societies (17) and Muslims in recent decades.

Finally, what about the Titanic syndrome of Michel Onfray and Eric Zemmour, both disturbing and declining, from the end of Western civilization in the face of transhumanism to new artificial intelligences (18), and Zemmour’s fear of seeing his daughter veiled, a debate which could have been integrated into Michel Houellebecq’s novel Soumission. This same Michel Houellebecq who had caused controversy by announcing Bataclan upside down (19)… like a prophecy when Macronie paralyzed by its corruption affairs (Marlène Schiappa and the Marianne Fund scandal) and instrumentalising, via its Minister Darmanin, this police violence and the social and economic exasperation of the French population, while remaining silent on the scandalous kitty of Jean Messiha or the symbolic right to kill Arabs.

Maybe it’s time to deconstruct and critique the order and the language imposed on us by the bourgeoisie (20) to rethink a real critique of politics (21) and not participate in the cultural hegemony of the extreme right (22) which the power exploits by adding fuel to the fire and exacerbating the social fracture (23).

Amine Ajar