Barbara Lefebvre, teacher and essayist, is the author of
Génération j'ai le droit
(ed. Albin Michel, 2018).
To discover
Michel Houellebecq: "A civilization which legalizes euthanasia loses all rights to respect"
In the aftermath of a presidential communication sequence focused on security and authority, it would be cruel to successively present the filmed or written interviews granted by Emmanuel Macron to the press since his campaigning in the fall of 2016 until today 'hui a year before the next presidential election.
In five years, what contradictions, polemical remarks immediately challenged because they would have misunderstood.
So many ideological procrastination: one day apprentice woke in front of Mediapart in May 2017 under the amused eye of Edwy Plenel seduced by this young liberal future president, one day celebrating Joan of Arc who had "
split the system
" or visiting the Puy du crazy.
After five years of practice, the “and at the same time” has not only shown its limits, but with the health crisis and the security crisis, it has demonstrated its harmfulness.
One day, police checks face to face at Brut, one day the announcement that 100% of those rejected for asylum will be deported to current values.
One day, France committed "
a crime against humanity
" by colonizing Algeria, one day "
we do not choose a part of France
" because we must love "
our history, our culture, as a whole
".
One day "
the crazy money
", one day "
the Gauls resistant to change
".
One day, the "
virus knows no borders
", one day they have to be closed to stem the spread of a variant.
We could continue this litany of antithetical presidential words, but aren't we already dizzy?
We will rarely have known a President of the Fifth Republic capable of so much political procrastination on substantive issues.
It is probably the keystone of "
and at the same time
", saying everything and its opposite in order to cast the broadest possible net.
And on the eve of an election that Emmanuelle Macron will play on the right since that is where the majority of voters are now located, she must therefore seek all possible LR votes.
It worked in 2017 thanks to the surprise effect of this almost unknown candidate and the timely downfall of the main competitor.
Read also:
Barbara Lefebvre: The discourse on separatism was up to the task but must be followed up
After five years of practice, the “
and at the same time
” has not only shown its limits, but with the health crisis and the security crisis, it has demonstrated its harmfulness. There are only two subjects on which one can recognize in Emmanuel Macron an absolute constancy: his adoration for the European Union and his veneration of the financialized economy without borders.
In the current in-between agenda (between the semi-confinement initiated on March 30 and the deconfinement promised in early May), Emmanuel Macron has decided to insert “
a security sequence
” which sounds like the start of the presidential campaign.
Sequence that smacks of electoral tinkering.
It is indeed necessary for Emmanuel Macron to gain momentum as the security situation is critical, the state of opinion alarming, and the presidential majority distraught, despite the media unrest of the trio Darmanin-Sciappa-Attal delegate for communication "
Authoritarian republic
”.
What the public will remember by holding his ballot is that he has not started any recovery in hand that would give confidence to the French for the future.
The five-year Macron did not invent the insecurity that appeared in its present forms in the mid-1990s and which has continued to grow. Moreover, in five years he could not have completely settled the subject. But what the public will remember by holding his ballot is that he has not started any recovery in hand that would give confidence to the French for the future.
Yet in a river interview with Le Figaro on Monday, he unfolds his usual self-satisfaction and promises which leave the reader perplexed because all this has already been said by Presidents Chirac, Sarkozy and Hollande. How one year from the end of his mandate, could we believe Emmanuel Macron when insecurities worsened under his five-year term? Social insecurity, economic insecurity, cultural insecurity. And with the suspension of the political debate in the representative institutions of the nation imposed by the executive under the pretext of a health crisis, we can also speak of democratic insecurity.
Therefore, the communication operation, articulating an interview with CBS, Le Figaro and a publicized visit to the Mosson district in Montpellier, illustrates more the panic of the executive at the dawn of the presidential election than the serenity of a power proud of its record.
The boos having greeted the president in Montpellier, little relayed by the news channels show that he is completing his mandate in the same deleterious atmosphere as Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande who also ended up not being able to leave the Elysee without being copiously hissed.
Therefore, to be proud of having 37% of favorable opinions against 14% for Hollande and 28% for Sarkozy at the same period, leaves one wondering (especially when we know that the “
presidents-seven years
” ended with scores higher than 50% at the end of the term).
On the other hand, when an opinion survey specifies that only 26% of French people trust Emmanuel Macron on security, or that in the fight against delinquency 45% trust Marine Le Pen against 17% for the current tenant of the Élysée, we understand that Macronie feels the wind of the ball.
The two go hand in hand: when the school collapses on its foundations, delinquency explodes.
A recent IFOP survey on issues of concern to the French one year from May 2022 showed that behind the health issue, it was education and security that were priorities for the French. This is what emerged from the presidential visit to the Mosson district of Montpellier yesterday: a considerable deterioration in the school situation and an explosion in delinquency and its attendant public order disturbances of varying intensity.
The two go hand in hand: when the school collapses on its foundations, delinquency explodes.
This is why "
putting Blue everywhere
" is only a partial response to the problem, it would first be necessary to restore educational order everywhere by training teachers differently, by changing the programs from top to bottom, by reorganizing the school system from A to Z.
To read also:
Barbara Lefebvre: "The Republic let believe that Islamism was an opinion like any other"
The media focus on the speech of this mother wearing the hijab and asking the president "
of the mix
" deserves a long analysis, not to mention her anecdote about her son not knowing (at eight years old!) The first name Pierre, who says more about the family and environmental community environment in which it bathes, than on the failings of the Republic.
Let us
stick
to this woman's
request for “
diversity
”.
On the one hand, socio-cultural diversity cannot be decreed; it is the free choice of individuals to choose their place of residence, except by asking the State to force the installation of populations on discriminating criteria because of their real or supposed origins, which Manuel Valls once summed up by the formula "
put on whites, whites, whites
"!
On the other hand, social and ethnic diversity existed in these neighborhoods as everywhere in France until the mid-1980s-early 1990s. To question the reasons for her disappearance is to respond to this woman who claims what she is asking for. the communitarianism and the current cultural homogeneity of these districts have made it definitively impossible.
The school since 1990 has deconstructed all the landmarks that made it possible to form a common society: literature, language learning, history, geography.
Co-education has disappeared from these suburban neighborhoods or from those of certain metropolises because, in the decade 1990-2000, the children of immigrants of European or Asian origin mostly made social progress and therefore left these neighborhoods where their parents were first -comers had settled down to go to less disadvantaged neighborhoods.
It is commonplace and quite universal in migration stories.
In France, parents on the eve of retirement also followed their children by settling for example in suburban suburbs (for some by returning to the country).
This phenomenon of departure from suburban neighborhoods is also verified for the children of North African immigrants from the first migratory wave, that of the years 1950-1975.
How could these children of immigrants born in the years 1960-1970-1980 be able to “
progress
” socially and be able to leave these neighborhoods?
Thanks to the public school where a majority of teachers still practiced the traditional methods remaining deaf to the injunctions of leveling down, demanded from their hierarchies.
From the mid-1990s, massive retirements led to the renewal of the teaching staff now trained in these ideologically formatted boxes that are the current ESPé IUFMs, fed on differentialist well-thinking.
All this led to the decay of public schools, preventing the children of newcomer immigrants and those who were now the second generation, from learning to emancipate themselves.
The school since 1990 has deconstructed all the landmarks that made it possible to form a common society: literature, language learning, history, geography.
Each parent can see the intellectual poverty of school programs reduced to the “
mastery of skills
” (the
Anglo-Saxon
“
skills
” promoted by the European Union!) Barely concealed by the pompous wording of the titles, the ability of the General Inspections to create an illusion.
This new migratory phase (1999-present) began at a time when the geopolitics of Islamism took advantage of the globalization of flows and the softening of European civilization.
At the time when the school of the Republic renounced its cultural requirement, its assimilationist project, its ambition of emancipation (also renouncing the transition to its secularism as the Creil affair in 1989 demonstrated), the immigration of mass resumed after a twenty-five year hiatus.
In fact, between 1975 and 1999, the average rate of increase in the proportion of immigrants fluctuated between 0.09% and 0.01%.
From 1999 and continuously until today, this rate has risen sharply and for several years has exceeded the immigration rates of the post-war boom (1954-1975).
The origin of this immigration has also changed since in 1975 of the 3.9 million immigrants more than 65% were European (Portugal, Italy, Spain and others), in 1999 out of 4.3 million immigrants this European share was already decreasing. 44% for the benefit of Maghreb and African immigration.
And in 2017, out of 6.2 million immigrants, the share of European flows was only 35%.
This new migratory phase (1999-present) also opened at a time when the geopolitics of Islamism took advantage of the globalization of flows (financial and human) and the softening of European civilization, where French society was sinking into structural mass unemployment (and its corollary of an infinite increase in social spending), where delinquency and trafficking exploded, encouraged by the denial of local and national elected officials, where the new formula of anti-Semitism was spreading in the suburbs and elsewhere.
All this combined has made the famous “
diversity
”
disappear
.
And the public school, the last base on which could rest this republican hope of a shared national life having been destroyed, there can only be ethno-demographic homogeneity in these districts.
This diversity means living in a minority, tolerated because submissive, in an ethnocultural bath that you do not want for your child.
This homogeneity is further reinforced by communitarianism, encouraged by social landlords and local elected officials who often respond favorably to requests to install people of the same origins in the same neighborhoods.
Homogeneity reinforced by the fact that here and there, social housing is passed on from father to son.
Reinforced by the fact that the State and local elected officials have allowed Islamist enclaves to develop, causing non-Muslims of all origins to flee from these territories. Let us remember the riots of 2005 and those that President Sarkozy called to his rescue to "
calm the young people
": the agents of political Islam whom they enthroned at the same time in his CFCM ...
Since 2005, hatred for France has continued to grow in these neighborhoods, pushed by so-called anti-racist groups. And the inhabitants of these districts are now asking for “
diversity
”? What kind of diversity is it when in a neighborhood there are no longer any businesses other than community ones? When the baker or the manager of the bar-tabac is forced to sell because he has been threatened or robbed ten times? When the butcher has packed up a long time ago? Do the elected officials of these neighborhoods who call for diversity in their wishes live there? Do they educate their offspring there?
Do the beautiful Parisian souls who lecture on the TV-radio sets educate their children (or grandchildren) in the schools of the Goutte d'Or or the Porte de la Chapelle?
Diversity is always good for others, for a good reason: this diversity, everyone understands that it is not.
This diversity means living in a minority, tolerated because submissive, in an ethnocultural bath that one does not want for oneself.
Many of us have a history of immigration in our family or loved ones, and we can testify to what the integration pathways of our ancestors were in the 1950s for example.
Often difficult courses, six in 40 square meters without bathroom and toilet on the landing, the mockery of schoolmates here on frizzy hair, there on a prominent nose.
This is the mix that works: a majority that welcomed a minority to which it asked to adapt, and not the other way around.
However, no anti-French hatred that has been transmitted to us, no resentment against a State which at the time had nothing to do with the social difficulties of immigrant populations.
In the 1930s, 1950s and 1970s, immigrants were in the minority in their buildings, their neighborhoods and their schools.
He lived according to the cultural and social codes of the majority.
He assimilated (or at least integrated) because he had social and political experiences with people different from him.
He also brought a little of its history and its folklore, but did not seek to call into question the civilizational base of the host country.
This is the real mix: a majority that welcomed a minority to which it asked to adapt, and not the other way around.
This French majority was caricatured from the 1980s with the "
French beret, clop in the beak and his balloon of red
", this racist Dupont-Lajoie.
Self-hatred is always the prelude to the decline of a culture, a civilization, a nation.
When you hate your national imagination, your legendary heroes, your secular heritage, you allow those who are proud of their imagination, their hero, their heritage to impose it on you.
And they may even decide to call it “
coeducation
”! You should not blame them, they are historical actors, civilizing agents, when you are nothing more than the ghosts of a history of which you refuse the living heritage, of your civilization which you have denied.
