Gilles-William Goldnadel is a lawyer and essayist. Every week, he deciphers the news for FigaroVox.
We will not give in to the coming blackmail.
To rising intimidation.
In the space of a weekend, the controversy over the appointment of Pap Ndiaye to the Ministry of National Education has changed.
Friday, May 20, we glossed over the chef's surprise.
This one, as Le Figaro
had rightly suggested
the next day, had probably simmered this full-bodied recipe to try to win a few votes on the left.
The calculation not to be too appetizing could perhaps be effective.
Although dubbing an academic whose writings and remarks could seem close to racialist or even indigenist theses risked being somewhat difficult to accept for some of the French.
But in the space of a few hours, the nature of the debate will have changed, passing surreptitiously from denial to prohibition.
For
Le Monde
on Saturday, in the context of a hagiographic article, it was only “
the extreme right
” which unfairly attacked the person concerned since it was “
rigorously false
” to consider him an indigenist.
On Europe 1, Clément Beaune denounced "
the outburst of the far right
" and its "
xenophobic connotations
".
Finally SOS Racisme, stopping at nothing, tweeted: “
Following the appointment of Pap Ndiaye within the Borne government, the fachosphere is unleashed
”.
Followed this anticipation in the form of a trial of intent: "
If you are witnesses of hate speech, please send us the link of the post-comment
".
Tasty from an association whose main manager is indicted for having laughed at a Christian Arab called a "camel" by Yassine Bellatar.
In an interview and the day after the tragic death of George Floyd, Pap Ndiaye will argue without laughing that a situation of similar but systematically denied racist police violence exists in France.
Gilles-William Goldnadel
Nothing beats looking at the facts.
Is M Pap Ndiaye a racialist or not?
Le Monde
, in its denials, lacks memory.
The daily is strangely less stingy in distributing the far-right label than in attributing those of far-left, indigenist or racialist.
Our contentious daily would have been well advised to take the trouble to re-read the interview that our new minister had given him on December 18, 2017 and whose title was worth a profession of faith: “
There is structural racism in France
”.
In this interview, our otherwise courteous and distinguished historian, our high-flying intellectual whom we once read with great interest before his involution, justifies the "
single-mixed
" groups (to put it without understatement, forbidden to whites) to which he participated personally in the company of certified natives.
Groups organized by the extremely left-wing union Sud Éducation, with which he will now be able to collaborate harmoniously on rue de Grenelle.
In another interview and the day after the tragic death of George Floyd, he will argue without laughing that a situation of similar but systematically denied racist police violence exists in France.
Verification made by our friend Christian Gerondeau, last year there were 1055 deaths in the United States by the police against 14 in France.
Considering demographics, the ratio is 1 to 15.
I would dare to suggest that it could happen that certain violence was legal and legitimate.
In the coherent logic of his questioning of the French police, Pap Ndiaye considered with favor the speech of Assa Traoré:
"Basically, when we read her, when we listen to her, her speech is unifying..."
Except to have contracted some hearing problems, I do not hear this music of harmony when the alleged unifier who presents the uniformly racist French police declares: “
Black and Arab men are not safe in France
”.
I had rather understood that the main quest of asylum seekers was precisely to find themselves in France.
NGOs close to Assa Traoré or his defender, now a minister, would be well advised to warn them of the serious dangers incurred in a country with "
structural racism
".
To directly contradict the position of Jean-Michel Blanquer, his future successor will deny against the evidence and against his intelligence, the notion of Islamo-leftism
Gilles-William Goldnadel
On France Inter, to directly contradict the position of Jean-Michel Blanquer, his future successor will deny against the evidence and against his intelligence, the notion of Islamo-leftism by claiming that this, today overused, existed from time where it aimed to defend the Palestinians even to anti-Semitism.
Strange use of the imperfect.
We did not know that the rebels and their media friends had renounced their flammable Palestinianism.
The story of Pap Ndiaye is the somewhat heartbreaking story of an estimable academic (and whom we esteem) who espoused racialist theses in the United States and who imported them into France, until he became part of the Cran and militated even for keeping the word “
race
” in the dictionary.
As justification, he explains that it is to defend himself against anti-black racism, a chromatic dimension of which he would have discovered the reality late in life.
Couldn't we use this word to attack anti-white racism?
In my distraction, I forgot that a white man could not be "
racialized
", therefore suffer from racism.
Let us reread this passage from the very critical review of our new minister's latest work ("
La condition noire
", Calman Lévy, 2008) by the very left-wing historian Gérard Noiriel:
"Pap Ndiaye thought it best to devote a whole chapter to trying to rehabilitate “race” in French public discourse and in social science research”.
To sum up: we therefore have in the rue de Grenelle a defender of the notion of race, supporter of Assa Traoré, denier of Islamo-leftism at the university, considering in a shameful way for France that this one, welcoming up to the deadly excess, practices violent structural racism.
And it would be forbidden, except to pour into racism, to consider him racialist and to worry about his appointment as Minister of National Education?
I did not know that those who criticize Zemmour were anti-Semitic.
Faced with the evidence, the gag of the forbidden succeeded the untenable denial.
The only racism that I foresee is that a white person cannot freely criticize the racialism of a black intellectual who participates in meetings prohibited to whites.
