Stéphane Hessel, a former resistance fighter and senior official book at the request of a young publishing house, some food for thought in a little book sold 3. Under the title "indignant you", it becomes a bestseller.
Its release is accompanied by a strong media and drives three main types of reactions:
- Those who say it's nice, but blah ...
- Those who are excited by the message urging them to find patterns of indignation and ready to join the Bolivian maquis
- Those who attack the author reproaching him under cover of impeccable business card, easy and selective indignation, being the spearhead of cosmopolitanism bobo, being antisionniste or promote the colonization of our country and the disappearance of our culture.
Among these in particular are the party members of the In-innocence, which through one of their Orimont Bolacre publish a book in reply titled "I can not believe."
Before talking about this book, some personal reflections.
- This debate comes at a particular time. You feel up there, tied to a particular tension largely to a combination of economic and identity crisis, the ideological blindness which throws against each other, the proponents of multiculturalism, humanism, human 'Rightism and supporters of a French France strain, which rejects what it considers a well pensance widespread and suicidal. I said that I do not wear particular judgment here on these positions, each deserving more time to engage in serious analysis.
- The Book of Orimont Bolacre is a response to that of Hessel. Materially, it seems hardly possible. Both the works of Hessel get maximum exposure, as that of Bolacre is distributed very sparingly: logistical, consumer choice, plot? Each will choose his thesis.
Beyond this aspect, the response suffers in my opinion, several birth handicaps:
- The SH book appeared as spontaneous (was he?) And enjoyed the quite exemplary career of its author, former resistance and deported, diplomat .. "I can not believe" does not benefit from this assumption. Written by an unknown pseudonym, at the request of a man and a party, the scale does not appear spontaneously balanced.
- This book exists only in the book of Hessel paradoxically it helps to highlight. So, the responses here find their place within the limits imposed by this forced exercise. The choice of this book mirror leads to a position just as ambiguous and fragmented than that alleged against HS. Due to the voluntary brevity, the arguments that focus primarily on the unsuitability of reference to the National Council of Resistance in the modern world, the distinction between citizens and "paper people" ("and only papers. Ni heart nor mind, nor of French culture and even too often, hating this culture, never losing an opportunity to reject it or be completely indifferent ") and the behavior noncitizen therefore, suburban youths , lack of development.
- The tone of the book appears and that's good, measured and does not disdain the use of humor. However, the bias adopted by the author (to talk a young 31 year old - whose grandparents are immigrés- looking for jobs and who, during one of his days, reflects on the text of Hessel and provides its indignation reasons) is understandable, if not consistent. But I am not convinced that it serves the purpose. In terms of style (and on this point Hessel is still little attackable), this choice leads Bolacre to adopt a language that for true, is tinged with many facilities and talk dj'eune (MDR ...).
In conclusion: I'm not sure that the debate has particularly advanced, theses being after all, as little documented in one case as in the other. Finally, at least, the camps were formed.
Caricaturing: you are anti-globalization, support Martine Aubry, SOS Racism, enjoy Jean Daniel and BHL, read "Praise borders" Régis Debray? You'll love Hessel.
Prefer Marine Le Pen positions, support and Finkielkraut Zemmour, you think the Islamization of France is inevitable and you love "The Saints camp" by Jean Raspail? You will support Bolacre.
You think these extremes are a bit simplistic? Do as I wait for a next book.
Here, I tried to comment as objective as possible. This book deserves neither dumpers nor reproach excessive praise.
I must now specify in all honesty, I do not see the same level trays on which these two books.
There are words, ideas. And there is the appropriation that is made by their readers.
The authors are certainly not responsible, but they are fools?
To tell the truth, I have more indulgence for the enthusiastic support of "Indignez you" that I find in the worst case, naively and / or stupidly caricature sycophants and rebels.
I admit I still struggle to find the truly committed, regimented or holders of an ideology built beyond the overall critique of capitalism from the government or Israeli policy.
Conversely, some reactions against the book of Hessel, are more marked by a reactionary ideology of renovated under clothes (which now becomes a claim to fame), exposes the theses that bother me more (Let us be clear : thinking that France is invaded by Muslims is a thought otherwise shareable, at least questionable, with figures to say that Muslims are inherently lazy or supporters of the invasion of the rich countries, belongs to another. level). Moreover, the attacks against the HS book often lack dignity. That it is a fake or a lucky resistant deported attack on his age on his mental faculties ... The book of Orimont Bolacre avoids this trap. May those who read it retain as much strength.
