Brexit: Dear English friends

Good luck since this is the choice you've made, which, I have to admit, surprised me . But it seems that you have never felt it is better to prefer our neighbours to our distant, that there is a community of culture, of feeling, of history, of destiny among the European countries and that in the absence of a consistent European policy in the economic, social and environmental fields as well as for external relations and industrial policy, then we will inevitably condemn ourselves to decline and domination by the Chinese or American empires. It seems that you have never felt, beyond our differences, the need for European solidarity and even a certain friendship, and that you are sticking to the Thatcher motto : I want my money back. It was not exactly the language of Churchill.

In this connection, it seems to me that the Conservative party, for years, has betrayed what was his greatness, from a noble and visionary policy to a policy of loudmouthed and intellectually limited shopkeepers; and that similarly, the Labour party has betrayed what was its DNA, social progress, its relationship with the unions and the employees  for a fascination with high finance ; and this does not only occur in your country, with the same results: a threatening  wave of anger.  Also, welcome in a world for which you had a mild contempt, the world, let's say latin,  of ungovernable countries; because finally, it seems to me that you have rejected an ultraliberal derive  generating inequalities while your politicians, those that you elect, are those who have more maneuvered to impose this type of policy in Europe; and those who have led the fight for the Brexit are among the most liberal and the most representative of international finance. You really count on Farage and Boris Johnson to save the NHS and fight social inequalities? And contrary to what wrote liberal columnist Leparmentier in Le Monde,  June 28, it seems that the English have refused a liberal Europe they helped to shape. And, also strangely, an immigration policy that  your politicians has encouraged beyond what Europe demanded.

Moreover, both Johnson and Farage, and they are much obliged to recognize it, lied, lied and lied again during this campaign (it's pretty fun, in Hungary, this type of fair admission after a won election has led to the complete destruction of the Socialist Party in less than a month). But the pro-Europeans cannot be exempted from their responsibilities. It seems that they are ashamed of their European convictions, they seem unable to defend their ideas with charisma, to design a future, a destiny, a historical perspective, a hope, they were even enable to denounce efficiently the tsunami of lies of their opponents. Most worrying, is that it is not just in England. We need serious work. And we need to seriously address the issue of immigration, it is clear that the peoples of Europe want it to be controlled and strongly limited.

I hope that the bad wind that rises will not turn into storm, and that EU leaders will be able to seize the opportunity, or rather, will be at the height of the duty which is required now to them, to relaunch European integration on other bases. Meanwhile "in is in and out is out ', and the agreements that we wiil maintain will be not in a punitive mode, no desire because I  hope that one day we will be again together, but in strict reciprocity. For a start, there is no more reason to keep the English border in Calais; inhabitants - the bourgeois of Calais have already given too much - it's also part of the common history that we share. It would be quite understandable that Ireland, which is becoming used to peace and reunification by each day policy, refuses to see a border separate it again and will  finally ask for institutional reunification; Europe should welcome a reunited Ireland , and also a fraternal Scotland (Edinburgh, intense source of European enlightenment!) if Scottish want to stay inside the EU.

Until we will be all together again ! And if Cameron had the honesty, courage, vista, political cleverness of a great Man of State or even of a Victor Orban (see above), he  would provoke a general election and would fight meeting after meeting like a dog, to denounce the lies of the supporters of the Brexit,  find a new political legitimacy and cancel the referendum.

Michel Houellebecq's Submission : a novel about humanity

Houellebecq and Auguste Comte

In Marianne (16 January 2015), a leading french intellectual Jacques Julliard has dedicated an article to the latest book by Houellebecq (Submission). In Figures of the collabo, an article that seemed to me 1) one of the most relevant of the wave of criticism; (2) incomplete, because it leaves aside Houellebecq knowledge of the work of Auguste Comte and his fascination, obvious by the number of citations in his previous works.

Therefore Submission would mainly be a murderous charge against the French intellectual, a gladly companion of deadly ideologies, a "man which beautifully invokes Voltaire and Zola, but is willing to prostitute himself before power, and even more when this power takes dictatorial forms and uses systematic violence and terror ”. Julliard quote Houellebecq justifying his hero (anti-hero?) submission to the new french islamic power : "so many intellectuals during the 20th century had supported Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot, and were not reproached anything”…

Agreed, the desire or need for “submission” is particularly disturbing among intellectuals, where it  appears to be a denial of their very function. But, in Houellebecq’s novel, all society is concerned. The “moderate” islamist Ben Abbès is elected by a majority of French, and they enjoy its government : restored civil peace, prosperity again, and even happier family life, more jobs (but less women at work). Of course some women, some Jews, not all of them, just a few, have to make some sacrifices, nothing really serious , but finally, no omelette without eggs...

What happened? "No society can exist without a kind of religion, without a "common social doctrine", without which there are no other expedients, to maintain harmony, than the sad alternative of force or corruption" (Auguste Comte). This is what led the positivists to propose a Republican, non-theological, religion, a religion without God. (for fascinating exposés of the Religion of Humanity in english, it can be referred to Frederic Harrison texts - the leader of a small but dynamic english positivist community). The purpose of the republican religion is to" rally, link, regulate": rally men to the common social doctrine, reinforce social links, regulate social and moral behaviors.

Something must have gone wrong, as would say Houellebecq, there had to be some flaws in Auguste Comte’s Religion of humanity. The Catholic order has been destroyed, but not replaced ("you only destroy what you replace- also Auguste Comte). So, in this vacuum, the most recent and still vigorous theological religion triumphs, and this precisely by invigorating the social link; That’s how the  Muslim Brotherhood of Houellebecq’s novel comes to power ..., as well as, in real world, Muslim fundamentalist movements.

Desire and need for submission

Then,  is the desire or need for submission always negative? Many people complains about the lack of authority of teachers. Does teaching not require some kind of submission? You can’t learn anything without first accepting the authority of knowledge, competence, elders, great scientists, artists, writers of the past - before eventually  challenging them ? And, it’s not by chance that in the new president Ben Abbès France, teachers are much better regarded and treated ; this was part of the program and of the public desire.

"Submission is the basis of development" (Auguste Comte, again; a missile sent, with a kind of smile, to his main disciple Pierre Laffitte requesting clarification) - except that Comte himself did little to bind to academic authorities and governments and had to pay the price by marginalization ; so, a motto  to take with caution, but not less real.

"Submission is the basis of development”," Islam means submission”, so why not “Islam is the basis of development” and let’s make a novel about this. A novel, not really about Islam, not a political fiction (it is the weaker part of this book)), not a reactionary pamphlet,  nor sexist, nor racist. Simply a novel about humanity, as all great novels.

And by the way, when will Houellebecq’s last novel be published in England or United States ?  Will editors be more courageous that the intellectuals ( again ?) who refused to associate themselves with the fight for freedom, after Charlie Hebdo murders ?

 

Eric Sartori, author of  Le socialisme d'Auguste Comte, aimer, penser, agir au XXI ème siècle, L’Harmattan, 2013