LThe contrast is striking. Despite the debate between Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau, it would be difficult to unite two incarnations of the antagonist on the same television. One is European, Voltaire and progressive; others, nationalists, readers of Jacques Bainville and fighting against “the great successors.” Raphaël Glucksmann and Éric Zemmour debate this Tuesday evening at LCI.
There is no debate, except to think of this exercise as an affirmation of one’s beliefs at high decibel levels, with one’s ears closed to one’s opponent’s arguments and one’s index finger pointed in their direction. Like a wrestling referee, the calm David Pujadas was even forced to leave his chair to block them.
Their reputation? One is said to be too angelic, the other is said to be the devil himself. The first was about morality and emotion, the second was about eliminating influence, because he had to “save France”, whatever the cost. Both were well-read politicians: Glucksmann loved philosophy; Zemmour, the story. One is optimistic, the other has a tragic temperament. If they have to find common ground, both assume their ideas, without incitement.
Glucksmann “has no weakness in confronting Islamism”
Their exchange ultimately reinforces the image we have of them. At first, Zemmour seemed too relaxed, as if he was sure he would succeed in defeating the young social democrat. Glucksmann, for his part, let out a queasy sneer, an act unbecoming of someone to the left and facing the president of Reconquest!. To illustrate his opponent’s lack of roots, the author Mass is not said (Fayard) took, in the expected way, his line that he, Glucksmann, felt closer to the New Yorkers than to Picard – a line he later adjusted.
But then Zemmour was forced to respond, not without anger, to the public MEP in Place who accused him of being in the anti-French camp because of his closeness to Orban, his praise of Putin and his attraction to Trump. The former presidential candidate then became very upset, giving the impression of no longer supporting contradictions – which he may not have in other media. He would criticize his opponent for having worked for the Georgian government and, deep down, was “the spiritual son of Bernard-Henri Lévy, who defended a foreign identity and not a French one”. Then, more passionately, he added that “it wasn’t Russian soldiers who killed Lola, Matéo, or the Philippines.”
So who is he? The list of epithets is long, so we’ll settle for examples: pupil of Carl Schmitt, “Nazi theorist”; an admirer of the counter-revolutionary Joseph de Maistre and, because of his literal understanding of Islam, an “Islamist preacher”. We also note this instructive sentence from Glucksmann: “I have no weakness in the face of Islamism”, he replied to his rival who tried to make him appear “a fool useful to Islamism”. Likewise, the European Parliament surprised by taking on a Republican theme and the French flag, which is far from obvious to today’s left-wing elected officials…
Who wins between Glucksmann and Zemmour?
To find
Kangaroo today
Answer
If Glucksmann, through his ideas, was “a man of the 1980s” with “very shallow and mediocre” comments, Zemmour was from “the 1940s” as we know this period. In short, none of this is very high.
Zemmour is based on identity, which is supported by the Ifop poll on Muslims in France; Glucksmann about values, reminding colleagues of the various sentences handed down in court. Their customers hear what they want to hear. Therefore, we will stop there in this report, because the rest, which takes the form of a litany of “let me talk!” », not interested in those who like the confrontation of ideas and do not like scandals worthy of vulgar social networks. The winner? Drawing, of course.
