As indicated by the name of his status, the immigrant once was a man.
In his host country he finds himself—except if this host country accepts communitarism—Other or foreigner.
As Other he is now feminised, the worst betrayal to his father; as foreigner, it is the history or the means in use in the host country that make of him either an acceptable interlocutor or a pariah.
Thus in my childhood, polaks, macaronis, Spanish and North Africans were said to eat the bread that belongs to the French. The Jews’ only appetite was for French blood. These nutrients served to nourish good children who sang the Marseilleise on the battlefield, or football fields.
Now there remains the Arabs. We won’t be mistaken, the greater part of them will contribute to French genius, adding a genius of their own to this. But there amongst them is a number who become frustrated when the host nation ceases to propose an ideal, effaced to the advantage of an abstract European construction.
Europe remains an ill-defined—what citizen has a representation of it?—soulless body—even the effigies of its great men have even been effaced from banknotes—whilst a form inhabited by a spirit is the least one can expect to be able to make a citizen.
Thus there are those who are enraged about this deficiency—which duplicates that of the origin. They have the right to this error since the servants of secularism are completely incapable of teaching them what a just relation to the father might be.
28 November 2017
Translation : Michaël Plastow