There are certain subjects for which doubt is not allowed, even among those who would be thought to be resistant to consensual truths, engaged as they are in struggles that seem a priori contrary to the doxa. Shared by the entire political spectrum, accepted by the « left » as well as the « right », recognized and appreciated by the employers, the reading of the facts would be the object of a broad public consensus which would set it up as a form of indisputable truth. The subject who doubts and questions, just because he dares to challenge the « media-political truth », would then be the object of a brutal and prompt excommunication, branded with the image of the « reactionary », assimilated to the worst enemies and henceforth topped with the seal of infamy, attached to the worst nouns (extremist, revisionist, negationist, conspiracy theorist, populist…), quali catives that immediately distance, by fear of assimilation, those who were looking for another information.), qualifiers that immediately drive away, for fear of assimilation, those who were looking for other information.
Defenders of the of « truths that fit ».Heretics would automatically be associated with the opposing camp. We ourselves have been struck by the wrath of self-righteousness, sitting in its certainties, as we rejected the truth constructed by the media-political world about Syria. In the case of this war of interest like any other, expressing the manipulation of information for the benefit of Western interests quickly puts you in the « pro-Bashar » or « pro-Putin » camp, and de facto puts you in the category of non-credible.
It is still astonishing to see how, even among those who call themselves left-wing and think they are « enlightened », many decide to stop their thinking in front of certain areas that they circumscribe and define as impracticable, as if everything had already been said, that the ground had been thought over at length by them and that the conclusion was made, once and for all. A sort of minefield, an « already-thought » space that it would not be a question of submitting to the exercise of doubt, or else to do it at one’s own risk. Once the war is over and the admission of mistakes is made — didn’t Obama declare that the war in Iraq was a mistake, a statement that weighed little in the face of the hundreds of thousands of deaths -, the right-thinking public would already be swallowing the same nonsense that precipitated past interventions.
It is that the subject divides, when we should more than ever unite in the struggle. But is it a division based on super-sky points of divergence? Nothing is less certain. Persuaded of being safe from propaganda, the citizen parrots the truths repeated by the media all day long, but is also « made by images »(1), a receptacle in spite of himself, in the same way as others who are usually unaware of being the subjects of Western propaganda. However, in a more pernicious way in the first case, because « what makes the strength of an ideological system is the degree to which its presuppositions are shared by the very people who think they are making the most radical criticism of it »(2). The usual critics of the established order, opposed to the exclusion of the unemployed, to the closed centers, to police violence, to the domination of the employers… would be all the more credible for their acolytes that they are right in the other fields. Is it not, however, in the presuppositions they share with their enemies that one could find the ideological heart of domination?
This is what we will try to explore in this dossier, without fearing to approach the forbidden zones of self-righteousness, even if it means being labelled with the worst qualifications.cative, trying to answer some questions, essential: by whom has the ground been mined after being supposedly trodden by their spirit(3)? Where did the information that allowed the subject to form an opinion come from? Why do certain subjects awaken defense reflexes in an individual who is sure of being right and certain of the uselessness of all questioning, who refuses to debate and very quickly categorizes his interlocutor by traits associated with the German experience, the Godwin point hitting the hour of censorship?(4) If this refusal to think seems to be almost instinctual, what is the point? Does it paradoxically ensure the continuity of domination?
What is behind these simplistic dichotomies?
File produced by Alexandre Penasse