Why I do not like ‘The Empire Never Ended’ by Pacôme Thiellement on Blast.

For about a yearBlast , broadcasts a new show named:The empire has never ended. who is enjoying great success.

So, I have already hinted here and there that I did not like this show without ever saying why. So here are, exclusively, the three reasons why I do not like this show.

Firstly, it's a detail, but I hate his introductory sentence: "I am not a historian but an exegete. If you don't like my history of France, then write your own."It's very pretty, but it means nothing. Indeed, an exegete is someone who will interpret an existing book or work of art to extract a hidden or true meaning. For example, doing an exegesis of the Bible is trying to discover, by reading the Bible, and possibly learning about the historical context in which it was written, what the message is that Jesus wanted to convey (which Pacome does in one of the first episodes ofThe Empire never ended.But there is no book written once and for all named:the history of France, which could be interpreted.To say that one is an exegete of the history of France is like saying that one is a baker for a green plant. It creates an illusion because it is grammatically correct, but in reality, it makes no sense. And the sentence that follows shortly after makes me think that it was placed with the sole purpose of not having to respond to the criticisms he knew were inevitable.To allow him, like other people engaged in the same process of instrumentalizing history for political purposes (like François Asselineau), to claim, whenever it suits him, that he does not pretend to historical reality, as he only does fiction inspired by real facts with the aim of propagating political ideas (which is a perfectly commendable activity), while doing everything possible to make most viewers believe they are dealing with a historically accurate narrative.And no, there is nothing that would have prevented him from stating from the very beginning that he is an amateur historian or even simply a historian. It is not a title protected by law, and it would have been more honest.For what he does is the work of a historian. A poor work of a historian, certainly, but the work of a historian.

And precisely, the second reason why I don't like his work is that it's a national novel from the left, and I don't like national novels.That is to say, his history of France is a simplified version (even deceitful) of history, focused on major figures, aimed at legitimizing and propagating political ideas.Of course, everyone simplifies when addressing the general public, or simply because one cannot say everything, even in a 1000-page history book.Of course, the choice of these simplifications is never politically neutral.Of course, the work of a historian is not just about relating a series of disconnected facts, but explaining why they occurred.That is to say, in what ways they are the causes and consequences of each other, and what was the mentality, historical context, and the reasons that drove men to act as they did in reaction to these events.And once again, this explanation is never politically neutral.But most historians and good popularizers in history accept and combat these ideological biases as best as they can, and accept (with more or less goodwill) the criticism.On the other hand, Pacôme Thiellement, just like Guillemin and Richard Ferrand, rejects criticism with arguments that I find fallacious (see point 1) and is never in a perspective of fighting/assuming his biases in order to offer the most historically accurate work.Just like them, he chooses his quotes to suit his own views and forcibly fit historical events into his framework, which is essentially that, for millennia, history has been a struggle between a mass of oppressed people wanting to impose communism, against a small group of malicious elites wanting to impose their dominance through the most abject violence.An example of this is his video: BURGUNDIANS VS ARMAGNACS: GAME OF THRONES BUT FOR REAL - EPISODE 6 :, where he compares one of the tax revolts against the taxes put in place by the king to finance his wars to that of the Yellow Vests, saying that it is the people who are revolting against poverty. However, the taxes we are talking about are paid exclusively by craftsmen and traders. Essentially, it’s one of the first revolts of the emerging bourgeoisie. That is to say a small minority of the population, who, even with these increases.of taxes, is very far from poverty and has little to do with the Yellow Vests. Moreover, the repression they will suffer and the way they will be perceived by the rest of society has little to do with what happened to the Yellow Vests. Medieval France is a country whose culture, composition, modes of production, social groups, the balance of power between these different groups, and their aspirations have nothing to do with those of today's France. On all these points, we are closer to the Chinese than toOur ancestors from a thousand years ago. The work of a good historian is to make us perceive this difference. To allow us to travel to these unknown lands that we can barely conceive.

This is not what Pacôme Thiellement does. He constructs a myth more aimed at uniting us in our present to change our future, rather than illuminating our past.And even if I don't like it, it may be a good thing.That is to say,"what"In the same way that I do not like violence but still recognize its necessity (or its inevitable nature) in some cases, I believe that, even if I do not like it, the work that Pacôme has undertaken is undoubtedly necessary (or in any case that it does more good than harm).Indeed, many people (especially in the working classes) feel the need to be part of a community and to have this kind of founding myth that Pacôme Thiellement is currently writing.Or, in recent years we have seen the far right plunging into this area by proposing their myths and their revisited national narrative.Leaving them free rein on the pretext that the small left-wing cultural bourgeoisie (of which I am a part) cannot stand myths and communitarianism is probably not a good idea.The truth is, this series by Pacôme Thiellement will undoubtedly do more for the ideas I defend than I ever will in my entire life. In fact, he is doing the dirty work that I am too snobbish to do.So, even if I don't like his work, ultimately I should avoid criticizing him too much. Especially since he is much more rigorous than a Richard Ferrand or a Franck Guillemin. And above all, unlike them, he does not violently attack historians or idiots like me who criticize them on the internet.

And finally, the third reason why I don't like what he's doing: it's not just a left-wing national novel, but also a Christian left-wing national novel.However, I don't like religion, and everything that it'senapproach closely or from afar.