In Face of Yellow-Vest Critics, France Moves to Criminalize Anti-Zionism
Guillaume Durocher • February 24, 2019 from The Unz Review
The
French Jewish intellectual Alain Finkielkraut was recently profusely
insulted by yellow-vests on the margins of a demonstration. This attack
has been widely-portrayed as anti-Semitic, even though the yellow-vests
in question explicitly attacked Finkielkraut as a Zionist. As Damien Viguier, the anti-Zionist intellectual Alain Soral’s lawyer, observed:
Alain Finkielkraut was called “a dirty Zionist shit (a Zionist two times again and “shit” perhaps three times more), a “fascist,” a “racist (two times), and “hateful.” He was asked to leave the demonstration in direct times: “get out of here” (twice), “piss off,” “go back home to Israel!” I can see in all this insults, or defamatory comments, I would even grant a light violence, but I find no trace of a discriminatory motivation. This shows well that the words “anti-Semite” and “anti-Semitic” are used in an absolutely arbitrary manner.
It is
true that “Zionist” is often used as a euphemism for “Jew.” But it is
also true that many anti-Zionists are happy to befriend genuinely
anti-Zionist Jews such as Gilad Atzmon (himself an associate of Soral’s). Finkielkraut was likely attacked for his values rather than his ethnicity.
This
subtlety did not prevent the incident from triggering a veritable
pro-Semitic moral panic across the entire politico-media class. The
media lamented the “anti-Semitic” attack on Finkielkraut and he was
comforted by politicians from across the political spectrum, from the
far-left to the far-right, including the bulk of prominent nationalist
and identitarian figures.
Much of the foreign press (the London Times, The Jerusalem Post,
the Jewish Telegraph Agency . . .) misrepresented things further,
claiming that Finkielkraut had been called a “dirty Jew.” This is a
genuine example of fake news.
Then a
Jewish cemetery in the Alsatian village of Quatzenheim was desecrated,
with over 90 tombstones being sprayed with with swastikas and
anti-Semitic slogans. One tombstone was sprayed with the words:
“Elsassisches Schwarzen Wolfe,” meaning “Alsatian Black Wolves,” an
Alsatian nationalist group which has been inactive since 1981 . . . Of
course, a hate hoax cannot be excluded: one thinks of the recent Jussie
Smollett debacle or the Israeli-American who instigated 2000 supposed anti-Semitic bomb and shooter threats over the years.
For those whom anecdotal evidence was not sufficient, the regime also trotted out the usual “statistics”
about, seemingly released every year of every decade, showing a massive
increase in “anti-Semitic” acts. I will only say that such statistics
are dubious in general, repetitive, and obviously ethnically and
politically convenient. Grand old man Jean-Marie Le Pen commented:
There is no anti-Semitism in France which would justify a mobilization of public opinion. . . . Incidentally, we’re given a figure of a 74% increase in [anti-Semitic] attacks. Compared to what? I ask that we have the list of all these attacks committed against the Jews, in such a way that we can actually tell the difference between a graffiti, a murder, a telephone call, or a schoolyard scuffle. It is true that radical Islamism is extrapolating in a sense the Israeli-Arab conflict into France. It is much more a matter of anti-Zionism than anti-Semitism.
Regardless
of whether the Quatzenheim incident is authentic, and it could well be,
this event immediately prompted a solemn visit by the President of the
Republic himself, Emmanuel Macron. This was followed by a national call
to demonstrate against anti-Semitism, initiated by the Socialist Party
but with virtually the entire political class following suite.
The
response of both of the indigenous French people and the
Africans/Muslims was lackluster however. According to the official
media, some 20,000 people demonstrated in Paris and negligible amounts
in the rest of the country. Actually, as the 20,000 figure was provided
by the Socialist Party itself, we can be sure that this is an
overstatement.
Serge Klarsfeld,
one of the leading lights of the highly-profitable local holocaust
industry, could not conceal his disappointment, telling the top
journalist Jean-Pierre Elkabbach (a fellow Jew[1]) on television:
The masses were not there. The crowd was not there. The French on the whole were not there. There were demonstrations, but I was there, I was there with my entire family and I saw a lot of familiar faces. But the crowd did not come, and which is indignant, should have come. . . . In Lyon there were 1500 or 2000 people. That is not a lot for a big city like Lyon. The crowd was absent and those who were not Jewish were generally absent!
This
is in stark contrast with the similar 1990 Carpentras Affair, during
which a Jewish cemetery was also desecrated. The pro-Semitic
demonstrators following this incident numbered over 200,000 in Paris
alone. The event was skillfully exploited by the Socialist President
François Mitterrand and by the politico-media class in general by
abusively linking this event to Jean-Marie Le Pen’s rapidly-rising Front
National (FN). This contributed to making the FN unhandshakeworthy and
to preventing any alliance between Le Pen’s nationalists and the
mainstream conservatives, which would have spelled doom for the Left. It
was later shown that the FN had nothing to do with the incident, which
had apparently been instigated by a handful of neonazis with no links to
the party.
People
should generally speculate less about the authenticity of an event
(e.g. 9/11, the Reichstag Fire), which is often difficult to prove one
way or the other, than on whether the event has been used as a pretext
by the ruling elite to do something questionable or disproportionate
(often something which it had been hankering to do for a long time),
which is typically quite easy to demonstrate.
This
time, as Klarsfeld complains, the gentiles were not so interested in
these theatrics. However, the event is having significant political and
legal effects. The Macron regime is exploiting the incident to implement
measures which have long been demanded by the CRIF (Representative
Council of Jewish Institutions of France), the country’s powerful
official Jewish lobby. Macron himself appeared before the (very
conveniently-timed, as it happens) CRIF annual dinner, where the crème de la crème
of the French political class regularly appear, in a solemn ritual of
solidarity and genuflection before the Lobby-That-Doesn’t-Exist.
French
President Emmanuel Macron with CRIF President Francis Khalifat (himself
the successor to the long-time present Roger Cuckierman, you can’t make
some things up).
Macron made a number of promises to the CRIF:
- Three small “anti-Semitic” nationalist groups would be banned (Bastion Social, Blood & Honor Hexagone, and Combat 18).
- A new law strengthening the state’s already considerable ability to censor anything it deems to be “hate speech” on social media (the French government is among the world leaders in demanding and obtaining the suppression of content on Twitter, behind only Turkey and Russia).
- Most significantly, France would adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s “working definition of anti-Semitism,” which ludicrously includes anti-Zionism as an integral part of anti-Semitism. Thus, Jewish organizations and the French government are moving to outright criminalize opposition to Jewish ethno-nationalism (the definition of Zionism) all the while criminalizing all Western ethno-nationalisms as being discriminatory, hateful, xenophobic, etc.
This was quickly followed the European Union me-too-ers in Brussels making their own proposals for an “anti-Semitism pact,”
notably aimed at punishing Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s
campaign raising awareness around international financial speculator
George Soros’ multi-million dollar efforts to flood Europe with migrants
and undermine traditional European culture and ethnic identity.
Surprisingly, Soral’s anti-Zionist and civic nationalist association Égalité & Réconciliation actually hailed Macron for resisting the CRIF’s demands,
bowing to them only reticently, and in some cases only symbolically.
After all E&R itself, the most prominent anti-Zionist organization
in France, will not be banned. The social-media censorship legislation
will only be presented in parliament in May. And, apparently, France’s
redefinition of anti-Semitism to include anti-Zionism will not be
legally-binding, but will be used to educate to policemen and judges (go
figure). All this, E&R surmises, left the CRIF’s audience
underwhelmed. And, E&R notes that the CRIF’s demands are “extremely
anti-popular and legally untenable . . . unless there is a complete
shift to a communitarian [ethnic] dictatorship.”
Let
us return to the original “victim” of all this, Alain Finkielkraut.
Following the incident, an immediate “investigation” was launched of the
various “perpetrators,” showing the absurd judicialization of French
life. Finkielkraut, recently appointed as one of the forty “Immortals”
of the Académie française, has been known to the younger generation
primarily as an anti-racist Jew turned neoconservative once he realized
Islamic immigration to France was bad for the Jews. He has become a
popular Internet meme for his numerous televized hysterical outbursts: “Shut up! Shut up!”
Personally I haven’t followed Finkielkraut very closely and whenever I listen to him his discourse sounds like over-complicated pilpul.
That said, he has objectively voiced a number of French identitarian
concerns over the years. In 2005 he correctly and controversially told
the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: “People say that the French national [football] team is admired because it is black-blanc-beur [black, white, Arab]. In reality, the national team is today black-black-black,
which makes it the laughingstock of Europe.” There was clearly an
element of rivalry in claiming the status of top ethnic victim.
Finkielkraut also told Haaretz:
I was born in Paris and am the son of Polish himmigrants, my father was deported from France, his parents were deported and murdered at Auschwitz, my father returned from Auschwitz to France. This country deserves our hatred. And what it did to my parents was far more brutal than what it did to the Africans. And what did it do to the Africans? Nothing but good. My father was forced to endure hell for five years. And I was never taught hatred. Today the blacks’ hatred is even stronger than the Arabs’.
In
2017, upon the death of the French rock singer Johnny Hallyday,
Finkielkraut told the right-wing journalist Élisabeth Lévy (another
fellow Jew, at once moderately anti-Muslim and hysterical on
anti-Semitism): “the little people, the little whites went in to the
streets to say adieu to Johnny. […] The non-natives[2] shone by their absence.”
In
the footage of his “assault” by the yellow-vests, Finkielkraut however
played his role to perfection, bearing his grotesque attackers’ insults
with calmness and dignity. He then appeared on the radio to discuss the
incident and emphasized that the attackers were probably of Islamic
origin:
When one hears this slogan, “France is ours” [pronounced by one of the yellow-vests], one could thinks this is a variant of “France for the French” of classical fascism. But in fact no: he is saying “France is ours, it belongs to us Islamists.” He therefore is a believe in the theory of the Great Replacement. I do not say this Great Replacement is taking place, but for him it should take place. And for him, the Jews should be the first to be kicked out.
One
will appreciate the utter tartuffery of claiming an opponent is
promoting the Great Replacement while denying that it is taking place.
I
will take this opportunity to emphasize again the Soviet-style absurdity
of the French politico-media class’s denial of the Great Replacement.
The replacement of the indigenous French population by both European and
non-European (overwhelmingly African/Muslim) allogenes is visible in
every major French city and, increasingly, in towns and villages across
the country. And yet, our treacherous ruling elite, media, and even
Wikipedia claim that all talk of a Great Replacement is a mere
“conspiracy theory.” I’m not sure even Pravda’s claims concerning the workers’ paradise were so bold.
As
it happens, Finkielkraut’s attackers seem to have been Muslims and one,
“Benjamin W.,” appears to be an indigenous French convert. It seems
quite likely that they were indeed influenced by Soral or at least the
multiracial “patriotic” anti-Zionist culture he has created.
All
in all, these events are illustrative of the French and Franco-Jewish
elites manias for anti-Semitism and the growing indifference of the
French and Afro-Islamic populations to such theatrics. The Lobby-That-Doesn’t-Exist
– denounced by French leaders as varied as Charles de Gaulle, Raymond
Barre, and François Mitterrand – continues to play the victim. But their
power is weakening; and they know it. Macron himself, a convinced
high-globalist, is only moderately interested in these matters. Many
leading Jews, Bernard-Henri Lévy and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, have been
extraordinarily alarmed by the uncontrolled and populist nature of the
yellow-vest movement. Time will tell if this movement will participate
in France’s liberation from globalism and the lobby’s distorting
influence.
Notes
[1]
Soral has observed that while Jews make up only 1% of the French
population many French talk shows resemble “a little Jewish theater.”
This disparate outcome and ethnic privilege should be noted.
[2] Actually, the non-souchiens, the non-French-by-blood. Souchien is a term coined by “anti-colonial” Arab-Berber racial activists. It is a homophone for sous-chien, “sub-dog.”
No comments:
Post a Comment