Here I want to give you 3 articles:
1. Gilad Atzmon: "The role of the Left ... is to stop us from looking
into Jewish power"
2. ) French filosopher Finkielkraut gives an interview to Der Spiegel. he states: Left denies Cash of Civilizations ( This clash is between Islam and the West, whose
Civ. has been destroyed).
3. Gilad Atzmon's critique on Finkielkraut:It's the French Left (jewish!) that has destroyed Western Civilization, and now suppresses discussion about the real situation: Jewish hegemony.
I find the first article an eye-opener.
Yes, people like Amy Goodman and Chomsky are indeed not talking about the real elephant in the room: the fact that the Jews decide which subjects are discussed, and which are not discussed.
They controle the Media. They are, as Israel Shamir calls it: the Masters of Discourse.
The result is that most people have no idea what is happening in this world.
Not when Israel is involved.
Yes, we know about the intifada, about the iron Wall, about the Gaza War etc. But those are the visible things. Most people have no idea that Iraq and Iran and Syria were destroyed because it is good for Israel.
If it were not good for Israel, they would never have been destroyed.
If it were not good for Israel, 911 would never have happened.
If it were not good for Israel , we would not see all this muslim-bashing in the media.
I have changed nothing in the text. But I made some remarks myself: in red.
And I made bold some parts in the original text, and underlined some sentences.
(1) Gilad Atzmon: "The role of the Left ... is to stop us from looking
into Jewish power"
Radio interview with Ryan Dawson
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/ryan-dawson-interviews-gilad-atzmon-very-interesting.html
27 Oct 2013
"In fact, I actually argue that the so-called anti-Zionists are actually
far more dangerous - and this is crucial. You see, I like to talk about
Jewish power: there is no doubt that the Jewish power plays a major role
in contemporary politics, banking and so on. The Jewish Lobby openly
pushes for a war in Syria; and, before that, conflict with Iran and so
on. There is no doubt about it.
"However, I argue that all those events can be easily checked - you can
read my book, and John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about the Israeli
Lobby, you can read James Petras, you can read Jeff Blankfort, and so
on. I argue that what they describe is not Jewish power; it is just
symptoms of Jewish power.
"The real meaning of Jewish power is the capacity to stop us from
talking about Jewish power. The Jewish power is not the embodiment of
the pro-Zionists, for instance. ... Jewish power is the successful
tendency to stop us from looking into it. Now this is not done by
Dershowitz, or Foxman - ADL Foxman. This is done by the Jewish Left, and
the Left in general. The role of the Left, and the Jewish Left in
particular, is to stop us from looking into Jewish power. In other
words, the definition of Jewish power is the capacity to stop us from
looking into Jewish power."
"And this is exactly what Noam Chomsky did on Democracy Now, when he had
to discuss John Mearsheimer. He dismissed his whole approach, instead of
discussing it. Finkelstein – Norman Finkelstein - did pretty much the
same thing. By the way, Democracy Now should have brought Stephen Walt
and John Mearsheimer to debate Chomsky; but they didn't. They operated
as an instrument of Jewish power, diverting attention from the issue.
"Now, it is not a secret, that the vast majority of Progressive
organizations in America, the vast majority of Palestinian NGOs, the
vast majority of Palestinian Solidarity groups, are supported by George
Soros' Open Society, who also support the Zionist liberal J Street. And
this is why we see a suspicious similarity between the ideas presented
by liberal Zionism and the progressive network. And this is what
transforms the Left - which stands for beautiful values, that I respect
to a certain extent - this is what transforms the Left into a dubious
network of Controlled Opposition."
(2) Finkielkraut: Left denies Cash of Civilizations (Islam vs a West
whose Civ. has been destroyed)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-french-philosopher-finkielkraut-on-muslims-and-integration-a-937404.html
French Philosopher Finkielkraut: 'There Is a Clash of Civilizations'
Interview Conducted by Mathieu von Rohr and Romain Leick
French society is under threat, argues philosopher Alain Finkielkraut in
a controversial new book. The conservative spoke to SPIEGEL about what
he sees as the failure of multiculturalism and the need for better
integration of Muslim immigrants.
Alain Finkielkraut is one of France's most controversial essayists. His
new book, "L'Identité Malheureuse" ("The Unhappy Identity," Éditions
Stock ), has been the subject of heated debate. It comes at a time when
France finds itself in the midst of an identity crisis. But rather than
framing things from a social or political perspective, Finkielkraut
explores what he sees as a hostile confrontation between indigenous
French people and immigrants. He was interviewed in his Parisian
apartment on the Left Bank.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Finkielkraut, are you unhappy with today's France?
Finkielkraut: I am pained to see that the French mode of European
civilization is threatened. France is in the process of transforming
into a post-national and multicultural society. It seems to me that this
enormous transformation does not bring anything good.
SPIEGEL: Why is that? Post-national and multicultural sounds rather
promising.
Finkielkraut: It is presented to us as the model for the future. But
multiculturalism does not mean that cultures blend. Mistrust prevails,
communitarianism is rampant -- parallel societies are forming that
continuously distance themselves from each other.
SPIEGEL: Aren't you giving in here to the right-wingers' fears of demise?
Finkielkraut: The lower middle classes -- the French that one no longer
dares to call Français de souche (ethnic French) -- are already moving
out of the Parisian suburbs and farther into the countryside. They have
experienced that in some neighborhoods they are the minority in their
own country. They are not afraid of the others, but rather of becoming
the others themselves.
SPIEGEL: But France has always been a country of immigrants.
Finkielkraut: We are constantly told that immigration is a constitutive
element of the French identity. But that's not true. Labor migration
began in the 19th century. It was not until after the bloodletting of
World War I that the borders were largely opened.
SPIEGEL: Immigration has had more of a formative influence on France
than on Germany.
Finkielkraut: Immigration used to go hand-in-hand with integration into
French culture. That was the rule of the game. Many of the new arrivals
no longer want to play by that rule. If the immigrants are in the
majority in their neighborhoods, how can we integrate them? There used
to be mixed marriages, which is crucial to miscegenation. But their
numbers are declining. Many Muslims in Europe are re-Islamizing
themselves. A woman who wears the veil effectively announces that a
relationship with a non-Muslim is out of the question for her.
SPIEGEL: Aren't many immigrants excluded from mainstream society
primarily for economic reasons?
Finkielkraut: The left wanted to resolve the problem of immigration as a
social issue, and proclaimed that the riots in the suburbs were a kind
of class struggle. We were told that these youths were protesting
against unemployment, inequality and the impossibility of social
advancement. In reality we saw an eruption of hostility toward French
society. Social inequality does not explain the anti-Semitism, nor the
misogyny in the suburbs, nor the insult "filthy French." The left does
not want to accept that there is a clash of civilizations.
SPIEGEL: The anger of these young people is also stirred up by high
unemployment. They are turning their backs on society because they feel
excluded.
Finkielkraut: If unemployment is so high, then immigration has to be
more effectively controlled. Apparently there is not enough work for
everyone. But just ask the teachers in these troubled neighborhoods --
they have major difficulties teaching anything at all. Compared to the
rappers and the dealers, the teachers earn so ridiculously little that
they are viewed with contempt. Why should the students make an effort to
follow in their footsteps? There are a large number of young people who
don't want to learn anything about French culture. This refusal makes it
harder for them to find work.
SPIEGEL: These neighborhoods that you speak of, have you even seen them
firsthand?
Finkielkraut: I watch the news; I read books and studies. I have never
relied on my intuition.
SPIEGEL: In the US the coexistence of communities works better. The
Americans don't have this European adherence to a national uniform culture.
Finkielkraut: The US sees itself as a country of immigration, and what
is impressive about this truly multicultural society is the strength of
its patriotism. This was particularly evident after the attacks of
September 11, 2001. In France, however, the opposite could be seen after
the attacks on French soldiers and Jewish children in Toulouse and
Montauban last year: Some schoolchildren saw Mohamed Merah, the
assailant, as a hero. Something like that would be unthinkable in the
US. American society is a homeland for everyone. I don't think that many
children of immigrants here see it that way.
SPIEGEL: America makes it easy for new arrivals to feel like Americans.
Does France place the hurdles too high?
Finkielkraut: France prohibits students from wearing headscarves at
school. This is also for the benefit of all Muslims who don't want a
religious cage for themselves, for their daughters and wives. France is
a civilization, and the question is what it means to participate in it.
Does this mean the natives have to make themselves extremely small so
the others can easily spread themselves out? Or does it mean passing on
the culture that one possesses?
SPIEGEL: But this has worked for a long time. The Italians, Spaniards,
Poles and European Jews had no difficulties becoming French patriots.
Why is this no longer working?
Finkielkraut: Why is there today such aggression toward the West in the
Islamic world? Some say that France was a colonial power, which is why
those who were colonized could not be happy. But why has Europe been
subjected to this massive immigration from former colonies over the past
half a century? France still has to pay for the sins of colonialism and
settle its debt to those who vilify it today.
SPIEGEL: You yourself are the child of immigrants, the progeny of a
persecuted family. Does your personal will to integrate explain your
radical commitment to the values of the Republic?
Finkielkraut: I defend these values because I probably owe more to my
schooling than do the Français de souche, the hereditary French. French
traditions and history were not laid in my cradle. Anyone who does not
bring along this heritage can acquire it in l'école républicaine, the
French school system. It has expanded my horizons and allowed me to
immerse myself in French civilization.
SPIEGEL: And made you into its apologist?
Finkielkraut: I can speak and write more openly than others precisely
because I am not a hereditary Frenchman. The natives easily allow
themselves to be unnerved by the prevailing discourse. I don't have such
complexes.
SPIEGEL: How do you define this French civilization that you speak of?
>Finkielkraut: I recently reread a book by the admirable Russian writer
Isaac Babel. The story takes place in Paris. The narrator is in a hotel
and at night he hears the lovemaking sounds of the couples next door.
Babel writes: This has nothing to do with what one hears in Russia --
it's much more fiery. Then his French friend responds: We >French
created women, literature and cuisine. No one can take that from us.
SPIEGEL: Those are idealized clichés that nations create for themselves.
Finkielkraut: But it is true, or at least it was in the past. France
can't allow itself to bask in its own glory. But it has evidence of its
civilization, just like Germany -- it has its sights, its squares, its
cafés, its wealth of literature and its artists. We can be proud of
these ancestors, and we have to prove that we are worthy of them. I
regret that Germany -- for reasons that are understandable -- has broken
with this pride in its past. But I believe that German politicians who
speak of Leitkultur -- the guiding national culture -- are right. The
Leitkultur does not create an insurmountable barrier to newcomers.
SPIEGEL: Is the modern French identity still shaped by the Revolution of
1789?
Finkielkraut: Back in 1989, on the 200th anniversary of the revolution,
I signed a petition against the Islamic headscarf. For me it had to do
with the notion of secularism, which is running into criticism around
the world these days. France believed at the time that this was a model
for the world, and is today reminded of its distinctiveness. It is no
longer a question of exporting our model. We have to remain modest, yet
steadfast.
SPIEGEL: But doesn't French secularism today also serve to justify the
aggressive rejection of Islam?
Finkielkraut: How is that? We have prohibited the veil; we have not
banned the individual. Previously schoolgirls were urged to place under
their blouses or sweaters the crosses or medallions of the Virgin Mary
that they wore on their necklaces. That is not asking too much, merely a
bit of restraint on everyone's part. This has nothing to do with
aggression against Muslims.
SPIEGEL: Hasn't Islam long since become a part of Europe, a part of
France and Germany, as former German President Christian Wulff once put it?
Finkielkraut: Former French President Jacques Chirac made a similar
statement. Islam may one day belong to Europe, but only after it has
Europeanized itself. It is not an insult to the others to point out
their otherness.
SPIEGEL: Well, the Muslims are here now. So don't they also belong?
Finkielkraut: The question is: How are they here? Immigrants lose
nothing when they recognize their difference from the established
population. Today the Muslims in France like to shout in an act of
self-assertion: We are just as French as you! It would have never
occurred to my parents to say something like that. I would also never
say that I am just as French as Charles de Gaulle was.
SPIEGEL: In France immigrants are covered by the jus soli , or "right of
the soil," meaning that every child born there has a right to French
citizenship. Do you want to abolish this?
Finkielkraut: No. But all equality of rights aside, such a child has
become a French national in a manner that differs from descent. The
automatic right to French citizenship by being born on French territory
makes many French people feel uncomfortable these days, because the act
of wanting to be French gets lost in this process. Like most other
Europeans, the French have the feeling that immigration has become an
uncontrolled process -- something that happens, not something that is
willed into being. The countries are not directing this process; at
most, they are escorting it.
SPIEGEL: Isn't it extremely easy to attribute all problems to poverty
immigration from the developing world?
Finkielkraut: A public political debate on the issue is the least that
one could expect. Instead, this field is ceded to the extreme right.
SPIEGEL: How do you view the political rise of Marine Le Pen and her
far-right National Front party?
Finkielkraut: This disturbs me, of course. But the National Front would
not be continuously on the rise if it had not discarded the old issues
of the extreme right. Nowadays the National Front focuses on secularism
and the republic.
SPIEGEL: That sounds as if you could imagine voting for the party.
Finkielkraut: No, I would never do that because this party appeals to
people's base instincts and hatred. And these are easy to kindle among
its supporters. We can't leave these issues to the National Front. It
would also be up to the left, the party of the people, to take seriously
the suffering and anxiety of ordinary people.
SPIEGEL: What do you say to people who call you a reactionary?
Finkielkraut: It has become impossible to see history as constant
progress. I reserve the possibility to compare yesterday and today and
ask the question: What do we retain, what do we abandon?
SPIEGEL: Is that really any more than nostalgia for a lost world?
Finkielkraut: Like Albert Camus, I am of the opinion that our
generation's task is not to recreate the world, but to prevent its
decline. We not only have to conserve nature, but also culture. There
you have the reactionary.
SPIEGEL: When you see all these problems in France -- the debts,
unemployment, educational crisis, identity crisis -- do you fear for the
future?
Finkielkraut: I become sad and feel a growing sense of anxiety. Optimism
would seem a bit ridiculous these days. I wish the politicians were able
to speak the truth and look reality in the face. Then, I believe, France
would be capable of a true awakening -- of contemplating a policy of
civilization.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Finkielkraut, thank you for this interview.
Translated from the German by Paul Cohen
Kristoffer Larsson <krislarsson@gmail.com>
21 December 2013 09:30
(3) Gilad: French Left destroyed Western Civ., now suppresses discussion
of Jewish hegemony
Alain Finkielkraut, Jews, and Immigration
Friday, December 20, 2013 at 11:28AM
By Gilad Atzmon
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/alain-finkielkraut-jews-and-immigration.html
http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/12/alain-finkielkraut-jews-and-immigration/
Along the second half of the 20th century many Jewish intellectuals,
activists and artists positioned themselves at the forefront of Western
advocacy of immigration and multiculturalism.
into Jewish power"
Radio interview with Ryan Dawson
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/ryan-dawson-interviews-gilad-atzmon-very-interesting.html
27 Oct 2013
"In fact, I actually argue that the so-called anti-Zionists are actually
far more dangerous - and this is crucial. You see, I like to talk about
Jewish power: there is no doubt that the Jewish power plays a major role
in contemporary politics, banking and so on. The Jewish Lobby openly
pushes for a war in Syria; and, before that, conflict with Iran and so
on. There is no doubt about it.
"However, I argue that all those events can be easily checked - you can
read my book, and John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about the Israeli
Lobby, you can read James Petras, you can read Jeff Blankfort, and so
on. I argue that what they describe is not Jewish power; it is just
symptoms of Jewish power.
"The real meaning of Jewish power is the capacity to stop us from
talking about Jewish power. The Jewish power is not the embodiment of
the pro-Zionists, for instance. ... Jewish power is the successful
tendency to stop us from looking into it. Now this is not done by
Dershowitz, or Foxman - ADL Foxman. This is done by the Jewish Left, and
the Left in general. The role of the Left, and the Jewish Left in
particular, is to stop us from looking into Jewish power. In other
words, the definition of Jewish power is the capacity to stop us from
looking into Jewish power."
"And this is exactly what Noam Chomsky did on Democracy Now, when he had
to discuss John Mearsheimer. He dismissed his whole approach, instead of
discussing it. Finkelstein – Norman Finkelstein - did pretty much the
same thing. By the way, Democracy Now should have brought Stephen Walt
and John Mearsheimer to debate Chomsky; but they didn't. They operated
as an instrument of Jewish power, diverting attention from the issue.
"Now, it is not a secret, that the vast majority of Progressive
organizations in America, the vast majority of Palestinian NGOs, the
vast majority of Palestinian Solidarity groups, are supported by George
Soros' Open Society, who also support the Zionist liberal J Street. And
this is why we see a suspicious similarity between the ideas presented
by liberal Zionism and the progressive network. And this is what
transforms the Left - which stands for beautiful values, that I respect
to a certain extent - this is what transforms the Left into a dubious
network of Controlled Opposition."
(2) Finkielkraut: Left denies Cash of Civilizations (Islam vs a West
whose Civ. has been destroyed)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-french-philosopher-finkielkraut-on-muslims-and-integration-a-937404.html
French Philosopher Finkielkraut: 'There Is a Clash of Civilizations'
Interview Conducted by Mathieu von Rohr and Romain Leick
French society is under threat, argues philosopher Alain Finkielkraut in
a controversial new book. The conservative spoke to SPIEGEL about what
he sees as the failure of multiculturalism and the need for better
integration of Muslim immigrants.
Alain Finkielkraut is one of France's most controversial essayists. His
new book, "L'Identité Malheureuse" ("The Unhappy Identity," Éditions
Stock ), has been the subject of heated debate. It comes at a time when
France finds itself in the midst of an identity crisis. But rather than
framing things from a social or political perspective, Finkielkraut
explores what he sees as a hostile confrontation between indigenous
French people and immigrants. He was interviewed in his Parisian
apartment on the Left Bank.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Finkielkraut, are you unhappy with today's France?
Finkielkraut: I am pained to see that the French mode of European
civilization is threatened. France is in the process of transforming
into a post-national and multicultural society. It seems to me that this
enormous transformation does not bring anything good.
SPIEGEL: Why is that? Post-national and multicultural sounds rather
promising.
Finkielkraut: It is presented to us as the model for the future. But
multiculturalism does not mean that cultures blend. Mistrust prevails,
communitarianism is rampant -- parallel societies are forming that
continuously distance themselves from each other.
SPIEGEL: Aren't you giving in here to the right-wingers' fears of demise?
Finkielkraut: The lower middle classes -- the French that one no longer
dares to call Français de souche (ethnic French) -- are already moving
out of the Parisian suburbs and farther into the countryside. They have
experienced that in some neighborhoods they are the minority in their
own country. They are not afraid of the others, but rather of becoming
the others themselves.
SPIEGEL: But France has always been a country of immigrants.
Finkielkraut: We are constantly told that immigration is a constitutive
element of the French identity. But that's not true. Labor migration
began in the 19th century. It was not until after the bloodletting of
World War I that the borders were largely opened.
SPIEGEL: Immigration has had more of a formative influence on France
than on Germany.
Finkielkraut: Immigration used to go hand-in-hand with integration into
French culture. That was the rule of the game. Many of the new arrivals
no longer want to play by that rule. If the immigrants are in the
majority in their neighborhoods, how can we integrate them? There used
to be mixed marriages, which is crucial to miscegenation. But their
numbers are declining. Many Muslims in Europe are re-Islamizing
themselves. A woman who wears the veil effectively announces that a
relationship with a non-Muslim is out of the question for her.
SPIEGEL: Aren't many immigrants excluded from mainstream society
primarily for economic reasons?
Finkielkraut: The left wanted to resolve the problem of immigration as a
social issue, and proclaimed that the riots in the suburbs were a kind
of class struggle. We were told that these youths were protesting
against unemployment, inequality and the impossibility of social
advancement. In reality we saw an eruption of hostility toward French
society. Social inequality does not explain the anti-Semitism, nor the
misogyny in the suburbs, nor the insult "filthy French." The left does
not want to accept that there is a clash of civilizations.
SPIEGEL: The anger of these young people is also stirred up by high
unemployment. They are turning their backs on society because they feel
excluded.
Finkielkraut: If unemployment is so high, then immigration has to be
more effectively controlled. Apparently there is not enough work for
everyone. But just ask the teachers in these troubled neighborhoods --
they have major difficulties teaching anything at all. Compared to the
rappers and the dealers, the teachers earn so ridiculously little that
they are viewed with contempt. Why should the students make an effort to
follow in their footsteps? There are a large number of young people who
don't want to learn anything about French culture. This refusal makes it
harder for them to find work.
SPIEGEL: These neighborhoods that you speak of, have you even seen them
firsthand?
Finkielkraut: I watch the news; I read books and studies. I have never
relied on my intuition.
SPIEGEL: In the US the coexistence of communities works better. The
Americans don't have this European adherence to a national uniform culture.
Finkielkraut: The US sees itself as a country of immigration, and what
is impressive about this truly multicultural society is the strength of
its patriotism. This was particularly evident after the attacks of
September 11, 2001. In France, however, the opposite could be seen after
the attacks on French soldiers and Jewish children in Toulouse and
Montauban last year: Some schoolchildren saw Mohamed Merah, the
assailant, as a hero. Something like that would be unthinkable in the
US. American society is a homeland for everyone. I don't think that many
children of immigrants here see it that way.
SPIEGEL: America makes it easy for new arrivals to feel like Americans.
Does France place the hurdles too high?
Finkielkraut: France prohibits students from wearing headscarves at
school. This is also for the benefit of all Muslims who don't want a
religious cage for themselves, for their daughters and wives. France is
a civilization, and the question is what it means to participate in it.
Does this mean the natives have to make themselves extremely small so
the others can easily spread themselves out? Or does it mean passing on
the culture that one possesses?
SPIEGEL: But this has worked for a long time. The Italians, Spaniards,
Poles and European Jews had no difficulties becoming French patriots.
Why is this no longer working?
Finkielkraut: Why is there today such aggression toward the West in the
Islamic world? Some say that France was a colonial power, which is why
those who were colonized could not be happy. But why has Europe been
subjected to this massive immigration from former colonies over the past
half a century? France still has to pay for the sins of colonialism and
settle its debt to those who vilify it today.
SPIEGEL: You yourself are the child of immigrants, the progeny of a
persecuted family. Does your personal will to integrate explain your
radical commitment to the values of the Republic?
Finkielkraut: I defend these values because I probably owe more to my
schooling than do the Français de souche, the hereditary French. French
traditions and history were not laid in my cradle. Anyone who does not
bring along this heritage can acquire it in l'école républicaine, the
French school system. It has expanded my horizons and allowed me to
immerse myself in French civilization.
SPIEGEL: And made you into its apologist?
Finkielkraut: I can speak and write more openly than others precisely
because I am not a hereditary Frenchman. The natives easily allow
themselves to be unnerved by the prevailing discourse. I don't have such
complexes.
SPIEGEL: How do you define this French civilization that you speak of?
>Finkielkraut: I recently reread a book by the admirable Russian writer
Isaac Babel. The story takes place in Paris. The narrator is in a hotel
and at night he hears the lovemaking sounds of the couples next door.
Babel writes: This has nothing to do with what one hears in Russia --
it's much more fiery. Then his French friend responds: We >French
created women, literature and cuisine. No one can take that from us.
SPIEGEL: Those are idealized clichés that nations create for themselves.
Finkielkraut: But it is true, or at least it was in the past. France
can't allow itself to bask in its own glory. But it has evidence of its
civilization, just like Germany -- it has its sights, its squares, its
cafés, its wealth of literature and its artists. We can be proud of
these ancestors, and we have to prove that we are worthy of them. I
regret that Germany -- for reasons that are understandable -- has broken
with this pride in its past. But I believe that German politicians who
speak of Leitkultur -- the guiding national culture -- are right. The
Leitkultur does not create an insurmountable barrier to newcomers.
SPIEGEL: Is the modern French identity still shaped by the Revolution of
1789?
Finkielkraut: Back in 1989, on the 200th anniversary of the revolution,
I signed a petition against the Islamic headscarf. For me it had to do
with the notion of secularism, which is running into criticism around
the world these days. France believed at the time that this was a model
for the world, and is today reminded of its distinctiveness. It is no
longer a question of exporting our model. We have to remain modest, yet
steadfast.
SPIEGEL: But doesn't French secularism today also serve to justify the
aggressive rejection of Islam?
Finkielkraut: How is that? We have prohibited the veil; we have not
banned the individual. Previously schoolgirls were urged to place under
their blouses or sweaters the crosses or medallions of the Virgin Mary
that they wore on their necklaces. That is not asking too much, merely a
bit of restraint on everyone's part. This has nothing to do with
aggression against Muslims.
SPIEGEL: Hasn't Islam long since become a part of Europe, a part of
France and Germany, as former German President Christian Wulff once put it?
Finkielkraut: Former French President Jacques Chirac made a similar
statement. Islam may one day belong to Europe, but only after it has
Europeanized itself. It is not an insult to the others to point out
their otherness.
SPIEGEL: Well, the Muslims are here now. So don't they also belong?
Finkielkraut: The question is: How are they here? Immigrants lose
nothing when they recognize their difference from the established
population. Today the Muslims in France like to shout in an act of
self-assertion: We are just as French as you! It would have never
occurred to my parents to say something like that. I would also never
say that I am just as French as Charles de Gaulle was.
SPIEGEL: In France immigrants are covered by the jus soli , or "right of
the soil," meaning that every child born there has a right to French
citizenship. Do you want to abolish this?
Finkielkraut: No. But all equality of rights aside, such a child has
become a French national in a manner that differs from descent. The
automatic right to French citizenship by being born on French territory
makes many French people feel uncomfortable these days, because the act
of wanting to be French gets lost in this process. Like most other
Europeans, the French have the feeling that immigration has become an
uncontrolled process -- something that happens, not something that is
willed into being. The countries are not directing this process; at
most, they are escorting it.
SPIEGEL: Isn't it extremely easy to attribute all problems to poverty
immigration from the developing world?
Finkielkraut: A public political debate on the issue is the least that
one could expect. Instead, this field is ceded to the extreme right.
SPIEGEL: How do you view the political rise of Marine Le Pen and her
far-right National Front party?
Finkielkraut: This disturbs me, of course. But the National Front would
not be continuously on the rise if it had not discarded the old issues
of the extreme right. Nowadays the National Front focuses on secularism
and the republic.
SPIEGEL: That sounds as if you could imagine voting for the party.
Finkielkraut: No, I would never do that because this party appeals to
people's base instincts and hatred. And these are easy to kindle among
its supporters. We can't leave these issues to the National Front. It
would also be up to the left, the party of the people, to take seriously
the suffering and anxiety of ordinary people.
SPIEGEL: What do you say to people who call you a reactionary?
Finkielkraut: It has become impossible to see history as constant
progress. I reserve the possibility to compare yesterday and today and
ask the question: What do we retain, what do we abandon?
SPIEGEL: Is that really any more than nostalgia for a lost world?
Finkielkraut: Like Albert Camus, I am of the opinion that our
generation's task is not to recreate the world, but to prevent its
decline. We not only have to conserve nature, but also culture. There
you have the reactionary.
SPIEGEL: When you see all these problems in France -- the debts,
unemployment, educational crisis, identity crisis -- do you fear for the
future?
Finkielkraut: I become sad and feel a growing sense of anxiety. Optimism
would seem a bit ridiculous these days. I wish the politicians were able
to speak the truth and look reality in the face. Then, I believe, France
would be capable of a true awakening -- of contemplating a policy of
civilization.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Finkielkraut, thank you for this interview.
Translated from the German by Paul Cohen
Kristoffer Larsson <krislarsson@gmail.com>
21 December 2013 09:30
(3) Gilad: French Left destroyed Western Civ., now suppresses discussion
of Jewish hegemony
Alain Finkielkraut, Jews, and Immigration
Friday, December 20, 2013 at 11:28AM
By Gilad Atzmon
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/alain-finkielkraut-jews-and-immigration.html
http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/12/alain-finkielkraut-jews-and-immigration/
Along the second half of the 20th century many Jewish intellectuals,
activists and artists positioned themselves at the forefront of Western
advocacy of immigration and multiculturalism.
Occasionally we were also expected to
believe that immigration, tolerance, pluralism and
multiculturalism are intrinsic to Jewish culture and thought.
But as the West became gradually aware of the scale of Israeli racism
and intolerance towards migrant communities, more than just a few
intellectuals were courageous enough to point at a clear discrepancy
between the progressive ideas Jews claim to represent and what their
Jewish State happens to be.
multiculturalism are intrinsic to Jewish culture and thought.
But as the West became gradually aware of the scale of Israeli racism
and intolerance towards migrant communities, more than just a few
intellectuals were courageous enough to point at a clear discrepancy
between the progressive ideas Jews claim to represent and what their
Jewish State happens to be.
There aren't many
countries that are more anti-immigration than Israel.
The Jewish State is
also very selective
when it comes to multiculturalism. Israel happily
integrated humus and
falafel into its cuisine. It even let a few juicy Arab swear words into
its emerging Hebraic dialect but it has been far less enthusiastic about
Palestinian mourning their own plight and the Nakba in particular.
However, Jewish passion for immigration is clearly fading away these
days. It is not a secret that mass immigration of Muslims and Arabs made
many Western Jews feel uncomfortable to say the least. In recent years
we have been monitoring rapid surge of Jewish involvement in
anti-immigration political and intellectual activity. Some so-called
'progressive' Jews fight the veil in the name of 'feminism,' others
insist on eradicating Islamic symbolic identifiers in the name of
'secularism.' I guess that even Jewish 'progressive tolerance' has its
limits, especially when it comes to Muslims. However, Zionists are
actually slightly more consistent in that regard: they openly ally
themselves with ultra-nationalist groups such as the hawkish EDL.
Anti-Islam positions are often promoted by Hasbara, interventionist and
neocon outlets such as Harry's Place. The xenophobic message is also
disseminated via literature, academia and general media. Here in
Britain, journalist celebrity Melanie Phillips published her notorious
Londonistan.
falafel into its cuisine. It even let a few juicy Arab swear words into
its emerging Hebraic dialect but it has been far less enthusiastic about
Palestinian mourning their own plight and the Nakba in particular.
However, Jewish passion for immigration is clearly fading away these
days. It is not a secret that mass immigration of Muslims and Arabs made
many Western Jews feel uncomfortable to say the least. In recent years
we have been monitoring rapid surge of Jewish involvement in
anti-immigration political and intellectual activity. Some so-called
'progressive' Jews fight the veil in the name of 'feminism,' others
insist on eradicating Islamic symbolic identifiers in the name of
'secularism.' I guess that even Jewish 'progressive tolerance' has its
limits, especially when it comes to Muslims. However, Zionists are
actually slightly more consistent in that regard: they openly ally
themselves with ultra-nationalist groups such as the hawkish EDL.
Anti-Islam positions are often promoted by Hasbara, interventionist and
neocon outlets such as Harry's Place. The xenophobic message is also
disseminated via literature, academia and general media. Here in
Britain, journalist celebrity Melanie Phillips published her notorious
Londonistan.
Jewish past support of pro-immigration and multiculturalism is easy to
explain.
For the obvious reasons, many Jews prefer to live in multi-ethnic and
fragmented societies, being one minority amongst many. Identity
politics, pro-immigration and multiculturalism are there to dismantle
the cohesive national and patriotic bond in favor of a manifold complex
structure consisting of a fragile and dynamic exchange between a
manifold of minority groups.
Jews are often threatened by the possibility that indigenous
lower-middle and working classes may follow their nationalistic and
patriotic inclinations and turn against them. In that regard, a radical
demographic boost of the working class with a varied mixture of foreign
ethnicities is regarded by progressive Jews as a necessary preventative
measure against anti-semitism.
In many countries jewish people were almost the only minority. The rest of the country was rather homogenous: all christians for instance. All whites. o for this only minority it might be usefull to have more minorities. The 'white christians' could now direct their frustrations or unhappyness to another scape-goat: people from Mexico ( USA), India (UK), Surinam( NL), Algeria ( Fr), Turkey or Morocco.
Where I differ from Atzmon is this: I think there was one more motive for the jews to support immigration: a 'Multi' society can easily be destroyed, simply by creating internal animosity. So I think that the old strategy of 'devide and conquer' was ALSO a reason for the mass immigration that was promoted by the jewish Masters of Discourse.
But here is an interesting development. Last week Spiegel published an
intriguing interview with Alain Finkielkraut, a French so-called
philosopher and also a Jew and son of immigrants. Finkielkraut is no
longer threatened by 'the lower middle classes.' Quite the opposite, he
actually pretends to be their ally and he even makes himself their
ambassador: "the French that one no longer dares to call Français de
souche (ethnic French) are already moving out of the Parisian suburbs
and farther into the countryside. They have experienced that in some
neighborhoods they are the minority in their own country. They are not
afraid of the others, but rather of becoming the others themselves." In
other words, the ethnic French are now "otherized" together with the
Jews by a tidal wave of Islamic tsunami.
It doesn't take Finkielkraut long before he points directly at the
'enemy within.' "Many Muslims in Europe are re-Islamizing themselves. A
woman who wears the veil effectively announces that a relationship with
a non-Muslim is out of the question for her." I guess that Finkielkraut
finds it unacceptable that Muslims do not buy into the Mendelsohnian
Jewish 'assimilation' paradigm — be a Goy in the street and a Jew in
your dwelling — the façade of pretending to blend into the masses, yet
adhering to tribal and exclusive supremacy in clandestine fashion.
Muslims, so it seems, are not collectively buying into this duplicity
mode. Seemingly, they are not shy of their love for Allah. They are
actually proud of their symbolic identifiers. These facts alone indeed
have managed to challenge the notion of left and progressive tolerance.
And it isn't exactly a secret — the Left has failed in this tolerance test.
Left and Islam
Finkielkraut may not be a sophisticated mind, but he is not a complete
idiot either. He rightly points at the deceitful nature of the
contemporary progressive and Left call. "The left" he says, "wanted to
resolve the problem of immigration as a social issue, and proclaimed
that the riots in the suburbs were a kind of class struggle. We were
told that these youths were protesting against unemployment, inequality
and the impossibility of social advancement. In reality we saw an
eruption of hostility toward French society." The Jewish thinker then
voices his exact and very particular concern — "social inequality does
not explain anti-Semitism."
Finkielkraut is indeed partially correct, and the 'Left' is indeed
wrong, deluded and misleading. Yet, in a symptomatic attempt to conceal
the truth, Finkielkraut diverts the attention from the vast French
institutional political support of Israel, its racist policies and the
impact of the Jewish lobby in France. Accordingly, it may as well be
possible that anti-Jewish sentiments within migrant communities in
France are provoked by the French pro-Israeli attitude. In other words,
we are dealing here with a clear rational sense of 'inequality' that is
ethnically and politically driven (rather than merely materially).
After all, France is actively and enthusiastically engaged in the
destruction of more than just one Arab State. The ultra-Zionist Bernard
Henri Levy was the leading advocate for the intervention in Libya. In
the last few weeks France went out of its way in its attempts to
jeopardize a UN deal with Iran. Thus, it is only natural that some
Muslims find it hard to accept the unbalanced French pro-Israeli policy.
Would Parisian Jews support France if it decided to bomb an Israeli
Government headquarters in Tel Aviv as a response to Israeli crimes
against humanity? In short, it is more than likely that what
Finkielkraut describes as anti-Semitism is actually a direct reaction to
Jewish power.
Yet, the French Left cannot deal with such a development for the obvious
reason that the Left is in itself an instrument of such power – it is
there to suppress the discussion on issues to do with Jewish political
hegemony and influence.
Civilization: Jewish and Left Perspectives
Finkielkraut continues, "the left does not want to accept that there is
a clash of civilizations." Finkielkraut is correct, for a change, but
for the wrong reasons. The Left cannot accept the notion of such a
'clash' because the Left, similarly to Jewish identity political
discourse, lacks a lucid understanding of the notion of 'civilization'.
This point needs a bit of elaboration. Zionism, according to its early
mentors, was set to 'civilize' the Jew by means of 'nationalization'.
Early Zionists contended that that the diasporic Jewish existence was
actually 'uncivilized'. Interestingly enough, in spite of the Zionist
dream, Hebrew doesn't offer its users a word for 'civilization' and this
is not exactly a coincidence. When Palestinian Israeli MK Azmi Bishara
suggested to civilize the Jewish State and transform it into a 'State of
its Citizens' he became Israel's 'No 1 enemy.' He had to run for his life.
Similarly, the Left is also dotted with a clear animosity towards the
traditional notion of civilization. The progressive commitment to social
change is driven by an attempt to undermine the 'bourgeois'
(reactionary) order. In retrospect, it was the '68 Students Revolution
and its long list of mentors from Antonio Gramsci to the Frankfurt
School that eventually succeeded to devastate the West and to cleanse it
of its most precious traditional assets. Targeting 'hegemony' as the
'enemy of the people', the new Left systematically uprooted every aspect
of Western philosophical and categorical thinking, destabilizing every
cultural, spiritual, intellectual and political domain.
In the name of liberation, the Left and the progressive have managed to
eradicate a sense of authenticity and belonging. Typically we, the
indoctrinated post-revolutionary subjects, often refer to ourselves as
'as a [something]', (as a Jew, as a black, as a lesbian, as an Arab, as
a Gay etc'). Instead of thinking authentically and exploring creatively
the deep dynamic meaning of the 'I', we deliver our thoughts by means of
projections driven by sets of collective identifications. Our sense of
'selfhood' has been hijacked by a contemporaneous, phenomenological,
post-modernist and vain relativism. But in fact phenomenology,
relativism and post-modernism are rootless, they are actually the
complete opposite of civilization or rootedness. They are flaky, they
are contextually and hermeneutically detached and they are also soil-less.
I guess that the Left's imperviousness to the notion of civilization may
explain why the Left has failed systematically in its attempt to bond
with working classes. Marx, I believe, failed to grasp that the working
class is also an expression of rootedness. It is defined by heritage,
patriotism, nationalism, spirit, culture, devotion, dialect, cuisine,
defiance, or shall we say civilization. The working class is also
defined by the negation of other classes' culture and civilization. The
Left's failure to grasp this dialectical mode of thinking that extends
far beyond (dialectical) materialism also explains the Left's incapacity
to bond with Muslims, Europe's current working class. This is indeed
tragic yet far from being a coincidence.
Nevertheless, when the French 'philosopher' Finkielkraut was asked to
define 'French civilization' he had nothing to offer. He referred
initially to French 'fiery' love making. The Spiegel interviewer wasn't
impressed. Then in order to rescue his case Finkielkraut continued and
quoted a 'friend'; "we, French, created women, literature and cuisine.
No one can take that from us." Embarrassingly yet symptomatic, the
'defender' of French civilization himself has a very limited
understanding of the true meaning of France nor can he grasp its
civilization. Finkielkraut happily reduces France to a banal material
symbolism consisting of Brigitte Bardot, baguettes and Balzac, but it is
hard to imagine what kind of 'Muslim Jihadist' would insist to bring
such 'France' down. On the contrary, if French contemporary civilization
is shaped by the powerful Jewish Lobby Crif, Bernard Henri Levy's
interventionist megalomania and tribal philosophy a la Finkielkraut, it
is actually easy to grasp why some French Muslims are irritated by their
republic and its state of affairs.
The Post-Political Condition
There is nothing in Finkielkraut that differentiates him from far
right-wing ideologists except of course his intellectual lameness and
theoretical lacking. Yet, for some peculiar reason, Finkielkraut doesn't
like to be associated with those who promote the politics he actually
preaches. When asked by Spiegel "how do you view the political rise of
Marine Le Pen and her far-right National Front party?" Finkielkraut
replied, "This disturbs me, of course. But the National Front would not
be continuously on the rise if it had not discarded the old issues of
the extreme right. Nowadays the National Front focuses on secularism and
the republic." I guess that Finkielkraut finds it difficult to admit to
himself that he is a hard core Right-winger, it simply doesn't fit
nicely into his Jewish assimilationist image. However, this ideological
discrepancy doesn't mature into a cognitive dissonance. It instead
manifests itself as a disingenuous spin.
Notably, Spiegel didn't fall into the trap. It obviously notices that
the 'new French philosopher' is obviously a right-wing hawk: "That
sounds as if you could imagine voting for the party." To which
Finkielkraut replies, "No, I would never do that because this party
appeals to people's base instincts and hatred. And these are easy to
kindle among its supporters. We can't leave these issues to the National
Front. It would also be up to the left, the party of the people, to take
seriously the suffering and anxiety of ordinary people."
Typically, the man who presents himself as the 'defender' of French
Civilization, the one who voices the plight of the 'lower middle class'
is apparently repulsed by French people's 'base instinct'. Like many
'progressives', Finkielkraut is actually dismissive of the working
class' inclinations and their way of thinking. Finkielkraut prefers
instead to transform the Left into an Islamphobic, national socialist
front. Finkielkraut probably realizes very well that the Left is no
longer an ideological standpoint — it is detached from any form of
universal or ethical thinking. It is only dedicated to its political
survival and its paymasters.
Sadly enough, Finkielkraut's pragmatism may prove to be successful. In
the 'Liberal' West in which we are living in, Left and Right have become
merely political instruments that facilitate similar policies whether it
is perpetrating Zionist interventionist wars or enabling our further
enslavement to bankers and big monopolies. From a popular perspective,
'Left' and 'Right' are means of identification (instead of theoretical,
analytical or political dynamic instruments). This political,
intellectual and ideological paralysis is indeed symptomatic to the
current post-political era.
With Jewish Lobby groups such as the Crif, AIPAC and CFI dominating the
Western political discussion and its outcome, democracy is just a
façade. But far more disturbing is the fact that in contemporary France,
a uniquely lame mind such as Finkielkraut's is considered a
'philosopher'. In that regard, I would actually argue that Finkielkraut
is himself the ultimate emblem of the collapse of Western Civilization
or at least an evidence of the eradication of the French one.
But here is an interesting development. Last week Spiegel published an
intriguing interview with Alain Finkielkraut, a French so-called
philosopher and also a Jew and son of immigrants. Finkielkraut is no
longer threatened by 'the lower middle classes.' Quite the opposite, he
actually pretends to be their ally and he even makes himself their
ambassador: "the French that one no longer dares to call Français de
souche (ethnic French) are already moving out of the Parisian suburbs
and farther into the countryside. They have experienced that in some
neighborhoods they are the minority in their own country. They are not
afraid of the others, but rather of becoming the others themselves." In
other words, the ethnic French are now "otherized" together with the
Jews by a tidal wave of Islamic tsunami.
It doesn't take Finkielkraut long before he points directly at the
'enemy within.' "Many Muslims in Europe are re-Islamizing themselves. A
woman who wears the veil effectively announces that a relationship with
a non-Muslim is out of the question for her." I guess that Finkielkraut
finds it unacceptable that Muslims do not buy into the Mendelsohnian
Jewish 'assimilation' paradigm — be a Goy in the street and a Jew in
your dwelling — the façade of pretending to blend into the masses, yet
adhering to tribal and exclusive supremacy in clandestine fashion.
Muslims, so it seems, are not collectively buying into this duplicity
mode. Seemingly, they are not shy of their love for Allah. They are
actually proud of their symbolic identifiers. These facts alone indeed
have managed to challenge the notion of left and progressive tolerance.
And it isn't exactly a secret — the Left has failed in this tolerance test.
Left and Islam
Finkielkraut may not be a sophisticated mind, but he is not a complete
idiot either. He rightly points at the deceitful nature of the
contemporary progressive and Left call. "The left" he says, "wanted to
resolve the problem of immigration as a social issue, and proclaimed
that the riots in the suburbs were a kind of class struggle. We were
told that these youths were protesting against unemployment, inequality
and the impossibility of social advancement. In reality we saw an
eruption of hostility toward French society." The Jewish thinker then
voices his exact and very particular concern — "social inequality does
not explain anti-Semitism."
Finkielkraut is indeed partially correct, and the 'Left' is indeed
wrong, deluded and misleading. Yet, in a symptomatic attempt to conceal
the truth, Finkielkraut diverts the attention from the vast French
institutional political support of Israel, its racist policies and the
impact of the Jewish lobby in France. Accordingly, it may as well be
possible that anti-Jewish sentiments within migrant communities in
France are provoked by the French pro-Israeli attitude. In other words,
we are dealing here with a clear rational sense of 'inequality' that is
ethnically and politically driven (rather than merely materially).
After all, France is actively and enthusiastically engaged in the
destruction of more than just one Arab State. The ultra-Zionist Bernard
Henri Levy was the leading advocate for the intervention in Libya. In
the last few weeks France went out of its way in its attempts to
jeopardize a UN deal with Iran. Thus, it is only natural that some
Muslims find it hard to accept the unbalanced French pro-Israeli policy.
Would Parisian Jews support France if it decided to bomb an Israeli
Government headquarters in Tel Aviv as a response to Israeli crimes
against humanity? In short, it is more than likely that what
Finkielkraut describes as anti-Semitism is actually a direct reaction to
Jewish power.
Yet, the French Left cannot deal with such a development for the obvious
reason that the Left is in itself an instrument of such power – it is
there to suppress the discussion on issues to do with Jewish political
hegemony and influence.
Civilization: Jewish and Left Perspectives
Finkielkraut continues, "the left does not want to accept that there is
a clash of civilizations." Finkielkraut is correct, for a change, but
for the wrong reasons. The Left cannot accept the notion of such a
'clash' because the Left, similarly to Jewish identity political
discourse, lacks a lucid understanding of the notion of 'civilization'.
This point needs a bit of elaboration. Zionism, according to its early
mentors, was set to 'civilize' the Jew by means of 'nationalization'.
Early Zionists contended that that the diasporic Jewish existence was
actually 'uncivilized'. Interestingly enough, in spite of the Zionist
dream, Hebrew doesn't offer its users a word for 'civilization' and this
is not exactly a coincidence. When Palestinian Israeli MK Azmi Bishara
suggested to civilize the Jewish State and transform it into a 'State of
its Citizens' he became Israel's 'No 1 enemy.' He had to run for his life.
Similarly, the Left is also dotted with a clear animosity towards the
traditional notion of civilization. The progressive commitment to social
change is driven by an attempt to undermine the 'bourgeois'
(reactionary) order. In retrospect, it was the '68 Students Revolution
and its long list of mentors from Antonio Gramsci to the Frankfurt
School that eventually succeeded to devastate the West and to cleanse it
of its most precious traditional assets. Targeting 'hegemony' as the
'enemy of the people', the new Left systematically uprooted every aspect
of Western philosophical and categorical thinking, destabilizing every
cultural, spiritual, intellectual and political domain.
In the name of liberation, the Left and the progressive have managed to
eradicate a sense of authenticity and belonging. Typically we, the
indoctrinated post-revolutionary subjects, often refer to ourselves as
'as a [something]', (as a Jew, as a black, as a lesbian, as an Arab, as
a Gay etc'). Instead of thinking authentically and exploring creatively
the deep dynamic meaning of the 'I', we deliver our thoughts by means of
projections driven by sets of collective identifications. Our sense of
'selfhood' has been hijacked by a contemporaneous, phenomenological,
post-modernist and vain relativism. But in fact phenomenology,
relativism and post-modernism are rootless, they are actually the
complete opposite of civilization or rootedness. They are flaky, they
are contextually and hermeneutically detached and they are also soil-less.
I guess that the Left's imperviousness to the notion of civilization may
explain why the Left has failed systematically in its attempt to bond
with working classes. Marx, I believe, failed to grasp that the working
class is also an expression of rootedness. It is defined by heritage,
patriotism, nationalism, spirit, culture, devotion, dialect, cuisine,
defiance, or shall we say civilization. The working class is also
defined by the negation of other classes' culture and civilization. The
Left's failure to grasp this dialectical mode of thinking that extends
far beyond (dialectical) materialism also explains the Left's incapacity
to bond with Muslims, Europe's current working class. This is indeed
tragic yet far from being a coincidence.
Nevertheless, when the French 'philosopher' Finkielkraut was asked to
define 'French civilization' he had nothing to offer. He referred
initially to French 'fiery' love making. The Spiegel interviewer wasn't
impressed. Then in order to rescue his case Finkielkraut continued and
quoted a 'friend'; "we, French, created women, literature and cuisine.
No one can take that from us." Embarrassingly yet symptomatic, the
'defender' of French civilization himself has a very limited
understanding of the true meaning of France nor can he grasp its
civilization. Finkielkraut happily reduces France to a banal material
symbolism consisting of Brigitte Bardot, baguettes and Balzac, but it is
hard to imagine what kind of 'Muslim Jihadist' would insist to bring
such 'France' down. On the contrary, if French contemporary civilization
is shaped by the powerful Jewish Lobby Crif, Bernard Henri Levy's
interventionist megalomania and tribal philosophy a la Finkielkraut, it
is actually easy to grasp why some French Muslims are irritated by their
republic and its state of affairs.
The Post-Political Condition
There is nothing in Finkielkraut that differentiates him from far
right-wing ideologists except of course his intellectual lameness and
theoretical lacking. Yet, for some peculiar reason, Finkielkraut doesn't
like to be associated with those who promote the politics he actually
preaches. When asked by Spiegel "how do you view the political rise of
Marine Le Pen and her far-right National Front party?" Finkielkraut
replied, "This disturbs me, of course. But the National Front would not
be continuously on the rise if it had not discarded the old issues of
the extreme right. Nowadays the National Front focuses on secularism and
the republic." I guess that Finkielkraut finds it difficult to admit to
himself that he is a hard core Right-winger, it simply doesn't fit
nicely into his Jewish assimilationist image. However, this ideological
discrepancy doesn't mature into a cognitive dissonance. It instead
manifests itself as a disingenuous spin.
Notably, Spiegel didn't fall into the trap. It obviously notices that
the 'new French philosopher' is obviously a right-wing hawk: "That
sounds as if you could imagine voting for the party." To which
Finkielkraut replies, "No, I would never do that because this party
appeals to people's base instincts and hatred. And these are easy to
kindle among its supporters. We can't leave these issues to the National
Front. It would also be up to the left, the party of the people, to take
seriously the suffering and anxiety of ordinary people."
Typically, the man who presents himself as the 'defender' of French
Civilization, the one who voices the plight of the 'lower middle class'
is apparently repulsed by French people's 'base instinct'. Like many
'progressives', Finkielkraut is actually dismissive of the working
class' inclinations and their way of thinking. Finkielkraut prefers
instead to transform the Left into an Islamphobic, national socialist
front. Finkielkraut probably realizes very well that the Left is no
longer an ideological standpoint — it is detached from any form of
universal or ethical thinking. It is only dedicated to its political
survival and its paymasters.
Sadly enough, Finkielkraut's pragmatism may prove to be successful. In
the 'Liberal' West in which we are living in, Left and Right have become
merely political instruments that facilitate similar policies whether it
is perpetrating Zionist interventionist wars or enabling our further
enslavement to bankers and big monopolies. From a popular perspective,
'Left' and 'Right' are means of identification (instead of theoretical,
analytical or political dynamic instruments). This political,
intellectual and ideological paralysis is indeed symptomatic to the
current post-political era.
With Jewish Lobby groups such as the Crif, AIPAC and CFI dominating the
Western political discussion and its outcome, democracy is just a
façade. But far more disturbing is the fact that in contemporary France,
a uniquely lame mind such as Finkielkraut's is considered a
'philosopher'. In that regard, I would actually argue that Finkielkraut
is himself the ultimate emblem of the collapse of Western Civilization
or at least an evidence of the eradication of the French one.
The rushed campaign to insert Stanley Fischer straight from his position leading Israel’s central bank into the number two spot at the Federal Reserve has allowed little time for research into the appointee’s career or for informed public debate about his record. Like the failed recent Obama administration-Israel lobby pincer move to ram approval for U.S. military strikes on Syria through Congress, avoiding such due diligence through velocity may actually be the only means for successful Senate confirmation.
Economics
The U.S.-Israel Joint Economic Discussion Group fundamentally transformed U.S. aid to Israel forever. Before the Reagan administration, most U.S. aid to Israel took the form of loans that had to be repaid with interest. After the input of Fischer’s team, subsequent U.S. aid was delivered in the form of outright grants paid directly from the U.S. Treasury—never to be repaid or conditioned when Israel took actions the U.S. opposed.
The last time Fischer’s name was floated to lead a major organization was during a rushed Bush administration attempt at damage control. In 2007, the controversial architect of the Iraq invasion and later World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz was engulfed in an ethics scandal over his pay and promotion package for Shaha Ali Riza. In two short years leading the institution, Wolfowitz catalyzed the alienation of most divisions within the bank and the distrust of economics ministries around the world. Fischer, along with Robert Zoellick and Robert Kimmitt and a handful of others, were considered as emergency replacements while the administration and stakeholders strategized on how to ease Wolfowitz out with a minimum of scandal.
That the Fed is a key player in Iran sanctions implementation is certainly no secret. The Fed has been an equal partner in levying hundreds of millions in fines against foreign banks such as R.B.S, Barclays, Standard and Chartered and H.S.B.C. which were charged with violating the Iran sanctions regime. Although AIPAC never mentions it, American exporters have been seriously hurt by sanctions on Iran and the punitive secondary boycott. A coalition representing the US Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, Coalition for American Trade, the National Foreign Trade Council and others urged Congress not to enact sanctions provisions they estimated would cost 