Recognizing Anti-Semitism
In France today, Muslim anti-Semitism is spreading. But as it is now Muslim and not coming from the « far right, » those who claim to fight anti-Semitism refuse to see it as anti-Semitic. How individuals become anti-Semitic criminals is explainable: When groups of human beings are defined as « enemies of the people, » their elimination becomes logical.
Seventy years ago, on July 17, 1942, the Velodrome d’hiver Roundup took place in Paris. It was the greatest mass arrest of Jews ever carried out on French soil, and one of the main mass-arrests of Jews in Europe during World War II .
It took fifty-one years before a commemoration was held in memory of this crime. And it took two more years for a President of the Republic, Jacques Chirac, to acknowledge France’s responsibility for this crime. The new French President, Francois Hollande, was even more explicit this year; he talked about a crime committed « in France, by France. » He added, most pointedly, that anti-Semitism is not an opinion but « an abjection ». At a time when anti-Semitism is in France again, and just four months ago in Toulouse the worst anti-Semitic crime to have been committed in France since World War II took place — the murder of three Jewish children and the father of two of them, by a French Islamist — these words are not enough. It is necessary to look deeper.
In fairness, France was not the only country in Europe to have been infected for centuries with anti-Semitism, but French authors have played a particularly important role in the formulation of racist theories and modern anti-Semitism.
Few other European countries have seen the publication of a major newspaper devoted almost entirely to inciting hatred against Jews. Before Der Stürmer was published by Julius Streicher in Germany under Adolf Hitler, France was where Edouard Drumont published La libre parole (the Free Speech), from November 1892 to June 1924; hardly any page of La libre parole was devoted to anything but inciting hatred against Jews.
No viscerally anti-Semitic book has enjoyed the success of La France juive (Jewish France); written by the same Edouard Drumont; published in 1886; continually reprinted until 1938, and since 1986, available again in bookshops.
Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau, a French diplomat, played a founding role in the development of modern racism with his Essay on the Inequality of Races. His views (and those of his disciple, Houston Stewart Chamberlain), exerted a profound influence on writers such as Paul de Lagarde and Julius Langbehn, who played a crucial role in the development of German National Socialism.
At the time when Der Stürmer was published in Germany, Leon Daudet and Charles Maurras were the figureheads of the extremely anti-Semitic L’Action Francaise [The French Action]. It rivaled the ardor of the equally anti-SemiticJe suis partout [I Am Everywhere], overseen by French fascist writers Lucien Rebatet and Robert Brasillach, author of the famous sentence, « We must finish with the Jews as a whole, and not keep the small ones ».
The Roundup took place in a context of pervasive anti-Semitism; the anti-Semitism was not limited to just a handful of people. And it did not magically disappear with the end of the war. The idea, long inculcated, that the crime was committed by a minority of bad apples that were « not France » has prevented a wider examination of conscience and allowed more easily the rebirth of anti-Semitism later, under more elegant packaging.
In France today, anti-Semitism in the manner of Edouard Drumont, Leon Daudet or Robert Brasillach has not disappeared, but it is minor. The main form of anti-Semitism is Muslim anti-Semitism. And since those who claim to fight anti-Semitism only recognize anti-Semitism when it speaks like Edouard Drumont, Leon Daudet or Robert Brasillach, anti-Semitism as it exists is not challenged.
In addition, France is not alone in having been occupied by Nazi Germany during World War II. The difference is that while France was occupied, it adopted a political regime based on active collaboration with Nazi Germany, and this regime was largely composed of people from the Left.
Even though some French conducted themselves with dignity and courage during that period, the large majority acted with cowardice. Many French denounced Jews. France had forty million inhabitants then, including almost « forty million Pétainists, » as the title of a book by historian Henri Amouroux states.
Most ministers of the collaborationist government of Vichy were socialists before the war. The two main collaborationist parties during the war were the Parti Populaire Français (French popular party), headed by Jacques Doriot, a former Communist mayor of Saint Denis near Paris, and the Rassemblement National Populaire (Popular National Gathering), headed by Marcel Deat, a former Socialist deputy of Paris. Until the failure of Nazi-Soviet Pact, the French Communists were among the most ardent collaborators.
In 2008, Israeli historian Simon Epstein published a book, Un paradoxe français [A French Paradox], explaining in detail how the pacifist left of the 1930s became the collaborators in the 1940’s. Simon Epstein’s book was totally ignored by the French media when it was published.
The Roundup was organized by a regime based on active collaboration with the Nazis. Moreover, that regime was composed mostly of people coming from the French left.
The silence that is kept in France until today on the reality of the collaborationist regime at the time of the Roundup has helped build the legend that collaborators were not just a minority of bad apples, but a minority composed of people coming from the « far right. »
The idea that the crime had been committed by the « far right » — and the automatic association of anti-Semitism with the « far right » — has prevented a full understanding of what collaboration with the Nazis really was, and how members of the Left could have become Nazi Collaborators and anti-Semitic criminals.
In France today, Muslim anti-Semitism is spreading, but because it is not coming from the « far right, » and because it is Muslim, those who claim to fight anti-Semitism refuse to see it as anti-Semitic. It is members of the left who have become the fellow travellers of the Muslim anti-Semites; it is they who speak of Israeli Jews with the words used by anti-Semites when they spoke of Jews seventy years ago.
To understand the Roundup, pervasive anti-Semitism in France, the Collaborationist regime, and members of the Left becoming « collaborators » and anti-Semitic criminals, one has to understand the meaning of July 14, the French national holiday of the French Revolution.
The French Revolution was fraught with consequences significantly different from the American Revolution.
The American Revolution was imbued with the thought of John Locke, and English Whig ideas about civic virtue, corruption, ancient rights and liberty. It led to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, and the American ideas of liberty and freedom, as they have existed for over two centuries,
The French Revolution was primarily influenced by thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the totalitarian idea of « general will » that allows the legislator to claim embodying the will of the people, and the equally totalitarian idea that an absolute and perfect political truth exists that can be used to reshape a society. It led to the Reign of Terror, and to a political and judicial instability that has not stopped to this day. Since July 1789, France has had five republics, two empires, a return to absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy and an authoritarian regime. The four republics that preceded the present one ended either in coups or in the vote of full powers to a « Providential Man ».
The Reign of Terror, 1793 to1794, could be considered the first totalitarian experience in modern times. It allowed Robespierre to be the first dictator actually to try to mold a whole society according ti his vision. It implied the physical elimination of « counter-revolutionaries » and of all those who could be considered as non-integrable to the future society. Thousands of innocent people were hastily sentenced to death and sent to the guillotine until the moment when Robespierre himself was executed. More than three hundred thousand people were massacred in Vendée: the first totalitarian experience in modern times included the first genocidal action in modern times.
The French Revolution was an inspiration to modern dictators. Robespierre was admired by Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Robespierre spoke of « revolution, » those inspired by him spoke of « proletarian revolution, » Hitler spoke of the « National Socialist revolution, » and the French collaborators during World War II spoke of « national revolution. »
At the time of Robespierre, those who had to be eliminated were defined as « enemies of the people, » just as Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot also defined those they decided to eliminate as « enemies of the people. »
Just as Hitler intended to eliminate those he considered « enemies of the German people, » and who, as such, could not be part of Germany’s future, so too, the French collaborators during World War II said they intended to eliminate « enemies of the people », who, as such, could not be part of France’s future.
And just as the Collaborationist regime in France was no accident, so the Velodrome d’hiver Roundup was no accident. How members of the French left, who had never stopped admiring Robespierre, could become collaborators and then anti-Semitic criminals is explainable: When groups of human beings are defined by totalitarians as « enemies of the people, » their elimination becomes logical.
In the context of widespread anti-Semitism, Jews could easily be defined as « enemies of the people. » The collaborators were not a minority composed of people from the « far right, » and anti-Semitism in France before World War II and during the nineteenth century was not a phenomenon from the far-right. Edouard Drumont, the author ofLa France Juive, defined himself as a « socialist. » Jules Guesde, the main French Socialist leader in the late nineteenth century, regularly attacked « Jewish finance. » Jean Jaures openly criticized the « stranglehold of Jewry » on the economy.
Could it get worse? Muslim anti-Semites who speak and act in today’s France are close to Islamist movements; people can easily find excuses for those who use these words. Without a second thought, they may be open to the definition Muslims anti-Semites give of their enemies.
Political speeches, especially speeches coming from a left in which admirers of the French Revolution are still many, cannot change the situation.
The lessons of the Velodrome d’hiver Roundup still have not been learned in France. And clearly they involve much more than France.
© Guy Millière and @ Gatesone Institute
Quel cirque…
S’ils ne prennent pas un coup de pied aux fesses avant longtemps… Ils vont avoir de quoi brailler ensuite…
La tactique du « J’accuse et provoque en m’incrustant chez les autres et j’me prends une rouste qui démontre que j’avais raison…
Quel toupet …
Voilà l’Europe qui est confrontée aux mêmes réalités, aux mêmes phénomènes qui se sont habillés de nouveaux apparats. Mais le peuple porte en lui ce cancer de l’esprit qu’est l’antisémitisme. Je dis esprit, car c’est à l’esprit juif, au peuple élu, au sacré, à D’ieu que les êtres noirs, fascistes et autre gauchistes s’attaquent…. Ce sont les forces du néant qui s’expriment à un moment sous des oripeaux différents et qui s’attaquent au peuple élu, aux êtres de lumière…. En France la gauche y joue un rôle depuis toujours comme les masses pour Mao, etc… Mais le mal est issu du désert spirituel, qu’il soit chinois ou français….. Et de toute façon ces sataniques prendront bien à un moment la couleur ou les loques dont ils ont besoin pour exprimer leur néant et leur antisémitisme. Car c’est toujours le peuple juif, peuple de lumière qui est en première ligne face au svastika qui anime l’Europe aujourd’hui dans sa création du 4ème Reich.
Shalom
David
dommage que ce n’est pas traduit en français !
entièrement d’accord… parce que même si je ne commente pas forcément les articles j’aime bien les lire… et là je n’ai pas compris grand chose ! Dommage
moi aussi idem avec mon anglais scolaire !!!
I did not realised that it is in English, until the end. But what is disturbing, that in France, the place l love so much, l will not visit animore. The anty jews, and especialy in Europe, is a long story. My conclusion, the one and only place for us, is here in my wonderful Israel, where l tried to explain to my little grandchild,the meaning of antisemith, and that only here, everibody is Jewish, and all of us are first Israelians, and proud of it
Il a fallu deux ans de plus pour un Président de la République, Jacques Chirac, à reconnaître la responsabilité de la France pour ce crime. Le nouveau président français, François Hollande, a été encore plus explicite de cette année, il a parlé d’un crime commis «en France, par la France. »Il a ajouté, plus précisément, que l’antisémitisme n’est pas une opinion, mais« une »abjection.
Moi, ce que je sais, dans ce dossier de l’histoire du moment, que dans tous les cas de cause, ce crime n’a pas été la faute de la France, mais de personnages qui ont trahit la République Française :
80% des collabos de la seconde guerre mondiale viennent de la gauche
22 juillet 2012 | Classé dans: France,Histoire,Les dossiers
Eh oui, ça fait mal, la vérité dérange
explique le Rabbin Haïm Harboun au début d’un article au ton visiblement irrité par la façon dont la gauche morale réécrit sa propre histoire.
« Il est temps que l’on lève le voile posé par les historiens des années 70 et 80 qui se sont largement employés à revisiter l’histoire pour sauver leurs meubles ! » ajoute-t-il naïvement, car nous savons nous qu’aucun voile ne sera levé ni par les historiens, ni par l’éducation nationale, ni par les journalistes, ni encore moins, et cela laisse perplexe, par la droite, qui se laisse diaboliser par les socialistes sans réagir.
Le Rabbin Harboun cite ici Simon Epstein, l’économiste et historien, auteur entre autres de “Un paradoxe français *”. Extraits choisis.
Mensonge de gauche n°1 : les collaborationnistes pendant la seconde guerre mondiale étaient majoritairement à l’extrême droite. C’est tout l’inverse. La majorité des premiers résistants était issue de l’Action Française qui prônait le “nationalisme intégral” et était germanophobe.
Mensonge de gauche n°2 : la gauche pacifiste, antiraciste et philosémite a majoritairement composé la Résistance. C’est tout l’inverse. Les pacifistes ont continué d’être pacifistes sous la botte des nazis (comme les dreyfusards).
Plus précisément, le pacifisme fut le vecteur principal de la collaboration, et les pacifistes furent donc très nombreux à collaborer.
Georges Suarez, qui fut l’ami de Joseph Kessel dans les années 20 et le biographe de Clémenceau et de Briand est un bel exemple de cette logique de gauche qui mène du pacifisme au nazisme. Par souci de réconciliation franco-allemande, il devint, sous Vichy, un pronaziste effréné, et fut le premier journaliste à être jugé pour collaboration : il était proche de la gauche briandiste.
Que la gauche fut dominante dans la collaboration parce qu’elle fut dominante dans le pacifisme est une vérité très dérangeante, et les historiens soucieux d’inculper “toutes les droites”, soucieux de leur faire porter la responsabilité des erreurs, des trahisons et des crimes des années 1940-1944 ont tous un trou de mémoire sur ces quatre années noires.
Nos historiens – de gauche – chargeront Maurras (Action Française) de forfaits commis par des gens, qui, pour beaucoup, étaient des anti maurrassiens endurcis. Ils s’acharneront sur La Roque (les Croix de Feu), qui vraiment n’y était pour rien, tandis qu’ils ignoreront ces pacifistes, intransigeants et candides à la fois, qui se fascinèrent pour l’Allemagne de Hitler.
Et cela dure jusqu’à maintenant…
Simon Epstein, dans son livre, cite entre autres Bernard Lacache, le président de la LICA (ancêtre de l’actuelle LICRA) qui dénonça ces traîtres qui, ayant milité au sein de ce mouvement pacifiste de gauche, se convertirent à la collaboration. Et bien entendu, il n’oublie pas, dans une notice biographique précise, François Mitterrand…
Mais Mitterrand ne fût pas le seul collabo de gauche qui fit la navette :
– Drieu-La Rochelle était-il d’extrême droite avant-guerre ? Non. Il était de gauche et philosémite.
– Jean Luchaire, Pierre de Brinon, Alphonse de Chateaubriand : des hommes de gauche.
– Doriot, Déat ? de gauche.
– Cocteau, Aymé, Giono ? de gauche.
– Bergery ? Radical de gauche.
– Bertrand de Jouvenel ? de gauche.
– Simon Sabiani, Maurice-Ivan Sicard, Paul Perrin, André Grisoni, Paul Rives, Maurice Levillain, Barthélémy Montagnon, René Chateau, Claude Jamet : tous de gauche, tous collabos.
– Robert Jospin (le père de Lionel) pacifiste intégral, munichois, proche de Marcel Déat : SFIO.
– Camille Chautemps, Georges Bonnet, Maurice Papon, René Bousquet : la gauche radicale.
– Robert Hersant : gauche radicale.
– Charles Spinasse, Georges Monnet : eux aussi de gauche.
– Alfred Baudrillard, Marc Augier, Jean Balestre : tous à gauche.
– Camille Planche, Léon Emery, René Gérin, étaient déatistes et venaient de la gauche.
– Saint-Loup (alias Marc Augier qui, avant-guerre, chantait “Au-devant de la vie” avec ses camarades juifs des Auberges), Saint-Paulien (alias Maurice-Ivan Sicard, qui avant-guerre vomissait dans son “Huron” le fascisme et les fascistes), Roland Gaucher (ex- Roland Goguillot qui militait aux Etudiants révolutionnaires), François Brigneau (Emmanuel Allot, pacifiste de gauche) : des ex-antifascistes, des anciens de la gauche et de l’extrême gauche, et qui devinrent des ordures de la collaboration, puis militants d’extrême droite après la guerre.
– René Bousquet, secrétaire général de la police de Vichy, responsable de la déportation de 54.000 juifs français, l’ami de toujours de François Mitterrand : centre gauche républicain.
– 12 des 17 ministres SFIO de la fin de la III° République furent exclus du parti après-guerre pour avoir collaborer avec les allemands.
Qui sera étonné de rencontrer encore la gauche, aujourd’hui, dans le lit de l’islam ?
Mais ce court inventaire de la gauche de la honte demande bien entendu à être complété par le parcours de Georges Gustave Hollande, le père de notre président de la République, dont la fiche sur Wikipédia a été totalement réécrite, et je vous laisse imaginer dans quelle direction
Je vous conseille la lecture du livre « Un siècle de trahison », ainsi qu’une petite révision de l’histoire du début du siècle, des ses partis et de ses journaux antisémites (c’était leur nom, donc pas de doute possible), de ses « conférences », « expositions » et pièces de théâtre qui toutes tournaient à guichet fermé, cela vous évitera de tenter de résumer à la gauche et à elle seule (même si je suis le premier à rappeler qu’elle fut la mère de la collaboration) l’antisémitisme français, et de tenter d’oublier que c’est bien en France, par la France, que ces abominations ont eu lieu.
Je sais bien que la France a toujours eu une sainte horreur de se regarder en face, mais casser le thermomètre n’a jamais, au grand jamais été la solution au problème.
Urgent Message from Michael Reagan
God Save US from King Obama
Dear Friend:
It’s taken more than 200 years, two world wars, an industrial revolution, and the dawn of the Internet, but the United States once again finds itself at the mercy of an intolerant king.
Instead of a tax on tea, King Barack Obama and his Knights of the Fast Food Table seem intent on imposing a penalty on chicken — but not all chicken.
They are only targeting poultry prepared by Chick-fil-A.
And it’s not because King Obama has decreed that Chick-fil-A makes a product that is any way unsuitable for the American people. It’s because Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy had the audacity to make comments supporting the “biblical definition” of marriage as between a man and a woman — comments that directly conflict with the King’s recent pronouncement on gay marriage.
Cathy’s comments have undoubtedly infuriated the petulant king and his court, so much so that King Obama’s mayors in Boston and Chicago issued proclamations of their own aimed at stopping further expansion of Chick-fil-A restaurants in their cities.
This is nothing short of outrageous behavior by a king who is obviously out of touch with the rest of us peasants.
King Obama’s rule is so egregious in fact that the traditionally left ACLU has weighed in on the side of Chick-fil-A. A senior attorney for the ACLU of Illinois reportedly told an interviewer that any government that can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage.
It shows you how far to the left Obama and his allies have gone when the ACLU can’t support its positions.
Unfortunately, the King’s bad behavior doesn’t stop with the food we eat. Part of King Obama’s healthcare law also took effect this week. It will essentially force most employer-based insurance systems to provide contraceptive services.
The implementation of the healthcare mandate comes less than a week after a federal judge in Colorado temporarily blocked the government from enforcing its contraception requirement on the Denver-based Hercules Industry, a private manufacturer of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment, which is run by a Catholic family.
This is a case where King Obama’s Justice Department offered the head of Hercules a choice: Either give your employees free contraception or surrender your company to the crown.
Put another way, give up your company, or give up your religion.
Not only is my father probably rolling over in his grave right now, but I would be so bold to say that FDR and John F. Kennedy are too.
We have a president who thinks he’s a king. And America cannot afford a king who can so cavalierly discard the U.S. Constitution when it doesn’t suit his political agenda.
I find it somewhat ironic that while the Justice Department is asking people to surrender their religion and their companies, and even some wealthy Democrats are giving up their passports to escape the tyranny of King Obama.
I am urging you to join with the League of American Voters to support our national efforts to expose President Obama and his allies in Washington. This is an extremely critical year, so please act today – Go Here Now
Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan. He is national chairman of the League of American Voters.