Multiculturalism and the Jews

By Richard Edmondson

It was maybe five to seven years ago I first came across that now rather famous video of Barbara Lerner Spectre being interviewed in Sweden on the subject of multiculturalism. Here was an American Jewish woman condescendingly giving advice to a group of Swedes about embracing multiculturalism, and stating unequivocally that “Jews are going to be at the center” of a “huge transformation” that Europe was about to undergo.

Now here we are in the year 2017. Europe is experiencing a swelling migrant invasion–due in no small part to wars in the Middle East and North Africa initiated and promoted by Jews–and traditional European culture is under threat.

As I noted in a post last month, there is something stupendously hypocritical about Jews who preach the gospel of racial tolerance and multiculturalism in America (or in their countries of residence in Europe), while saying nothing about the apartheid policies of Israel. If you want to know how racist and intolerant Israel is, simply ask a Palestinian. Yet not only do Jews by and large support the state of Israel, they have formed lobbying groups to advocate on its behalf–this all while campaigning noisily for open borders in their countries of residence and labeling as “racist” anyone who dares suggest that unlimited immigration might be a bad idea.

Europeans and white Americans are now finding their once “monolithic societies” being ripped apart by unceasing waves of immigrants; they are finding their histories and cultures disparaged, their religious faith demeaned and denigrated, by rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth “anti-fascists” who preach tolerance but who seem willing to commit acts of violence against anyone they disagree with.

The fact that Jews have been behind much of this is something that people increasingly are becoming aware of–and Barbara Lerner Spectre, bless her heart, has probably done more than any single person to wake people up to this fact. So much is this the case that you can now find a number of videos parodying her. Here is one:

Spectre is the founding director of Paideia, also known as the European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden. The organization was founded in 2001 with funding by the Swedish government, and today, on its website, touts itself as both “non-denominational” and “dedicated to the revival of Jewish culture in Europe.” According to Wikipedia, Spectre herself was born in Madison, Wisconsin and studied at Columbia University and NYU. In 1967 she and her husband, who is a rabbi, moved to Israel, but in 1999, they immigrated again, to Stockholm, where her husband served as rabbi of the Stockholm Synagogue.

In an article published on a Jewish website in 2014, Spectre is quoted as speaking of an “unholy alliance” between anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Semitic sentiment in the “far left and the far right.” The article, written by Gary Rosenblatt, focuses on the problem of “increased anti-Semitism” and seeks to address the question of whether there is a “future for Jewish life in Europe.”

Rosenblatt offers no analysis of what could be the cause of rising anti-Semitism other than to suggest it was “sparked by the Gaza war” (which at the time the article was published had only been fought just three months previously–that is, of course, assuming Rosenblatt was referring to “Operation Protective Edge”–not really a war so much as a massacre of more than 2,000 people, most of them civilians), but he does include one rather remarkable paragraph–a paragraph which discusses Jewish immigration to Israel (or “making aliyah”) but that also includes a striking admission about Jews in general and their constant promotion of multiculturalism:

Similarly, European Jewish officials cringe when Israeli political leaders, in their quest to promote aliyah, assert that there is no future for European Jewry. Asserting that “the world hates us, Israel is the only safe haven,” could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Such an attitude is far from helpful to those who would prefer to build a more secure future in their native country, fostering democracy and pluralism, rather than emigrate out of fear of oppression. (Emphasis added.)

So the choice before Jews, it seems, is: stay in their “native countries” where they, or the vast majority of them at any rate, can usually be found working industriously to foster “democracy and pluralism”–or, alternately, they can move to the apartheid state of Israel where they will find “safe haven” from “rising anti-Semitism.” In other words, work to ensure that multiculturalism prevails in the one place, and racism and oppression in the other. The contradiction, of course, is glaring.

But why–why do Jews work so energetically to throw open the borders of America, Sweden, and other countries to foreigners knowing that such massive influxes will be detrimental to these countries (if they can deduce widespread immigration would be bad for Israel, surely they can extrapolate that the same principle applies elsewhere)? The most widely held view is that Jews just naturally feel “safer” in a “pluralistic” society, but the gentleman in the video below posits an alternate theory. i.e. that the motive, at least for some Jews, is revenge for the holocaust.

Whether we can assume Jews are carrying out an ‘ethnic revenge fantasy’ (and it’s entirely possibly some are), a few broad coffee house-style observations and/or generalizations can be put forth. These are not my own original ideas. They are observations that have been made at many times in the past and by a wide variety of people, but they are worth repeating here.

  1. Jews regard themselves as “chosen”;
  2. This view of themselves as chosen is probably given added fuel by the fact that Jews dominate the banking and finance and media and entertainment sectors;
  3. Domination in these two sectors gives them, by way of extension, control over the politicians;
  4. Never before in history has one tiny ethnic group found itself with so much power;
  5. Jews, the ethnic group in question, obsess in a psychologically unhealthy manner over the holocaust;
  6. Obsessing over the holocaust can give rise to other pathologies, including the inability to self reflect and the tendency to see oneself as an “eternal victim”;
  7. Jews in Europe and America have promoted wars to benefit Israel;
  8. The power of the media to “demonize” this or that foreign leader (irregardless of facts) makes it relatively easy for them to get such wars started;
  9. The foreign leaders are generally accused of “killing their own people”;
  10. The wars that then are fought kill in large numbers the very same “people” the Jews initially expressed such concern for;
  11. Jews in Europe and America by and large advocate multiculturalism;
  12. In this they receive a lot of sympathetic support from the media;
  13. The same media portray as “racists” politicians who call for limits on immigration;
  14. By contrast, the media–owned by the same owners who support multiculturalism in the West–also support Israel, a country with elected leaders who are openly racist and whose policies are precisely the opposite of multiculturalism;
  15. Rising anti-Semitism among the public is the inevitable reaction to Jewish power and the hypocrisy and contradictions (and their often destructive results) in Jewish behavior.

It seems that Jews are in favor of “monolithic societies” as long as they are Jewish.

Let me return once more to the article by Rosenblatt. As I mentioned above, it seeks to address the issue of whether there is a “future” for Jews in Europe. On that question the author quotes Spectre as saying, “We have to be careful and strategic,” and then adds:

While Hungary, with its strong supremacist, nationalist government presents a threat, for instance, the German government is aggressive in its efforts to confront the anti-Jewish problem. Just last week the Conference of European Rabbis, meeting in Tbilisi, Georgia, urged governments across the continent to pass laws banning hate speech against Jews, as have France and Germany.

So let’s see…if Rosenblatt is correct, the rabbis are pushing for laws “banning hate speech against Jews” specifically. But what about hate speech against other groups of people? Apparently that’s not on the agenda.

Laws against hate speech, no matter who the speech is directed against, are a bad idea; they are nothing more than thinly disguised attacks upon free speech. I’ll go out on a limb here and venture a guess: the more such laws are promulgated, the greater the likelihood Rosenblatt’s “self-fulfilling prophecy” may come to pass.

Last year I wrote an article discussing attacks on the BDS movement in which I speculated that the motive behind these attacks may not be what it appears to be. Hate speech laws fall very much into the same category as legislative efforts targeting the BDS movement, and in my article I posed the hypothesis that such endeavors may intentionally be designed to increase rather than decrease anti-Semitism. Here in part is what I wrote:

One seemingly preferred method used by Jewish leaders to exert control over other Jews–and certainly one which Gentiles are more familiar with–is the strategy of instilling fear. And the fear button is especially manipulated to inculcate fears of rising anti-Semitism…

The right to call for a boycott is a free speech issue. And those seeking to implement penalties of this sort are in essence waging a war against the First Amendment. If there is any document the American people hold sacred and inviolable, it is the US Constitution (the Bible probably runs a very, very distant second), and if there is one part of the Constitution held as sacrosanct above all others, it is the First Amendment. Any attempt to curtail our free speech rights would be bound to elicit a visceral response from a large number of Americans.

So why would Israel supporters seek to impose such measures? Do they really believe it is going to stop the BDS movement? You could in fact argue, quite plausibly, that it will do just the opposite. Whenever a popular political movement encounters government repression, regardless of the country, the almost invariable result is that more people flock to join it. For government repression tends to legitimize social justice movements.

My guess is that the Jewish leaders pushing these initiatives have no realistic expectations of stopping the BDS movement. But the initiatives conveniently serve another purpose as well: they increase anti-Semitism. Attempts to curtail free speech in America will, as I say, trigger a visceral reaction, and if a particular group of people can be perceived as being behind such efforts, the resultant hostility will be directed at that group.

The article is entitled Synagogues and Prisons. The title is self explanatory. Jewish tribalism has in effect become a matrix in which ordinary, rank and file Jews are imprisoned. And maybe, I suggested, the time has come for a break. The greatest fear of Jewish leaders is the fear of Jews leaving the fold, so to speak–that is to say of shedding the chains of their societal reclusion and joining the rest of humanity.

Maybe, were that to come to pass, we would see far fewer Jews obsessing over the holocaust and campaigning for multiculturalism.

Le Pen &Trump aren’t even close – are we stuck with Emmanuel Macr-Obama?

April 24, 2017

by Ramin Mazaheri

It’s not that the National Front has changed since the 1980s – it’s that the other parties have changed so much for the worse.

C’est ça – that’s the point, as the French say, and which translates into English rather ineffectively.

Nobody should be happy about having to vote for Marine Le Pen, but please tell me what economic policies has Emmanuel Macron espoused which will end the systemic anti-Muslim, anti-Colored racism in France?

Got nuthin’? Of course you don’t.

And that’s why it is intolerable to hear French people say that a vote against Le Pen is a vote against racism: Racism is not just pretty words but concrete actions – it is the government installing a Black family next to yours to promote equality.

Don’t fancy that: congratulations, you are not a leftist!

But Emmanuel Macron is the epitome of today’s “fake leftism” – leftism which has a “non-racist” and “minority-friendly” face, but which is neutered of any economic or social policy that would actually improve the lives of any minority.

What good is having gay marriage in France if you can’t afford the marriage certificate because you are both unemployed?

Gay marriage typifies the misplaced priorities of the West’s fake leftists – the show over substance –which must make the Ho Chi Minh’s of the world roll their eyes and mutter, “This is the Left I sacrificed for?”

While preparing to cover the first round of France’s election I was reviewing five years of news reports I made while covering the Francois Hollande era for Press TV. I was reminded that November 7, 2012, is a day which must not be forgotten.

On that date Hollande announced he was breaking the essence of his electoral campaign: He cut taxes for the wealthy and on corporations, with financing to come from cuts to social services and a hike to the VAT (sales) tax, which is a regressive tax on the average person.

Here were the two lead paragraphs from that report:

“France has announced another round of austerity measures, in an unpredicted change-of-heart. Many expected a recent report calling for tax breaks for businesses to be ignored, but the Hollande administration will implement its neoliberal measures almost completely.”

“This plan corresponds with President Hollande’s promises,” said Jean-Marc Ayrault, France’s Prime Minister. “They are leftist because our objective is to create more jobs and to correct injustice,”

Also on November 7, 2012: Hollande, Ayrault and the Socialist Party unveiled the bill for gay marriage in Parliament.

The politics of distraction….

It’s disgusting for fake leftists like Francois Hollande, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to manipulate civil rights in order to push right-wing economics, but it works.

Today, not enough French voters saw the through the masquerade of Macron, I’m sorry to report.

Even fewer remember the lessons from 5 years ago, it seems. How many journalists even helped people to remember?

However, all of France does remember perhaps the biggest-ever anti-government demonstrations which followed November 7, 2012: between 300,000 to 1 million people marched – not against austerity, but against gay marriage.

The politics of distraction causing misplaced priorities….

Then in January 2013 Hollande launched a war in Mali.

The politics of distraction, this time with dead Colored bodies….

Blame Hollande for a lot, including Macron

Hollande is the one who foisted Macron on us. He plucked him from the obscurity of the chorus, schooled him as his deputy secretary-general of Élysée Palace, appointed Minister of the Economy out of nowhere, and dubbed Macron to carry on his legacy.

Hollande admitted as much – he wants to see what he “built” continue. Many thought he was the only one who felt that way, and that’s why Hollande couldn’t even run for re-election.

So France elects a younger version of Hollande instead?

Once again I write these words: This ends the myth that the French are more sophisticated or intellectually cultivated than everyone else.

They couldn’t even see through Macron!

Anyone think Macron will be promoting peace? Or even “first do no harm” isolationism?

Le Pen might…if the military-industrial-financial-media-cultural complex doesn’t hound her with accusations of being a Russian spy like they did with Trump. Maybe she won’t even bomb Syria to get some breathing room from the fake leftist hordes in pussy hats.

Or maybe not, but Le Pen is, like Trump, the hope candidate in the French election because a vote for Macron is a vote for your own unemployment. Or your wife’s. Or your children’s.

One thing is sure: If they elect Macron the whole country will be crying in 6 months, just as France was with Hollande.

It’s simply staggering that he’s expected to win at a huge 65%-35% margin. Austerity has never worked anywhere, ever – even the IMF now admits that, only after decades of ruined lives – and yet the French are going to elect a guy who will enact 20% more austerity measures that Francois Hollande.

Trump and Le Pen are totally different

Let’s admit it – Trump is hilarious…by presidential standards.

His tweets, his self-importance, his shilling for Trump merchandise while meeting with the president of China – he’s what we’d all like to be if we had no conscience or sense of responsibility.

In France we call this person: Gerard Depardieu. Seriously! The French talk about how they secretly would love to be this fat, vineyard-owning glutton who shoots his mouth off however he wants – the guy got a Russian passport from Putin, after all!

But it’s simply not accurate to say that Trump and Le Pen are the same just because they both represent the White Trash Revolution sweeping the West.

Trump is hilarious and entertaining (and thousands of kilometers from where I live), yes, but hate for him is new: Le Pen and her family have been hated for decades.

The Le Pens have spent decades insulting Muslims, Roma, minorities – French people – and that simply cannot be erased.

French people repeatedly tell me: “Ramin, you are new here – you’ve only been here 8 years – you don’t understand the National Front.”

It’s possible, but I respond: Everybody I meet views the National Front in some sort of time warp. Only the cynics claim politics never changes: look closely and you see that the situation is different from 1980, or 2002, or 2007, etc. And they cannot see that five years of austerity will do far more collective damage than taking a risk on Le Pen.

Worse, they can’t understand that nearly all French parties are racist: Fillon wrote a book titled “Conquering Islamic Totalitarianism”; Melenchon is rabidly secular; the Socialists cracked down on the Roma worse than Sarkozy. Only the Communists got the brotherly love in France: Our 2 candidates only got 1.8% combined, and that is your fault and not ours.

Understand this well: Very few people are “happy” about Macron tonight. Think about it: 4 candidates all won nearly 20% of the vote – that’s unheard of! Macron eked out a miniscule victory – this is no sweeping mandate whatsoever.

And listen to me now and believe me later: This is not a “seismic shift” in French politics. Yes, the Gaullists didn’t advance for the first time ever, and the other mainstream party is absent too, but Macron has no party: he will necessarily staff his cabinet with the same old Socialists and Républicains; his neophyte party will necessarily make a coalition government with them in Parliament.

Macron is simply an Obama-style brand shift by the Empire. Like Obama he will be a smooth-faced handmaiden for Clintonian globalization. Nothing will change if Macron is elected.

However, I can report to you that this current of National Front fear/resentment/myopia is too strong for me to think that Le Pen will win: I have met so many people from across all boundaries who simply cannot, will not, ever vote for any Le Pen. Their dead ancestors practically forbid it.

Nobody can say the same about Trump.

So I am not hopeful that Le Pen will go the way of Brexit and Trump.

I write this while waiting to do interviews #9 and #10 on Round 1 Election Day for Press TV – maybe I’m not thinking clearly?

The worst has been seeing my grinning colleagues on France’s major media stations – they are thrilled to pieces. Of course, they’re on the wrong side of most of the issues. I’ll give them some credit: The #1 channel in France – TF1 – interviewed me as part of a piece about the view of foreign journalists and had the sense to make the lead quote, LOL. I coulda done it in French – they didn’t ask!

I have been repeatedly proven wrong about Macron

I was hoping the fawning, brain-dead, hugely pro-Macron French media would be wrong about “the Roths-churian candidate”, but it seems I was.

I never took him seriously because he’s such a seriously flawed candidate: 39 years old, Rothschild banker, Macron Law author who sparked 4-months of strikes and protests in 2016, 64-year old wife, heir to Hollande-ism, 7 step-grandkids, selling off industrial jewel Alstom to the Americans which only profited shareholders and not citizens, etc. and etc.

The guy is like Teflon! Nothing stuck! And why? He said nothing! He didn’t unveil his 60 billion in euros in austerity cuts (10 billion more than Hollande) until early March!

Robbers never tell you they are stealing, after all. But, beyond just the economy, Macron was as vague as possible – and it worked!

Well, now it’s up to Le Pen to attack him mercilessly for the great sins of…his record. Everybody should.

But instead it is Le Pen who will be attacked mercilessly and by everybody under the French sun. And let’s be honest – she is no saint, and her sins are not just bad TV and gaudy real estate.

In fact, she’s a terrible candidate, period. She’s useful to spark debate, but she’s no winner. Who really wants her to win? This all makes her a loser on May 7, most likely – that’s what Trump would say, and he can say that: he won.

The National Front is fighting decades of correctly-earned ill-will. There is undoubtedly tremendous – just tremendous – dissatisfaction in France, but how is Le Pen going turn the battleship around to take office?

I think I can fairly write that nobody is happy tonight, but Macron will provide an uplift when he likely wins. He will: it’s human nature – he has youth on his side. I suppose he’s an Adonis when you stand him next to hated hobbits like Hollande.

People will look at Macron and say: “it’s a fresh start”. They’ll lie to themselves – human nature.

The fools – they’ll be crying in 6 months again. And I hate to write that – I’m a fool too. But I’ll be a fool for the 3% chance that Le Pen could turn out to be a real statesman instead of just a blonde Mussolini. I repeat: austerity has never worked anywhere – just ask the IMF.

Hell, I’m a fool for democracy! Give the people a chance to simply VOTE on a Frexit! How can the EU be “democratic” if we are scared of democracy?

Waitaminut – I’m really losing my head here, eh? I’m forgetting the damned facts, the damned platforms, no matter how much Macron tried to hide his!

A referendum on Frexit, leaving NATO, possibly dropping the euro, finally ending austerity…what on earth is Macron offering that is even close to that?!?!?!?!?!

Macron is economically as far-right as Marine Le Pen is on the far-right on the cultural spectrum! Do you have to be a Communist like me to even THINK about an economic spectrum actually existing anymore?!

Dammit, it’s not over! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?! Heck no! We have 2 weeks of serious debate to make! We can quit when it’s over, not before!

I just talked myself into having faith in Le Pen again!!!!!!!!!!

Sure it was borne out of desperation, but it’s founded on facts.

Now we just have to let France know that.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.

Le Pen, Macron to Face Off in French Runoff Election

 photo pencron_zps46yajpty.jpg

[ Ed. note – Marine Le Pen, who wants to steer France out of the EU, and Emmanuel Macron, the pro-EU candidate, will face off against each other in the May 7 runoff election in France.

Both have emerged as top vote-getters in today’s election. According to the New York Times, Le Pen, with 34 percent of the votes counted, is the official front-runner, having garnered 24.6 percent of the vote, compared to 21.9 percent for Macron. The BBC, on the other hand, while still naming Le Pen in first place, is saying the tallies were much closer–at 23.5 percent and 23 percent respectively.

“What is at stake in this election is a referendum for or against lawless globalization,” Le Pen said to the enthusiastic cheers of her supporters after claiming victory. “Either you choose in favor of a total lack of rules, without borders, with unlawful competition, the free circulation of terrorists, or you make the choice of a France that protects. This is truly what is at stake. It is the survival of France.”

Macron, too, spoke to a crowd of supporters–many of them waving both the French flag and the flag of the EU.

“The two political parties that have governed France for years have been discarded,” he said. “The deep … feeling which has led our people to love our country and overcome its divisions is spectacular. You have shown that the hope of our country was not a dream but a relentless and benevolent will.”

Below is an article actually published a couple of days ago, but it gives some insights into French politics and why today’s election may have turned out the way it did. ]

The Main Issue in the French Presidential Election: National Sovereignty

By Diana Johnstone

Paris.

The 2017 French Presidential election marks a profound change in European political alignments. There is an ongoing shift from the traditional left-right rivalry to opposition between globalization, in the form of the European Union (EU), and national sovereignty.

Standard media treatment sticks to a simple left-right dualism: “racist” rejection of immigrants is the main issue and that what matters most is to “stop Marine Le Pen!”  Going from there to here is like walking through Alice’s looking glass. Almost everything is turned around.

On this side of the glass, the left has turned into the right and part of the right is turning into the left.

Fifty years ago, it was “the left” whose most ardent cause was passionate support for Third World national liberation struggles. The left’s heroes were Ahmed Ben Bella, Sukarno, Amilcar Cabral, Patrice Lumumba, and above all Ho Chi Minh.  What were these leaders fighting for?  They were fighting to liberate their countries from Western imperialism.  They were fighting for independence, for the right to determine their own way of life, preserve their own customs, decide their own future. They were fighting for national sovereignty, and the left supported that struggle.

Today, it is all turned around.  “Sovereignty” has become a bad word in the mainstream left.

National sovereignty is an essentially defensive concept. It is about staying home and minding one’s own business.  It is the opposite of the aggressive nationalism that inspired fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to conquer other countries, depriving them of their national sovereignty.

The confusion is due to the fact that most of what calls itself “the left” in the West has been totally won over to the current form of imperialism – aka “globalization”.  It is an imperialism of a new type, centered on the use of military force and “soft” power to enable transnational finance to penetrate every corner of the earth and thus to reshape all societies in the endless quest for profitable return on capital investment. The left has been won over to this new imperialism because it advances under the banner of “human rights” and “antiracism” – abstractions which a whole generation has been indoctrinated to consider the central, if not the only, political issues of our times.

The fact that “sovereignism” is growing in Europe is interpreted by mainstream globalist media as proof that “Europe is moving to the right”– no doubt because Europeans are “racist”. This interpretation is biased and dangerous. People in more and more European nations are calling for national sovereignty precisely because they have lost it. They lost it to the European Union, and they want it back.

That is why the British voted to leave the European Union.  Not because they are “racist”, but primarily because they cherish their historic tradition of self-rule.

The Socialist Party shipwreck

As his five-year presidency drew to its ignominious end, François Hollande was obliged by his drastic unpopularity to let his Parti Socialiste (PS) choose its 2017 presidential candidate by primary.  In a surprising upset, the Socialist government’s natural candidate, prime minister Manuel Valls, lost to Benoit Hamon, an obscure member of the PS left wing who refused to vote for the unpopular, neo-liberal, anti-labor laws designed by Hollande’s economic advisor, Emmanuel Macron.

To escape from the unpopularity of the PS, Macron formed his own movement, “En Marche!” One after another, Valls, Hollande and other prominent PS leaders are tiptoeing away, leaving Hamon at the helm of the sinking ship.  As Hamon justifiably protests against their betrayal, the party bigwigs pledge their support to Emmanuel Macron.

Macron ostentatiously hesitates to welcome his shopworn converts into the fold, fearing that their conversion makes it too obvious that his “En Marche!” is a clone of the right wing of the PS, on the way to becoming the French subsidiary of the U.S. Democratic Party in its Clintonian form. Macron proclaims that he is neither left nor right, as discredited politicians from both left and right jump on his bandwagon, to his embarrassment.

Hamon himself appears to be unaware that the basic cause of the Socialist Party’s shipwreck is its incompatible devotion to two contrary principles: traditional social democracy, and the European Union (EU). Macron, Hollande and their fellow turncoats at least have made their choice: the European Union.

The Twilight of the Traditional Right

The great advantage of Republican candidate François Fillon is that his policies are clear.  Unlike Hollande, who tried to disguise his neoliberal policies as something else, and based his claim to be on the left on “societal” issues (gay marriage), Fillon is an unabashed conservative.  His policies are designed to reduce the huge national debt. Whereas previous governments (including his own, when he was President Sarkozy’s Prime Minister) beat around the bush, Fillon won the Republican nomination by a program of sharp cutbacks in government spending.  Fillon claims that his austerity measures will lead French capitalists to invest in France and thus save the country’s economy from being completely taken over by foreign corporations, American retirement funds and Qatar.  This is highly doubtful, as there is nothing under EU rules to encourage French investors to invest in France rather than somewhere else.

Fillon departs from EU orthodoxy, however, by proposing a more independent foreign policy, notably by ending the “absurd” sanctions against Russian. He is more concerned about the fate of Middle East Christians than about overthrowing Assad.

The upshot is that Fillon’s coherent pro-capitalist policy is not exactly what the dominant globalizing elite prefers. The “center left” is their clear political choice  since Tony Blair and Bill Clinton revised the agendas of their respective parties. The center left emphasis on human rights (especially in faraway countries targeted for regime change) and ethnic diversity at home fits the long-term globalist aims of erasing national borders, to allow unrestricted free movement of capital. Traditional patriotic conservatism, represented by Fillon, does not altogether correspond to the international adventurism of globalization.

The Schizophrenic Left

For a generation, the French left has made “the construction of Europe” the center of its world view.  In the early 1980s, faced with opposition from what was then the European Community, French President François Mitterrand abandoned the socializing program on which he been elected.  Mitterrand nursed the hope that France would politically dominate a united Europe, but the unification of Germany changed all that. So did EU expansion to Eastern Central nations within the German sphere of influence. Economic policy is now made in Germany.

As the traditional left goal of economic equality was abandoned, it was superseded by emphatic allegiance to “human rights”, which is now taught in school as a veritable religion.  The vague notion of human rights was somehow associated with the “free movement” of everything and everybody. Indeed the official EU dogma is protection of “free movement”: free movement of goods, people, labor and (last but certainly not least) capital. These “four freedoms” in practice transform the nation from a political society into a financial market, an investment opportunity, run by a bureaucracy of supposed experts. In this way, the European Union has become the vanguard experiment in transforming the world into a single capitalist market.

The French left bought heavily into this ideal, partly because it deceptively echoed the old leftist ideal of “internationalism” (whereas capital has always been incomparably more “international” than workers), and partly due to the simplistic idea that “nationalism” is the sole cause of wars.  More fundamental and complex causes of war are ignored.

For a long time, the left has complained about job loss, declining living standards, delocalization or closure of profitable industries, without recognizing that these unpopular results are caused by EU requirements. EU directives and regulations increasingly undermine the French model of redistribution through public services, and are now threatening to wipe them out altogether – either because “the government is bankrupt” or because of EU competition rules prohibit countries from taking measures to preserve their key industries or their agriculture.  Rather than face reality, the left’s reaction has mostly been to repeat its worn-out demand for an impossible “Social Europe”.

Yet the dream of “social Europe” received what amounted to a fatal blow ten years ago. In 2005, a referendum was called to allow the French to approve a Constitution for united Europe. This led to an extraordinary popular discussion, with countless meetings of citizens examining every aspect of this lengthy document. Unlike normal constitutions, this document froze the member States in a single monetarist economic policy, with no possibility of change.

On May 29, 2005, French voters rejected the treaty by 55% to 45%.

What seemed to be a great victory for responsible democracy turned into its major failure.  Essentially the same document, renamed the Lisbon Treaty, was ratified in December 2007, without a referendum.  Global governance had put the people in their place. This produced widespread disillusion with politics as millions concluded that their votes didn’t matter, that politicians paid no attention to the will of the people.

Even so, Socialist politicians continued to pledge undying allegiance to the EU, always with the prospect that “Social Europe” might somehow be possible.

Meanwhile, it has become more and more obvious that EU monetarist policy based on the common currency, the euro, creates neither growth nor jobs as promised but destroys both. Unable to control its own currency, obliged to borrow from private banks, and to pay them interest, France is more and more in debt, its industry is disappearing and its farmers are committing suicide, on the average of one every other day.  The left has ended up in an impossible position: unswervingly loyal to the EU while calling for policies that are impossible under EU rules governing competition, free movement, deregulation, budgetary restraints, and countless other regulations produced by an opaque bureaucracy and ratified by a virtually powerless European Parliament, all under the influence of an army of lobbyists.

Benoit Hamon remains firmly stuck on the horns of the left’s fatal dilemma: determination to be “socialist”, or rather, social democratic, and passionate loyalty to “Europe”. While insisting on social policies that cannot possibly be carried out with the euro as currency and according to EU rules, Hamon still proclaims loyalty to “Europe”. He parrots the EU’s made-in-Washington foreign policy, demanding that “Assad must go” and ranting against Putin and Russia.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon Grasps the Nettle

Not only is the drab, conformist Hamon abandoned by his party heavies, he is totally upstaged on the left by the flamboyant Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a maverick ready to break the rules.  After years as a PS loyalist, Mélenchon broke away in 2005 to oppose the Constitutional Treaty, gaining prominence as a fiery orator. In 2007, he left the Socialist Party and founded the Parti de Gauche (Left Party). Allied with the much weakened Communist Party, he came in fourth in the first round of the 2012 Presidential election with 11% of the vote.  This time he is running for President with his own new movement, La France Insoumise, which can be translated in a number of ways, including “the France that does not submit”.

Submit to what?  Mainly, to the euro and to the antisocial, neoliberal policies of the European Union that are ruining France.

French flags and la Marseillaise have replaced the Internationale at Mélenchon rallies. “The Europe of our dreams is dead,” he acknowledges, vowing to “end the nightmare of dictatorship by banks and finance”.

Mélenchon calls for outright disobedience by violating EU treaties that are harmful to France. That is his Plan A.  His Plan B is to leave the EU, in case Plan A fails to convince Germany (the current boss) and the others to agree to change the treaties. But at best, Plan B is an empty threat to strengthen his hand in theoretical negotiations.  France is such a crucial member, he maintains, that a French threat to leave should be enough to force changes.

Threatening to leave the EU is just part of Mélenchon’s vast and complicated program which includes calling a national convention to draft a constitution for France’s “sixth Republic” as well as major ecological innovation.  Completely changing both France and the European Union at the same time would require the nation to be in a revolutionary effervescence that is by no means visible. It would also require a unanimity among the EU’s 28 member States that is simply impossible.

But Mélenchon is canny enough to have recognized the basic problem: the enemy of jobs, prosperity and public services is the European Union. Mélenchon is by far the candidate that generates the most excitement.  He has rapidly outdistanced Hamon and draws huge enthusiastic crowds to his rallies. His progress has changed the shape of the race: at this moment, he has become one of four front-runners who might get past the first round vote on April 23 into the finals on May 7: Le Pen, Macron, Fillon and himself.

The Opposites are (almost) the Same

A most remarkable feature of this campaign is great similarity between the two candidates said to represent “the far left”, Mélenchon, and “the far right”, Marine Le Pen.  Both speak of leaving the euro.  Both vow to negotiate with the EU to get better treaty terms for France. Both advocate social policies to benefit workers and low income people. Both want to normalize relations with Russia. Both want to leave NATO, or at least its military command.  Both defend national sovereignty, and can thus be described as “sovereignists”.

The only big difference between them is on immigration, an issue that arouses so much emotion that it is hard to discuss sensibly.  Those who oppose immigration are accused of “fascism”, those who favor immigration are accused of wanting to destroy the nation’s identity by flooding it with inassimilable foreigners.

In a country suffering from unemployment, without jobs or housing to accommodate mass immigration, and under the ongoing threat of Islamist terror attacks, the issue cannot be reasonably reduced to “racism” – unless Islamic terrorists constitute a “race”, for which there is no evidence. Le Pen insists that all French citizens deserve equal treatment regardless of their origins, race or religion. She is certain to get considerable support from recently nationalized immigrants, just as she now gets a majority of working class votes. If this is “fascism”, it has changed a lot in the past seventy years.

What is significant is that despite their differences, the two most charismatic candidates both speak of restoring national sovereignty. Both evoke the possibility of leaving the European Union, although in rather uncertain terms.

The globalist media are already preparing to blame the eventual election of a “sovereignist” candidate on Vladimir Putin. Public opinion in the West is being prepared for massive protests to break out against an undesired winner, and the “antifa” militants are ready to wreak havoc in the streets. Some people who like Marine Le Pen are afraid of voting for her, fearing the “color revolution” sure to be mounted against her.  Mélenchon and even Fillon might face similar problems.

As a taste of things to come, on April 20, the EU Observer published an article entitled “Russia-linked fake news floods French social media”. Based on something called Bakamo, one of the newly establishment “fact-check” outfits meant to steer readers away from unofficial opinion, the article accused Russian-influenced web sites of favoring Marine Le Pen, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, François Fillon, Francois Asselineau, and Philippe Poutou. (They forgot to mention one of the most “sovereignist” candidates, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, currently polling in sixth place.)  Since a large majority of the eleven candidates, including three of the four front-runners, are strongly critical of the EU and of NATO and want to improve relations with Russia, it would seem that Putin wouldn’t have to make a great effort to get a more friendly French government next time around.  On the other hand, the EU Observer article is only a small sample of blatant “interference in the French election” on the part of the globalists on behalf of their favorite, Emmanuel Macron, the most enthusiastic Europhile.

The Future of France

Among those listed as alleged Russian favorites, François Asselineau is by far the most thorough critic of the European Union.  Systematically ignored by the media since he founded his anti-EU party, the Union Populaire Républicain (UPR), ten years ago, François Asselineau has thousands of ardent supporters who have plastered his poster all over the country. His tireless didactic speeches, reproduced on internet, have driven home several key points:

– there is no way to improve the EU from the inside, because any change would require unanimity among 27 member states who disagree on key issues.

– the only solution for France is to use Article 50 of the EU treaties to withdraw entirely, as the United Kingdom is currently doing.

– only by leaving the EU can France save its public services, its social benefits, its economy and its democracy.

– it is only by restoring its national sovereignty that genuine democratic life, with confrontation between a real “left” and “right”, can be possible.

– by leaving the EU, France, which has over 6,000 treaties with other countries, would not be isolated but would be joining the greater world.

Asselineau is a single issue candidate.  He vows that as soon as elected, he would invoke Article 50 to leave the EU and immediately apply to Washington to withdraw from NATO.  He emphasizes that none of the other critics of the EU propose such a clear exit within the rules.

Other candidates, including the more charismatic Mélenchon and Le Pen, echo some of Asselineau’s arguments.  But they are not ready to go so far as to advocate a clear immediate break with the EU, if only because they realize that the French population, while increasingly critical of the euro and alienated from the “European dream”, is still fearful of actually leaving, due to dire warnings of disaster from the Europeists.

The first round campaign is an opportunity for Asselineau to present his ideas to a wider audience, preparing public opinion for a more coherent “Frexit” policy.         By far the most fundamental emerging issue in this campaign is the conflict between the European Union and national sovereignty.  It will probably not be settled in this election, but it won’t go away.  This is the major issue of the future, because it determines whether any genuine political life is possible.

Bill Weinberg and the Progressives’ Tourette’s Syndrome

April 19, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Apparently, New York ‘Progressive’ and Jewish activist, Bill Weinberg, thinks that I am “not welcome in NYC”. Over the last ten days, Weinberg has worked tirelessly, trying to cancel a panel discussion on 30th of April at Theatre 80 NYC, related to my forthcoming book ‘Being in Time’.  Theatre 80’s owner, Lorcan Otway, has made it very clear that he won’t surrender to any calls for censorship, but still, Weinberg doesn’t seem to give up. He believes that it is he who will decide who is, and who is not,  “welcome in NYC.”

I don’t know exactly what Weinberg is accusing me of, nor precisely what I am saying that shouldn’t be said or discussed, because Weinberg offers no criticism whatsoever of my work. And there, he’s not alone. I have never seen any criticism of my work. No one has ever disputed the facts to which I refer, or pointed out any faulty arguments in my work. Like the others over the years, Weinberg wants to impose a Talmudic herem, an excommunication, an exclusion zone – just like the one in Palestine.

But what really fascinates me about Weinberg & Co , is their vulgar attitude, an attitude soaked in  violence. In one short paragraph, while inviting their Facebook friends to picket the Theatre 80 event, the Weinbergs call me a ‘racist’, an ‘antisemite’, an ‘all-around human garbage fire’ and just when you think that his Tourette’s syndrome has reached its climax, the same, vile symptoms reappear, I am ‘master shitlord.’ And Lorcan Otway, a NYC cultural hero, Theatre owner and a defender of freedom of speech is reduced into a “slimy venue owner.”

'I hate you' is not exactly a political argument...It is just a progressive mental state...

‘I hate you’ is not exactly a political argument…It is just a progressive mental state…

Needless to say, race, biology and ethnicity have never been any part of my work. My criticism of Jewish politics focuses entirely on cultural and political criticism. But Weinberg, like so many other ‘progressive’ Jews, believes that Jewish culture and politics are simply beyond criticism, in fact, the exact same supremacist attitude on which I focus.

Over the years, I have attained for myself something of a reputation by defining Jewish power as the power to silence discussion of Jewish power and Weinberg is sure trying his best. But will he succeed?

If Weinberg and his four-and-a-half acolytes believe that referring to me as a ‘shitlord’ and my ideas as ‘turd’ will make the Jewish progressive school look humane and advanced, he and his friends must be ever-so-slightly deluded. Such tactics can so easily backfire.

And here, for your delectation, is Weinberg’s call for action:

“No platform for bigotry! Gilad Atzmon is not welcome in NYC!

Racist, antisemite, and all-around human garbage fire Gilad Atzmon is scheduled to speak at Theater 80 on April 30th at 5 PM. I encourage everyone reading this to save the date, get a bunch of your friends together, take the 5/6 to Astor place, or the L to 1st Ave, grab some lunch at one of the neighborhood’s many fine eateries, and then walk on down to 80 St. Mark’s to show master shitlord Gilad Atzmon (and the slimy venue owner what done and booked him) that there is no tolerance for intolerance in NYC, even in the age of Trump.

Spread the word!

A bit of info on the turd and the stink that fills the room whenever he opens his foul mouth: https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/palestinian-writers-activists-disavow-racism-anti-semitism-gilad-atzmon

NY Times: France can only choose between globalization and racism?

April 17, 2017

by Ramin Mazaheri

So there I was again, on an airplane from San Francisco to New York – the “job creators’ red-eye” – and I had plenty of time to read the New York Times’ Roger Cohen cover the French presidential election in an extended Sunday Review format.

Joy of joys! Our “paper of record” has sent Cohen back to cover his old beat for the election. Get ready for some enlightening, edifying, inspirational analysis! Light to the masses from the best of the best – commence!

The title is: “France in the End of Days”. Well…Paris can be gloomy in the spring, I suppose.

Now let’s hear the case before we judge, but let’s make one thing clear: The “Anglo-balization” candidate must win, of course.

“For some time France has been a country that does not like itself.”

Well I know America does not like France – they’re pretty much the only country we can make fun of with total impunity – so I’m glad Cohen began his feature op-ed by writing something that already agrees with my assessment. A good columnist plays to his audience, after all.

But, you know, I met a French guy once and he seemed to go and on about how great French culture was, French history, French language, French food, the French countryside, the French cityside, French painting – I mean that guy loved France to pieces. He must have been an outlier….

Cohen started to write about Marine Le Pen, and at that point I started to notice my hands shaking uncontrollably.

I was about to reach for my medication, because I knew what the problem was: I was going through “Russia withdrawal”: I had been interacting with an American news media for nearly 30 seconds without any reference to Vladimir Putin! That bane of everyone’s existence! The reason for what’s wrong in the world! The cause of my childhood problems! Thankfully, I can save my pills for later because Cohen gave me my fix before his 2nd paragraph was done – tough luck Pfizer!

“President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who has been meddling, would be happy.”

Ahh, we can’t have that! Never-happy Vladdy! That should be a new slogan! Hell, it’s a damned political platform as far as this patriotic American is concerned!

And just read – he has been “meddling”…in France, I assume? Or maybe Cohen means just “meddling” in general? Does Vladimir ever not “meddle” – can’t he just ever mildly “tinker” or “fiddle”?

There are other candidates in the election, apparently.

“…and an extreme leftist, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, of the Unbowed France movement, whose support has surged in recent days. The left, still singing the Internationale and plotting class struggle, is in disarray.”

Seems odd that the extreme left has done well enough to have “surged” and yet is in “disarray”? The existence of such a paradox must be due to the end of days – and today is Easter, no less!

If Melenchon is an “extreme leftist”, then I wonder what’s a communist or even an anarchist? An “extreme extreme-leftist” and an “extreme extreme extreme-leftist?” This is like “postmodernism” – I don’t get any of it. Best to move on to the Times’ approved experts.

Pascal Bruckner, is the lead quote. Ah yes, I remember him: He helped convince everyone to bomb Yugoslavia. He wrote that great updating of Kipling with The Tears of the White Man, which is exactly what it sounds like. And let’s not forget The Tyranny of Guilt – I wondered why he didn’t add “White” in front of “Guilt” that time?

What’s certain is that Bruckner is not the extreme right, much less the extreme extreme-right: Marine Le Pen is!

After all, she called to abolish the CFA Franc in order to return economic independence to 14 African countries, even calling it a “hindrance to the economic development”? Such extreme right tyranny will make White Men in corporations cry tears of guilt over lost profits! Who is she, Ghadaffi, another extreme extreme rightist!

Well, let’s hear what these economic extremists have to say:

“’There is no right or left. This election is about patriotism versus globalization,’ Nicolas Bay, the secretary-general of the National Front, told me.”

You know who else goes on and on about patriotism and its corollary of national sovereignty? Must I name the evil name and risk bad spirits entering my body and requiring more medication? My therapist said it was not enough that Rachel Maddow focused on this man for 53% of her reports over a 6-week period, so I’ll be strong and say it: Putin. My therapist said Maddow needs to bump that percentage up to 80% over 12 weeks – my fingers are crossed, and my TiVo is set.

Cohen then sat down with Emmanuel Macron, who appears to be the only candidate according to many media. I love Cohen’s description of him: “Small, with glittering blue eyes…” Wow, he sounds dreamy, but manageable.

“In an interview, Macron told me: ‘Look, do you want to strengthen Europe, to have a strong reformed France, or do you just want to leave this world and return to the 19th century?’”

You had me at “reformed France”, eyes of blue!

Clearly, There Is No Alternative: more globalism or regression by three centuries. It’s not complicated! America gets this, why can’t France?

“The red state-blue state chasm, in various guises, is the core cultural condition of the West,“ wrote Cohen.

That’s reassuring: the problems with Brussels, Europe’s peculiar history, local specificities – all that is just a “guise,” and not a real difference – France is like us. Or they should be more like us but won’t accept it! Well, Macron will.

Cohen cites a poll conducted in 2014 that found that 74 percent of French workers felt they were no longer “at home”.

I’m not really sure what that means: they’re French…they’re as at home as can be? I mean, the outside world is not your living room, so c’mon – get hip to geography. But this is the existential problem, after all: Where ever you go, there you are…and, sadly, you are French. I don’t have that problem, thankfully.

“Europe used to signify stability and peace,” writes Cohen.

That is absolutely the case! What is all this anti-EU, anti-Euro nonsense I’m reading about?

Of course, there isn’t stability or peace now in Ukraine, or during the breakup of Yugoslavia, or the Cold War, or WWII, or WWI, or the period of conquering colonization, or the period of religious wars. But history books confirm that there was a day – I think it was a Tuesday – back in the year 1145 where not one country in Europe was at war.

“74 percent saw globalization as a threat (while 68 percent of managers saw it as an opportunity).”

Finally, some common sense from the bosses of the common men! There are a lot of private businesses in France, so I’m going to assume that 68% of managers equals an overall majority – stop denying democracy, Le Pen!

Polls are not always interesting.

I have this co-worker whom I can’t stand – his name is Fazlollah Bittermani. No one can pronounce that, so we just call him Lefty. He’s from…someplace west of China and not Europe. Maybe Western China. Nobody can really understand him, but he keeps talking.

We were talking about France and Lefty told me about a poll: he said that 77% of France thinks their parliamentarians are corrupt, so what kind of a democracy is that to emulate? Before I could respond, he said he knew about another poll which found that 99% of 18-34 year-olds all of France’s politicians are corrupt.

My coworkers seemed interested in this, so I quickly asked Fazlollah where he got this information and he said, “Uh….Rachel Maddow”. I told him the truth: such high numbers of dissatisfaction and popular rejection only exist in Russia. I heard murmurs of approval, but perhaps they were of doubt ?

“Fazlollah,” I shouted. “When are you going to finally change your crazy name?! It sounds like you took two totally different names and just joined to them together!”

Everybody laughed! When things are getting away from me I always just make fun of his name. Or better yet, his accent. Lefty just stalked off and went to eat that weird-colored rice stuff he always brings. Rice is supposed to be white!

Anyway, the real problem is not multicolored rice-ism, but the National Front. Cohen will get to the bottom of them – he was introduced to Florian Philippot, one of Le Pen’s top advisers

“Philippot is a slick operator. He did not have time to talk…”

What? Are you saying that Philippot turned down an interview? He deigned to not be in the world’s greatest newspaper, The New York Times?

The effrontery of the man! You don’t have time for the Times? You make time, baby! If not – you are an agent of Trump! Which makes you an agent of Putin! Upon touching down at De Gaulle Airport Roger Cohen became the most credible, the most important journalist possible: a regular columnist for the New York Times! You’re lucky we’re even covering your lousy election because we should be talking about Russia! Now where are my pills?!

Cohen attended a National Front meeting, where this appalling Philippot guy called Macron an agent of high finance. Like it was an insult or something!

“Somebody in the crowd shouted ‘Rothschild!’ and then again ‘Rothschild!’ — a reference to the bank where Macron once worked. The attempt to rid the National Front of its anti-Semitism is clearly a work in progress.”

I’ll admit: I didn’t get this. I didn’t see the link between the fact that Macron worked for the first family of international finance and anti-Semitism.

But now I do: being against the Rothschilds is bad because they are Jewish. And being against any Jew is bad, regardless of what they do personally.

No, wait…I think it’s that Rothschilds are powerful bankers, and that powerful bankers are Jews, and…wait, that’s not coming out right.

Here it is: The National Front supporters hate the Rothschilds because they are Jewish bankers; if the Rothschilds weren’t Jewish, there would be no problem…because National Front supporters love high finance like everyone else!

I have a banker friend – I have many banker friends – who said he was glad the Rothschilds are Jewish – said it was a good distraction. I didn’t get what he meant? Maybe he understood what Cohen meant, too? Anyway, forget about that poseur Philippot.

“Le Pen entered to thunderous applause in a black pantsuit. It’s easy to imagine her an everywoman telling it like it is.”

Roger has an eye for ladies’ fashions – very chic of him – but what were the men wearing? I spend big bucks on my French fashions and want to make sure I’m au courant.

The larger point is: what’s more “everywoman” than a pantsuit? Hillary couldn’t have been more salt of the earth, after all, and she popularized the pantsuit! I like to imagine Hillary in a pantsuit while being a supermarket cashier, farmer, cubicle worker, factory worker, farmer, housewife, etc.

Well, the National Front is a problem in France, but they have even bigger problems.

“Over 31 percent of gross domestic product is spent on health, unemployment and other benefits, compared to 24.6 percent in Germany. France has in effect made a structural choice for unemployment. Everyone knows this.”

What is with the French and their insistence on having a benefit which includes health? Health is not a benefit! And everyone knows the French have made a structural choice for unemployment – it’s great to be unemployed in France!

All those Mohammads and Jean-Claudes and Maries living on their 400 euros a month RSA “benefit” without working…appalling. Oh yes, they chose to be unemployed for so long! I wish I got 400 euros a month for being unemployed! Why I’d cash in my stock options and my 401k and I’d be quite happy with my 400 euros per month, splitting time between my 3 residences, I can tell you that!

What I like about Cohen is that he isn’t afraid to take on the system. That’s why he puts stuff like “the system” in quotes, because the system obviously doesn’t exist:

“Le Pen’s line of attack on Macron is clear: he is the perpetuation of Hollande, the representative of “the system” and a product of “international finance,” with all the attendant innuendo.”

Oh yes, quotes for “international finance” too – it’s like the Mafia, never admit its existence, Roger!

And the “innuendo” is clearly another anti-Semitic trope sniffed out by Cohen! Why, even the New York City WASP bankers are being victimized by this anti-Semitism! The bankers in Hong Kong and Dubai – more victims of clear anti-Semitic innuendo! When will the persecution of bankers end?!

Why are we demonizing the Jews with crazy conspiracy theories when we should be looking at Russia! Thankfully Cohen did with his very next line – thank God (Jewish or not) for honest journalism:

“This attack is pretty disgusting, which is not to say it won’t work. Russia is helping.”

Russia is helping to spread anti-Semitism! Who has Rachel Maddow’s phone number? This is her lead item from tonight until May sweeps week!

Cohen went back to Macron.

“Modernity is disruptive,” Macron declared, “and I endorse that.”

Yes! That is what the people want! Disruptions, not stability! Peace, land, bread – no! Liberty, equality, fraternity – no! Education and safety – no! Modern people prefer disruption, get with the times!

Are you unemployed? It’s simply disruptive modernity, stop whining! Are you laying on a hospital gurney in a hallway instead of being in a room? Being against disruptive modernity is your only illness – walk it off! Can’t hear me because your pension made you choose between heat and hearing aids? VOTE FOR MACRON AND DISRUPTIVE MODERNITY!!!!!

“When neoliberal economics was triumphing everywhere, we refused to adopt it,” said Macron (as Cohen gazed deeply into his glittering blue eyes.) “And now when demagogues are winning, in France pragmatism is going to win.”

This is my guy: the resistance to the triumph of neoliberal economics is the number one problem of Europe. Macron has the eyes of an angel, and the mind of an artist. Which is why Cohen then referenced the great French writer Michel Houellebecq.

Houellebecq is part of that wonderful French intellectual tradition exemplified by that great humanist the Marquis De Sade and Céline, who found Hitler’s tolerance too generous. I once read a poetry book by Houellebecq – The Art of Struggle – his vison of the world is so depressing that when I put it down I sincerely contemplated suicide. What a great artist!

This was really some great journalism right here: Not only did Cohen dare to go the Muslim suburbs, but he actually got a man to go on the record with his first and last name and then publicly turn in his criminal son:

“My son drifts around the projects selling drugs,” he says.

(I’d reprint this father’s name, but I didn’t get the quote of someone accusing someone of a crime – libel laws, and all that.)

But thank God Cohen printed that – I’m sure the police will be immediately notified and his son will be arrested shortly. This is why The New York Times is so good – they find informants, publish them, and help clean up society’s big problems. I’m sure that guy is quite happy he talked to Cohen! His wife, too! Happy Easter!

“As I leave (the 30% immigrant suburb of) Sevran, a lanky kid barges into me. “You could excuse yourself,” he says, looking for a fight. We square up; he moves off, muttering insults. Violence simmers just beneath the surface.”

More anti-Semitism? More anti-high finance sentiment? Was the kid Palestinian – they’re hungry, so they must be lanky? Who is at fault here, Cohen? Please be clearer when including the culture-defining moment of almost bumping into someone on the street. (It can never happen here.)

After this short trip to the Muslim “no-go zones”, Detective Cohen decided one arrest was enough, and he went back to interviewing the National Front.

“Another Macron stumble — the decision to go to Algiers to tell an autocrat that France should apologize for its colonial-era ‘crimes against humanity’ — caused the mayor to explode.”

Totally a stumble, Cohen is right – why should France apologize for colonial era “crimes against humanity”? I’m glad to see Cohen wasn’t bashful with those quotation marks!

Let’s recap: Right-wing author for a lead quote, right-wing writers for cultural reference, right-wing economic Macron, right-wing mayors for interviews, anti-imperialist Algerian government denigrated as “autocrats” – this is the type of American leftist journalism we desperately need! Sorry, Fox News!

“After the meeting, I am joined by two leftists who worked in education before retirement….”

Ohhh, Roger. You’re getting soft – soft like old leftists.

“Their issue is growing inequality and what they call the ‘pauperization’ of France as the welfare state and workers’ rights and salaries are gradually eroded. They wanted a ‘social Europe’; they got what they see as a Europe of ruthless capitalism.”

Pauperization, social Europe – don’t they just look wrong without the quotation marks?

Cohen was smart: He immediately cut this nonsense short by getting the restaurant owner into his discussion with these two ancient, outdated leftists stuck in the past.

“People need to know they can be fired. Otherwise all sense of responsibility is lost. You have to decide in life: Do you want to work or not?”

I say the same thing to my employees: “Do you want to work for ME or not?”

Because my thing is clear: I’m the boss, you are the slave, excuse me, the worker, excuse me that’s too class conscious, the employee.

Anyway, you can’t work for “the people” – we’re cutting government jobs anywhere possible.

So you can work for ME or not work at all, for all I care. I mean, what is this – Russia? I didn’t really mean to write that last part – it just comes out: force of habit.

Cohen gets to the heart of the matter with his final paragraph – a sad lament of a glorious aristocratic past.

“Seeking quiet, I wander into a park that was once the grounds of the chateau where Francis I made French the language of the land. The chateau, its roof sagging, its windows boarded up, is collapsing into ruin.”

Francis I and his ruined feudal-era castle…I’m getting misty. I bet Francis the First was a great man (he was “the first”, after all) but lived modestly in his castle, surrounded by his slaves, I mean his beloved employees, I mean his fellow teammates.

One thing is sure: I bet Francis the First was a wonderful job creator…if the French only listened to him.

Maybe the French will shake off their depressed laziness, avoid the end of days, and vote for Emmanuel the First, I mean Emmanuel Macron?

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s dark side

April 15, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

GA: The following article was posted on The Time Of Israel’s website yesterday morning.  It was then removed by the Zionist outlet.  This is the first time I publish an article by Michael Lesher who is an orthodox Jew as well as a courageous whistleblower. In this article Lesher looks into  the militarism, racism and Zionification that have become dominant within contemporary Jewish orthodoxy.

Please read and spread widely. 

Michael Lesher will join our panel discussion at Theatre 80 NYC on 30 April https://theatre80.wordpress.com/the-post-political-condition-trump-brexit-the-middle-east-what-next/ 

By Michael Lesher

April 18 would have been the 115th birthday of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe. Schneerson, who took over a struggling Brooklyn-based Hasidic sect in 1951, was by his death in 1994 arguably “the most influential Jew since Maimonides,” and it is about that influence I wish to write — particularly because, in the 20-odd years since his death, recollections of the Rebbe’s personal charisma have largely eclipsed the record of his actual teaching.

I note at once that I have neither the expertise nor the desire to try to analyze the whole range of the Rebbe’s religious doctrine. Of his role as clergyman and community leader I have little to say, never having lived in a predominantly Lubavitch enclave. Moreover, since I had no contact with him, I am clearly unequipped to write about the Rebbe’s personal qualities; I am prepared to grant that these were impressive.

I am more concerned with the darker side of what the Rebbe taught.

For that darker side — the farrago of apocalyptic messianism and overt racism at the core of the Rebbe’s teaching — is likely to be his lasting contribution to the Jewish world, in which his prestige (thanks in no small part to popular hagiographies by Joseph Telushkin and Adin Steinsaltz) continues to rise even as serious discussion about his legacy has all but disappeared.

Worse, the Rebbe’s teaching invites serious practical consequences. Some of his most vehement sermons were devoted to the promotion of Mideast militarism. While Israel’s violence against its Palestinian Untermenschen intensified and its attacks on neighboring countries reached new heights of savagery, the Rebbe rationalized the occupation and egged on Israel’s military assault against Lebanon in 1982, as he would cheer on the American-led carnage in Iraq nine years later. Certainly a Muslim cleric who preached similar things would be anathematized throughout the Western world. Why, then, is the Rebbe given a pass for his warmongering in support of the oppression of Palestine — surely the ugliest blot on Jewish tradition in modern times?

The question cannot be shirked. The Rebbe didn’t just tolerate Israeli oppression. He encouraged it.

In Eyes Upon the Land, a book explicitly “based on the public statements and writings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe,” the reader is told that “every inch of territory in Israel,” including “the lands taken in the Six-Day War,” must be held by the use of Jewish military force, regardless of international law or the consequences for the non-Jewish population. Why? Because “the ordinary Arab in the street” seeks nothing less than “Arab dominion over the entire land of Palestine” and regards all Israelis with “deep-seated hatred.” The Rebbe never produced evidence that a nonexistent Palestinian army would somehow overwhelm Israel’s massive military forces — there being none — but the darker question is why the Rebbe’s insistence on Jewish dominion over the same land, and the deep-seated hatred of Palestinians and other Arabs he encouraged (during Israel’s slaughter of over 17,000 people in Lebanon in 1982, the Rebbe repeatedly criticized the Israelis for being too timid) didn’t justify the use of force by Arabs against their Jewish attackers. The only possible answer is the obvious one: Jews were different from non-Jews by definition. Jewish goals mattered to the Rebbe. Arab lives didn’t.

And Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza? During the First Intifada, the Rebbe preached emphatically against the slightest easing of the oppressive conditions that had spurred the desperate (and overwhelmingly nonviolent) popular revolt. “[C]oncessions convince the Arabs of Israeli weakness,” he claimed. “Even mere talk of possible concessions is harmful because it encourages terrorist activity.” Meir Kahane himself could not have said it more brutally.

The mainstream reader seldom hears about any of this: much of what passes for commentary on the Rebbe’s work is mere propaganda. In Toward a Meaningful Life, a book intended as a distillation of the Rebbe’s teachings, Simon Jacobson claims that “the Rebbe taught – and embodied – a distinctly universal message, calling upon all humankind to lead productive and virtuous lives, and calling for unity between all people.” In fact, Schneerson based his teaching on the traditional Hasidic text known as Tanya, a deeply racist work according to which only Jews are endowed with fully human souls. True, Schneerson was far from being the world’s only racist preacher; but it is hard to imagine panegyrics like Jacobson’s being circulated about, say, David Duke.

Nor have only the faithful been playing such games. In her review of two recent biographies of Schneerson for the Wall Street Journal, Dara Horn – after describing the efforts of the Rebbe’s emissaries to persuade Jewish men to don phylacteries and Jewish women to light Friday evening candles — insists that although “[i]t all seems suspiciously cultlike,” these “bearded enthusiasts aren’t out to convert anyone.” Really? It’s true that the only targets of Lubavitch’s missionary activities are Jews — but to deny that they’re “out to convert anyone” makes sense only if you accept the underlying premise that all Jews ought to be Orthodox Jews, if not Lubavitch Hasidim, a position that aligns Ms. Horn with a highly tendentious theological position she fails to acknowledge, let alone to justify.

Schneerson’s warmongering was partly a product of his doctrinal Jewish chauvinism — but it also drew on his fanatical insistence that the end of days was rapidly approaching. “We are now very near the approaching footsteps of Messiah, indeed, we are at the conclusion of this period,” he claimed as far back as 1951. Samuel Heilman and Menachem Friedman, in a relatively clear-headed review of the Rebbe’s career, call it “the story of how one man and some of his followers were swept away by his beliefs and expectations and led to assume that death could be denied and history manipulated.”

But Western media generally disdain religious fanatics who believe they can defy death and turn back the course of history. The Lubavitcher Rebbe alone is treated with kid gloves — even though violence was among the tools with which he sought to change reality. Witness the silence that followed this fulsome encomium from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach in the Observer:

“His [the Rebbe’s] moral authority and unparalleled humanity inspired in all who met him a desire to be better…. [S]eeing the dignity he accorded all who came to seek his blessing his admirers ceased judging people who were different.”

Those fine sentiments will be news to Palestinians, for whom the Rebbe expressed nothing but loathing and contempt. And the Rebbe’s “unparalleled humanity” had no problem with extolling Israeli massacres in Lebanon and the slaughter of Iraqis in 1991.

Yes, religious leaders can be complicated figures, and I am willing to grant that other aspects of the Rebbe’s teaching may be genuinely inspirational. But until we come to terms with the dark side of his career, we will not be able to shake off his complicity — and ours — in the long-running crimes of the Jewish state which, in the Rebbe’s perverse preaching, became acts of piety.

The Strangest Fruit of All

Millennials today have lived their entire lives in a culture
in which deprecatory remarks about whites are viewed as trendy and acceptable…

By Richard Edmondson

Whether the film “Stranger Fruit” was intended to inflame racial tensions in America, it likely will have that effect. The film rehashes events surrounding the 2014 shooting of African-American teen Michael Brown by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, purportedly shedding new light on the case by means of previously unreleased video footage.

Made by Jewish filmmaker Jason Pollock, the film debuted at the South By Southwest Film Festival on March 11 and has been referred to as an “explosive documentary.” Pollock apparently took the title from the song, “Strange Fruit,” recorded by Billie Holiday in 1939, whose lyrics deal with the lynching of blacks in the southern United States during the post-reconstruction era. A stanza from the song goes:

Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black body swinging in the Southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pollock’s choice of the title for his film is not exactly a subtle literary allusion. The song was named “song of the century” by Time Magazine in 1999.

In the film, Pollock alleges that Brown did not rob the Ferguson convenience store he was said to have robbed, basing his claim on security video taken inside the store but which previously had been unreleased to the public. Pollock claims in the film that the footage proves Brown did not carry out a robbery of the store but that he had merely returned to pick up merchandise he had previously paid for–it is a claim that has been refuted by St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch and by Jay Kanzler, an attorney representing the owner of the market, both of whom have accused the filmmaker of selectively editing the footage.

You can go here to see a two and a half minute segment from the film that contains the security video and Pollock’s narrative on what it purportedly shows…and you can go here to see the response by Kanzler, whose presentation includes footage that Pollock edited out of the video. I suggest you review both and make up your own mind about who is telling the truth.

You can also go here and see a video of Pollock exploding in anger during an interview on Fox News.

“He [Brown] didn’t rob the store, and anyone who sees the exchange that takes place with a conscience, a heart, two minds and is not a bigot, pretty much understands what happened,” he tells the Fox interviewer.  “Unfortunately, there’s so many people in America with so much bias inside of them, that they just want to think that Michael Brown is a bad guy.”

The presumptive implication is that the police officer in Ferguson killed Brown for no other reason than because of his skin color.

Additionally, Pollock told CNN that, “I obtained this video by deciding to move to Ferguson, work with the family, and do real investigative journalism for the last two years. And that’s how the truth comes out.”

Of course if Pollock had wanted to make a film about people being killed solely because of their ethnicity, he could go to Israel, where he would find a much greater abundance of material for an investigative journalist to work with than he would ever find in America. Does it not bother Pollock that our own government, the US government, gives the Jewish state billions of dollars a year to maintain an illegal occupation? And that in turn Israel routinely kills civilians in the course of maintaining this occupation?

Imagine how many family members of Palestinians shot in cold blood by Israeli forces Pollock could get interviews with were he to move to Israel and “do real investigative journalism” for two years, and imagine the quality documentary this enterprising social justice advocate could produce as a result were he to undertake such an effort!

I took the trouble to visit Pollock’s Facebook page. In addition to numerous posts promoting his new film, you can also find posts about white people. “Dear white people, it’s time to wake up,” he says in one:

He also apparently thinks there are too many white people working as interns in Washington…

And apparently he opposes any restrictions on immigration–to America…

The filmmaker also has concerns about Russian hacking…

…but nowhere on his Facebook page could I find any mention of Israel, and I scrolled the timeline back for nearly a year.

I have asked this question before, but I will ask it again here: why do so many US Jews stridently condemn racism in America but have nothing to say about it in Israel? Racism does exist in America, but America does not define itself narrowly and specifically as a state for people of this or that religion or ethnicity. The same cannot be said of Israel.

And how does Israel’s defining of itself as a “Jewish state” translate into daily life? What is the net effect of its policies for those who must live under its occupation? If you go here you can read the precise legal definition of genocide as defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the UN in 1948. What you will notice is that much of it describes, almost to a T, what Israel is doing today to the Palestinians. But yet US Jews like Pollock apparently have nothing to say about it.

As I said above, racism does exist in America…and a significant portion of it is directed against white people. That’s because racism against white people is seldom if ever condemned or called what it is. Imagine if someone were to say in condescending tones: “Dear black people, it’s time to wake up,” or “Dear Jews, it’s time to wake up.” That person would immediately be accused of racism or anti-Semitism. And if they were white, they would be accused of “white supremacism” as well. But Pollock obviously had no fear of posting such words about white people on his Facebook page–and for good reason. In the culture which currently exists in America, it is acceptable to denigrate white people.

Look at the millennial protesters at this anti-Trump protest in Portland, some of them yelling out the racial epithet “white trash.” These are people of course who would never dream of shouting derogatory remarks about any other race or ethnic group.

The irony, of course, is that some of the people shouting “white trash” are white themselves. But here again, it’s not terribly surprising. Millennials today have lived their entire lives in a culture in which deprecatory remarks about whites are viewed as trendy and acceptable.

By contrast, every single person in America is well aware of the fact that making racist slurs against nonwhites or voicing anti-Semitic remarks about Jews can get you fired from your job. We even have seen university professors fired or denied tenure for nothing more than criticizing Israel.

The period we are going through now is in many ways unprecedented. We live in a time in which hurling any kind of baseless accusation against Russia is wholly permissible, encouraged even, but in which we have to cautiously watch what we say about Israel. The truth of the matter, however, is that Israel exerts far more influence over US elections than Russian “hackers” ever dreamed of. Consider that, and then factor in two other elements to the equation as well: efforts to inflame racial tensions in America and efforts to provoke a war with Russia. The picture that emerges is not pretty.

So what chance do Americans today have of regaining our independence from the Jewish lobby which controls our government? It’s hard to give definitive odds on that, but one thing is for sure: Israel, out of all nations on this beset and torn-apart earth, is one strange fruit.

And the Jews who lash out angrily at others for alleged racism–while at the same time supporting their own apartheid Jewish state–are perhaps the strangest fruit of all.

%d bloggers like this: