mercredi 1 août 2012

Head is tail and black is white

Depuis une quarantaine d’années l’antisémitisme est le schibboleth de la conscience morale occidentale, la pierre de touche infaillible de la moralité occidentale contemporaine qui autorise la mise en œuvre éhontée d’une aptitude acquise à la culpabilité permettant de distinguer selon un critère exclusif et irréfragable les salauds irrécupérables (les antisémites dont je suis, ceux qui n’adhèrent pas) des autres (ceux qui se taisent).

Être « anti-raciste » c'est un slogan qui se veut universel, tous les hommes, quoique différents, sont égaux (on le croit ou pas, c'est autre chose) et par definition il n'y a pas d'exception et pas d'hommes ou de groupes plus « égaux » que les autres.

Toute adjonction et/ou singularisation est logiquement impossible, il n'y a dans la nature qu'une race humaine avec de nombreuses variantes, et toute différence entre les hommes ne peut être que culturelle et là encore c'est universel, effectivement il y a une multitude de groupes sociaux très différents les uns des autres à tous points de vue.

Nous vivons maintenant dans un registre de valeurs où s'est établie l'équation Juifs = le Bien au sens quasi platonicien which is beyond any scrutiny or critics. Just to be sure, Judaïsm is nothing else but a religion carried on by the purported descendants of a sect of shepherds and fruit pickers living in a small portion of the Middle East some twenty five centuries ago. A religion which is a closed system based on the law of blood contrary to all other religions in the world as far as I know.

The law of blood is the very definition of racism since it doesn't acknowledge someone's merits and value on h/h achievements but only according to the genes h/h biological body is made of. Which is scientifically a complete lunacy of course but the sort of which that makes the same distinction as that the Pures make between them and the Dalits.

Contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme. L’expression est consacrée, l’un ne va pas sans l’autre. Pourquoi pas Contre le racisme et l’anti-sinisme? Ou l’anti-slavisme? Ou l’homophobie? Qu’est-ce donc que cette catégorie tellement différente des autres hommes qu’il faut l’identifier et la singulariser comme telle? Serait-ce parce qu’il s’agit du peuple élu? Mais alors qui est “raciste” dans ce cas si ce n’est ceux qui insistent pour se voir différencier de la communauté humaine?

Qui ne voit que cette association Contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme - qui est maintenant devenue pavlovienne - est très exactement une contradiction interne qui affirme précisément le contraire de ce qu’elle prétend signifier?

The association "against racism and antiSemitism" is an utterly nonsensical one since it pretends to combat racism (what is it? by the way)  on the one hand and protect its very existence and practice on the other hand. What about "against racism and in favour of racism" then?

By mean of some sort of linguistical entryism, Judaism, which is a minuscule racist and excluding sect, has associated itself with a universal message of tolerance and open mindedness. And guess what? Since two or three generations have been continuously brainwashed and immersed in the belief that Judaism = Good per se and criticism of Good = Bad per se, hundreds of millions people in the world in total good faith and no less total ignorance and whose critical thinking has been castrated make theirs a cause which basically exclude them like the Pures exclude the Dalits.  

So when I state that I am an avowed anti Semite what else do I say but that I'm against racism and discrimination? Just that it will be translated like I am an accomplice of Auschwitz et al. Guilt anybody?

Moins les mots sont précis, plus leur signification originelle est diluée jusqu'à être détournée et remplacée par son contraire, plus est facile la manipulation des esprits qui n'ont plus d'appuis sûrs pour étayer un raisonnement ou exprimer des opinions raisonnablement fondées. Which is which when head is tail and black is white?

A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words

42 commentaires:

Ned Ludd a dit…

Gore Vidal, one of the U.S.'s rare public intellectuals died yesterday. He was a great "nay sayer" to the common political thought and understood our position in the cosmos,

“Because there is no cosmic point to the life that each of us perceives on this distant bit of dust at galaxy’s edge, all the more reason for us to maintain in proper balance what we have here. Because there is nothing else. No thing. This is it. And quite enough, all in all.”

Another intellectual that I was intending to mention first Stephen Jay Gould but events changed things,

"There are no shortcuts to moral insight. Nature is not intrinsically anything that can offer comfort or solace in human terms – if only because our species is such an insignificant latecomer in a world not constructed for us. So much the better."

Anijo a dit…

Upon leaving your blog, Flocon, I always end up with a window which has various requests. This evening 'Holly' wanted to chat with me. 'Holly' was scantily dressed and I presume the chat would be somewhat sexual in nature. ☺

Anijo a dit…

Terry Gross, of NPR, rebroadcasted a very enjoyable interview with Gore Vidal this afternoon.

Flocon a dit…

This evening 'Holly' wanted to chat with me. 'Holly' was scantily dressed and I presume the chat would be somewhat sexual in nature. ☺

Or maybe she wanted some more precision about eschatology? Next time she pops in I suggest you invite to exchange about patrology...

Anyway, I'm not surprised about that. After all the hot links that are provided here by the usual suspect, what else would you expect? And to think I reinstalled my computer just eight days ago. Now they sure got my number!

I had to look on Wiki who Terry Gross is. I had no idea Terry was a female first name like here.

Other than that, I have difficulties with this post since I want to avoid any "meme" for a starting sentence, otherwise I know I would be in for it.

Alors je ne sais toujours pas par quel bout commencer {^_^}

Ned Ludd a dit…

Flocon, your title, "Head is tail and black is white" certainly applies to the U.S. Did you know that if you call the emergency number 911 because you see someone in trouble, you can be billed for medical their medical treatment if they don't have insurance?

Moral people do the right thing, whether they are religious or not for its own sake, not for reward or fear of punishment.

But in the U.S. you can get punished for doing the right thing, as happened to two lifeguards recently.

One was fired and another received medical bills. If they get a reward, it is probably just some cheap medal. Read some of the comments.

So if you dial 911, you probably should give a fake name or maybe the name of some asshole you know. That's probably illegal too.

ZapPow a dit…

@ Ned

Il y a eu aussi dernièrement ce sauveteur de Floride renvoyé pour avoir sauvé quelqu'un hors de sa zone d'intervention (il a été réintégré depuis, suite à l'intervention du public).

Mais ce n'est pas qu'aux US. En Europe aussi. Par exemple, si vous tombez sur les candidats immigrants illégaux en difficulté en mer et que conformément au droit international et aux règles maritimes vous leur venez en aide, remorquez leur bateau, leur donnez à boire ou à manger, vous pouvez être poursuivi par la justice, votre bateau peut être saisi, et autres joyeusetés.

Ned Ludd a dit…

Flocon, Helen Thomas la doyenne des journalistes aux EU a été "démissionée" par le lobby zioniste à cause des comments qu'elle a fait sur Israel.

Elle avait la temérité de plaider la cause des Palestinians.

Flocon a dit…

Yes Ned, and Shall we talk? était déjà là il y a deux ans.

Keep mum about it ;-)

I also note that it is possible to write that the Arabs are not sympathetic, an opinion that I globally share, but it would be extremely hazardous to write, in France as well as in the US, that the Jews are not sympathetic...

Anonyme a dit…

//the Jews are not sympathetic...//

In the US, one can say this without hazard. Noam Chomsky, for example, regularly writes scathing essays about Jews in the US and Israel, and suffers not at all.

But it would be false to say it in the US, because Americans, on the whole, do find the Jews to be sympathetic.

//the Jews are not sympathetic...//

I agree it is hazardous to say this publicly in France.

But it would be true to say it in France, because the French, on the whole, privately to not find the Jews to be sympathetic.


Flocon a dit…

I didn't mean that criticizing the Jews in the U.S would be followed by a single ticket to some reeducation camp, but rather that someone saying on any radio/tv that h/s finds the Jews not sympathetic would experience instant demonization.

This is precisely what happened to Helen Thomas two years ago.

As regards Chomsky, he's a Jew himself and - for what I know - is more critical of Israel than he is of the Jews or Judaism.

Zionists can tolerate criticism when it comes from a Jew because they consider it harmless to their final goal which is the creation of Eretz Yisrael. But when their very raison d'être is under attack, they are mercyless, wherever thier perceived threat comes from, Jewish or not.

"it is hazardous to say this publicly in France".

Do you mean I should pack and prepare to go to one of the numerous reeducation camps that sparse the French country side?

"the French, on the whole, privately to not find the Jews to be sympathetic."

On the whole and privately don't go well together, in fact this is an oxymoron.

Other than that, I'm impressed by your thorough knowledge of the private thoughts and feelings of the French (as a whole). Just, if it's private, how do you know? {{reference needed}} as we ask on Wikipedia ;-)

Ned Ludd a dit…

Semper Fi,

Both in the U.S. and France one takes a personal risk in critizing Israel. Two professors, Norman Finkelstein and Juan Cole, were denied tenured positions at respectively Duke and Yale, even after both getting faculty approval. Because of their opinions critical of Israel, the Zionist lobby put pressure on the university presidents and boards to reverse the faculty's decisions. That is rather rare. There is a rightwing racist group, Campus Watch, which participated in it and regularly tries to prevent what they consider leftist or anti-Israel professors from getting jobs and trying to get them fired if they have one. They use unabashed defamation and are allied with racist, Zionist professor Alan Dershowitz. He can have a job, but not those who disagree with him.

In France, controversial writer, Alain Soral and his audience have been twice attacked with baseball bats and clubs at bookstore events for signing his books. The police of course never found the agressors. He has also been attacked in the street. If this happened to a Jewish writer, I think they would have been found. He has also been found guilty and fined for "racial defamation" for saying on tv to Zionist Jews that they should consider, "maybe there are problems that come from you. Maybe you had made some errors...I think that there is a psychopathology, you see, of Zionist-Judaism which relates to mental illness." He also said that memorials to the Shoah were "an obscene production".

The actor and standup comic, Dieudonné, has also had his show violently attacked because of his anti-Israel remarks. In one case a spectator was wounded when someone threw a bottle of corrosive liquid into the theater, and he has been attacked in the theater in Paris that he owns. In several cases in France, but also in Belguim and Canada, his shows have been canceled by the local authorities or by the police, with no explanation. His film "The Anti-Semite" was canceled at the Cannes Film Market. He has been fined several times for "defamation", once for saying that the media exploitation of the Holocaust was "memorial pornography".

Both men have confusing contradictions in their careers and have other controversies following them, but that doesn't justify the actions taken against them.

Look up their biographies on Wiki.

Anonyme a dit…

//On the whole and privately don't go well together, in fact this is an oxymoron.//

Not in English. It is not uncommon for a belief to be widely held in a group (i.e. "on the whole") but spoken only in private conversation and not publicly.

An American example would be the widely held belief that affirmative action often promotes unqualified minorities at the expense of better qualified whites. This belief is widely held, but rarely expressed publicly.

In my experience, this is the case with the French and their sympathy with the Jews. For example, all the French posters on this blog find the Jews to be unsympathetic. But, as the French posters point out, these views are rarely seen in public discourse in

Flocon a dit…


Re Dieudonné, Shall we talk? was already on the watch nearly 5 years ago...

Je suis assez d'accord avec la qualification de « pornographie mémorielle » employée par Dieudonné. Il n'y a pas de semaine qu'ARTE, la chaîne de la repentance, ou une quelconque châine de télé n'en reserve une couche dans le registre "repent sinners, repent".

Cela a bien marché pendant une trentaine d'année (avec l'arrivée de Mitterrand je crois) mais le seuil de saturation est largement dépassé et la troisième génération depuis la guerre n'est plus du tout réceptive.

Raison pour laquelle peut-être, les Sionistes ont recours à la violence physique quand la propagande officielle n'est plus aussi efficace depuis une dizaine d'années.

Flocon a dit…


Merci pour l'explication relative au "on the whole " et "private", my previous remark may not have been so smart in the end.

" all the French posters on this blog find the Jews to be unsympathetic."

On parle de moi? It can only be me here since ZapPow who's French has never said anything on this issue and Ned (I suppose) has dual citizenship but also hasn't stated that she finds the Jews unsympathetic.

There are two issues here, Judaism and Zionism.

Le Judaïsme ne m'est pas plus sympathique qu'aucune autre religion, provided the Jews keep themselves to themselves, what do I care? Safe that Zionism is inherent to Judaism which makes it hard to tell which is which.

Yes, I deeply dislike Zionists as much as I dislike those of the Jews wo insist to make me know they're Jewish, sons of Israel and members of the chosen people blablabla.

On the other hand, send me as many Jews you want provided their names are Freud, Kafka, Serge Gainsbourg, Joe Dassin, René Goscinny etc.

Here is a list of French Fews.

Please note that the page doesn't even exist in French...

How sympathetic do you find trotskystes SemperFidelis? ;-)

Anonyme a dit…

//How sympathetic do you find trotskystes//

I find them to be unsympathetic. And I can talk about it without hazard. Except on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley.

I am thinking about a response to your link about drones.

No connection with thinking about Trotskyites.


Anijo a dit…

hmmm.. perhaps some peoples' experiences with guilt re Jewish holocaust and other peoples' guilt re affirmative action have resulted in a somewhat jaded view of said guilt put upon those who had nothing to do with the sins of their ancestors.

Anonyme a dit…

Anijo: For my part, I do not believe that affirmative action in employment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has effected any significant discrimination against whites. But I believe that many working-class white men are convinced that they are at a disadvantage in getting a job and in getting promoted. The studies seem to show that reverse discrimination is insignificant, but these men are not reading studies.

But voluntary affirmative action in university admissions is, I think, pernicious. This affirmative action is not required by the government, but is instead self-imposed by faculties for ideological reasons. White men do regularly strike these discriminatory systems down with litigation under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment (see the Bakke and U. of Michigan cases). And the voters are increasingly outlawing them in referenda (see the California example).
I think the future of these academic affirmative action programs is doubtful in the long term. White men are already a minority on campus. Efforts to restrict admission of Asian students in the California system have embarrassed university administrators and disgusted voters. And it is the voters, after all, who pay for these public universities.


Ned Ludd a dit…

Flocon and Semper Fi,

I first became aware of Palestine at the university in about 1969 when Zionists zealots tried to have the school student newspaper closed because it published a series of articles supporting the Palestinians.

I became aware of the injustice towards them, but at the time, opposition to the Vietnam War took up my time. Then in the 70's it was opposition to U.S. support for Latin American dictators and death squads, often trained at the notorious School of the Americas where they learned torture as well as military skills.

Finally, since the 80's I turned again to the Palestinian issue and studied the history, which gave total disgust with Zionism which for me is ideologically close to Nazism, only the victims differ.

I agree, "Le Judaïsme ne m'est pas plus sympathique qu'aucune autre religion". As to Jews, I am mystified that some are described as "atheist Jew". Either you are an atheist or not. No one describes me as an "atheist Christian".

"Jews" have had a great influence on my world view in philosophy, science, and literature: Herbert Marcuse and the Frankfurt School, Richard Feynman, Jonathan Miller, Arthur Schnitzler, Stefan Zweig, and many others.

I am unsympathetic to religious Jews, the same goes for all other religious people, and I am unsympathetic to racist Israel and the great majority of Israeli Jews. Israel was created by Jewish terrorists like Begin and Shamir who were fascists that created the terrorist Likud Party. There is even a museum in Israel dedicated to criminals like the Stern Gang.


Flocon, "Safe that Zionism is inherent to Judaism". It should be "save". I only mention it because it is the second time I noticed you have made the mistake.:)

Ned Ludd a dit…

It may be a bit of a stretch, but there are certain things in common with the overthrow of the last Queen of Independent Hawaii by American terrorists and the illegal annexation by the U.S.

President Cleveland opposed it, "... if a feeble but friendly state is in danger of being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the name and power of the United States, the United States cannot fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make all possible reparation."

He was succeeded by McKinley who approved it, and Cleveland said, "I am ashamed of the whole affair."

Imagine that, a U.S. President who had some morals. Technically, Hawaii should still be independent.

I may have previously written on this here or SF.

Flocon a dit…


"...because the French, on the whole, privately do not find the Jews to be sympathetic".

Beware of over generalisations in the first place ;-)

We no longer live at the end of the XIXth century and indeed, the French Catholics had then an outright detestation of the Jews which caused Dreyfus to be convicted etc. and then rehabilitated, you know the story.

However, will you please note that Dreyfus was a capitaine in the French army which isn't a mere rank and file position if I'm not mistaken. How many Jews or colored people were officers in the U.S army in 1900?

The religious issue was a very hot topic by then with the separation of Church and the State, there's nothing here that you don't already know of course.

But then, one century later, the religious issue is almost dead in France contrary to what seems to be the case in the U.S (as seen from Europe).

Whether they have some religious faith or not, Americans (for what I understand) are immersed in a very religious atmosphere which of course to some extent impacts ways of thinking and reasoning and also leads to projections on how the outside world behaves regarding those issues at home.

Simply, those issues are next to non existent in Europe globally speaking (the Portuguese and the Poles are still stuck in a Middle-Age approach to these problems though).

The question then is not whether "the French" like or dislike the Jews in their innermost, the answer is overwhelmingly that they f. don't care a fig about the Jews provided said Jews keep their faith to themselves and don't ostensibly provoke those who have the misfortune not to belong to the chosen people. But these are Zionists and indeed, save the Zionists, who can possibly have any sympathy for them???

"The French", as a whole, like the rest of Europe, are much, much, much more concerned with the Muslims than they are with the Jews, no dout about it.

Laïcité here isn't just a vague concept devoid of any actual reality like is the case with "democracy".

Both the Zionists and the Islamists are currently testing how much the French Republique believes in its fundamental values and how far they can go in order to obtain some concessions that they will then take for granted. Like grabing land piece by piece until the lost territories for the Republique will be a gained foothold for the religious zealots.

And that's why I hate them both in the same manner.

ZapPow a dit…

I don't find the Jews unsympathetic. I don't find them sympathetic either. I just don't see how the mere fact of being Jew, or whatever, can make one sympathetic, or unsympathetic. And I don't bother to know if some one is, or isn't jewish, even when I'm discussing with zionists (a political movement I don't like), since there is no fatality that makes a Jew zionist, or a non-Jew non-zionist.

Anonyme a dit…


As pertains your political awareness of the Zionist issue, since I'm slow at the uptake (which is unusual for premature ejaculators... ooops sorry, c'est parti tout seul, ooops sorry again, ça m'a échappé, argg.. je n'ai pas pu m'en empêcher... ah the horror, it's getting even worse), I was totaly unaware and uninformed re Israel and the Palestinians until less than ten years ago.

Of course I knew there existed a country named Israel etc. the 6 day war etc. but I just had no opinion save precisely that of SemperFidelis : Israel was a modern country more or less resembling ours and the terrorists were the bad guys who were launching rockets in the south of Israel just for the fun of their sadistic nature...

I'm not proud about that but eventually, like did Kant, I woke up from my dogmatic sleep. Apart from my own and personal lack of curiosity, you can put the blame on the "right" message the French media has been propagating to the masses for as long as I remember.

I vividly remember a program aired on one of the two State channels right after the 6 day war (I was hardly 15) which was
an unabashed and scandalously pro Israel piece of disinformation.

When you're 15, living in a next to totally apolitical background (apparently of course, because when one grows in a neurotic environment, he/she simply cannot possibly see and understand which are the forces that are acting on him/her), after seeing such a piece of deliberate propaganda, you cannot but become a friend of Israel.

Another more recent souvenir:

Kohl had been invited by Giscard (who was no longer president) in the mid 80s and both men were on a TV set (Antenne 2 probablement) and the issue was more or less the state of relations between France and Germany.

And then, after the usual bla bla bla presentation, a program was aired which was literally filled with footages of concentration camps, horror images and all the usual propaganda material (slow motion passages, cello playing in the lowest range, sepulchral voice etc.).

Even if I wasn't politically aware even when I was 30 something, I was utterly shocked by this outrageous insult to a German guest who, like Giscard and me, was absolutely innocent of the gilt the Jews behind the commands were trying to force on him.

Giscard then, rather angrily, emitted some protest at the end of the program whereas, in my opinion, he should have left the set and apologized to Kohl.

In my naivete, I thought that there would be some reactions the day after for such an humilating piece of garbage slung at the head of Kohl. It really was like the message was: We'll make you too the line and rub your f. nose in your f. German shit!

Bonjour la réconciliation franco-allemande dont les Juifs n'ont rien à f. bien au contraire même. See how Sarko during a meeting in Nice in 2007 shouted to the crowd: "Et je veux le dire parce que c'est ma vérité, au plus profond de moi-même : la France n'a commis aucun génocide, la France n'a pas inventé la solution finale".

Flocon a dit…

I don't know whether the French as a whole like or dislike the Jews but one thing is sure, the Jewish lobby is at the command of the media in France, not that it's actually the owner of the media apparal but by mean of gilt, it can tell "Good" from "Bad" and knows how to impose political correctness. Where's Nietzsche and his Genealogy of moral when we need him?

Sarko, who is of Jewish descent (which didn't prevent 17 millions voters to give him their voice, talk of French antisemitism) with his Zionist friends.


re the safe instead of save, may I plead a momentary lapse on attention?

Anijo very sternly scolded me last year on this subject so I should be more cautious. But also, maybe do I like it when Anijo scolds me?

And also, "safe" is so closed to the French "sauf".

ZapPow a dit…

And "sauf" means "except", and "safe".

Anijo a dit…

I just don't see how the mere fact of being Jew, or whatever, can make one sympathetic, or unsympathetic. And I don't bother to know if some one is, or isn't jewish

Now here is an intelligent, tolerant way of discussing this issue.

Anijo a dit…


I do understand that affirmative action can, in some circumstances, be somewhat pernicious.

Anonyme a dit…

The post by anonyme brought back a vivid memory of the American reaction to the Six Day War.

A poster very popular on my University campus featured Moshe Dayan wearing a broad grin, his signature eyepatch, khaki shirt open three buttons from the top to display a manly chest, the very picture of military virility. In his right hand he holds a rough, fat cigarette. Behind him, for as far as the eye can see, stretches a line of shot-up Russian tanks and trucks of the Egyptian Army. Beside this mechanical debris are abandoned rifles, packs, helmets, even shoes. A classic portrait of an army in rout.

The caption reads.. "Smoke Egyptian cigarettes. I always do."

This poster appealed to Americans. We find winners sympathetic.


Flocon a dit…

Well, "Anonyme" was me actually, and the reason why the comment didn't appear under my name will remain a mystery only Blogger will ever understand...

This poster appealed to Americans. We find winners sympathetic.

Err... with all due respect there's nothing specifically American here. The poster you refer to appeals to human tendancy to identification with the survivor in the struggle for life process.

Now, the humoristic part of the story depends on which side one stands of course.

The same sort of poster the French would have found hilarious on December 2nd 1805 at Austerlitz, then the Germans in June 1940 and also the Vietnamese on April 30th 1975. Americans then probably wouldn't have found any similar poster to be so excruciatingly funny after all...

Ned Ludd a dit…

I have posted this before, if not here, elsewhere. Back in 2006, Richard Cohen of the Washinton Post, not an opponent of Israel that I know of, wrote:

"The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself."

Anonyme a dit…


" there is no fatality that makes a Jew zionist, or a non-Jew non-zionist."

The first part of your sentence is debatable but that would lead us too far. As regards to the second part, there is a big problem logically wise here.

A non-Jew being a goy, I just can't see why a goy would be non-zionist, that is in fact Zionist.

Du point de vue de la logique formelle et binaire, ce serait comme si une non-femme n'était pas un homme.

Les deux négations dans ta phrase se retournent en deux affirmations.

Pour le reste je suis d'aintelligent, tolerant way of discussing this issue.ccord, " I just don't see how the mere fact of being Jew, or whatever, can make one sympathetic, or unsympathetic. And I don't bother to know if some one is, or isn't jewish, "

Problem is that sooner or later most Jews will feel the need to tell others that they actually are Jewish. I DON'T CARE AND I DON'T WANT TO KNOW!

Pourquoi ce besoin quasi existentiel d'affirmer sa judéité aux yeux des autres si ce n'est pour affirmer sa différence?

You may remember Tchéni at SF's, a brilliant young man and a master in the fine art of eristic who after two or three years when this particular issue had never been discussed, somehow made his coming out in a totally unnecessary fashion (there's no necessity for that anyway in my opinion)

Stating that he was Jewish was like stating that his ancestors, the majority of his ancestors were direct descendants of a tribe living in the M.E over 2000 years ago? Come on...

Also at SF', there was a guy whose pseudo was something like RCFS (Racing Club de Football de Strasbourg yes...) qui a déboulé un jour et dont on a appris dès le deuxième commentaire qu'il était Juif et que vive Israël etc.

I remember asking him if he had read the book by Spinoza that I have already mentioned. He hadn't of course, said book not being exactly part of the portable library of the Jews.

About 50% of his comments were filled with sexual innuendos (rather amusing I admit) but too much being too much, M.E who wasn't too much of a shy and innocent lamb on this issue, asked him if he had no other ways of participating to SF’s blog.

Anyway, one day the conversion probably evolved around Israel and the usual follow up and he left in anger never to return; having found out that SF's blog was a hotbed of antiSemitism;

En plus ce n'est pas moi qui l'ai fait partir...

Other than that, I'm trying to compete in Anijo's "intelligent, tolerant way of discussing this issue" department but I know this is a lost cause for me, I'm not up to her expectations and standards :-(

Flocon (Blogger is driving me mad really! Grrrrrr.

ZapPow a dit…


Peut-être aurait-il mieux valu avoir écrit qu'il n'y a pas de fatalité qui fasse d'un Juif un sioniste, ou d'un Goy un antisioniste ?

Anonyme a dit…

Oui, en fait j'ai dû me mélanger un peu les pédales parce qu'en français c'est plus clair pour moi alors qu'en fait c'est bien ce que tu disais en anglais. My bad :-(

Pendant que ça me vient à l'esprit, une non-femme qui ne serait pas un homme ça fait un peu rencontre du troisième type, jeu de mot qui ne passe pas en anglais.

To Anijo, Rencontre du troisième type is the French title for Close Encounter of the Third Kind. Just that the third kind, that is le troisième type also means “the third guy”.


Anijo a dit…

Thanks for the explanation Flocon. In the end, all of this discussion of Jews is too complex for me. I don't get it.

Flocon a dit…


Yes, I remember you gave that quote from Richard Cohen some time ago. Just that I mistook him with someone else on the NYT.

Anyway, I've read the piece at the end of your link and it is indeed well thought in my opinion.

But this raises another interesting question: Someone, could be everybody at any given time of one's life, has a clear view of a situation, a problem, a predicament whatever but nonetheless pursues h/h drive in a certain direction knowing full well there's a discrepancy between what h/h knows and what h/s does.

Re what Cohen says about the initial mistake, Shall we talk? was already here four and a half years ago with you and Anijo commenting.

I had forgotten your comments and mines as well...

Flocon a dit…


" In the end, all of this discussion of Jews is too complex for me."

À la fin des fins, ce n'est pas si compliqué.

C'est comme Curiosity, the Mars explorer device. It is eventually extremely complex eveyone knows that, not knowing though how much complex it can be.

Then you resort to the Cartesian method as exosed in the "Discourse on the Method", part II:

"to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution."

In English, the Cartesian method is called putting two and two together

As a former accounting manager, that should be easy as pie to you ;-)

Anonyme a dit…

SemperFidelis: //...because the French, on the whole, privately do not find the Jews to be sympathetic".//

Flocon: //Beware of over generalisations in the first place ;-)//

Flocon: //He hadn't of course, said book not being exactly part of the portable library of the Jews.//

SemperFidelis: //Beware of over generalisations in the first place ;-)//

Ned Ludd a dit…

Edwin Montagu was a Jewish member of the British Cabinet at the time and strongly opposed the idea of a "Jewish homelan" in Palestine in opposition to his cousin Herbert Samuel who later became High Commissioner of the British Mandate.

Montagu,"...I assume that it means that Mahommedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test."

The last sentence has come about, as to the others, is it just a matter of time?


Flocon, sorry to impose another lesson in English, but "it is indeed well thought in my opinion." would better be "well thought out" or "well thought through". Once again as I said, those pesky phrasal verbs. This is a minor example, but there are other cases where they are more important.

There are books and dictionaries about their usage, but I think the best method is just to try to remember each one when one reads them in a text. As we anglophones are brought up with them, we learn them without even thinking about it.;)

Ned Ludd a dit…

My last example "are brought up with" is a more important example where three words are needed. As are "brought up in" and variations. "Brought away(from), brought out(of),brought towards, brought in(from), brought out(of), brought over, brought under, brought down, brought back, brought forward, etc.

Very confusing, but part of the "charm" of English.

Ned Ludd a dit…

I vaguely remember reading the story of a store security guard being killed a couple of years ago. His name is Said Bourarach. But in reading the French press, I must have missed the story behind the story, or more likely it wasn't reported.

So where did I find it? On the Israeli site Ynet News

"PARIS – On the surface it appeared to be a fairly routine incident in one of Paris's suburbs containing large concentrations of immigrants who live under constant ethnic tensions. Said Bourarach, a guard at a hardware store in the town of Bobigny, northeast of the French capital, refused to allow a group of youths into the store claiming "I have no time for people like you."

The teens, who happened to be Jewish, apparently interpreted the message as anti-Semitic and started a brawl after the store closed. Eye witnesses said the five teens had tried to "settle the score" with the guard...

The youths are infamous in Bobigny, including one Dan L. who has a particularly bad reputation for being violent.

It remains unclear whether the suspects will be indicted for the incident, and police have decided to keep the investigation's details secret for the time being.

Following the suspects' arrest, it was discovered that Dan L. and his brother, who was also detained, have connections to the Jewish Defense League (JDL), an extreme right-wing group founded by Rabbi Kahana. The two were previously members of the organization."

I wonder why I never saw that in the French press and still haven't read if the suspects have been indicted? I don't know, but this seems to remind me of another case where a Jew was the victim. The French press didn't hesitate on exploiting that one.

Also, why can the Israeli press report on this, but not the French press? Maybe I am wrong and they did report these details, but here today, gone tomorrow, depending on who you are.

Flocon a dit…


As to the reason why the French media does report some facts and not some others, I'm of the opinion that the current doxa has intoxicated contemporary minds who have inconsciously (of course) integrated a specific scale of values.

The media "as a whole" seems to be affected by some kind of macular degeneration.

Political correctness reigns supreme according to the Good and the Bad of our time.

Now, on this specific issue, who exactly has defined Good from Bad, essentially by means of gilt?

Au fonds, c'est le thème du billet plus que le Judaïsme etc. Which is which when head is tail and black is white?

La manipulation des valeurs pour manipuler les esprits, c'est le fondement même de toutes les religions et de tous les aigrefins.

Ned Ludd a dit…

I did some more research and only found that Liberation published an article on Saïd's murder at the time in March 2010. I didn't find any later ones concerning the investigation.

There are videos on Youtube and DailyMotion made by individuals but that is all. I found nothing about the judicial repercussions of it from 2010 and 2012.

In this research, I found out that a French member of Betar, Julien Soufir, stabbed and seriously wounded a French commissaire, Alexis Marsan in 2002. Soufir was "ex-filtré" from France to a Jewish colony. He later murdered a Palestinian taxi driver in Israel, but was found "irresponsible".

The U.S. has on and off declared the JDL a terrorist organization, which is incomprehensible. Betar has a paramilitary wing called Tagar, which isn't allowed by French law, but apparently tolerated in this case.


Sorry for another correction, but several times you have written "gilt" when you meant "guilt". At first I took it for a typo as I don't think you meant covered in gold, or a young female pig.:D

Flocon a dit…

Think of it, do you remember Sarko's son has married a Jewish heiress and he had to convert to Judaism in order to "facilitate" things with the one he fell in love with at first sight?

The fact that his great-grand aunt or mother was a Jew certainly didn't hurt and although "the French on the whole, privately etc." I can't remember one eyebrow being lifted about it.

Also, that doesn't make Jean Sarkozy a Jew in his own right since only those whose mother is Jewish can claim they're Jewish themselves. What racist b.s!

It nonetheless shows the Jewish/Zionist lobby had an almighty ally at the head of France and there was absolutely nothing the Palestinians could expect from Sarko. They haven't been disappointed though.

And now, an 8 or 9 pound heavy piece of flesh has been born and he already was affiliated to one specific religion, culture and values even before he was even born. And all of his life he will go around chanting he has his free will, he can think and do whatever he wants whenever he wants... never mind.


Pour ce qui concerne "guilt", c'est deux fois une inattention, my brain is currently being on the edge of overheating...

I don't mind at all being corrected about my mistakes in English, you live, you learn. On the other hand, if these were the only minor points that needed to be corrected...

The phrasal verbs indeed have to be the trickiest part to overcome for students in English.

Il y a aussi des prépositions en allemand mais leur emploi est bien moins diversifié qu'il l'est en anglais.

Aus, bei, mit, nach, von, zu + datif

Durch, für, gegen, ohne, um + akkusatif if memory serves well...

SemperFidelis who speaks German for what I know, also knows by heart these basic German prepositions.