The thing is, even if the salute is an “anti-establishment gesture”, that is primarily so because that very same (French) “establishment” has prosecuted Dieudonne no less than eight times for his remarks about Jews. So this is equivalent, surely, to a paedophile claiming to be “anti-establishment” because he doesn't like the fact that he has been arrested for his pedophile activities.
Dieudonne started out as Leftist “anti-Zionist”; not as a right-wing Jew-hater. He's now classed, at least by some, as a right-wing anti-Zionist as well as a Jew-hater. All this simply begs the following question:
Are there any real or genuine differences - at least in the Dieudonne's case - between anti-Zionism and anti-Jewism?
Yes, yes! I'm perfectly aware that the terms “anti-Zionism” and “anti-Semitism” are not synonymous (semantically speaking); it's just that I could easily argue that, say, 95% or more of all anti-Zionists are also Jew-haters. That's the brutally simple political – not semantic - point that many defenders of “anti-Zionists” like Dieudonne fail to register. (Or they pretend not to register.)
Anyway, Dieudonne also started out as a Leftist “anti-racist” who was also against, in his own words, the "Zionist-American axis of power". Today he's still against the "Zionist-American axis of power", though, some now argue, as a Nazi, not as a Leftist. (Jean-Marie Le Pen is the godfather of his child.)
It could be argued that Dieudonne got at least some of his anti-Zionist views from such Leftist (as well as Jewish) notables as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein; specifically his view that all holocaust commemorations are "memorial pornography".
Now let's take the case of Dieudonne's fellow anti-Zionist, Professor Shlomo Sand.
Shlomo Sand is a Israeli Marxist who also believes that the Jews, as a people, are a “invention”. Sand began his political life in the 1960s/70s as a member of the fanatical Maoist group, Matzpen (as did fellow anti-Zionist Leftist, Sylvain Cypel, who then went on the establish the Workers' League). Some members of Matzpen then went on to train communist terrorists in Syria at a time when Leftist terrorism was almost in first place to Islamic terrorism. (This, at least in part, explains the Leftist/Islamist love affair.)
Today Professor Shlomo Sand believes that, to use Ayatollah Khamenei's words (of 2000), “Israel must be uprooted from the region”.
So let's put all this in some kind of context.
Leftist, or more specifically Marxist, Jew-Hatred dates back to 1844 when Marx first promulgated his hatred of the Jews in print. Marx, like Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Shlomo Sand later, was only Jewish by blood; not by religion or by culture. In fact not even Marx's father was a Jew by religion. Thus Jew-hatred came easy to Marx.
Nazi Jew-Hatred, on the other hand, only dates back to 1920 (some 70 years later) when the Nazi Party was formed. (This is not to say, of course, that German Jew-hatred didn't predate the Nazis: it did, in Marxism and in much else.)
Leftist/Marxist Jew-hatred continued with the Bolsheviks (which is ironic because Nazis made - and still make - much of the few Bolsheviks who were Jews); to Stalin; then onwards to the “ultra-Leftist” Holocaust-denying tradition of the 1960s/70s (e.g., Pierre Guillaume); and then all the way to today's Leftist boycott-Israel movement.
As for the last link in that chain: what would you expect from contemporary Leftists? After all, Israel is both Jewish and a capitalist democracy! (Incidentally, Dave Duke thinks that Israel is a “Stalinist” state. Many Leftists think Israel is “Nazi” state.)
In terms of detail, what usually happens is that International Socialists (Leftists) pick out the "neo-cons", “neo-Liberals”, “Zionists”, “capitalists”, etc. who are Jewish for extra-special attention/obsession; as well as, of course, Israel itself.
National Socialists (Nazis) pick out Marxist and also - strangely enough - “capitalist” Jews for extra-special attention/obsession; as well as, of course, Israel itself.
In other words, many Leftists think that all Jews are right-wing neo-cons, capitalists and Zionists. There are exceptions of course. The Jewish exceptions are those honourable Leftists who have cleansed themselves of all their Jewishness: save their blood (e.g., Marx, Chomsky, Shlomo Sand, Norman Finkelstein, etc.)
When a white non-Jewish person is a Marxist, or a “neo-con”, the Nazis and Inter-Nazis don't notice. He is ignored. However, when a Jew is a Marxist, the Nazis think that's because “Marxism is essentially Jewish". On the other hand, when a Jew is, say, neo-con, many Leftists believe that's because "neo-conservativism is essentially Zionist".
Again, when a non-Jewish white person is a Marxist, or a neo-con, his being Anglo-Saxon is completely ignored or deemed to be irrelevant.
So why are both International Socialism and National Socialism the locus of Jew-hatred? It has a lot to do with that last word : socialism. Marx's neat fusion of Jewishness and capitalism predates the rise of German National Socialism by around 70 years. This is what Marx wrote - in his 'On the Jewish Question' - in 1844:
‘What is the profane basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the world cult of the Jews? Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money.... It is from its own entrails that civil society ceaselessly engenders the Jew.”
And when Marx, slightly later, wrote about “niggerlike Jews” he offered us two racisms for the price of one However, some Leftists have defended Marx's positions on the Jews with a self-contradictory stance: they claim that it's “wrong to apply retrospective judgments” or “contemporary standards” to “what Marx wrote in the mid-19th century”. Yet Marxists, evidently, apply everything else Marx wrote to virtually every contemporary political and social situation. Such Leftists also fail to recognise the fact that Marx began a Leftist tradition of Jew-hatred which has continued, almost unbroken, until this very day.
So let's take one final example from around 40 years after Marx's death (as well as being in tandem with National Socialism in Germany). Here we have the well-known – at the time - communist and Jew Ruth Fischer writing the following:
“Whoever cries out against Jewish capitalists is already a class warrior… Kick down the Jewish capitalists, hang them from the lampposts, and stamp upon them.”
The Nazis own version of revolutionary socialism partly - or even largely - grew out of revolutionary Marxism. Many people believe that there is a contradiction here simply because the Marxists and the Nazis were always enemies. Yes, they were always enemies in terms of being two opposing political power-blocks. Nonetheless, they were never complete ideological opposites. (Check out the Nazi's socialist Twenty-Five Point Programme of 1924.)
Throughout the 20th century and still today both International Socialists and National Socialists believed and still believe that 'Zionists'/'Jews' have superhuman powers. That Jews/Zionists control the thought-processes of the rest of us. Yes, both International Socialists and National Socialists believe in false consciousness. And part of the false-consciousness deal is the very widespread belief that the platonic Media stops all non-Leftists/non-Nazis from realising the true nature of political reality. That is, we are all failing to accept or even acknowledge the uncorrupted truths offered to us by Leftists/Nazis.
Of course some Jews are Marxists. Some Jews are anti-Marxists. Some Jews are Zionists. Some Jews are anti-Zionists. Come to think of it, some Jews are businessmen too. Others are artists, philosophers, scientists, actors, market tradesmen, toilet cleaners...
However, there is one thing that most – though not all - Jewish Europeans and Americans share: a high level of education. (That's a cultural, not a racial, thing.) That high level of education has lead in all sorts of directions (as education always does): towards Zionism and anti-Zionism, Marxism and anti-Marxism, a-politicism, business, philosophy, sport, acting...
Despite all the above, International Socialists and National Socialists fuse on far more than the Jews. They fuse on:
3) a reliance on conspiracy theories (often the very same ones!)
4) a reliance on the theory of all political enemies have 'false consciousness' and are victims of the 'Zionist' and platonic Media
5) Manichean world-views in which the Good (Nazis/Leftists) battle against Evil (Jews, capitalists, neo-cons, etc.)
6) black-and-whitism: theories and analyses which are of necessity simple and crude.
7) street violence followed (after the revolution) by state violence
8) a strong belief in the need for all-encompassing change
9) racism: Nazi racism against Jews, blacks, etc.
Leftist racism against (non-Leftist) Jews; positive or inverted racism towards Muslims, blacks; racism against (non-Leftist) whites. (There is even a tradition of Leftist Holocaust denial which dates back to the 1960s.
10) sect/cult-like organisations
11) charismatic and dictatorial leaders
12) socialism (national and international)
International Socialists and National Socialists have always fed off each other. Their relationship is almost entirely symbiotic. That's no surprise: under the skin, they are nothing less than estranged brothers fighting over the same political bones.
Comments on the Article
"that is primarily so because that very same (French) "establishment" has prosecuted Dieudonne no less than eight times for his remarks about Jews. So this is equivalent, surely, to a paedophile claiming to be "anti-establishment" because he doesn't like the fact that he has been arrested for his pedophile activities."
“Anyone else notice that the author doesn't care that the government is prosecuting people for having an opinion? It seems to me that the author feels that saying hateful things about Jews should be criminalized to the extent that pedophiles are prosecuted.” - Tanks-a-lot
My comparison was about claiming to be "anti-establishment" simply because you've been prosecuted.
I personally don't think anti-Zionist views should be prosecuted at all. I have heard, though, that Dieudonne has gone far beyond that: he has incited people - Leftists/Nazis/Muslims - to violence. In which case, laws already exist for such incitements and they have nothing specifically to do with prosecuting 'anti-Zionism'. I personally don't believe that Holocaust-denial should be illegal either.
Many Leftists state things like "the government is prosecuting people for having an opinion". However, come the right progressive/Leftist government, and the the right opinions being prosecuted ("Nazi', "racist", "Islamophobic", anti-black, etc. opinions), then they simply wouldn't have a problem with prosecution. Leftists have a problem only when the people they agree with are being prosecuted or, alternatively, when they are being "monitored" by the state. When a favorable state monitors or prosecutes favorable enemies, such (white) "Nazis", "Islamophobes", etc., then everything would be hunky dory to the average Leftist.
Unless, Tanks-a-lot, you are either an anarchist or a (non-Leftist) libertarian. Are you? Then your position would be consistent.
“Dear Mr. Murphy:
“You're right here about the things you observe -e.g. that national socialism and leftism go together.
“However.. you need to be careful not to be taken in by the claim that the nazis were right wing facists. In reality Mussolini coined the facist name when he broke with his own party: the Italian communist party, because they were insufficiently committed to Marxist socialism.
“The difference is this: the nazis represented the menshevik (imposition of marxism through the legal acquisition of power) wing, communism the bolshevik (power through violence) wing. Note that this is a difference in approach, not intended outcome.
“The key reason both forms of socialism hate jews is that the core socialist ideas represent a feudal (the nobles own the people and the country) solution to the "god is dead, resources are limited" problem announced by the German philosophers whose work directed Marx's thinking - and jews were the enemies of feudalism.” - Paul Murphy [!]
I'm not sure if I've been taken in by the claim that "the Nazis were right wing fascists" - not in the article anyway. The best description of the Nazis is this: they were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS. Just as it says on the tin!
You are right about Mussolini. I think he was a socialist activist for around 12 years of his life. Mussolini also admired Lenin and Stalin; as did Hitler (but less explicitly). And Stalin and Lenin admired Mussolini.
The Nazis tried the revolutionary option during the Munich Putsch of, I think, 1921. They failed. And like so many revolutionaries later, they took other routes to revolution. For example, the "imposition of Marxism through the legal acquisition of power". Marxists, on the other hand, have to this day taken the Antonio Gramsci option of "taking over the institutions" and imposing their Leftist "hegemony" from those institutions (parts of: the universities, The Guardian, the BBC, the rights and race industries, the law, even charities and religious groups...)
“The Bolshevik revolution was started by and composed of 95% Jews.” - Joe
Is that a cut-and-paste because it doesn't tackle anything in the article?
I know that there are professional Jew-haters who have Google Alerts waiting for any article about Jeeeeeeewwwwws so that they can cut-and-paste and then run away. Is this an example of that?
In 1917, the Bolshevik party had about 10,000 members: 364 were ethnic Jews. (Those Jews were not religious or cultural Jews either.) Your figure is so massively wrong that I won't even bother to check the rest of your stats.
My article wasn't about "poor, mistreated Jews"; is was about how and why Leftists and Nazis fuse on the Jews. What do you think about that argument? Did you read a different article?
I didn't "cherry pick" one fact; it was the first of yours which I considered. Then I concluded that you probably made the rest of the stats up too. Either that, or someone else did.
I didn't say that you ran away, I said that this was possible because I do have many experiences of commentators who don't actually comment on the article; but instead cut-and-paste stuff from various Jew-hating websites.
There were some high-ranking Jewish Bolsheviks, yes; as well as very many non-Jewish ones - including Stalin. The fact that you focus on the ones who were Jews is a different matter and simply displays an obsession with Jews.
The Jews in the Bolsheviks changed their names because of Russian and Bolshevik Jew-hatred and also because they all did! That is, they were responding to a stance on Jews which you also endorse; not because there was some conspiracy of Jews who did what they did because of their DNA and believed what they did because of their DNA. I even say in the article that Jews often do achieve high positions: but they do so in mutually-contradictory areas with mutually-contradictory ideological positions.
As for your non-existent conservative Jews: Benjamin Disraeli, Milton Freidman, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz, Melanie Philips, Caroline Glick, Karl Popper, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Hayek, von Mises and many others. If you ignore them because they complicate things, that's isn't my problem. So is this where you say that all Jews are BOTH Leftist as well as pro-capitalism? In other words, your position is unfalsifiable because all you need to say is that Jews "bat for all/both sides".
You have named the Jews who were Bolsheviks. Are you now going to name the thousands of Bolsheviks who weren't Jews? Is this where you say that "there were many non-Jewish Bolsheviks, but the Jews were in control"? If that's the case, you should have said that instead of saying "95% of Bolsheviks were Jews".
By the late 1940s, most Communist Jews in the Soviet Union had been "liquidated" by Stalin and his henchmen. Does that make Stalin appealing to you? And that's part of the reason for the article: Leftists and Nazis fuse on the Jews.
If your position is that Jews are evil or Marxist/neo-con/capitalist/Freemasons/aliens because of their DNA, then there's no argument and no facts which can change your position because no matter what position a Jew takes, no matter what they do, they will still have Jewish blood. And that means that you will automatically interpret what they do and say in a negative way. When a theory is based on a Jew's blood alone, there is nothing I can say to change that position. It is literally unfalsifiable.
“Yawn.......................The poor put upon Jews ARE the Left.” - mikefromwichita
The article could have still been written even if I didn't feel sorry in the slightest for the "poor put upon Jews". The article is not about feeling or not feeling sorry for the Jews. It's about how Leftists and Nazis fuse on the Jews... and on much else.
You have ignored that. In other words, your comment is irrelevant.