Interviewed by the French magazine Les Inrockuptibles, Frédéric Taddeï explains that, if he has invited French anti-Semitic activist Dieudonné to participate in his program, "Ce soir ou jamais" [Tonight or Never] several times, it is to demonstrate that there is no "lobby" forbidding the latter access to the media. And, carried away by the impetus of his virtuous and heroic confession, he adds, "I am the proof, and the only one, that there is no conspiracy." We read him correctly. We rub our eyes, but we read him correctly. If words have a meaning, if they were proofread and the presenter was not, as one might suppose, tricked or misrepresented, he is telling us, in a few sentences, several things.
1. The only way of combatting antisemitism (in other words, in the case in point, of combatting a theory of the «Jewish conspiracy» whose success and constancy in nourishing «the most lasting hatred» we have been aware of, at least, since Poliakov) is to give the floor to the antisemites themselves (meaning those who, not content to simply promote the said conspiracy theory, have made a regular business out of negationist provocation, the inherent casuistry of the theme of competition in victimization, and a rabid and increasingly nauseating anti-Zionism). One must admit, this is a thesis that is, to say the least, strange and risqué.
2. Those who do not agree with this analysis, Taddeï says in substance, can say whatever they like. They can explain that if they do not invite Dieudonné or Alain Soral or another of their kind, it is because they do not care to and believe that, after all, no one is compelled to subject himself or others to a "face-to-face" with people whose outrageous, wild hare allegations are, in the best of cases, comic, and in the worst, vile. Or it is because they obey a simple, pragmatic rule that has somehow worked for decades: it's fine when these people are leaders of a party involved in the political game of the Republic and, in this respect, like it or not, representative of a significant fraction of opinion, but when they represent only themselves, when they are merely hams, or leaders of sects, or figures who exist only due to the repetition of their slimy provocations, where is the obligation to hear them out? Or they can explain that if they do not overburden themselves with such hoodlums, it is because, finally, they simply respect the law (which, in France, places only one limit on freedom of speech--racism and antisemitism). Nonsense, suggests Taddeï. The real truth, the only one (or, to be exact, the one Taddeï tells himself, certain it is the only one the television audience will retain) is that, in the process, they are the more or less secret agents of the famous «conspiracy»--a certainty that, this time, is, to say the least, scarcely flattering to this community in general; to that, in particular, of the regular viewers of «Ce soir ou jamais»; and, naturally, to Taddeï's numerous colleagues whose obstination in refusing to serve as megaphones to such scum can only be explained by their being part of a conspiracy.
3. This business of a conspiracy, the idea that there exists a lobby that uses all its influence to define, shape, and impose a unique way of thinking concerning these subjects as well as others, is from now on no longer a chimera or a fantasy but a quasi-reality, since M. Taddeï is the "only" proof that this conspiracy "does not exist" he is the only one--yes, indeed, only he--to respond to this reality, which one would also qualify as a last stand reality, with a lively but, as a result, very tenuous refutation. What would happen if M. Taddeï weren't there? Where would we all be if he did not devote himself, by discussing with Dieudonné, to managing to prove that, contrary to appearances, there is no Jewish conspiracy? Whatever would we do if French public television, in its immense wisdom, had not just extended the contract of this resister until 2014, granting him the right to inundate us with the insanities of a man who, in «Mahmoud», his latest show, refers to the Iranian president as his "master", the leader of Hamas as a reincarnation of De Gaulle "only more charismatic", the Jews as "slavedrivers", Judaism as a "religion of profit", and the existence of the author of these lines as proof that the Shoah "perhaps did not [sic] happen"? Such outrageousness may make us smile. But we can only shiver, as well, when confronted by the inevitable perversity this reasoning implies.
For this affair may seem minuscule.
But in reality, it is far less minor than it would appear.
First, because of the authority of the medium of support--trendiness and company--that published the interview, and, as the cover story, as though it were nothing unusual.
And then because of the personality of the interviewee, his place in the current French media firmament, and his talent, remarked by the weekly and which I myself, on several occasions of one-to-one encounters, have gaged--obviously an aggravating circumstance.
And, finally, because, to my knowledge, no one, to date, has been perturbed by these remarks that, even when drowned in the flow of a long conversation, can only confirm the most devastating of clichés--as though, in the current climate of prevailing decomposition, this kind of verbal blunder suddenly no longer surprises anyone.
But perhaps M. Taddeï himself will be the source of an explanation, or a denial, or, better still, the further analysis that all those who have not resigned themselves to seeing dilettantism take the place of ethics, of politics, and even of style hope for. Let's wait and see.
When attempting to 'redefine anti-Semitic' because it serves to benefit someone...embellishes a lie.
.
It's like having two vases of water, one saltwater, one freshwater......when you mix, even the slightest amount of saltwater into the freshwater...IT BECOMES SALTWATER (low salinity, still saltwater).
.
Palestinians are 'Semitic'. A lie is one that directly conflicts with the truth, A lie is one that indirectly contributes to the same end...whether by 'omission' or ignorance does not make it less so.
.
This is so weird!
If it isn't toward Jews it's toward Palestinians.
.
Problem is...most Americans think that Palestinians are anti-Semitic...it is impossible.
.
Because...both Jews and Palestinians are SEMITIC...Genetics goes back thousands of years to both in Israel proper and the territories surrounding it.
.
Anti-Jewish is anti-Jewish (Being Jewish is being 'religious)
...keep in mind that when researching the Old Biblical history; The arabs derived from 'Isaacs' side of the family. Further, the children of both Isaac and Ismael had intermarried for generations on end.
.
Next, if you want to make up your own quasi-facts...call them that; and by 'definition'...only recent Israeli definition...as anti-semitism has always been anti-Semite (not anty-Jewish)
Whatever... the only was to "fight 'antisemitism'" is to ignore...completely. Giving it attention creates an industry around it.
Sort of like anti Catholicism....it is there, will always be there. Including conspiracy theories about the Vatican plan to take over the world. That is an industry. Fighting it shows insecurity, paranoia.
Besides, the expression antisemitism, weakens the truth. A spade should be called a spade: Anti Judaism, or Hate of Jews. Not antisemitism. That is a watered down euphemism.
If it isn't toward Jews it's toward Palestinians.
.
Problem is...most Americans think that Palestinians are anti-Semitic...it is impossible.
.
Because...both Jews and Palestinians are SEMITIC...Genetics goes back thousands of years to both in Israel proper and the territories surrounding it.
.
As for anti-Jewish.....hmmmmm, many Jews are jewish by religion...as their only tie is the religion...but, they are not ethnic Jews. Thus, they are the most likely 'Anti-Semitics'...because they hate Palestinians.
No, what else is the point of your post(s)? To tell us a few obvious pieces of knowledge - that religion and ethnicity do not coincide completely? We knew that, but how does it relate to BHL article?
You do understand that the problem he is attempting to make so clumsily is rather about the Jewish lobby and their influence in public and political affairs and the media, as well as about the so-called "Jewish conspiracy". It actually has nothing to do with Muslims, be them Palestinian or not.
.
One focuses on Jews, by religion as Anti-Jew...whereas the other is not only Anti-Jewish (religiously)...but also 'Anti-Semitic'.
.
Catholics are not an 'ethnic' group...it is religious. So a comparison cannot be made per se...accept when referring to the 'religiousity' of both as religions.
.
Similarly, one who is Muslim is so by 'religion'...not ethnicity.
.
Arabs cannot be said to be Muslim...as many are Christian and other religions.
.
Muslims cannot be said to be Arabs, as many people are muslims; Asians, Eurasians, Arabs, Slavic, Persian, American, African, etc.
.
Has nothing to do with so-called ethnic groups. Besides, Judaism is not an ethnicity. My many blue eyed, fair skinned red headed orthodox Jewish neighbors (who are not converts to Judaism, but simply are) are surely not a Semitic people.
"Court convictions
On June 14, 2006 Dieudonné was sentenced to a penalty of 4,500 Euro for defamation after having called a prominent Jewish television presenter a "secret donor of the child-murdering Israeli army".
On November 15, 2007, an appellate court convicted him to a 5,000 Euro fine because he had treated "the Jews" as "slave traders"..
On 26 March 2009 Dieudonné was sentenced to a total of 3,000 Euros for defamation after having criticised Elisabeth Schemla, a Jewish journalist who ran the now defunct Proche-Orient.Info website. He declared on 31 May 2005 that the website wanted to "eradicate Dieudonné from the audiovisual landscape" and had said of him that "he's an anti-semite, he's the son of Hitler, he will exterminate everyone".
On 27 October 2009, he was sentenced to a fine of 10,000 Euros for "public insult of people of Jewish faith or origin" related to his show with Robert Faurisson.[53]
On 8 June 2010, he was sentenced to a fine of 10,000 € for defamation towards the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism, which he had called "a mafia-like association that organizes censorship"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieudonn%C3%A9_M'bala_M'bala
Both Zionism and French colonialism should be despised, along with United Snakes and U.K. imperialism and all manifestations of white supremacy.
For the Americans who cannot seem to understand the well explained arguments?
well.... they are Americans
Quit insulting Americans, it's getting old and it's rather dumb.
Amb. Marc Ginsberg here was gracious enough to respond directly to my complaint about responses to his article not going up, yet he did not take up my challenge to review my filtered post and explain why my comment was blocked. Controlling the narrative and exerting control over various power centers does not have to be complete, just enough shift the balance in your favor. It's like Vegas house odds.
M. Lévy has no objection, it seems, when Eric Zemmour, a "journalist" who is invited regularly on virtually every talk show, goes on his usual rants against Arabs, immigrants, and women. In those instances, M. Lévy's silence is deafening.
Maybe publishing a letter in HP against Laurent Ruquier and Thierry Ardisson, whose shows invite regularly M. Zemmour, would allow you to regain some credibility?
A very interesting post. I had no problem understanding you at all. Others apparently did. I would be very interested in seeing a post by you here at HuffPo that sheds some light on the history of anti-Semitism in France, to place in context some of your remarks. Most Americans (particularly anti-Zionists) have no knowledge of such matters.
Thanks again.
nrglaw