The Culture of Critique in France: A review of Anne Kling’s books on Jewish influence, Part 3

Part 1
Part 2

Communists and Collaborators: The Dark Origins of Franco-Jewish Ethnic Lobbies

The LICRA and the CRIF, and their ancestor organizations, have been influencing French political life since before the Second World War. The LICRA, originally called the League Against Pogroms, was founded in 1927 by the Communist Jew Bernard Lecache, an early apologist of Soviet totalitarianism. He founded the League to organize the legal defense of Sholom-Shmuel Schwartzbard, a Russian Jew who had murdered Ukrainian nationalist leader Symon Petliura in broad daylight in the streets of Paris. Schwartzbard blamed Petliura for the pogroms in Ukraine and was subsequently, bizarrely, acquitted.

The LICRA then, far from being a body dedicated to universal brotherhood, was founded to justify an act of tribal vengeance. Lecache himself would, in the typical manner, enormously exaggerate the sufferings of his co-ethnics, claiming that 300,000 were killed in the Ukrainian pogroms (the Red Cross estimated the figure at between 60,000 and 120,000).[1]

Lecache would lead the LICRA until 1968. He remained a communist despite being formally expelled from the French Communist Party in 1923 because he also chose to remain a Freemason (the Party did not allow dual-membership). His successor Jean-Pierre Bloch, who led the group from 1968 to 1992, was also a Freemason.

Already in the interwar period, the League’s influence rapidly grew in the French Third Republic’s parliamentary regime, with members across political parties, including prime ministers Léon Blum (Jewish, who led a Socialist-Communist coalition government) and Édouard Herriot (whose 1898 essay on the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria brought him national attention). In 1933, Herriot would as an MP return from a fact-finding to the Ukraine and deny any famine there, stating that it was “a garden producing to the full.”[2] (Between 2.5 and 7.5 million people are estimated to have been killed in this engineered famine, known as the Holodomor). Read more

The Culture of Critique in France: A review of Anne Kling’s books on Jewish influence, Part 2

Part 1.

What are the LICRA and the CRIF?

The CRIF is an explicit Jewish ethnic lobby made up of organizations officially representing 100,000 Jews (one in six French Jews or 0.1% of the French population). Esther Benbass, a Franco-Turko-Israeli historian and member of the pro-Palestinian Greens, has said of the CRIF:

What is the CRIF other than an endogamous micro-group [groupuscule] which puts on airs of a little independent State, acting as it wishes, making people bend the knee, as much through self-censorship, sensitive for many journalists who rightly fear being suspected of anti-Semitism as soon as they dare criticize Israeli policy, as by the exploitation of the guilt of the Shoah internalized by the political class?[1]

The CRIF’s influence is acknowledged by all. In 2010, President Nicolas Sarkozy and Justice Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie both said on separate occasions: “The CRIF is an essential interlocutor of the State.”[2] Also that year, CRIF President Richard Prasquier declared: “We can be proud to be in a country where the demands we present and the worries we express are genuinely listened to.”[3]

The CRIF has gotten more shameless in its activism over the years. In 1983, the then-president, Théo Klein said “the CRIF is not a subsidiary of the Israeli embassy,” while in 2010 Prasquier said: “I want to make the CRIF the master asset of Israel in France.”[4] Various Jewish observers, both of the “liberal” center-left and the “neoreactionary” right, have expressed concern that the CRIF’s activism, essentially openly professing loyalty to Israel, would stoke anti-Semitism.

The LICRA in contrast is officially an anti-racist organization rather than an explicitly Jewish one. However, its leadership is largely Jewish and features no people of color. The LICRA quite obviously is motivated by Jewish ethnic interests, with senior managers seamlessly circulating between it and the CRIF. The novelist Marc-Édouard Nabe memorably and infamously said on national television in February 1985: “The people of the LICRA use Auschwitz’s heaps of corpses to fructify their fortune upon the manure.” Read more

The Culture of Critique in France: A review of Anne Kling’s books on Jewish influence, Part 1

Kling1Anne Kling, La France LICRAtisée: Enquête au pays de la Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l’Antisémitisme
Paris: Mithra, 2007 (first published by Déterna, 2006)

Anne Kling, Le CRIF: Un lobby au cœur de la République
Paris: Mithra, 2010 and 2013

High quality critical study of elite Jewish communities, and their ethnic activism and biases, is extremely rare today — not surprising given the enormous disincentives against such research. As a result, we inevitably must rely on non-institutional, often one-person efforts, the most celebrated being the work of Professor Kevin MacDonald and in particular of his seminal The Culture of Critique. MacDonald is not alone however and, though these works are often disconnected, other scholars conducted similar work, often being better placed to examine their particular national context.

Kling2For the French case, we can salute the work of Identitarian activist and international civil servant Anne Kling for her meticulous studies, with no less than five books on Jewish political activism and one on the Front National.[1] I here review two of these books dealing with Jewish ethnic activist organizations. The first concerns the International League Against Anti-Semitism and Racism (LICRA), perhaps equivalent to the Southern Poverty Law Center as an organization that is not explicitly Jewish but is mainly funded and controlled by Jews. The second organization is the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF), the official Jewish lobby.

Le CRIF and La France LICRAtisée (literally “Licratized France”) are extremely rigorous works and, as well shall see, their conclusions are highly compatible with The Culture of Critique. In short, these Jewish groups have spearheaded efforts to delegitimize French ethnic identity and indeed the French nation itself, to destroy majority self-confidence with references to “racism,” colonialism and the Vichy Regime, to aggressively promote Afro-Muslim immigration and “multiculturalism,” to marginalize the Front National from any participation in politics, to censor speech found threatening to perceived Jewish interests, and raise the Holocaust as the supreme crime above all crimes that legitimizes their activism by placing Jews as the supreme victims. This activism, plainly, is based on ethnically-motivated hypocrisy and selfishness, evident in the LICRA and CRIF’s simultaneous support for Israel as an explicitly Jewish ethno-state.

Read more

What to Read, Part 4: Hero and Heretic vs. the System — from Literature to Politics

Part 1.
Part 2.
Part 3.

One must make an additional distinction, this time between the mythical heroes in Western literary heritage and the real heroes or heroes hopeful in Western political life. Thousands of mythical heroes, including Achilles or Hector, fighting alongside the walls of Troy, or better yet, the demigod heroes such as Hercules or Theseus, combating the monsters in the underworld, have had a distinct advantage so far of being exempt from modern re-educational process consisting of political criminalization and demonization. The System continues to use their names as positive role models, although, to be sure, the System thought police, with its increasing guilt-tripping process designed to alter the minds of White peoples, may some day remove these mythical heroes from the role model reading list as well. The conclusion one can therefore offer is that any would-be heroic act, any heretical or rebellious deed, regardless of its factual, fictional or factitious nature, is always subject to different reinterpretations in a different political epoch.

Friedrich Schiller (1759–1805)

Friedrich Schiller (1759–1805)

The same conclusion applies to literary heroes and their hero-crafting authors  such as William Shakespeare, Wolfgang Goethe, Friedrich Schiller and hundreds more, each of them having received, or still receiving, a different accolade by a different ruling class at a different historical and political time. Thus Friedrich Schiller’s poem Ode to Joy (1785) is being widely and wildly used today as a trademark of the European Union. Schiller’s stanzas are being chanted today by multicultural transgenderists, pederasts and plutocrats as a call for a mandatory multiracial embrace and as a handy alibi for the free flow of non-European migrant labor. 

Endure courageously, millions! /Endure for the better world/ Above the starry canopy/ A great God will reward you/.

 By contrast, in National Socialist Germany the same Schiller was praised to the skies, albeit through differently worded official eulogies and different academic interpretations.  In his drama The The Robbers (1781), Schiller depicts an armed gang’s leader Karl Moor who is always eager to first dispense the stolen goods to the local poor, yet who by his sheer association with other violent gang members could easily pass off today as a modern terrorist — or, short of that, fall short of some folkish road warrior Mad Max. Schiller’s other medieval hero, widely praised in academic circles all over Europe and whose name is used as an official state symbol of Switzerland, is the crossbow-toting hero from the same drama, Wilhelm Tell (1804) who could also be described as a perfect role model for modern terrorists. With his sneaky, ugly and cowardly weapon, Tell assassinates (from ambush!) the Austrian-appointed governor who rules over his native borough in Switzerland. Between 1933 and 1941 Schiller’s plays were performed all over liberal-weary, communist-scared Europe and particularly in Germany. Read more

What to Read, Part 3: Hero and Heretic vs. the System — from Literature to Politics

The article below is based on the speech given at the “London Forum,” London UK, May 16, 2015).

The nouns ‘hero’ and ‘heretic’ are used as frequent figures of speech in daily communication. Every day, almost every minute of our time, either consciously or subconsciously, we refer to the notion of hero and heretic, albeit by using often different words and expressions. The highly generic nouns ‘hero’ and ‘heretic’ lack a precise common denominator. What may be considered a heretical behavior today may be viewed as heroic behavior tomorrow. The meaning of the noun ‘hero’ is further complicated by its semantic shifts and its awkward equivalents in other languages and cultures. Thus the German word for hero is ‘Held’, although this word conveys a wider meaning in Germanic languages than the English word ‘hero’ or the French ‘héros’, deriving from the ancient Greek, and largely associated with political and military prowess only.

One must also refer to some well-known authors who dealt with the study of heros, such as Joseph Campbell and his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces, a book still serving as a primer in religious science courses at universities in the USA, but also a book which influenced many Hollywood moguls.  Although Campbell never addressed the notion of the hero from a racial perspective, the fact that he sat on the editorial board of the Mankind Quarterly  and that he had once upon a distant time allegedly cracked a small joke in front of his colleagues about the Jews earned him the title of “anti-Semite,” , a label not usually associated with heroism. Read more

Le Black-out des Médias sur l’Affaire ZBT

English version: “The ZBT Media Blackout”

Article d’origine publié le 2 mai 2015

Quand on pense aux fraternités [NdT: clubs d’étudiants, aux États-Unis], rien de ce qu’on y associe habituellement ne plaît à la gauche. C’est sans doute pourquoi la fraternité Phi Kappa Psi, à l’Université de Virginie (UVA), s’est trouvée dans la ligne de mire de Sabrina Rubin Erdely. [NdT: En décembre 2014, le magazine Rolling Stones a publié un article de Sabrina Erdely accusant faussement des membres d’une fraternité de l’Université de Virginie d’y avoir commis un viol collectif.] Sabrina Erdely n’avait-elle pas décrit les étudiants de l’UVA comme “une multitude d’étudiants athlétiques, à la peau bronzée, et blonds pour la plupart d’entre eux” —sans aucun doute de la graine de nazi, dans son imagination ethnique hyperactive.

On s’étonne donc de trouver une fraternité qui se livre aux activités suivantes: cracher sur d’anciens combattants et blessés de guerre de l’armée américaine, leur lancer des bouteilles de bière, ou encore, arracher les drapeaux américains qui ornent les voitures d’anciens combattants pour uriner dessus.

C’est pourtant ce qu’ont fait certains membres de la section Zeta Beta Tau (ZBT) de l’Université de Floride, si bien que leur section a été fermée. Aucun des étudiants n’a été renvoyé de l’université. Read more

La Judaïté importe-t-elle ?

English version: “Does Jewishness Matter?”

Article d’origine publié le 10 avril 2015

Il y a quelque temps, une mini tempête médiatique a éclaté à l’UCLA [Université de Californie – Los Angeles] au cours de la procédure de confirmation d’une étudiante juive à un poste au Comité Juridique du conseil des étudiants. L’étudiante s’est vu poser une série de questions pour déterminer si ses engagements juifs pourraient influencer son travail au conseil. Cela violait évidemment un grand tabou. Extrait du compte-rendu du New York Times:

“Étant donné que vous êtes une étudiante juive très active dans la communauté juive,” a déclaré Fabienne Roth, membre du Conseil de l’Association des Étudiants de premier cycle, en regardant Mme Beyda à l’autre bout de la salle, “est-ce que vous vous voyez garder un point de vue impartial ? ”

Pendant les 40 minutes suivantes, après qu’on se soit débarrassé de Mme [Rachel] Beyda, le conseil s’est enferré dans un débat pour déterminer si la religion et l’appartenance de cette dernière à des organisations juives, y compris son association d’étudiantes et le populaire club d’étudiants Hillel, signifiait qu’elle ne pourrait pas être impartiale sur les questions sensibles de gouvernance dont traite le conseil, l’équivalent de la Cour Suprême sur le campus.

D’après les étudiants et responsables juifs, cette discussion, consignée dans le procès verbal et enregistrée en vidéo, semblait faire écho aux questions, préjugés et stéréotypes qui visent les Juifs depuis des siècles à travers le monde — en particulier au sujet de leurs loyautés tiraillées.

Le conseil, réuni le 10 février, a d’abord voté le rejet de la nomination de Mme Beyda, car quatre membres s’y opposaient. Mais ensuite, à l’insistance d’un conseiller de la faculté qui a fait remarquer que l’appartenance à des organisations juives ne constituait pas un conflit d’intérêts, les étudiants ont réexaminé la question et admis la candidate au bureau à l’unanimité. …

“On n’aime pas agiter le drapeau de l’antisémitisme, mais dans ce cas, c’est différent,” a déclaré le rabbin Aaron Lerner, nouveau directeur général de la section Hillel à l’UCLA, à propos du vote contre Mme Beyda. “C’est de la bigoterie. C’est de la discrimination contre quelqu’un en raison de son identité”.

Le chancelier de l’université, Gene D. Block, a publié une déclaration dénonçant les attaques contre Mme Beyda. “Il est intellectuellement et moralement inacceptable de supposer que tout membre d’un groupe est forcément partial, ou motivé par la haine”, a-t-il dit. “Quand des stéréotypes blessants –quel que soit le groupe visé– sont brandis pour délégitimer les autres, nous nous sentons tous salis.”

Le distingué Dr Block, dont l’identité juive n’a sûrement aucun rapport avec sa déclaration, va bien au-delà de ce qui est prouvé en affirmant qu’on a supposé au cours des délibérations que “tout membre d’un groupe est forcément partial”. La raison évidente de ces questions est qu’il y avait un doute, pas une certitude. Toute personne saine d’esprit comprend bien que ce ne serait pas exactement une surprise si Mme Beyda laissait son identité juive influencer sa façon de voter sur de nombreuses questions, en particulier sur Israël et sur les controverses maintenant fréquentes à propos des activités du mouvement BDS [NdT: une organisation pro-palestinienne] sur le campus. Read more