The Quenelle

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Quenelle

Postby American Dream » Sun Mar 02, 2014 11:06 am

SUNDAY, MARCH 02, 2014

Dieudonné through the prism of the white Left, or conceptualizing a domestic internationalism

I have been given permission to publish this excellent paper from the Penser l’émancipation, closing plenary, Nanterre, on February 22, 2014. It was written and delivered by the excellent Houria Bouteldja, a member of Le Parti des indigènes de la République.


Before I begin, I would like to give a small introduction, emphasizing four points:

1/ I would like to warn that my discourse is not Leftist. It is not Rightist either. However, it is not from outer space. It is decolonial. I am inclined to say that, after I finish, it would be up to you to decide if it is leftist or not, or in other words whether it could belong to you, or in other words whether you think it can be incorporated in the political programs of the radical Left.

2/ I would also like to ask you to keep in mind that I am an indigène of the Republic, that this constitutes a political and social status, and that my speech is therefore rooted in the social and historical experience of a colonial subject. This positionality introducing paradoxical conflictualities and a certain dialectic within the struggle, revealing a social divide along a different axis: one of race and coloniality of power, which often blurs the Right/Left divide. This blurring is what we attempt to explain through the concept of “space/time”, which I will not have enough time to develop here.

3/ I would like to add that I belong to a political organization, within which we think in terms of political stakes, power relations, and strategy and not in terms of abstract morality and principle.

4/ Last, keep in mind the following quote by Sadri Khiari: “Because it is the indigènes’ indispensable partner, the Left is their primary adversary.”


Continues at: http://www.leninology.com/2014/03/dieud ... -left.html
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Quenelle

Postby solace » Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:32 pm

UEFA hands out 10-match 'quenelle' ban
March 4, 2014

By ESPN staff

UEFA has suspended Royal Belgian Football Association futsal player Omar Rahou for 10 games after the player made the "quenelle" gesture at the UEFA Futsal Euro 2014 tournament.
Nicolas Anelka celebrates after scoring at West Ham with a controversial 'quenelle' gesture, which is alleged to be anti-Semitic.
GettyImagesNicolas Anelka was handed a five-match ban by the FA for using the "quenelle" gesture.

Rahou made the gesture as he celebrated a goal during Belgium’s 6-1 group stage win over Romania in Antwerp on Jan. 28, and UEFA reports that the player made it known "several times" that the gesture was indeed the "quenelle."

UEFA’s disciplinary inspector conducted an investigation into the facts of this case, concluding that the gesture has discriminatory connotations, and finding that Rahou should be punished in line with Article 14 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (racism, other discriminatory conduct and propaganda).

A UEFA statement read: "At today's meeting (March 4), the Control and Disciplinary Body deemed this gesture to be in breach of Article 14 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations and has imposed a ten-match suspension."

The ban applies to "the next ten UEFA national team competition matches and/or UEFA club competition matches."

Rahou’s ban follows the English FA handing Nicolas Anelka a five-match ban for using the ‘quenelle’ gesture as he celebrated scoring in West Brom's 3-3 draw with West Ham on Dec. 28.

Anelka protested his innocence throughout, though the FA's general secretary David Horner has since suggested the organisation could look to extend the West Brom striker’s suspension.

The 'quenelle' involves pointing one straightened arm downward while touching the shoulder with the opposite hand. It was popularised by French comedian Dieudonne M'Bala M'Bala, who has been convicted multiple times for inciting racial hatred or anti-Semitism.


http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/17364 ... ou?cc=5901
solace
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 11:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Quenelle

Postby solace » Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:16 pm

Nicolas Anelka sacked by West Brom for 'gross misconduct'
• Striker had earlier tweeted that he had ended his contract
• Club have given Frenchman 14 days' notice of termination


Stuart James
The Guardian, Saturday 15 March 2014

Nicolas Anelka
Nicolas Anelka's only two goals in 11 Premier League starts for West Brom came against West Ham when he made his fateful quenelle gesture. Photograph: Ian Kington/AFP/Getty Images

Nicolas Anelka's troubled West Bromwich Albion career ended in acrimony on Friday night when the Premier League club sacked the Frenchman for "gross misconduct".

Anelka – who was recently given a five-match ban and an £80,000 fine by the Football Association for the quenelle gesture he made at Upton Park in December – had earlier announced via Twitter that he was terminating his playing contract, which had three and half months to run.

Albion had suspended Anelka on full pay in the wake of the FA's verdict and were planning to complete their own investigation into the quenelle gesture by next week. The Midlands club's first reaction to Anelka's declaration was to brand "the release of such a statement on Social Media as highly unprofessional".

Three hours later West Brom revealed their patience with the 35-year-old had finally run out and they had written to Anelka giving him 14 days' notice of termination as required under his contract. The club said Anelka had failed to apologise for "the impact and consequences of his [quenelle] gesture" or accept a substantial fine, which would have led to his suspension being lifted.

"Nicolas Anelka's purported termination of his Premier League contract this evening via Social Media was invalid as this was not conducted under the correct legal process as required by his contract.

"The club considers the conduct of Nicolas Anelka on 28 December, coupled with his purported termination on Social Media, to be gross misconduct."

Earlier Anelka wrote: "Following discussions between the club and me, proposals have been made that I rejoined the group under certain conditions that I cannot accept. Wishing to keep my integrity, so I decided to free myself and to terminate the contract linking me with West Bromwich Albion until 2014, and now."

Signed on a free transfer last summer, Anelka's time at Albion has been nothing short of a disaster and it was a foregone conclusion that he would be released at the end of the season. He has started 11 matches in the Premier League for Albion and delivered his only goals for the club at Upton Park, in the match when he made the quenelle gesture.

Signed on a free transfer in the summer, Anelka's time at Albion would be instantly forgettable but for the 3-3 draw at Upton Park. He was a major disappointment on the pitch and delivered his only goals for the club in that fixture at West Ham – a match that will be remembered for all the wrong reasons.


http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... m-contract
solace
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 11:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Quenelle

Postby American Dream » Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:56 am

France: ‘We want sex, not gender’ (note on the alarming rise of the ‘gender theory’ resistance front and their neo-fascist chums)

Image

By posting this little write-up of its research, Plan C Manchester is signalling that it is keen to hear from comrades in France and elsewhere facing similar situations—what forms is the anti-homophobia counterpower taking? what struggles lie on the horizon in light of the seemingly effective alliances being forged between single-issue anti-gay-marriage activists and neo-fascists?

11 February 2014. by S.L.

Our view of France is, to say the least, concerning. The prominent ex-communist sociologist Alain Soral, lately turned ‘nationalist socialist’, has called for “generalized insubordination”—and the call seems to have resonated deep into a frustrated conservative, in large part, Catholic mainstream. Multiple news vehicles are constantly bringing tidings of “la Manif’ pour Tous”, a wave of homophobic agitation right across the republic. Far more virulent than what UKIP represents, austerity on the other side of the Channel evokes the opportunistic invention of a struggle against Left “anti-family” policy; and most notably “against gender theory” and “gender ideology” as a whole, all of which now regularly complements and legitimizes more familiar formations of neo-fascist activism, in a context of increasingly normalized anti-immigrant rhetoric and resurgent populist anti-Semitism.

Image
The “Dieudo” Galaxy and the quenelle gesture

The high profile comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, one time opponent of the Front National and broad ‘hate racism’-style campaigner, lately became infamous for performing the quenelle ritual gesture associated with homophobia and anti-Semitism. Although his Jew-bashing has become more and more explicit, he is still perceived by many of his defensive fans as a benign or non-political maverick. While this functions in part in this way as a diffuser of left-wing energies, it should be noted that ‘Dieudo’ has also teamed up on television with Holocaust deniers like the skinhead leader Serge Ayoub, not to mention lent support for alliances with the fascist ‘French Spring’ platform and royalist group Civitas. While most of the blood-and-soil, one-man-and-one-woman, pro-natality discourse of the aforementioned groups is missing from this Franco-Cameroonian’s comedy, according to him, gay marriage is still being pushed upon an unwilling population while morale is low—by a “Zionist” state, no less. Indeed, in this environment, the mixture of crude ‘anti-racist’ tropes together with anti-Semitism and homophobia is often dizzying.

Image
Frigide Barjot next to a populist sign that says:
“On veut du boulot, pas le mariage homo” or
“We want jobs, not gay marriage”
(which rhymes in French, obviously)


However, the trend remains clear. While support for the leftish-liberal government is at an all-time low, things have certainly taken an extremist turn in France since 2012. No Russell Brands or Owen Joneses of note here: the unelected political free-lancers whose profiles are sky-rocketing are overwhelmingly rightist (with high prominence for anti-feminist women). For instance, one charismatic spokesperson from the hard-line pro-life Catholic French Spring was on hunger strike until last week to demand Hollande’s impeachment (#JeûneBéatriceBourges); likewise, the caricatural pro-”family” persona ‘Frigide Barjot’ has been upping the ante on her overwhelmingly pink blog, disseminating the somewhat arresting slogan “We want sex, not ‘gender’!


http://www.weareplanc.org/france-we-wan ... ist-chums/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Quenelle

Postby Sounder » Mon Sep 08, 2014 7:43 am

Jacob Cohen explains who is Dieudonné and how his troubles started


All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Quenelle

Postby American Dream » Fri Jun 12, 2015 7:10 pm

http://www.pmpress.org/content/article. ... 1172028521
Noel Ignatiev

DODDERING OLD FOOL ADDRESSES PROBLEMS OF ANTIZIONISM

The following is from an exchange that took place between June 8 and June 11. There were four participants, including your humble servant (hereafter known as Doddering Old Fool—DOF). The exchange took place on the Facebook “wall” of one of the participants. Ignorant as I am of Facebook protocol, I did not know that individuals’ “walls” are private, and consequently saw nothing wrong in posting the entire exchange on my blog. It has been brought to my attention that such is not the case; moreover at least two of the participants in the exchange objected to having their words posted. (The incident brings to mind Rockefeller’s telling Diego Rivera, “It’s my wall”; let that pass.) I have therefore deleted all the comments made by the other participants (including, to be on the safe side, those of the person who did not object), leaving only my own comments, and trusting to the ability of readers to figure out the issues from what remains. I fear trying to do so will be a bit like listening to a string quartet with all but the second violin removed, but some may find the effort rewarding.
Notes are at the end.

DOF: I favor free speech, but merely because people have suffered reprisals for exercising free speech does not make them my heroes; it depends on what they say. I deplored the killing of the cartoonists, but that did make me march with Netanyahu or declare that Je suis Charlie Hebdo. Dieudonne M’bala M’bala has made a career out of not merely condemning Zionism but by vulgar Jew-baiting. I condemn his persecution by the French state, but I do not consider him a hero. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.


DOF posted the following links to two New Yorker articles:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/ ... ugh-riots/
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-com ... ians-hate/


DOF: Since you do not object to his cozying up to the National Front, his support for Ahmadinejad, his preference for Bin Laden over Bush, and his giving an award to Faurisson (for more on that, google dieudonne faurisson), can you tell me what you would find objectionable?[1]


DOF: Do you think the New Yorker made up his visit to Iran and his statement that he preferred bin Laden to Bush? Did wikipedia make up his award to and his appearances with Faurisson? The Marseillaise cuts both ways, and like you I would need to know more of the context. (If he actually opposed a mob of racists, why the links to Le Pen and Soral, or are they also inventions?) I don't like Netanyahu or Ahmadinejad, Bernard H-L, Faurisson or the National Front.[2] As I keep saying, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. It is obvious to me that he gets his kicks (and maybe more) from twitting "the Jews," beyond what is necessary to the struggle against zionism. I oppose Jew-baiting not because it poses a threat to the Jews (who are pretty well situated now) but because it is a danger to the working class (to which I am still retarded enough to be loyal.) I am still waiting to hear what, if anything, you would find objectionable.


DOF: I also defend Faurisson's right to speak, and Dieudonne's. But if you meant what you said about needing to know more of the context before you making up your mind, then I suggest you not be in such a hurry to post (with obvious approval) a report from Atzmon, who has shown, shall we say, a lack of discrimination in choosing his associates (so long as they claim to oppose Zionism).[3]


DOF: I support the schoolteachers, nurses, bus drivers, miners and workers in the oil, automobile, tire, sugar and other industries who have protested and struck against the Islamic Republic. Larudee[4] seems like the genuine article. I hope his decision to give an award to the person who gave an award to Faurisson does not hurt him and the movement against Zionism.


DOF: And were you also trying to be funny when you said you support Ahmadinejad "absolutely" (and prefer bin Laden to Bush)?


DOF: As for Bush and bin Laden, I take seriously the possibility of a world with neither, and will not limit my choices to which of the two I "prefer."


DOF: We agree on many things: the danger represented by Zionism and the harm being done by Jewish identity politics, which is one of its main pillars and without which it is not clear that the Zionists would enjoy the backing of the U.S. and other governments which allows them to carry out their policies. That is why I support and encourage your efforts to expose those politics.

Where we disagree, I think, is that you have collapsed all evil in the world into Zionism, and have developed an approach that leads you to select your friends and enemies based on the sole criterion of their attitude toward Zionism. That is mistaken analytically, and even more mistaken as a tactic. You have compared the scale of the Zionist danger to that posed by the Nazis in the past. Granting the validity of the parallel, I remind you that some good people (and some not so good), in their zeal to defeat Nazism, adopted a political line that led them to crush a revolution in Spain and oppose the national movements of India, Algeria, Indonesia, Puerto Rico and other peoples oppressed by the powers they hoped to enlist in the grand anti-Nazi alliance – even to the point of denouncing as disruptive of the war effort the1942 Negro March on Washington Movement. It was a disastrous mistake. I do not accuse you of having committed comparable sins, but I fear you are on the same path, and that is why I think it is you, not I, who have lost perspective.

Believe me, I can understand the temptation to bash “the Jews.” I do not view all those who engage in that pastime as Himmlers; but I do think that those who know better, and who engage in that sort of demagogy because it is popular in certain circles and think they can gain from it are following a dangerous course which will do grave harm to the antizionist movement, unless they turn back, something which experience shows that they, once embarked on that path, rarely do. And while I defend the right to speak of Dieudonne, and Faurisson, and Zundel, I do not award them hero medals – not even as a joke.[5] Zionism is not responsible for the mistreatment of the Muslims in the banlieus (so well depicted in the film “L’Haine”). French capital would like nothing better than to channel the resentment of those people of the police and the political parties (including the National Front) into a struggle against “the Jews.” It would not be the first time the princes have played that card.

Maybe you saw – it is all over the internet – the video of the cops in Texas breaking up a pool party of black youth, one of them putting his knee in the back of a 14-year-old girl clad in a bikini. That atrocity was not the work of “the Jews.” I know, worse things happen every day in Palestine, but that incident is a highlight in an important struggle developing in the number one backer of Zionism. At the height of the Ferguson rebellion, people from Gaza tweeted the people in Ferguson who were hurling tear gas grenades back at the cops with messages of support and practical advice on how to deal with tear gas. I view that as a moment of global significance.

I do not believe that the National Front in France, or any of the white supremacists who offer a friendly venue to people you and I both know (so long as they limit themselves to denouncing Zionism), have said anything about the black struggle. On the contrary, they are on the wrong side, cheering law-and-order. Do you think the link between Gaza and Ferguson—which offers greater hope than anything else I see for inflicting serious harm on Zionism and imperialism – will be built through such connections?

Finally, I knew too many Iranian revolutionaries, comrades of mine from the anti-Shah movement of the 1970s, who were tortured to death in the prisons of the Islamic Republic, to be swayed by Ahmadinejad’s (or Ghadafi’s) verbal denunciations of Zionism and U.S. imperialism. The enemy is at home, in the U.S. and Iran. And the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.


DOF: In answer to your question, am I referring to you as an antisemitic demagogue? While I think you underestimate the harm that they can do -- that is a difference between us -- no, I do not number you among them. I regret that you found it necessary to ask, and I to answer, this question.


DOF: I have said, and I stand by it, that I appreciate the work you have done opposing Jewish identity politics. I do regret that because I refuse to dismiss antisemitism as a marginal cult of no consequence you suspect me of lumping you with the antisemites.


DOF: Although it is true you have not devoted reams to discussing some of the people we differ on, I do not regard your attitude toward them as marginal, and I do not apologize for bringing it up.


DOF: I take antisemitism seriously – not as a present reality with a force comparable to that of neoliberalism and Zionism – but as an ideology with the potential to divert and mislead mass movements. You don’t. In fact you claim it does not exist, compare me to Chip Berlet or the SPLC, and accuse me of “judeocentric prejudice in [my] insistence on this non-existent demagogy.”[6] (Shamir accused me of “Judaic thinking” for believing that white supremacy was still a live issue in the U.S. at a time he was trying to engineer an alliance between Cynthia McKinney and David Duke.)[7] In the meantime, you offer no objection to Atzmon appearing under the sponsorship of someone who thinks antebellum southern whites were the counterparts of Palestinians, or Alison Weir appearing on a radio show hosted by someone whose website features the Confederate flag over a quote attributed to Solzhenitsyn, “You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators” followed by the comment, “They call them Zionists or Neocons today. And they hate Americans of all colors today! Especially whites.”[8] I could offer you testimony of people involved in actual struggles in the streets that the holders of those views are not a handful of marginal cranks but exercise influence in real movements. I believe that under certain conditions they could grow and become more of a danger than they are now. Very well, you aren’t interested, and resent my bringing it up. In that case, I can accept you as an authority on Jewish identity politics and the end of modern Jewish history, and not engage you in any discussion of strategy, thus avoiding disharmony. Is that what you want?


DOF: Temper, temper. Are there so many people who appreciate even to the extent I do what you are trying to do that you can afford to drive one of them away?

Since the phrase “you have collapsed all evil in the world into Zionism, and have developed an approach that leads you to select your friends and enemies based on the sole criterion of their attitude toward Zionism” offends you, let me see if I can formulate what I think with greater precision:

Your focus on the struggle against Zionism has led you to dismiss as marginal currents claiming to oppose Zionism that are actually or potentially dangerous, and made you unwilling to draw as sharp a line against them as that which you draw against Zionism.

Will that do? Somehow I doubt it.


DOF: Of course I do not believe Dieudonne is a problem compared to “all this.” The point is, I do not compare him to “all this” but to what is necessary to defeat Zionism. (I have not reached a conclusion about Dieudonne; some things I read gave me pause; I listed them and was ridiculed for doing so.) The behavior of organized Jewry in France, the U.S. and every place else is so reactionary and overbearing that it makes people whose antizionist bonafides I have no reason to doubt desperate enough to seek support from sworn enemies of everything you and I hold dear so long as they claim to oppose Zionism. But that is a dangerous weapon to employ, and may do grave harm to the one wielding it. Moreover, it will not help the Palestinians or the Lebanese. You once wrote that you had refused to speak under the auspices of James Dean, a white supremacist. Atzmon did, and twisted and squirmed like a pickpocket in the dock when I called him on it. (Our exchange, including your comment, is on my blog: http://www.pmpress.org/content/article. ... 4153431220) Have you changed your mind? Did you read what I quoted from Clay Douglas’s website about the Bolshevik Revolution and the Jews and hating white Americans? Would you speak on his radio show and keep silent about his ravings? Alison Weir did, several times, and when Harry had the chance he didn’t call her on it. (I do not doubt your explanation for why JVP attacked her; but that doesn’t justify what she did.) The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.


Final words (perhaps) from DOF: It is evident to me that we are dealing with four levels here: first, antisemites and white supremacists; second, those who, while not themselves antisemites or white supremacists, consider it acceptable to deal on friendly terms with those who are; third, those who have not dealt with antisemites and white supremacists in that way but feel no need to challenge their friends who do; and fourth, me. The chain breaks before it reaches me.

Notes:

[1] Robert Faurisson, French “historical revisionist,” convicted and fined for “holocaust denial,” a crime under French law.
[2] Bernard Henri-Levy, French prozionist writer.
[3] Jazz musician and controversial writer, former Israeli now living in London. His most recent book is The Wandering Who: Studies of Jewish Identity Politics. His website is http://www.gxlxd.co.uk/
[4] Paul Larudee, Iranian-born American pro-Palestinian activist, an official of STYLO France, an international literary and human rights group. It was STYLO’s granting of its 2015 Free Speech prize to controversial French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala that sparked the exchange.
[5] Ernst Zundel, German writer and publisher, imprisoned for “holocaust denial.”
[6] Professional hunters after the “far right”
[7] Israel Shamir, Russian-Israeli publicist, often accused of anti-Semitism. http://www.xsrxxlshxmxr.net/
[8] http://www.frxxxmxrxcxn.com/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Quenelle

Postby Searcher08 » Fri Jun 12, 2015 7:15 pm

Sounder » Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:43 am wrote:Jacob Cohen explains who is Dieudonné and how his troubles started




Thanks, Sounder
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Quenelle

Postby OP ED » Sun Jun 14, 2015 12:27 am

OP ED has been here long enough to know that posting my actual opinions here would most likely result in AD and itself getting this firepitted before breakfast.

OP ED considers zionist jews to be much less frightening than the zionist southern baptists who pay most of their bills. (And who only want jews in israel so they can all die when jesus comes back)

However, OP ED is offended when posters refer to these ignorant racist bastards as fascists. We true fascists find such things as race to be largely irrelevant to our goals. Although I should clarify that I agree with the notion that jewish religion is abhorrent insofar as all organized religion tends toward abhorrent. The worst thing about christianity is that it didn't even invent its most abhorrent notions.
Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore:
fecemi la divina podestate,
la somma sapienza e 'l primo amore.

:: ::
S.H.C.R.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Quenelle

Postby American Dream » Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:28 pm

http://www.ww4report.com/node/13413#comment-452935

JVP gives Alison Weir the heave-ho

Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Fri, 06/19/2015

Oh, this is delicious. Jewish Voice for Peace issues a statement June 15 announcing that they have resolved not to work with Alison Weir—because she "has been a repeat and friendly guest of white supremacist Clay Douglas on his hate radio show, the Free American. Clay Douglas is concerned primarily with the survival of the White race and sees malign Jewish influence everywhere. His racist, anti-Jewish, and anti-gay rhetoric can be found across the front pages of his multiple websites."
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Quenelle

Postby Searcher08 » Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:52 pm

American Dream » Tue Jun 23, 2015 8:28 pm wrote:http://www.ww4report.com/node/13413#comment-452935

JVP gives Alison Weir the heave-ho

Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Fri, 06/19/2015

Oh, this is delicious. Jewish Voice for Peace issues a statement June 15 announcing that they have resolved not to work with Alison Weir—because she "has been a repeat and friendly guest of white supremacist Clay Douglas on his hate radio show, the Free American. Clay Douglas is concerned primarily with the survival of the White race and sees malign Jewish influence everywhere. His racist, anti-Jewish, and anti-gay rhetoric can be found across the front pages of his multiple websites."


How, specifically, is this related to the OP? and the thread title called The Quenelle?

Answer: It isnt.
It is just more irrelevant, patronising, Othering (not to mention poorly written) BS, in this case from Bill Weinberg.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Quenelle

Postby Morty » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:47 pm

Not so fast there, Searcher! Dieudonne and Weir are both people who Jews don't like, as a general rule, and both are targets of a concerted effort to ostracize and banish them from acceptable society. Isn't that a significant connection? I think AD might have a point here.

I love the way Weinberg manages to derive an "obvious...anti-Semitic streak" from the very name of the group, "If Americans Knew."

It is obvious from its name that this is basically a right-wing nationalist formation with (at least) an anti-Semitic streak.

http://www.ww4report.com/node/13413

It's obvious!
User avatar
Morty
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Quenelle

Postby American Dream » Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:19 am

CAMPUS PROFILE- ALISON WEIR: IF AMERICANS KNEW

BY SPENCER SUNSHINE

**This profile is part of PRA’s report: Constructing Campus Conflict: Antisemitism and Islamophobia on U.S. College Campuses 2007-2011

Editor’s Note: This profile is different from the other profiles because it was commissioned as a piece of investigative journalism and analysis on an individual for whom there is very little mainstream coverage.

Few political writers today appear in the publications of both the Left and the Far Right. One rare exception is Alison Weir, the founder of If Americans Knew (IAK). Her denunciations of the vast power that Israel and its supporters in the United States allegedly wield resonate on the Far Right with figures like former Klansman and politician David Duke, the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review, antisemitic talk radio host Clay Douglas, and the Pacifica Forum at the University of Oregon, which the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as a hate group.

At the same time, she can be found on the Left in the pages of Z Magazine, Project Censored, and CounterPunch. She has been praised by Socialist Worker, broadcast on affiliates of the Pacifica radio network, and spoken at the Left Forum conference.[1]

Weir is a regular speaker on college campuses. She has appeared at Harvard Law School, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, Stanford University, American University, the University of Chicago, Vassar College, and elsewhere. In 2003, she received death threats after she and Hatem Bazian debated with David Meir-Levi and Eric Sirkin at the University of California, Berkeley about how to achieve peace in the Middle East.[2]Alison Weir blogs at http://www.xlisonweir.org and edits “Israel-Palestine: The Missing Headlines” (http://xsrael-palestinenews.blogspot. com). While there is no editor listed by name at the site, it seems that she is also editor of the new IAK blog http:// xsraelpalestineanalysis.wordpress.com. Weir is president of the Council for the National Interest and sometimes hosts its radio show, “Jerusalem Calling.”

At first glance, Weir seems like a typical Palestine solidarity activist. She says that she founded If Americans Knew (IAK) after she visited the Occupied Territories in 2001 and witnessed numerous human rights violations that were not covered in the United States press. IAK is sometimes portrayed as a media watchdog group, and its tagline is “What Every American Needs to Know About Israel-Palestine.”

But a closer inspection of Weir and IAK reveals disturbing elements. The main focus of their work is not on Palestinian conditions or rights, but on the power of the so-called Israel lobby in the United States. Weir describes the U.S. media’s tilt toward Israel as possibly “the most monumental cover-up in media history.”[3] While she admits that a number of factors may account for this alleged pro-Israel bias, she consistently targets the Jewish backgrounds of editors and reporters.[4] Even if they think they are unbiased, she says, unconscious family influences are likely to sway their opinions.[5]

IAK’s criticisms of Zionism and Israel dovetail with traditional antisemitic narratives, and Weir often cites antisemitic writers and publications as her sources. When asked if the work of antisemitic authors including Israel Shamir, Gilad Atzmon, and Kevin MacDonald were truly legitimate, she replied, “Yes. I suggest people read their work for themselves.”[6]

In 2005, IAK analyzed the coverage of deaths in the Israel-Palestine conflict in The New York Times and other newspapers, and concluded the outlets had a pro-Israel bias.[7] The group met with New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent, who did not accept their findings.[8] The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), a pro-Israel media-watchdog group, criticized IAK’s report for methodological errors.[9]

In 2008, another controversy erupted after the public library in Greenwich, Connecticut cancelled a talk by Weir that had been scheduled by a member of IAK in one of the library’s public meeting rooms. Under pressure from free-speech advocates such as the American Library Association, the talk was rescheduled. The controversy received national media attention.[10]

In 2009, based on stories that had appeared in a Swedish newspaper, Weir published articles in CounterPunch and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs accusing Israel of harvesting organs from Palestinians.[11] Weir’s claim was widely denounced as a modern version of the antisemitic blood libel—the myth that Jews use the blood of sacrificed Christian children to make Passover matzos.

Weir says “Israel’s core identity is based on ethnic and religious discrimination by a colonial, immigrant group,” and that it has an “exclusionist identity.”[12] She describes the 1948 founding of Israel as “one of the modern world’s most successful ethnic cleansings,” and a “holocaust” for Palestinians; elsewhere she implies this holocaust continues today.[13]

She has also said that “Israel struck first in all its wars except one. Historically, it was the initiator of conflict.”[14] IAK writers such as Mazin Qumsiyeh, Jeffrey Blankfort [see profile], and Kathy Christison and the late Bill Christison claim that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was planned and executed by groups that are identified as being overwhelmingly Jewish. Weir has been on the board of NewPolicy.org, an offshoot of the New Policy PAC, whose mission is “to work with citizens, lawmakers, and administration officials to implement longstanding American positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict in the interest of enhancing American security”[15] whose antisemitic website http://wxndowintopalestine.blogspot.com/ includes assertions that Israel was behind the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In one radio interview, Weir also referred to “the significant role that Zionists played in pushing the U.S. into World War I,” and said, “these same groups [are] trying to push us into a war with Iran.”[16]

IAK claims that Israel, together with its supporters in the United States, controls many aspects of the U.S. government. Weir says, “The Israel lobby became far more powerful than those who originally tried to oppose it: the State Department, the Pentagon, the oil lobby.”[17] IAK board member Paul Findley (a former Republican congressional representative from Illinois) describes the United States as in “bondage to Israel’s misdeeds.”[18] Weir summarizes the situation by saying, “What Israel says, our media repeat. What Israel demands, our government gives. What Israel wants, its well-greased lobby delivers.”[19]

IAK is careful never to blame “the Jews”; instead it consistently refers to subsets of Jews such as “the Zionists,” “the Israel lobby,” or “the neocons.” American neoconservatives in particular are specifically identified as being overwhelmingly Jewish.[20] Jewish subgroups are described consistently as elites who subvert national sovereignty. The “dual loyalties” of these subgroups is a common theme on the IAK website. “Neocons” in the United States and “oligarchs” in Russia receive special attention. Weir says that IAK “is opposed to discrimination in all its forms,” and one of her articles is subtitled “Antisemitism is Wrong.” However, the article does not address the issue other than to say that people should not be dissuaded from criticizing Israel because they fear being called antisemitic.[21] When asked about what constitutes an antisemitic view that she would oppose, she identified statements which refer explicitly and collectively to “the Jews.”[22]

IAK narratives are consistent with the antisemitic conspiracisms of the past century, including the claims that Jews are clannish and cabal-like, have dual loyalties, control the media and the government, steal the body parts of non-Jews, and start wars, often in countries where they are a minority and where the wars are against the country’s interests. Following a classic populist narrative, Weir says that the American people must be informed about this situation to start “reclaiming our nation, our principles and our souls.”[23] One email sent by the Council for the National Interest and signed by Weir even deploys one of the most famous antisemitic images, claiming that liberal J Street and the conservative American Israel Public Affairs Committee are “two tentacles of the same lobby.”[24]

Like many populist and conspiratorial narratives, some of IAK’s information is true and has potentially important things to contribute to public discourse; some of it is misleading, biased, or suffers from serious omissions; and much of it repeats traditional antisemitic conspiracisms. Alison Weir is not a recognized scholar on Middle East affairs, and campus groups and activists working for recognition and rights for Palestinians would be well advised to seek out more legitimate sources of information on the conflict than IAK.





Footnotes and links at: http://www.politicalresearch.org/campus ... cans-knew/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Quenelle

Postby Searcher08 » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:06 am

Her denunciations of the vast power that Israel and its supporters in the United States allegedly wield

Spencer Sunshine never fails to fail.

Same old, same old mush of
assumption treated as fact,
facts treated as 'sketchy' assumptions,
penalizing of any deviation from an approved script,
false claims to authority,
fear porn language,
and the most associational thinking you can get outside of Tony Greenstein.

Consider Spencer as an idealistic Red Guard holding high the Little Red book and quoting passages as he denounces revisionists with placards around their necks, while Chinese Dream broadcasts the one true (although obviously deeply ambiguous and impressively non-specific) message through the revolutionary megaphone of Verbal CopyPasta.
Image

Image

Red Guards shave half the hair off "gangster" Li Fanwu. Photo: 1966, Memory of Our Generation by Xu Youyu

http://english.sina.com/china/p/2011/0125/357376.html
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Quenelle

Postby Morty » Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:13 am

"SPENCER SUNSHINE" That's an interesting name. I wonder where Spencer hails from?

I also wonder how the poor guy's brain doesn't explode. In a recent essay he concerns himself with "Crypto-fascists and pro-White separatists," yet his first point is that "Anyone who actively promotes or endorses the idea of White separatism should be treated as a Far Right activist" and his second point is "Ideological antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other demonizations of minority groups—whether explicit or coded—should not be tolerated."

What about Israel? Is the promotion and endorsement of Jewish separatism in Israel any different to the white separatism he is so eager to condemn? Why don't the Israelis stop trying to take the rest of Palestine away from the Palestinians, and instead make a nation together with the Palestinians? Why does the real-world Jewish exclusivism in Israel not recieve the same condemnation from him that he insists should be applied to any instances of white separatist promotion?

See more at: http://www.politicalresearch.org/2015/0 ... NNHuA.dpuf
User avatar
Morty
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Quenelle

Postby American Dream » Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:27 am

Image

Racism, anti-Semitism and the modern world

From the 15-16th centuries onwards, the world began to be rapidly transformed by the technological and social advances that allowed European peoples to expand around the world and create colonies and empires. Explorers from European powers like Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and England began to move into Africa, the Americas and Asia. Through the slave trade and the exploitation of mines and plantations in these new colonies, European traders became rich.

Following this, the newly enriched classes began to use their money to kickstart the industrial revolution in Europe. They also grew tired of the fact that in European societies power was still held by people who were born into the aristocracy, when they were rich and felt they should also be powerful. This led to revolutions in France and the US, and the beginning of the modern world. Over the course of the 18th-19th centuries, the pace of change increased rapidly, with huge numbers of people leaving the land and farm work to move to massive new cities and work in the factories. Traditional sources of authority and power were undermined, and many people were left confused and angered by a world that they didn’t recognise any more.

The 19th century saw the development of a mass socialist movement, as working class people began to realise that if economic and political power was taken out of the hands of the capitalists then society could be run for the benefit of all.

But other groups, particularly middle class people who had no attraction to the ideas of socialism, began to seek other explanations for why the world had changed and what to do about it. Many of these people felt that they didn’t have a place in modern society, but they also didn’t want to go back to medieval times. Unable to see the reality that the world had been changed by huge economic and social forces beyond the control of any individual, they came to blame what was wrong in society on some kind of small secret elite who were controlling things for their own benefit.

People talked about secret societies like the Illuminati or the Freemasons dominating politics and government from behind the scenes. Crucially, these ideas were tied into the idea, which was hugely powerful in the late 19th and early 20th century, that the world was fundamentally divided along racial lines. Many of these people believed there was a plot to undermine the power and dominance of “the white race”.

Racism is a set of ideas that takes older prejudices, and systematically makes them into a worldview. Contrary to what most folk think, it emerged specifically in the modern world, as a way of explaining and understanding what was happening as global society began to rapidly change. Most racialised views of different peoples made their victims out to be inferior, such as the claim black people are stupid and lazy for example.

But Jews had a long history in Christian thought as being thought of as demonic enemies. They were blamed for the killing of Jesus, and in the medieval world were regarded as clever and dangerous because they took part in trade and money lending. In the modern world Jews came to be understood by many people as some kind of absolutely monstrous Other, a huge evil threat. This was of course total nonsense, but it was a useful idea for those who couldn’t face the reality of what was going on in capitalist society, and for those in power who didn’t want people to see that reality.

Anti-Semitic ideas became to be encapsulated in the idea that there was a world Jewish conspiracy, which aimed to establish a global government under their control. They would do this by their international control of banks and money, as well as control of the media and education.

These ideas came together in a book called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This was an anti-Semitic forgery put together in Russia at the turn of the 20th century, which claimed to be documents of meetings and plans of the Jewish elite to dominate the world. These documents were circulated around the world, and became particularly important after the Russian Revolution in 1917. Many, who were fooled into thinking the Protocols were real, used them as evidence that the revolution was part of the Jewish conspiracy, and that the Bolsheviks aimed to advance it. This was a huge part of why Hitler hated socialists and communists so much. But the same ideas also had massive circulation in the leading government and powerful circles of US politics, and were argued by many right wing US Congressmen and other political figures.

If it has ever confused you why right wing conspiracy nutters say they hate banks and big business, and then go on to say they hate communists and socialists who run the world, this is why. For them, communism and socialism are part of a wider conspiracy by a tiny elite to control the world. The aim of this group, they think, is to create a one world government. Whether they talk about Jews openly, or whether they restrict what they’re saying to names like “international bankers”, the origins of this idea go back to the Protocols and the mad ideas of 19th century anti-Semites.

The Protocols are a straight up work of fiction. But the ideas they put forward have surfaced again and again. Since World War Two it’s been increasingly difficult for racist groups to openly advocate anti-Semitism, because these ideas saw their ultimate expression in the slaughter of the Holocaust. Even before this, many didn’t talk openly about Jews, but instead about “international bankers”, the “secret cabal” who ran the world.

The problem with all this for socialists is obvious: financial capitalists really do hold a huge amount of power and influence over government policies, and the international ruling class does co-ordinate its actions secretly and conspiratorially to make sure that capitalism keeps working and that profits are maximised.

However, these things aren’t the result of a plot of a small group of evil men. The fact is that capitalism is a self-sustaining economic system with a life of its own. It doesn’t really matter who is at the top as long as somebody is. People find it hard to grasp the reality of the way our economic and social system works, because it’s complex and hard to understand. Put simply, capitalists don’t want to just get rich and sit back. They want to find ways they can invest profits to create more profits and keep the economy growing. That’s the driving force, not the evil desires of a small group of men. But it’s hard to get your head round that, and many people find it much easier to blame an identifiable group they can easily conceptualise, like Jews.

The 19th century German socialist August Bebel once said that “Anti-Semitism is the Socialism of fools,” because it tried to understand the causes of real problems resulting from capitalism, and instead blamed them on Jews. Throughout the 20th century, many right wingers began to see the dominance of banks and financial capital as evidence of a Jewish conspiracy. for them, this was evidence of the traditional prejudice that Jews were evil, manipulative money lenders bent on power and control.

The real reason that finance has become more and more dominant is that it’s increasingly difficult for capitalists to invest their money in something that produces stuff (like a factory) and make their money back, because after 200 odd years of capitalism the world is full of factories and stuff -- so it’s harder and harder to make new products, like cars or furniture or tools say, and make a profit from it. So instead capitalists put more of their money into banks, financial investments etc. There’s no secret to it -- it’s just about making money, and what’s the best way to go about it.


http://links.org.au/node/2567
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 172 guests