Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Poverty - Homeless  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Ovi Language
Michael R. Czinkota: As I See It...
The Breast Cancer Site
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
Anti-Semitism in France FAQ Anti-Semitism in France FAQ
by Joseph Gatt
2020-10-26 09:58:08
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

The media is really about making a buck or two and keeping readers hooked.

In most Western democracies, the media keeps readers hooked by running stories about individual celebrities and their failed marriages, erratic personal lives, failed projects, as well as celebrity money well-spent (and not very well-spent) and other sensational stories. Then you get the occasional political, security or economic story.

But, in France, you have privacy laws. So you can't write a story about a celebrity divorce, or about a celebrity mansion purchase, or about a celebrity crazy project. That gets you in legal trouble.

So the because the French press can't discuss actors or singers who date, dump, marry, divorce. So in France, they go ahead and shame racist celebrities and make sensational stories about that.

fra0001_400Most celebrities in France who get caught for racist comments end up apologizing, insisting they were never racist to begin with, and never discuss racism in any form, ever, again.

But since you can't discuss celebrities and their sexuality or their luxury cars, the only other topic you can discuss and that can bring in cash for the media is “racial issues.” Everyone belongs to one ethnic group or the other, and everyone deals with people from different ethnic group.

So racial sensationalism sells in France.

Now here are a few questions that I get a lot, and I'll answer them.

Q: Why do the French distinguish between “racism” and “anti-Semitism”

I know it irritates a lot of people when politicians say “we will fight against racism AND anti-Semitism.”

Anti-Semitism is a form of racism. So why separate it from other racisms? Is it Jewish supremacism? Are Jews a superior race?

No. The logic is simple. In France, some people are “racist” and hate anyone who's not White and Catholic and European. Those guys hate everyone from the Jews, the Evangelical Christians (they refuse to use the word “Church” and use the word “Temple” instead and call Evangelical Christian denominations “sects.”). And then they hate all Muslims, all Arabs, Africans, people from the Caribbean, and pretty much everyone.

Then you have those who don't dislike the Jews, but dislike pretty much almost every other minority, especially non Judeo-Christian minorities.

Then you have those who hate the Jews exclusively, and don't mind other minorities. You have “White” French people who dislike the Jews but like everyone else, and you also have North African, African and Caribbean-descent French people who dislike the Jews but tolerate everyone else.

Thus, because a large number of people dislike the Jews but don't mind all other races and ethnicities, and that those people are like “I'm not racist. I have Black friends. It's just those damn Jews.”

So the media and politicians use the phrase “racism and anti-Semitism” for this specific reason.

Q: Why call Jewish hatred “anti-Semitism”? The Arabs are also Semites? So Arab hatred should also be “anti-Semitism!”

Problem is the term “anti-Semitism” started being used in the 1850s, when there were few or no Arabs in Europe.

Logically, speakers of Semitic languages, or “Semitic” people of you want to call them that, include the  Jews of course, the Arabs, but also the Sicilians, the Maltese, the Ethiopians, and a few other peoples and tribes.

But in the 1850s research was not what it was today, and the Maltese or Ethiopians or Arabs did not call themselves “Semites” and research into linguistics and genetics was at its very beginnings.

Anti-Semites needed to find a good reason to hate the Jews, and the reason those anti-Semites used was that Europeans were “White” and that the Jews were “Semites” and thus not White.

The term anti-Semitism was eventually used to mean “hatred of the Jews” until the late 1940s, and the term is still in use with that very definition.

There are other strange linguistic uses. The “Pennsylvania Dutch” are “German” and not from the Netherlands (the word was a corruption of the German “Deutsch”) and my Belgian friends like to insist that French fries should be called “Belgian fries.” My French friends like to insist that “French toast” does not really exist in France, and my Lebanese and Turkish friends like to remind me that they invented pizza, not the Italians (pizza is a corruption of “pita” or “pide” as it's called in Turkey)

So a lot of Arabs in France will hate the Jews to their guts, but then will say “I'm allowed to hate the Jews. I'm a Semite. The Jews are Semites. It's like hating my own people!” Now where's the logic in that? That would be like saying “I can kill my own son. He's my son!”

Q: Why the decret Crémieux?

I've discussed this one before. The Jews of Algeria were given French citizenship in 1870, when Muslim Algerians rejected citizenship, because French citizenship would involve giving up Sharia law.

Something I forgot to add. During the exile years, the Jews were never citizens (or subjects of the King of Queen) in any nation.

After the French revolution, the universal declaration of human rights in France, and the notion of equality among men, Napoleon gave the Jewish people French citizenship in France in 1801. That was the first time in 1700 years that the Jews had been citizens in any nation, and that the Jews had equal rights with the locals in any nation.

During the 1800s, many European nations followed and gave the Jews French citizenship. Algeria was part of this wave of granting the Jews citizenship.

Q: Is Alain Soral correct?

Alain Soral is a French-Swiss thinker who is part of this group of “intellectuals” who discuss race in the media because there's little else to discuss that would keep the viewers' attention.

If you discuss classical economics or boring politics no one's going to tune into that.

Soral mixes race with gossip, and tends to be very condescending with media personalities. He has a firmly held believe that the Jews control the media, that the Jews make non-Jews look ridiculous in the media, and that anyone who dares criticize the Jews in the media will get expelled from the media.

Now if Soral were correct, he'd stay calm, provide all the facts and evidence in logical form, and calmly debate people using his reasoning.

But because his reasoning contains a lot of fallacies and logical gaps, and is in fact hate speech, not only does he always fail to debate calmly, he does not allow people to contradict him. Now if you think you know the truth, let people contradict you, and give them a rebuttal with the truth. Don't hide behind monologues and an aggressive tone to prevent people from telling their side of the truth.  

Q: Why the Dieudonné scandals?

Comedian Dieudonné is a stand-up comedian of sorts, and his main target is racism, and responding to critics on stage. That's mostly what he does: make fun of ethnic groups (often in very clumsy, stereotypical and poorly researched ways) and make fun of his critics.

Now put Dieudonné in any headline in France and you're going to get hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of clicks. And you've sold your lot of papers for the day.

Dieudonné likes to be provocative, and uses anti-Semitic provocations as his main punchlines, and that makes headlines, and the papers sell very well.

Now the media could have dropped him and censored him, but why lose an opportunity to sell more newspapers?

There are other celebrities that tried to imitate Dieudonné, but their version of anti-Semitism wasn't getting a lot of clicks.

Does Eric Zemmour represent Judaism?

Eric Zemmour is a Jewish pundit who focuses almost all his comments on racial issues, and that gets a ton of viewers on TV (good for advertising revenue) and that gets a lot of viewers in YouTube. And a lot of people buy Le Figaro Magazine with the only intention of reading his column there, and many tune into RTL, the radio he has a shot column at, just for his column. So his own individual personal version racial hysteria sells.

Zemmour's target: the Muslims. Is it hate speech? I'd say yes.

Oddly enough, Zemmour's books are a lot more logical, tend to be coherent, and are more or less accurate, albeit a bit of nationalistic fervor, and several things I disagree with. His books are a long shot from the neuroticism he shows on TV.

Zemmour used to focus on right-wing politics, then tried to sell books by criticizing feminism (and that did not sell a lot of books). But when Zemmour started those borderline speeches on Muslims, oddly enough, his popularity exploded. Good for the ratings.

Q: Do Jews control the French media?

Let's say that there are a few Jews in the French cultural and media eco-system. But there are also a majority of non-Jews.

If you take the big production companies, let's say the top 10 production companies, I think two of them are owned by a Jew, 8 of them by non-Jews. So it's not like the Jews are everywhere.

And then there are the smaller production companies owned by Jews and non-Jews. Same goes for newspapers, where it's mostly non-Jewish billionaires who own magazines and newspapers.

But there are Jews in the eco-system, but in the media, Jews and non-Jews tend to work together, and Judaism isn't always a big deal. In fact, a lot of the Jews in the French media and cultural eco-system are married to non-Jews, and tend to be secular Jews at best, or are themselves the children of a Jew and a non-Jew, or Judaism never really played any role in their lives.

Q: Is there Jewish censorship in the media?

I remember many years ago writing an article criticizing products that are supposed to help you “quit smoking” like patches and nicotine gum and books and therapies and all that.

After publishing that article, I thought I was going to die in the next 24 hours. There was a deluge of comments within 1 hour of the publication of the article, all very aggressive, some threatening legal action, others questioning me and the fact that I'm not a medical doctor. Problem is, I tended to get zero comments for any article I wrote.

I deleted the article, but also realized that “quit smoking” pharma products had their team of trolls on the watch for “Google alerts” and trying to prevent people to give sincere opinions on quit smoking products.

Now I still think that patches and nicotine gum and “quit smoking books” are a complete waste of time, but who am I to judge? Maybe those things worked for some people.

Now there are quite a few pundits who know very little about Judaism and want their 15 minutes of fame by destroying Judaism using all kinds of hate speech. And those guys usually get destroyed by trolls.

But there's all kinds of censorship in the media. The only remedy to censorship is for you to know your topic and to know your audience. That usually helps prevent problems.


     
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(0)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi