Some people seem hell-bent on
acting out anti-Semitic stereotypes. If Bernard-Henri Lévy embodies a
caricatural warmongering supremacist Zionist, Jacques Attali has become the
poster child for the anti-national globalist. The French civic-nationalist and
anti-Zionist website Égalité & Réconciliation aptly sums up Attali as
“the French embodiment of social-democratic Zionism, of soft Zionism, or of
pro-EU globalist immigrationism, the eulogist of a miscegenated France [une France métisée]. Open to all (southern) winds
and to all religions.”
Attali recently came to my
attention with a perfectly self-explanatory tweet:
Le
souverainisme n’est que le nouveau nom de l’antisémitisme. Les juifs et les
musulmans, menacés tous les deux par lui, doivent s’unir face aux fantasmes du
grand remplacement.https://t.co/8QwAagsJEQ
— Jacques Attali
(@jattali) October 4, 2019
“Sovereignism is nothing but
the new name of anti-Semitism. Jews and Muslims, who are both threatened by it,
must unite against the fantasies of the great replacement.”
Thus, Attali equates the fight
for national and popular sovereignty – a founding principle of the American and
French revolutions – with one of the worst evils imaginable: the centuries-old
and wholly irrational hatred of the Jews. Gentile sovereignty must therefore be
oppose, as should, quite tellingly, any mention of European demographic substitution
through mass immigration.
This is remarkable insofar as
“sovereignism” (souverainisme) is in fact merely a form of civic nationalism: it wishes to
restore the formal sovereignty of the French nation-state. Sovereignists are
typically critical of the European Union but often open to “assimilated”
Africans and Muslims. Identitarians tend to be critical or indifferent towards
sovereignism insofar as it distracts French patriots from the more fundamental
and challenging problem: the demographic decline and replacement of indigenous
Europeans.
Attali is a Jew born in
Algeria. His attack on gentile sovereignty and his call for a Jewish-Muslim
alliance of course would be a particularly brazen example of the behavior
documented by Professor Kevin MacDonald in his celebrated Culture of Critique series.
Attali’s tweet promotes a
recent article of his which
in fact is somewhat more nuanced. Instead of a blanket condemnation of
sovereignism, the article points out that “often” sovereignism is a mere cover
for an opposition to Muslim and African immigration as such, a form of
dog-whistling. This is actually true. Perhaps the tweet is a troll to get
attention.
Attali wrote the piece to
criticize fellow Jews who have been critical of immigration or defended some
form of French identity. These include Éric Zemmour, William Goldnadel, and
Alain Finkielkraut. Attali writes:
In particular, it is sad to see
the descendants of Algerian Jews forget the magnificent role played by Muslim
Algerians in supporting and protecting their parents, during the horrible days
of triumphant anti-Semitism in France proper and even more so in Algeria, under
Vichy, under Giraud, and even under De Gaulle.
We see that even De Gaulle, who
staked his entire career on opposing Hitlerism, is thrown under the bus. I am
not aware of Muslims having been particularly friendly to the Jews during this
period (the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem notoriously supported Hitler and Bosnian
Muslims joined the Waffen-SS). It is true that Vichy’s anti-Semitic legislation
was not immediately abrogated upon Giraud and De Gaulle’s taking charge during
the Libération.
Attali furthermore argues that
if Jews support indigenous Europeans in opposing Afro-Muslim immigration, this
“[w]ould be to fall in the trap of those who would like to import in Europe the
tragic conflict in the Middle East.” Of course, the simplest and best way to
avoid ethno-religious conflict between Arabs/Muslims and other groups in France
would simply be to oppose immigration and maintain France’s ethnic homogeneity. The basic insight that
ethno-cultural identity is a factor for solidarity and social peace was of
course understood by ancient Greek thinkers like
Aristotle and by the American Founding Fathers,
but this is now considered taboo in the West.
The article is full of the
usual tropes: “First of all, this discourse [on immigration] is false. There is
no invasion of France by Islam or by Africa.” He points out that annual
non-European immigration amounts to “only” 0.5% of the total population. Of course
if such a rate, which has been very roughly in place since the 1960s, were
continued for a century, that alone would be enough to reduce the indigenous
French population to a minority; not to mention the fact that the first
generation of Afro-Muslim immigrants tend to have a much higher birthrate than
the natives. Currently, non-whites are estimated to
make up a third of births in France and the country will probably
become majority non-white in the 2060s.
Thus, by Attali’s own
admission, demographic replacement of native French population is indeed
occurring, something without precedent in our history. Even the so-called
Barbarian Invasions by the Germanic Tribes during the fall of the Roman Empire
do not even come close in scale.
Attali argues that “99% of them
[Afro-Muslims] integrate themselves perfectly into the nation.” This is
obviously hyperbole. Without getting bogged down into details, many
Afro-Muslims (particularly Maghrebis) can be perfectly functional members of
society and the immigrants are, to a great extent, assimilating to a rather
shallow modern “French culture,” namely the French language, pop culture (rap .
. .), and the realities of a social-democratic consumer society. However, there
are also significant ethnic ghettos in all major French cities and increasingly
even in the villages.
While ethnic realities are to
some extent masked by the lack of relevant statistics, the fact is that
everyone can observe that stratification and fragmentation of French society along
ethnic, racial, and religious lines. This is commented upon by mainstream
sociologists and by the top politicians, if only in private. In the best case
scenario, the new France black-blanc-beur (black-white-Arab France) so praised by Attali will have ethno-racial
realities similar to those of Brazil or, in the worst case, Lebanon.
Attali’s shameless retconning
of French history is not even worth rebutting:
Islam is not a threat to
France; it is a component since the eighth century. It is through it, and
through Jewish philosophers, that Greek thought arrived in France at the turn
of the first millennium. And never has the world been better off than when
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam worked together to make reason triumph over
obscurantism.
For Attali: “France cannot be
summed in an often unbearable past, not an often criticizable history. France
cannot be accepted en bloc and venerated as such.” I have never heard Attali express
similar criticism of Jewish history and Jewry, though he has written at length
on the topic.
Furthermore: “[France] must not
fall for the fantasies of the ‘great replacement,’ remember that she carries
the name of an invading people, and that she is, from her origin, a foremost
place for the settlement of innumerable peoples which every Frenchman, wherever
he comes from, is the heir to.” That France was founded by a vigorous Germanic
tribe – the Franks, a fellow European people who converted to Christianity and
merged with the native French – upon the detritus of the decaying Roman Empire
is of course no argument for outright submersion under an Afro-Islamic tide.
Attali ascribes opposition to
Afro-Islamic immigration as a sign of a lack of French “self-confidence” and
reminiscent of “the anti-Italian, anti-Polish, anti-Armenian, and anti-Semitic
ideologies of centuries past.” He concludes with a typical redefinition of
terms to suit the needs of the current situation: “Anti-Semitism designates a
hostility to both Jews and Muslims.” Attali does not even bother to justify
this position (Arabs may be Semites but many Muslims are not, including the
black Caribbean convert Mickaël Harpon who recently stabbed four police
officers to death in Paris).
The combination of Islam with
an Africanized majority population which certainly make for a very ‘explosive’
cocktail for France’s future.
Jacques Attali is a leading
figure in France’s intellectual-political class, having served as an adviser to
Socialist President François Mitterrand in the 1980s. Since then, he has been
involved in various banking initiatives and has constantly argued for France to
be open to all financial and migratory movements.
A few of his “greatest hits”
over the years:
·
His explanation of the 2007-8 financial crisis with the parable of the one-legged pants (must
be seen to be believed).
·
“We can imagine, we can dream of Jerusalem as the capital of the
planet, which will one day be united around a world-government.
It would be a fine place for a world-government.”
·
Claiming at the height of the migrant crisis that Afro-Islamic migrants “will
make Europe the greatest power in the world.”
·
Demanding that Hungary, which has perhaps the most consequential
patriotic government in Europe today, be “be expelled from the European Union.”
·
Etc.
Attali has never manifested any
real opposition or alarm at Jewish ethno-nationalism in the form of Zionism and
the daily brutalities of Israeli policy. Like his fellow social democrat Paul
Krugman across the Atlantic, he might wistfully lament the ‘inevitable’ tragedy
and – with a little verbiage as squid ink – ask his readers to move on to more
elevating topics, like how to squash gentile nationalism, open up the West to
the Third World, and subject all nations to the rule of the proverbial “small,
rootless, international clique.”
http://www.unz.com/gdurocher/jacques-attalis-message-to-the-gentiles-sovereignism-is-anti-semitism-a-jewish-muslim-alliance-must-shut-it-down/
