brandan
MajkiFajki
ja ja ve ve
"In recent years interest regarding the extent to which Jews participated in the institution of slavery in the Americas has stemmed from allegations that they predominated in the slave trade and that they owned slaves well in excess of their proportion among the white population. This study argues that they did neither. To the contrary, their participation in the slave trade and in the ownership of slaves was quite small. When compared with their non-Jewish contemporaries, their involvement was one that had little impact."
everyone else who makes public racist or anti-Semitic statements is and should be condemned under French law.
Desproges, when joking about the Jews, engaged in second degree humour, in irony - he was not actually serious.
Unless of course that person isn't really racist deep inside...No, there's always going to be a certain degree of interpretation/appreciation from the judges, but it is still about what is said.
So it's not about what you say, but who you are, or, more exactly, what people think you are. Sad times.
Desproges himself actually said in an interview that this sketch wasn't second-degree humour but third-degree humour. He was more serious than you might think. It was already obvious to me when I was a teenager reading his books, long before I watched that interview.I suggest you go re-watch the interview you're referring to because Desproges precisely makes very clear in it his uncompromising opposition to anti-Semitism which he equates to racism. There is strictly nothing in his sketches, interviews and writings that can be likened to the first-degree anti-Semitic messages of Dieudonné.
By the way, in his only novel, the name of the character who want to kill the whole mankind in order to dominate the planet is 'Kohaine'.
I'm sure you're a French-speaking Belgian because of 'your' posts regarding 9/11 (I know where they come from), so no need to spell it out.My posts debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories and denouncing them for what they are come from myself and, with regards to analysis pertaining to the physical aspects of the collapses, Anglo-saxon sources. I don't think I've ever relied on French sources on the matter, and certainly not "taken" my posts from them. Instead of vaguely accusing me of plagiarism, go ahead and show us some evidence just so we can witness how utterly devoid of any substance your claim is.
I won't commentate the rest, it could take days of (pointless) arguing and I have better things to do. Keep believing what you want to believe, that's your problem after all.Ah, the great "keep believing what you want to believe". Nice way to completely dodge making any actual point. There's no need to rely on "belief" when it comes to Dieudonné - looking at the facts is more than sufficient. You're welcome to come back when you have an actual argument to present.
Desproges precisely makes very clear in it his uncompromising opposition to anti-Semitism which he equates to racism.
There is strictly nothing in his sketches, interviews and writings that can be likened to the first-degree anti-Semitic messages of Dieudonné.
Instead of vaguely accusing me of plagiarism
There's no need to rely on "belief" when it comes to Dieudonné - looking at the facts is more than sufficient.
It doesn't change the fact that the LICRA would sue him nowadays, for the very same sketches.The LICRA is not part of the justice system. Anyone can sue anyone else over anything, but this doesn't mean that the case will go anywhere or result in a conviction (and Alain Jakubowitz did not actually say that Desproges was being anti-Semitic - he said that the matter of going to courts over his sketch would be considered). To repeat myself, Dieudonné is serious in his attacks against Jews, while Desproges is not and has repeatedly shown so.
[...]
According to you. Jakubowicz doesn't share the same view. That's kinda the point, who decides what is racism?
That word is too strong, it's not really what I meant. I hear the same 'music', the same arguments, and the same rhetorics when I read bastison.net or HFR. If you were thinking by yourself, '9/11 conspiracy theories' wouldn't be a part of your vocabulary.I had never heard of bastison.net, and after typing "HFR 11 septembre" on google I came across the hardware.fr forums, which I did not even know hosted discussions on the 9/11 attacks. As expected, your accusations were completely baseless.
IIRC Dieudonné made that comment about slave traders right after the explosion of an artisanal bomb during one of his shows in Lyon. That bomb was planted by a commando from the Betar (a Zionist terrorist movement protected by the Minister of the Interior in France) and wounded a young girl, but well she was Morrocan, so no big deal. Prior to that these guys were repeatedly yelling "Nigger!" to Dieudonné. Makes me wonder where the real racism and the real hate are.I won't delve into your unsurprisingly spotty recollection of what actually happened, but you seem to be of the opinion that condemning Dieudonné for his comments implies supporting the racist assholes who attacked his show in Lyon. Why exactly is it not possible to condemn both? Dieudonné did not even only make the "slave traders reconverted into banking" comment right after the incident since he repeated the same thing in an interview days later. Why should him being the victim of racist hate speech suddenly mean that his own hate speech should not be recognized as such?
Dieudonné is serious in his attacks against Jews, while Desproges is not and has repeatedly shown so.
Do not try to pretend, however, that there is anything unclear about Dieudonné's statements
they are not taken out of context
(in fact, the context clearly supports the fact that they are anti-Semitic)
I had never heard of bastison.net [...]
Why would the term not be part of my vocabulary?
I suggest that if you want to discuss this issue further you reply to me in the 9/11 thread and we'll continue the conversation over there.
I won't delve into your unsurprisingly spotty recollection of what actually happened
you seem to be of the opinion that condemning Dieudonné for his comments implies supporting the racist assholes who attacked his show in Lyon.
Why exactly is it not possible to condemn both?
Dieudonné did not even only make the "slave traders reconverted into banking" comment right after the incident since he repeated the same thing in an interview days later.
Why should him being the victim of racist hate speech suddenly mean that his own hate speech should not be recognized as such?
Keep thinking it was just some innocent second-degree humour then, whatever floats your boat.There's no need for me to "keep thinking it was just some innocent second-degree humour", because there's ample evidence humour is exactly what it was. No, Desproges was not an anti-Semite. No, his sketch did not have an anti-Semite message. The evidence comes from Desproges own declarations, his entourage's declarations, and Desproges' style and type of humour which we see at work in other sketches and productions and which work exactly the same in the sketch we're talking about.
I haven't, yet. I could, though:You could, and you'd be wrong. I don't care how Jakubowitz presented Dieudonné's quotes. I provided a few examples of his quotes in my first message, and I explained why there is absolutely no hesitation to be had about the anti-Semitic nature of his statements. To repeat myself "his statements, his affiliations, and his attitude towards his own statements do not leave any room for doubt". There's no need to twist his statements to establish this to be the case.
http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/medias/arti...nne-146149
How dare you write that while answering to my previous post? That's really impressive. And that comment wasn't even the only one taken out of context.Uh, what the hell are you talking about? Why would I not "dare" to write that Dieudonné's statements are not taken out of context? They very clearly aren't.
What does that even mean?Did you even attempt to think about what it meant before isolating the sentence? I had just written that Dieudonné's quotes are not taken out of context, before adding between brackets that their context in fact supports the assessment that they are anti-Semitic. This means, like I've said already, that if you look at what surrounds the quotes, namely the rest of Dieudonné's production and declarations (including about the quotes themselves) and his affiliations, there is no doubt that he is being serious in his attacks of Jews.
My bad, then. You're surely the only Walloon 9/11 'debunker' who has never heard of Quirant or that huge 9/11 thread on HFR.I don't visit hardware.fr, and I'm not sure why not having heard of Quirant is particularly surprising. I don't tend to look for French sources when discussing topics on English forums. And by the way, I'm not Walloon.
AFAIK that depreciatory term started to appear after JFK's assassination, it was used by propagandists (and repeated by tools) in an attempt to shut down any criticism of the official account.Language is intersubjective. "Conspiracy theories", in the context that I've used the expression, is understood to refer to the baseless accusations and assertions that I referred to in my original post. I specifically recognized the existence of conspiracies as I defined them, but that doesn't change the meaning commonly attributed to the expression "conspiracy theories". It's a useful expression, since it does a good job of differentiating between those who are only interested in anti-government narratives and disregard the facts which contradict them, and those who are interested actual investigation and scientific analysis.
Ditto regarding 9/11. I've never ever seen a counterexample. Maybe you'll be the first one? It's also incredibly stupid in that particular case since 9/11 is a conspiracy, no matter how you look at it.
Indeed, that's the million-dollar question. Ever heard any journalist/analyst/politic condemning the Betar movement and their terrorist actions in the media? Me neither.Let's stick to what we were talking about: where exactly did you read anyone in the media or in the political sphere approving the violent action against Dieudonné and his show that occurred in 2004? I don't think I've ever read anything else than condemnations of the use of violence against him and anyone else.
What would you like me to say? That I am shocked by the total lack of respect from Dieudonné towards the people who planted a bomb in his show?What an incredibly dishonest assessment of what Dieudonné said. If I am the victim of an aggression by two black men and I reply by declaring that "those who attacked me are lazy monkeys living on welfare", I will have made a racist statement. Why? Because I will have made the promotion of hateful imagery that racists associate to blacks in general and not to the two specific guys who attacked me. Dieudonné did the exact same thing - when he spoke of "slave traders reconverted in banking", he was making the promotion of hateful imagery that anti-Semistes associate with Jews in general and not the specific assholes who threw a bottle of acid in the room. Or do you think he actually believes that those specific people were bankers, slave traders and involved in show-business?
As long as you condemn both sides, that's fine I guess. Personally I couldn't care less about these 'racist hate speeches', no matter where they come from. These are just words to me. What I can't stand are double standards and hypocrisy.There is no hypocrisy. When racist statements are made, they get denounced. When homophobic statements are made, they get denounced. When anti-Semitic statements are made, they get denounced.
Desproges was not an anti-Semite.
If I am the victim of an aggression by two black men and I reply by declaring that "those who attacked me are lazy monkeys living on welfare", I will have made a racist statement.
where exactly did you read anyone in the media or in the political sphere approving the violent action against Dieudonné and his show that occurred in 2004?
when he spoke of "slave traders reconverted in banking", he was making the promotion of hateful imagery that anti-Semistes associate with Jews in general and not the specific assholes who threw a bottle of acid in the room.
do you think he actually believes that those specific people were bankers, slave traders and involved in show-business?
All I'm saying is Desproges was a provocative humorist who made tons of hilarious, deep, and borderline racist jokes, just like Dieudonné. He would have issues with the same jokes in present day.No, not "just like Dieudonné" at all. Dieudonné has a serious anti-Semite message wrapped in humour in his sketches (and not wrapped in humour the rest of the time). Desproges did not have an anti-Semite message at all. There is absolutely nothing that indicates, and no reason to think, that Desproges would be condemned by the courts for his jokes if he was alive to make them today. Dieudonné is getting condemned for his serious anti-Semitic message, which was not present in Desproges' discourse.
Certainly, and absolutely no one would care. If you were a known artist, no one would ask you to justify yourself on TV, no one would demand an apology from you, no interviewer would tell you 'do you realise how much black people have suffered and how shocked they are by your comment?', etc.. The media wouldn't even talk about it (I'm not saying it should be different). That's the double standards and the hypocrisy I was talking about.This is complete fantasy. Such a statement would receive the exact same condemnations that equivalent anti-Semite statements would. When Guerlain made his racist comment on television, there was unequivocal condemnation and the courts found him guilty of racist hate speech. Any comedian that would repeatedly make racist declarations the way Dieudonné makes anti-Semite declarations would get the same amount of attention.
That would have been the last straw. What I meant was the media kept quiet on this, as they usually do when Jews are involved in acts of delinquency.Again, complete fantasy. Dieudonné getting attacked did not receive more or less attention than anyone else of his level of celebrity at the time of getting attacked. In fact, he even got interviewed by the Journal du dimanche a few days later. I'll be waiting for the undoubtedly solid data based on which you're making your assertion that the media are "quiet [...] when Jews are involved in acts of delinquency".
Well, no, he was actually talking specifically about them.Seriously, can you pay attention to what you're replying to? The hateful imagery that Dieudonné used is not associated, as hateful imagery, to the few guys who attacked him, but to Jews in general by anti-Semites, the exact same way that racists associate "being lazy" and "looking like monkeys" to black people in general. You just admitted that saying "those who attacked me were lazy monkeys living on welfare" was racist, and it is so precisely for that reason - saying "those who attacked me" doesn't change the fact that the hateful imagery being used is attached in a broader context to black people in general. Likewise, when Dieudonné calls his attackers "slave traders reconverted in banking", he is using hateful imagery associated to Jews in general by anti-Semites. And he is doing so perfectly knowingly.
"Those that are attacking me have built empires and fortunes thanks to slavery and the black slave trade."
http://www.haaretz.com/nolaughing-matter-1.62562
[...]
He truly believe that those specific people, who only represent a tiny minority of the French Jews by the way, are their 'spiritual sons' (same mindset, same arrogance, same contempt) - and it makes sense, to say the least.
Seriously, can you pay attention to what you're replying to?
...do you still consider it possible that the person is right?
That there is a law for something as specific as the denial of the holocaust is kind of rediculous but I don't have anything against it.
But hey I've said that since post 1.... How you managed not to read that is beyond me.... but then again... your general response to any post I make seems to be: OMFG THIS IDIOT WEIRD IS DOING SOMETHING STUPID AGAIN!
And then 5 posts later you realize I was right in the first place.....
You can't even think by yourself, you"re just repeating Soral & friends speechs over and over and over.
As usual you're simplifying and deforming anything to fit your phantasms.
Yes ofcourse Dieudonne sold 20.000 dvd's from his garage and every customer paid in cash.
Or wait... Dieudonne had the money put onto bank accounts which he can't trust (banking is filled with so many jews man... The whole sector is corrupt.) so he withdraws his money daily?
See you don't need Dieudonne to use logic and reason.... WTF IS SOMEONE DOING WITH 650.000 euro in cash?
I would seriously doubt that Bill Gates would have that much cash in his house.
Get help, thank me later. I'm out...
Do you think Dieudonné is an anti-semite? If not, why? It can't be because he silently walked through the camp at Auschwitz, can it?
What exactly prevents you from being anti-establishment, anti-zionist or anti-anything in France?
Do "the jews" rule France? If so, how?
Why does he support Front National?
I am not really sure I've understood that question so I'll let it as that right now :D. Maybe you can rephrase it in a way I can understand it and I'll answer later on ;).
the abuse of the holocausts by some people to organize their own wealth and/or to shut down any debate around the israeli politics.
It's only after he gradually adopted a first degree anti-Semitic message that he started getting condemned
He obviously influenced you beyond a point where you could still remain sane while discussing it.
Ther argue with this part "He's basically just accepting his "fans" and urging (edit:) encouraging them to support his "new wind" where the images of protesting people gets idolized by him."
Somehow I'm fairly confident that you read this on the 18th clicked close and only now chose to answer.
But let's not discuss that. I can't "prove" that you did and you probably can't "prove" to me you "didn't do something".
Now let's be brief about this as you have other interests (like analysing Dieudonne for years in order to be better informed than me... as if that's a good argument... I analysed the netcode and read the q3 source files yet you still think I'm wrong about netcode innit? Same bullshit argument as you're trying here).
This post of your obviously shows that Dieudonne is making a case for "YOU" (plural) against "THEM" (and you can't even clearly say who "they" actually are).
It crosses the border from "humor" to "politics" (and in this case possibly also from humor towards "racism" and "hate").
I don't think you're dumb... I think that you're angry and that Dieudonne found a way to target that anger towards a group of people.
I thought that the above post would wake you up... but apparently sociology/psychology is right.
"Sociology/psychology shows that you will now, most likely, become even more fanatical."
Now if you want to get back on topic...
I haven't lowered the level of debate at all, you believe that I have because you are positively biassed towards Dieudonne and negatively biassed towards me. This makes you somewhat unable to objectively analyse my concerns on this topic. It seems that you will shut down every contrary ideas or opinion on Dieudonne. This was clear to me as soon as I called you a fanatic on this topic.... and it is for a large part the definition of a fanatic.
And yes, imo the blame for that should go to Dieudonne and not to his followers. As he is informed that people are confusing his "jokes" with reality and therefor he should post a statement, distancing himself from his show, which tells his fans not to be discriminating/antisemetic irl.
That he posts a video instead where he sings about glorifying his ideas and sais in the text that he is willing to die for it and even sacrifice his family.... That's insane.
![shaftwhores only by [EXE]dann](/files/avatars/2007/51852-shaftwhore.gif "shaftwhores only by [EXE]dann"){kind=small}
