Was shocked and disappointed to find out recently that even bloody Voltaire was at it...
:-(
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/jtr_01.htm
Centuries later Voltaire's criticism of Jews, in his Essai sur le Moeurs, repeated many of the same charges: "The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous -- cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity." Ironically, as Jacob Katz observes, "Voltaire did more than any other single man to shape the rationalist trend that moved European society toward improving the status of the Jew" (Katz, 34).
Still historically remembered (according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1994) "as a crusader against tyranny and bigotry," Voltaire turned repeatedly and angrily against Jews who he believed to epitomize such "tyranny and bigotry." Jews, he complained, "are ... the greatest scoundrels who have ever sullied the face of the globe ... They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and Germans are born with blond hair. I would not in the least be surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race ... You [Jews] have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables, in bad conduct, and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny" (Gould, 91). On another occasion Voltaire charged that "the Jew does not belong to any place except that place which he makes money; would he not just as easily betray the King on behalf of the Emperor as he would the Emperor for the King?" (Katz, 44). Thirty of 118 of Voltaire's essays in his Dictionary of Philosophy address Jews, usually disparagingly. Voltaire calls Jews "our masters and our enemies ... whom we detest ... the most abominable people in the world."
22 comments:
I admire your dedication, but if you're going to go back through history looking for anti-semites you're taking on quite a big project.
Yes, but particularly surprising and disappointing to find out (as I did last night) that a figure like Voltaire held these views...
JP - I just skimmed the article from which you quoted. Maybe I read too fast, butit actually looks like something of an apology for anti-semitism. It ends with this quote from a French Jewish intellectual of the 19th century:
"...it must needs be that the general causes of anti-Semitism have always resided in [the people of] Israel itself, and not in those who antagonized it..."
Provocative, to say the least.
JP - I've been digging a bit deeper into the site with the Voltaire quote - are you aware it's some kind of white supremacist (or at least white separatist) site. (Actually I've just double-checked - their preferred term is 'White Nationalist'.)
""Racism" is the central heresy of the last half century, continually condemned in the mainstream media, but seldom (if ever) presented honestly; it wouldn't hurt to find out what racial nationalists actually say."
From the front page of the site.
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/1a.htm
(Is it too much of a cheap shot to register surprise that it doesn't
include the phrase 'Are you thinking what we're thinking?')
You can also find articles like "Jewish Hypocrisy" and "The Beast as Saint - the truth about Martin Luther King".
The section on WWII is prefaced thus:
"Real History:
The title was coined by David Irving to describe historical events, especially those occurring during the Second World War, that the System would like to suppress.
We perpetually hear, for example, about the "Holocaust" inflicted by NS Germany on Jews. But almost no one is familiar with the atrocities "our side" inflicted on defenseless German civilians."
(Same link as before.)
It's a fascinating site. Racist and proud to be so. The scary thing about many of the articles is how reasonable they sound. There will be things on this site that you agree with. JP - however did you stumble upon this? By the way, this doesn't mean that your central point about Voltaire was wrong - it's just that the site you quote from appears to AGREE with him. Are we seeing an object lessons in the pitfalls of hurried internet research or did you choose this site on purpose? I'm not getting at you - I'm genuinely curious.
THE INSIDE STORY OF THIS BLOG POST
My dad said he'd heard something on tv or radio about Voltaire being anti-semitic.
I said it was the first I'd heard about it, and that from the little I knew about Voltaire (leading Englightenment figure etc) it didn't sound too likely.
A quick Google search (url below) came up with the site I blogged from, amongst others.
That's it, whole thing was a 3 minute job. Didn't look any further into the site, or have any special reason for choosing it over other sites, other than that they had some meaty and easily-accessible Voltaire quotes.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=voltaire+anti-semitism&meta=
Thanks for the explanation.
Scary site thought isn't it? Given that its true nature isn't immediately apparent.
By the way JP - what do you think of the argument in the article - I think it can be summarised as "the only consistency between all these disparate writers is that they hate jews. Why this consistency? These writers are rational in other ways. Therefore are they not perhaps rational in their anti-semitism? "
Please dissect. (I am not, by the way, lining up with the anti-semites here - I just want to see you do your philopher thing.)
Prima facie, if you know a thinker to be knowledgeable, fair, rational or whatever on one topic, it is reasonable to expect they are similar on other topics. This is the truth in the argument you summarised.
However there's only one way to be sure, which is to go and check. And people being what they are, of course even generally rational and enlightened people can be irrational, perhaps because they allow their rationality to be overrun by their irrational prejudices.
The first thing that would need to be established re:Voltaire and anti-semitic chums is whether anti-semitism per se, independent of any particular adherent or opponent, is rational. Only then you can apply the label "rational" to one side or the other. You cannot say a topic is rational because certain thinkers adhere to it - the burden of proof is the other way round. This is the flaw in the argument you summarised.
Note that in many cases both adherents and opponents of a position can be "rational". Indeed that's precisely what philosophical debate is supposed to be.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rational
Consistent with or based on reason; logical
My own view is that anti-semitism is not rational (because it is not based on any evidence a rational person ought to accept), and that the question to be explained is why it is so persistent an idea, and especially why even otherwise-rational people (eg Voltaire) find it so appealing. I do not have a conclusive answer to this, and I suspect nor does anyone else.
Thanks JP. Your post is exactly what I asked for.
Much appreciated.
I have some Muslim friends and neighbours and Andy has a Muslim aunt. Do we win £5?
I liked your post a lot - some fair points I thought.
The bit on anti-semitism sounded a bit like Sam Kinison claiming that although he'd never condone wife beating he UNDERSTOOD it. But your parallels with attitudes to Muslims were most illuminating.
Yes, I agree, the separateness & identifiabilty of sub-communities is often part of their persecution. I read somewhere that Jewish dietary habits were an important factor in their non-integration into Christian communities, as - when strictly enforced - they literally mean that Jews cannot eat off non-kosher plates, so there was little possibility of ever eating together with Christians.
Then there was a double-whammy, as the greater hygiene of Jewish methods of slaughter, food choice and food preparation, on top of improved personal hygiene (due to ritual washing) meant they tended to survive infection-based plagues better than dirtier Christian neighbours, who then blamed them for the plagues and went on rampaging pogroms.
Against this (1) you have to point out that pre-Enlightenment there was a (complete?) shortage of Christian communities ready to reach out to non-Christians, and there were widespread (universal?) legal frameworks that enforced separateness (one example: moneylending was one of the few jobs permitted to Jews in many places and times).
And (2) the ultimate argument against this means of "explaining" persecution is that even where and when Jews were allowed to assimilate, it made no difference. No Jewish community was more assimilated (they thought) than the pre-war German community, and they looked on with incredulity as they, Germans, were shipped off to the camps, WW1 Iron Crosses pinned to their chests or no.
Miscellaneous other points:
* Re: whether immigrants from France etc are treated differently to Orthodox Jews/Sikhs etc, I would argue: if there is indeed a difference of treatment, and it is due to colour, I'm against it. If there is a difference, but it is down to different levels of willingness to assimilate, it may be justified.
* the aim of the Islamist movement is indeed to "ultimately turn Islam into the only system of world government". I don't think this applies to any other comparable group.
* Islamists do indeed want to "shatter our value system", and I personally do not see an appropriate level of condemnation from many parts of the Muslim community. Again, I can't think of any other group this applies to.
* Note my use of the word "Islamists" above, not "Muslims". http://www.danielpipes.org/article/366
* Re: "frisking" - Pipes as usual speaks a lot of sense on airline security eg http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/225, http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3975
* I had a Muslim girlfriend for a year, can I get a fiver too?
Herein lies the condundrum. Wemb says there is a parallel between anti-semitism and Islamophobia. JP says, there may well be certain similarities, but the latter is justified. It's a thorny problem for a liberal. I agree with Wemb that there is a marked tendency to view Muslims as 'other'. But I agree with JP that if you look at Islamists stated aims there are reasons to see certain views as antithetical to the notion of democracy. (I hereby remind you of earlier post about why voting is anti-Islam. http://impdec.blogspot.com/2005/04/voting-is-apostasy.html)
But there is a possibility that we start sounding like the guy on the flawless logic website.
I'm not sure if I understood all of this latest post. I think I agree about white supremacists / christians but I'm not sure what the point is.
Anyway, you asked me if I ever encountered prejudice? As a child I absolutely did. I very much felt that my family was 'other' and 'foreign' from the moment I moved back to England in 1976 up until I went ot 6th form college in 1986.
In my current situation I have not felt this way, though it our helped younger children get a nursery place to stress that their mother tongue was not English.
I'm not sure how this fits into your argument and if I'm supporting you or not.
Great discussion. Just one point I wanted to make - I don't believe ''immigration' is a thinly veiled go at darkies' as Wembley71 puts it. My impression is that a lot of the discussion on this subject concerns arrivals from the Eastern Bloc countries. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that immigration is a concern for british blacks and asians and can't just be dismissed as a question of racism.
* Herein lies the condundrum. Wemb says there is a parallel between anti-semitism and Islamophobia. JP says, there may well be certain similarities, but the latter is justified. It's a thorny problem for a liberal. I agree with Wemb that there is a marked tendency to view Muslims as 'other'. But I agree with JP that if you look at Islamists stated aims there are reasons to see certain views as antithetical to the notion of democracy.
I'm going to try to defuse Dan's conundrum, hope you can all help me sort these ideas out in my head. Here goes.
Basic premise: one may rightly attack people only for their bad behaviour. Attacking people for their membership of an ethnic group, which of itself implies no particular behaviour, is therefore unjustified. We call this racism, and rightly condemn it. Anti-semitism as usually practised falls into this category.
Adhering to a religion however may indeed imply certain behaviour, and to the extent that this behaviour is a bad thing, followers of the religion may be rightly criticised. The term "Islamophobia" etymologically suggests an anti-religionism, and if used in this way it may be justified or may not, depending on its followers' behaviour. If the term is in practice used as a euphemism for darky-bashing, we're back with racism, which is wrong (above).
Adhering to a political viewpoint may also imply certain behaviour, and to the extent that this behaviour is a bad thing, followers of this political viewpoint may be rightly criticised. Followers of the totalitarian political ideology "Islamism" are "Islamists", and the (justified) fear and loathing of them ought to be termed "Islamistophobia".
Thus Dan's "thorny problem for a liberal" disappears as soon as one makes the distinction between Islamophobia (may be problematic for liberals) and Islamistophobia (definitely should not be).
Some miscellaneous comments to Wembley now.
* Do these proto- and neo- Nazi elements not ALSO want to shatter our liberal humanist value-system?
Yes, they absolutely do.
* As you know JP, the lands of Islam were far more 'forgiving' places for Jewish communities than the lands of Christendom, right up until the 20th century.
Am well aware of it, it's an awful irony.
* JP, I wonder if your own familial experience has brought as many or more comments on the southern hemesphere elements or the religious elements?
Neither nor, I'm glad to say. I have been truly blessed, especially in comparison to my grandparent's generation (largely to be found in a pit in Lithuania with a bullet in the back of the head).
* I spent a year working in the same building as the diamond bourse in Hatton Garden. Didn't find all that much willingness to assimilate there. Wasn't allowed into the kosher cafe, and almost never found anyone willing to engage in polite banter in the lift
Am shocked you weren't allowed in the cafe, did they check todgers on the way in or what? Of course there are degrees of non-assimilation. Self-imposed ghettoisation is hardly helpful to the wider society, but is at least a lesser sin than seeking to overthrow the foundations of that society. And I hate having to talk to people in lifts.
* Perhaps the muslim community don't overtly condemn the islamists because they just don't perceive them as relevant
Perhaps so, but this would be an odd position given that Islamists kill far more Muslims than they do non-Muslims (Sudan, Taliban, Algeria, the PA). See eg https://www1.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/03/307906.html.
* Perhaps they DO condemn them but its not reported
Quite possible, of course.
* Have there not, even, been murders by Jews of Jews at the highest level within Israeli society, attacking the very people that democracy has chose
If you are referring to the Rabin assassination, yes. Maybe there are others too, I don't know of any however.
* ...attacking the very people that democracy has chosen, with the intention of creating a race war between Jews and Muslims in that land??
Don't know if that is a fair description of Yigal Amir's intention (though protesting Rabin's "giving Israel to the Arabs" certainly was).
* What I am suggesting is that it is very hard, with the limited knowledge we have, to know where the mean, median and mode of muslim opinion lies, for lots and lots of reasons.
Fair point.
* the epitome of observant mohammedism...
So I only get a fiver if I date someone wearing a chador? Harsh, my boy, harsh. You should work for Ladbroke's.
JP - I really enjoyed your post and your analysis of the conundrum is most helpful. One small caveat on the use of the suffix 'phobia'- a phobia is normally held to be illogical or irrational. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=phobia)
There is a common useage by which phobia means no more than strong fear or dislike, but I think in general when we talk about Islamophobia (or even Islamistophobia) we are really by definition talking about something irrational. So the term Islamophobia is used to condemn what is perceived as irrational fear of Islam / Muslims and needs to be distinguished from the more rational criticism you outline. It might be argued that the accusation of Islamophobia when criticising Islamists has parallels with the accusation of anti-semitism when criticising Israel. In both cases if there are reasonable grounds for the specific criticism then the accusation of islamophobia / anti-semitism is unfounded (and is bring used to shut down debate.) Alternatively if the criticism is unfounded and unreasonable then the charge of Islamophobia or anti-semitism may be justified.
This is not really a contradiction of JP's comments - more of a linguistic sideline and a suggestion that Islamophobia is by definition hard to justify. Might be better use the more unwieldy 'criticism of Islam(ists)'.
Mmm, tricky one. If opposing someone because of their race is "racism", perhaps opposing someone because of their Islamism should be "Islamismism"?
Yes, interesting to compare Al-Quaeda with the IRA for both similarities and differences.
A few questions off the top of my head to go into this a bit deeper:
Was there ever an IRA equivalent of 9/11?
Were it within their power to kill a million people in London, would (i) the IRA (ii) Al-Quaeda actually do it?
If you're against the Iraq War, is it because you (i) consider *no* military response to be appropriate (ii) because you consider Iraq appropriate in principle, but condemn poor execution in practice (iii) consider alternative military action to have been more appropriate (iv) none of the above?
Some v. interesting posts of late. Good to see Dom joining in and with some very fair points.
My main quibble is (inevitably) a linguistic one.
Dom says:
"Wembley also makes the point that there are nutters everywhere, across all sorts of belief systems, but I'm not going to sanction our armies walking into entire countries and blowing away the lives of thousands just because a few of these nutters happen to live there."
I just want to make clear that 'nutters' makes it sound like some harmless eccentrics, or even if not harmless, it sounds far less threatening than 'organised terror cells committed to violence', or whatever term you'd prefer. I do think to make your comparison valid you need to use a more accurate term, so the sentence would become:
"... I'm not going to sanction our armies walking into entire countries and blowing away the lives of thousands just because a few [committed terrorists] happen to live there." I doubt that substitution would change your view, but I think that's what you're really saying. Apologies for the pedantry, but I think it changes the nature of the proposition a bit.
Also, I think the 'median' of Muslim opinion is irrelevant. If the extremists are a serious (military) threat then surely that's what counts. We keep a watchful eye on neo-Nazis in modern germany regardeless of the median opinion.
Nonethless I think your scepticism is healthy. I've said this before but if you read 1984 right now you'll be more flabbergasted than ever by some of the prescience.
Anyway, on to Dom & JP's comments about the IRA. I'm not sure about killing a million. The IRA issued a lot of warnings - except for when they didn't. I think you're comparing two hypotheticals here. There are however, two senses in which the IRA was committed to destroying 'our way of life' (or whatever phrase you prefer.) 1) They were trying to use violent means to overturn the decisions of a democratically elected government and to claim as independent a piece of land that the majority of its inhabitants wanted to remain british. 2) This might need some checking but weren't they also Trotskyite revolutionaries?
Lastly, JP you move from a comparison of the IRA & Al-quaeda to a discussion of the Iraq war.
"If you're against the Iraq War, is it because you (i) consider *no* military response to be appropriate... [etc.]"
The implication is that the Iraq War was a direct response to Al-Quaeda. I realise that 9/11 very much shaped the response, but the idea that invading Iraq was an attack on Al-Quaeda is controversial to say the least.
Dan said:
The implication is that the Iraq War was a direct response to Al-Quaeda. I realise that 9/11 very much shaped the response, but the idea that invading Iraq was an attack on Al-Quaeda is controversial to say the least.
Apologies if I've been unclear, you are quite right, the Iraq war can indeed be seen as a response to many different things (Bush for example sold it as a response to 9/11, others disagree).
However, whatever you take the Iraq War as really being about, you have to choose one of my four options, don't you think?
So, taking your point on board, my question to Dom/whoever is now:
(a) what do you think the real motivation for the Iraq War was?
(b) is there anything else it should/could have been a response to?
(c) for each answer to (a) and (b), which of my four possibilities do you choose?
Hope that's an improvement!
PS Should we start a different thread for some of this? It's not really much about Voltaire any more...
My options were:
If you're against the Iraq War, is it because you
(i) consider *no* military response to be appropriate
(ii) because you consider Iraq appropriate in principle, but condemn poor execution in practice
(iii) consider alternative military action to have been more appropriate
(iv) none of the above?
My reading of the Wembley attitude to the Iraq War is:
On "general humanitarian/human rights" grounds, he is in favour of an Iraq War, due to Saddam's torture etc.
On "War as reaction to 9/11" grounds, his answer is (i) because he sees no connection.
On "War as opposing Islamism" grounds, his answer is (iii) because he wants Western troops committed to Sudan, but not limited to (iii) as he proposes non-military action too.
On "Father-son score settling and legacy building" grounds, he is (I assume) a (i)
On "the neo-con need for a ready-referenced enemy" grounds, he is (I assume) a (i)
On "a genuine belief that Iraq had and might use WMD" grounds, I'm not sure what he is
On "an ideological commitment to anti-fascism" grounds, I'm not sure what he is (I think this may overlap with "general humanitarian/human rights")
On "welt-political expediency in supporting the USA" grounds, I'm not sure what he is
And the spelling still needs some work, I note.
;-)
While we're on this subject (namely the war - and yes, there may be a case for migrating the thread - JP that's up to you) may I commend to you this article by Uncle Johann. He supports the war on similar grounds to Wembley (though he has moments of doubt.) His main justification is that the Iraqi people wanted it, evenm though they were sceptical about coalition motives. In short, the ends (removing Saddam) were desired by a majority of Iraqis and so justified the means.
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=607
Post a Comment