![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/The-Imaginary-Jew-173x300.jpg\" "\\"The")
<\/a>Along the second half of the 20th century many Jewish intellectuals, activists and artists positioned themselves at the forefront of Western advocacy of immigration and multiculturalism. Occasionally we were also expected to believe that immigration, tolerance, pluralism and multiculturalism are intrinsic to Jewish culture and thought.<\/h5>\nBut as the West became gradually aware of the scale of Israeli racism and intolerance towards migrant communities, more than just a few intellectuals were courageous enough to point at a clear discrepancy between the progressive ideas Jews claim to represent and what their Jewish State happens to be. There aren\u2019t many countries that are more anti-immigration than Israel. The Jewish State is also very selective when it comes to multiculturalism. Israel happily integrated humus and falafel into its cuisine. It even let a few juicy Arab swear words into its emerging Hebraic dialect but it has been far less enthusiastic about Palestinian mourning their own plight and the Nakba in <\/span>particular<\/span><\/a>.<\/h5>\nHowever, Jewish passion for immigration is clearly fading away these days. It is not a secret that mass immigration of Muslims and Arabs made many Western Jews feel uncomfortable to say the least. In recent years we have been monitoring rapid surge of Jewish involvement in anti-immigration political and intellectual activity. Some so-called \u2018progressive\u2019 Jews fight the veil in the name of \u2018feminism,\u2019 others insist on eradicating Islamic symbolic identifiers in the name of \u2018secularism.\u2019 I guess that even Jewish \u2018progressive tolerance\u2019 has its limits, especially when it comes to Muslims. However, Zionists are actually slightly more consistent in that regard: they openly ally themselves with ultra-nationalist groups such as the hawkish ED<\/span>L<\/span><\/a>. Anti-Islam positions are often promoted by Hasbara, interventionist and neocon outlets such as Harry\u2019s <\/span>Place<\/span><\/a>. The xenophobic message is also disseminated via literature, academia and general media. Here in Britain, journalist celebrity Melanie Phillips published her notorious Londonis<\/span>tan<\/span><\/em><\/a>.<\/h5>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/Jews-behind-push-for-immigration-reform-300x277.jpg\" "\\"Jews")
<\/a>Jewish past support of pro-immigration and multiculturalism is easy to explain.<\/h5>\nFor the obvious reasons, many Jews prefer to live in multi-ethnic and fragmented societies, being one minority amongst many. Identity politics, pro-immigration and multiculturalism are there to dismantle the cohesive national and patriotic bond in favor of a manifold complex structure consisting of a fragile and dynamic exchange between a manifold of minority groups.<\/h5>\nJews are often threatened by the possibility that indigenous lower-middle and working classes may follow their nationalistic and patriotic inclinations and turn against them. In that regard, a radical demographic boost of the working class with a varied mixture of foreign ethnicities is regarded by progressive Jews as a necessary preventative measure against anti-semitism.<\/h5>\nBut here is an interesting development. Last week Spie<\/span>gel<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/a> <\/span>published an intriguing interview with Alain Finkielkraut, a French so-called philosopher and also a Jew and son of immigrants. Finkielkraut is no longer threatened by \u2018the lower middle classes.\u2019 Quite the opposite, he actually pretends to be their ally and he even makes himself their ambassador: \u201cthe French that one no longer dares to call Fran\u00e7ais de souche<\/em> (ethnic French) are already moving out of the Parisian suburbs and farther into the countryside. They have experienced that in some neighborhoods they are the minority in their own country. They are not afraid of the others, but rather of becoming the others themselves.\u201d In other words, the ethnic French are now \u201cotherized\u201d together with the Jews by a tidal wave of Islamic tsunami.<\/h5>\nIt doesn\u2019t take Finkielkraut long before he points directly at the \u2018enemy within.\u2019 \u201cMany <\/span>Muslims in<\/span> Europe<\/span><\/a> are re-Islamizing themselves. A woman who wears the veil effectively announces that a relationship with a non-Muslim is out of the question for her.\u201d I guess that Finkielkraut finds it unacceptable that Muslims do not buy into the Mendelsohnian Jewish \u2018assimilation\u2019 paradigm \u2014 be a Goy in the street and a Jew in your dwelling<\/em> \u2014 the fa\u00e7ade of pretending to blend into the masses, yet adhering to tribal and exclusive supremacy in clandestine fashion. Muslims, so it seems, are not collectively buying into this duplicity mode. Seemingly, they are not shy of their love for Allah. They are actually proud of their symbolic identifiers. These facts alone indeed have managed to challenge the notion of left and progressive tolerance. And it isn\u2019t exactly a secret \u2014 the Left has failed in this tolerance test.<\/h5>\nLeft and Islam<\/strong><\/h2>\nFinkielkraut may not be a sophisticated mind, but he is not a complete idiot either. He rightly points at the deceitful nature of the contemporary progressive and Left call. \u201cThe left\u201d he says, \u201cwanted to resolve the problem of immigration as a social issue, and proclaimed that the riots in the suburbs were a kind of class struggle. We were told that these youths were protesting against unemployment, inequality and the impossibility of social advancement. In reality we saw an eruption of hostility toward French society.\u201d The Jewish thinker then voices his exact and very particular concern \u2014 \u201csocial inequalit<\/span>y<\/span><\/a> does not explain anti-Semitism.\u201d<\/h5>\nFinkielkraut is indeed partially correct, and the \u2018Left\u2019 is indeed wrong, deluded and misleading. Yet, in a symptomatic attempt to conceal the truth, Finkielkraut diverts the attention from the vast French institutional political support of Israel, its racist policies and the impact of the Jewish lobby in France. Accordingly, it may as well be possible that anti-Jewish sentiments within migrant communities in France are provoked by the French pro-Israeli attitude. In other words, we are dealing here with a clear rational sense of \u2018inequality\u2019 that is ethnically and politically driven (rather than merely materially).<\/h5>\nAfter all, France is actively and enthusiastically engaged in the destruction of more than just one Arab State. The ultra-Zionist Bernard Henri Levy was the leading advocate for the intervention in Libya. In the last few weeks France went out of its way in its attempts to jeopardize a UN deal with Iran. Thus, it is only natural that some Muslims find it hard to accept the unbalanced French pro-Israeli policy. Would Parisian Jews support France if it decided to bomb an Israeli Government headquarters in Tel Aviv as a response to Israeli crimes against humanity? In short, it is more than likely that what Finkielkraut describes as anti-Semitism is actually a direct reaction to Jewish power.<\/h5>\nYet, the French Left cannot deal with such a development for the obvious reason that the Left is in itself an <\/span>instrument of such<\/span> power<\/span><\/a> \u2013 it is there to suppress the discussion on issues to do with Jewish political hegemony and influence.<\/h5>\nCivilization: Jewish and Left Perspectives<\/strong><\/h5>\nFinkielkraut continues, \u201cthe left does not want to accept that there is a clash of civilizations.\u201d Finkielkraut is correct, for a change, but for the wrong reasons. The Left cannot accept the notion of such a \u2018clash\u2019 because the Left, similarly to Jewish identity political discourse, lacks a lucid understanding of the notion of \u2018civilization\u2019.<\/h5>\nThis point needs a bit of elaboration. Zionism, according to its early mentors, was set to \u2018civilize\u2019 the Jew by means of \u2018nationalization\u2019. Early Zionists contended that that the diasporic Jewish existence was actually \u2018uncivilized\u2019. Interestingly enough, in spite of the Zionist dream, Hebrew doesn\u2019t offer its users a word for \u2018civilization\u2019 and this is not exactly a coincidence. When Palestinian Israeli MK Azmi Bishara suggested to civilize the Jewish State and transform it into a \u2018State of its Citizens\u2019 he became Israel\u2019s \u2018No 1 enemy.\u2019 He had to run for his life.<\/h5>\nSimilarly, the Left is also dotted with a clear animosity towards the traditional notion of civilization. The progressive commitment to social change is driven by an attempt to undermine the \u2018bourgeois\u2019 (reactionary) order. In retrospect, it was the \u201968 Students Revolution and its long list of mentors from Antonio Gramsci to the Frankfurt School that eventually succeeded to devastate the West and to cleanse it of its most precious traditional assets. Targeting \u2018hegemony\u2019 as the \u2018enemy of the people\u2019, the new Left systematically uprooted every aspect of Western philosophical and categorical thinking, destabilizing every cultural, spiritual, intellectual and political domain.<\/h5>\nIn the name of liberation, the Left and the progressive have managed to eradicate a sense of authenticity and belonging. Typically we, the indoctrinated post-revolutionary subjects, often refer to ourselves as \u2018as a [something]\u2019, (as a Jew, as a black, as a lesbian, as an Arab, as a Gay etc\u2019). Instead of thinking authentically and exploring creatively the deep dynamic meaning of the \u2018I\u2019, we deliver our thoughts by means of projections driven by sets of collective identifications. Our sense of \u2018selfhood\u2019 has been hijacked by a contemporaneous, phenomenological, post-modernist and vain relativism. But in fact phenomenology, relativism and post-modernism are rootless, they are actually the complete opposite of civilization or rootedness. They are flaky, they are contextually and hermeneutically detached and they are also soil-less.<\/h5>\nI guess that the Left\u2019s imperviousness to the notion of civilization may explain why the Left has failed systematically in its attempt to bond with working classes. Marx, I believe, failed to grasp that the working class is also an expression of rootedness. It is defined by heritage, patriotism, nationalism, spirit, culture, devotion, dialect, cuisine, defiance, or shall we say civilization. The working class is also defined by the negation of other classes\u2019 culture and civilization. The Left\u2019s failure to grasp this dialectical mode of thinking that extends far beyond (dialectical) materialism also explains the Left\u2019s incapacity to bond with Muslims, Europe\u2019s current working class. This is indeed tragic yet far from being a coincidence.<\/h5>\nNevertheless, when the French \u2018philosopher\u2019 Finkielkraut was asked to define \u2018French civilization\u2019 he had nothing to offer. He referred initially to French \u2018fiery\u2019 love making. The Spiegel<\/em> interviewer wasn\u2019t impressed. Then in order to rescue his case Finkielkraut continued and quoted a \u2018friend\u2019; \u201cwe, French, created women, literature and cuisine. No one can take that from us.\u201d Embarrassingly yet symptomatic, the \u2018defender\u2019 of French civilization himself has a very limited understanding of the true meaning of France nor can he grasp its civilization. Finkielkraut happily reduces France to a banal material symbolism consisting of Brigitte Bardot, baguettes and Balzac, but it is hard to imagine what kind of \u2018Muslim Jihadist\u2019 would insist to bring such \u2018France\u2019 down. On the contrary, if French contemporary civilization is shaped by the powerful <\/span>Jewish Lobby<\/span> Crif<\/span><\/a>, Bernard Henri Levy\u2019s interventionist megalomania and tribal philosophy a la Finkielkraut, it is actually easy to grasp why some French Muslims are irritated by their republic and its state of affairs.<\/h5>\nThe Post-Political Condition<\/strong><\/h2>\nThere is nothing in Finkielkraut that differentiates him from far right-wing ideologists except of course his intellectual lameness and theoretical lacking. Yet, for some peculiar reason, Finkielkraut doesn\u2019t like to be associated with those who promote the politics he actually preaches. When asked by Spiegel<\/em> \u201chow do you view the political rise of Marine Le Pen and her far-right National Front party?\u201d Finkielkraut replied, \u201cThis disturbs me, of course. But the National Front would not be continuously on the rise if it had not discarded the old issues of the extreme right. Nowadays the National Front focuses on secularism and the republic.\u201d I guess that Finkielkraut finds it difficult to admit to himself that he is a hard core Right-winger, it simply doesn\u2019t fit nicely into his Jewish assimilationist image. However, this ideological discrepancy doesn\u2019t mature into a cognitive dissonance. It instead manifests itself as a disingenuous spin.<\/h5>\nNotably, Spiegel<\/em> didn\u2019t fall into the trap. It obviously notices that the \u2018new French philosopher\u2019 is obviously a right-wing hawk: \u201cThat sounds as if you could imagine voting for the party.\u201d To which Finkielkraut replies, \u201cNo, I would never do that because this party appeals to people\u2019s base instincts and hatred. And these are easy to kindle among its supporters. We can\u2019t leave these issues to the National Front. It would also be up to the left, the party of the people, to take seriously the suffering and anxiety of ordinary people.\u201d<\/h5>\nTypically, the man who presents himself as the \u2018defender\u2019 of French Civilization, the one who voices the plight of the \u2018lower middle class\u2019 is apparently repulsed by French people\u2019s \u2018base instinct\u2019. Like many \u2018progressives\u2019, Finkielkraut is actually dismissive of the working class\u2019 inclinations and their way of thinking. Finkielkraut prefers instead to transform the Left into an Islamphobic, national socialist front. Finkielkraut probably realizes very well that the Left is no longer an ideological standpoint \u2014 it is detached from any form of universal or ethical thinking. It is only dedicated to its political survival and its paymasters.<\/h5>\nSadly enough, Finkielkraut\u2019s pragmatism may prove to be successful. In the \u2018Liberal\u2019 West in which we are living in, Left and Right have become merely political instruments that facilitate similar policies whether it is perpetrating Zionist interventionist wars or enabling our further enslavement to bankers and big monopolies. From a popular perspective, \u2018Left\u2019 and \u2018Right\u2019 are means of identification (instead of theoretical, analytical or political dynamic instruments). This political, intellectual and ideological paralysis is indeed symptomatic to the current post-political era.<\/h5>\nWith Jewish Lobby groups such as the Crif, AIPAC and CFI dominating the Western political discussion and its outcome, democracy is just a fa\u00e7ade. But far more disturbing is the fact that in contemporary France, a uniquely lame mind such as Finkielkraut\u2019s is considered a \u2018philosopher\u2019. In that regard, I would actually argue that Finkielkraut is himself the ultimate emblem of the collapse of Western Civilization or at least an evidence of the eradication of the French one.<\/h5>\nThe Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics – available on Amazon.<\/span>com<\/span> <\/a>& Amazon.co.<\/span>uk<\/span><\/a><\/h5>\n\n
However, Jewish passion for immigration is clearly fading away these days. It is not a secret that mass immigration of Muslims and Arabs made many Western Jews feel uncomfortable to say the least. In recent years we have been monitoring rapid surge of Jewish involvement in anti-immigration political and intellectual activity. Some so-called \u2018progressive\u2019 Jews fight the veil in the name of \u2018feminism,\u2019 others insist on eradicating Islamic symbolic identifiers in the name of \u2018secularism.\u2019 I guess that even Jewish \u2018progressive tolerance\u2019 has its limits, especially when it comes to Muslims. However, Zionists are actually slightly more consistent in that regard: they openly ally themselves with ultra-nationalist groups such as the hawkish ED<\/span>L<\/span><\/a>. Anti-Islam positions are often promoted by Hasbara, interventionist and neocon outlets such as Harry\u2019s <\/span>Place<\/span><\/a>. The xenophobic message is also disseminated via literature, academia and general media. Here in Britain, journalist celebrity Melanie Phillips published her notorious Londonis<\/span>tan<\/span><\/em><\/a>.<\/h5>\n<\/a>Jewish past support of pro-immigration and multiculturalism is easy to explain.<\/h5>\nFor the obvious reasons, many Jews prefer to live in multi-ethnic and fragmented societies, being one minority amongst many. Identity politics, pro-immigration and multiculturalism are there to dismantle the cohesive national and patriotic bond in favor of a manifold complex structure consisting of a fragile and dynamic exchange between a manifold of minority groups.<\/h5>\nJews are often threatened by the possibility that indigenous lower-middle and working classes may follow their nationalistic and patriotic inclinations and turn against them. In that regard, a radical demographic boost of the working class with a varied mixture of foreign ethnicities is regarded by progressive Jews as a necessary preventative measure against anti-semitism.<\/h5>\nBut here is an interesting development. Last week Spie<\/span>gel<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/a> <\/span>published an intriguing interview with Alain Finkielkraut, a French so-called philosopher and also a Jew and son of immigrants. Finkielkraut is no longer threatened by \u2018the lower middle classes.\u2019 Quite the opposite, he actually pretends to be their ally and he even makes himself their ambassador: \u201cthe French that one no longer dares to call Fran\u00e7ais de souche<\/em> (ethnic French) are already moving out of the Parisian suburbs and farther into the countryside. They have experienced that in some neighborhoods they are the minority in their own country. They are not afraid of the others, but rather of becoming the others themselves.\u201d In other words, the ethnic French are now \u201cotherized\u201d together with the Jews by a tidal wave of Islamic tsunami.<\/h5>\nIt doesn\u2019t take Finkielkraut long before he points directly at the \u2018enemy within.\u2019 \u201cMany <\/span>Muslims in<\/span> Europe<\/span><\/a> are re-Islamizing themselves. A woman who wears the veil effectively announces that a relationship with a non-Muslim is out of the question for her.\u201d I guess that Finkielkraut finds it unacceptable that Muslims do not buy into the Mendelsohnian Jewish \u2018assimilation\u2019 paradigm \u2014 be a Goy in the street and a Jew in your dwelling<\/em> \u2014 the fa\u00e7ade of pretending to blend into the masses, yet adhering to tribal and exclusive supremacy in clandestine fashion. Muslims, so it seems, are not collectively buying into this duplicity mode. Seemingly, they are not shy of their love for Allah. They are actually proud of their symbolic identifiers. These facts alone indeed have managed to challenge the notion of left and progressive tolerance. And it isn\u2019t exactly a secret \u2014 the Left has failed in this tolerance test.<\/h5>\nLeft and Islam<\/strong><\/h2>\nFinkielkraut may not be a sophisticated mind, but he is not a complete idiot either. He rightly points at the deceitful nature of the contemporary progressive and Left call. \u201cThe left\u201d he says, \u201cwanted to resolve the problem of immigration as a social issue, and proclaimed that the riots in the suburbs were a kind of class struggle. We were told that these youths were protesting against unemployment, inequality and the impossibility of social advancement. In reality we saw an eruption of hostility toward French society.\u201d The Jewish thinker then voices his exact and very particular concern \u2014 \u201csocial inequalit<\/span>y<\/span><\/a> does not explain anti-Semitism.\u201d<\/h5>\nFinkielkraut is indeed partially correct, and the \u2018Left\u2019 is indeed wrong, deluded and misleading. Yet, in a symptomatic attempt to conceal the truth, Finkielkraut diverts the attention from the vast French institutional political support of Israel, its racist policies and the impact of the Jewish lobby in France. Accordingly, it may as well be possible that anti-Jewish sentiments within migrant communities in France are provoked by the French pro-Israeli attitude. In other words, we are dealing here with a clear rational sense of \u2018inequality\u2019 that is ethnically and politically driven (rather than merely materially).<\/h5>\nAfter all, France is actively and enthusiastically engaged in the destruction of more than just one Arab State. The ultra-Zionist Bernard Henri Levy was the leading advocate for the intervention in Libya. In the last few weeks France went out of its way in its attempts to jeopardize a UN deal with Iran. Thus, it is only natural that some Muslims find it hard to accept the unbalanced French pro-Israeli policy. Would Parisian Jews support France if it decided to bomb an Israeli Government headquarters in Tel Aviv as a response to Israeli crimes against humanity? In short, it is more than likely that what Finkielkraut describes as anti-Semitism is actually a direct reaction to Jewish power.<\/h5>\nYet, the French Left cannot deal with such a development for the obvious reason that the Left is in itself an <\/span>instrument of such<\/span> power<\/span><\/a> \u2013 it is there to suppress the discussion on issues to do with Jewish political hegemony and influence.<\/h5>\nCivilization: Jewish and Left Perspectives<\/strong><\/h5>\nFinkielkraut continues, \u201cthe left does not want to accept that there is a clash of civilizations.\u201d Finkielkraut is correct, for a change, but for the wrong reasons. The Left cannot accept the notion of such a \u2018clash\u2019 because the Left, similarly to Jewish identity political discourse, lacks a lucid understanding of the notion of \u2018civilization\u2019.<\/h5>\nThis point needs a bit of elaboration. Zionism, according to its early mentors, was set to \u2018civilize\u2019 the Jew by means of \u2018nationalization\u2019. Early Zionists contended that that the diasporic Jewish existence was actually \u2018uncivilized\u2019. Interestingly enough, in spite of the Zionist dream, Hebrew doesn\u2019t offer its users a word for \u2018civilization\u2019 and this is not exactly a coincidence. When Palestinian Israeli MK Azmi Bishara suggested to civilize the Jewish State and transform it into a \u2018State of its Citizens\u2019 he became Israel\u2019s \u2018No 1 enemy.\u2019 He had to run for his life.<\/h5>\nSimilarly, the Left is also dotted with a clear animosity towards the traditional notion of civilization. The progressive commitment to social change is driven by an attempt to undermine the \u2018bourgeois\u2019 (reactionary) order. In retrospect, it was the \u201968 Students Revolution and its long list of mentors from Antonio Gramsci to the Frankfurt School that eventually succeeded to devastate the West and to cleanse it of its most precious traditional assets. Targeting \u2018hegemony\u2019 as the \u2018enemy of the people\u2019, the new Left systematically uprooted every aspect of Western philosophical and categorical thinking, destabilizing every cultural, spiritual, intellectual and political domain.<\/h5>\nIn the name of liberation, the Left and the progressive have managed to eradicate a sense of authenticity and belonging. Typically we, the indoctrinated post-revolutionary subjects, often refer to ourselves as \u2018as a [something]\u2019, (as a Jew, as a black, as a lesbian, as an Arab, as a Gay etc\u2019). Instead of thinking authentically and exploring creatively the deep dynamic meaning of the \u2018I\u2019, we deliver our thoughts by means of projections driven by sets of collective identifications. Our sense of \u2018selfhood\u2019 has been hijacked by a contemporaneous, phenomenological, post-modernist and vain relativism. But in fact phenomenology, relativism and post-modernism are rootless, they are actually the complete opposite of civilization or rootedness. They are flaky, they are contextually and hermeneutically detached and they are also soil-less.<\/h5>\nI guess that the Left\u2019s imperviousness to the notion of civilization may explain why the Left has failed systematically in its attempt to bond with working classes. Marx, I believe, failed to grasp that the working class is also an expression of rootedness. It is defined by heritage, patriotism, nationalism, spirit, culture, devotion, dialect, cuisine, defiance, or shall we say civilization. The working class is also defined by the negation of other classes\u2019 culture and civilization. The Left\u2019s failure to grasp this dialectical mode of thinking that extends far beyond (dialectical) materialism also explains the Left\u2019s incapacity to bond with Muslims, Europe\u2019s current working class. This is indeed tragic yet far from being a coincidence.<\/h5>\nNevertheless, when the French \u2018philosopher\u2019 Finkielkraut was asked to define \u2018French civilization\u2019 he had nothing to offer. He referred initially to French \u2018fiery\u2019 love making. The Spiegel<\/em> interviewer wasn\u2019t impressed. Then in order to rescue his case Finkielkraut continued and quoted a \u2018friend\u2019; \u201cwe, French, created women, literature and cuisine. No one can take that from us.\u201d Embarrassingly yet symptomatic, the \u2018defender\u2019 of French civilization himself has a very limited understanding of the true meaning of France nor can he grasp its civilization. Finkielkraut happily reduces France to a banal material symbolism consisting of Brigitte Bardot, baguettes and Balzac, but it is hard to imagine what kind of \u2018Muslim Jihadist\u2019 would insist to bring such \u2018France\u2019 down. On the contrary, if French contemporary civilization is shaped by the powerful <\/span>Jewish Lobby<\/span> Crif<\/span><\/a>, Bernard Henri Levy\u2019s interventionist megalomania and tribal philosophy a la Finkielkraut, it is actually easy to grasp why some French Muslims are irritated by their republic and its state of affairs.<\/h5>\nThe Post-Political Condition<\/strong><\/h2>\nThere is nothing in Finkielkraut that differentiates him from far right-wing ideologists except of course his intellectual lameness and theoretical lacking. Yet, for some peculiar reason, Finkielkraut doesn\u2019t like to be associated with those who promote the politics he actually preaches. When asked by Spiegel<\/em> \u201chow do you view the political rise of Marine Le Pen and her far-right National Front party?\u201d Finkielkraut replied, \u201cThis disturbs me, of course. But the National Front would not be continuously on the rise if it had not discarded the old issues of the extreme right. Nowadays the National Front focuses on secularism and the republic.\u201d I guess that Finkielkraut finds it difficult to admit to himself that he is a hard core Right-winger, it simply doesn\u2019t fit nicely into his Jewish assimilationist image. However, this ideological discrepancy doesn\u2019t mature into a cognitive dissonance. It instead manifests itself as a disingenuous spin.<\/h5>\nNotably, Spiegel<\/em> didn\u2019t fall into the trap. It obviously notices that the \u2018new French philosopher\u2019 is obviously a right-wing hawk: \u201cThat sounds as if you could imagine voting for the party.\u201d To which Finkielkraut replies, \u201cNo, I would never do that because this party appeals to people\u2019s base instincts and hatred. And these are easy to kindle among its supporters. We can\u2019t leave these issues to the National Front. It would also be up to the left, the party of the people, to take seriously the suffering and anxiety of ordinary people.\u201d<\/h5>\nTypically, the man who presents himself as the \u2018defender\u2019 of French Civilization, the one who voices the plight of the \u2018lower middle class\u2019 is apparently repulsed by French people\u2019s \u2018base instinct\u2019. Like many \u2018progressives\u2019, Finkielkraut is actually dismissive of the working class\u2019 inclinations and their way of thinking. Finkielkraut prefers instead to transform the Left into an Islamphobic, national socialist front. Finkielkraut probably realizes very well that the Left is no longer an ideological standpoint \u2014 it is detached from any form of universal or ethical thinking. It is only dedicated to its political survival and its paymasters.<\/h5>\nSadly enough, Finkielkraut\u2019s pragmatism may prove to be successful. In the \u2018Liberal\u2019 West in which we are living in, Left and Right have become merely political instruments that facilitate similar policies whether it is perpetrating Zionist interventionist wars or enabling our further enslavement to bankers and big monopolies. From a popular perspective, \u2018Left\u2019 and \u2018Right\u2019 are means of identification (instead of theoretical, analytical or political dynamic instruments). This political, intellectual and ideological paralysis is indeed symptomatic to the current post-political era.<\/h5>\nWith Jewish Lobby groups such as the Crif, AIPAC and CFI dominating the Western political discussion and its outcome, democracy is just a fa\u00e7ade. But far more disturbing is the fact that in contemporary France, a uniquely lame mind such as Finkielkraut\u2019s is considered a \u2018philosopher\u2019. In that regard, I would actually argue that Finkielkraut is himself the ultimate emblem of the collapse of Western Civilization or at least an evidence of the eradication of the French one.<\/h5>\nThe Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics – available on Amazon.<\/span>com<\/span> <\/a>& Amazon.co.<\/span>uk<\/span><\/a><\/h5>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/12\/The-Imaginary-Jew.jpg\" "\\"Jews")
<\/a>Jewish past support of pro-immigration and multiculturalism is easy to explain.<\/h5>\n