Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Voltaire is an author, not a politician. Hardly the same thing.

EDIT: Today Voltaire could be regarded as an anti-semite it seems. Maybe more due to his disdain for religion, and Judaism being the oldest mono-theistic religion, than a true hate for Jews but still. Always nice to read up, even just quickly, on people and things. And he corrected these statements after being called out for them, specifying he disagrees with Judaism as a religion and not the believers. More than can be said of most people being called out for BS they publicly say.



sort by: page size:

It's also just a stupid idea. You "can't criticize" many groups of people who hold no real power. The quotation was devised solely to apply to criticizing "the Jews" (and by extension implying they "rule over you") and laundering it through Voltaire just puts the flakiest of intellectual veneers on top of this nonsense statement.

>> He's not anti-Semitic; he's Jewish...

The history of Jewish anti-semitism goes back at least to Josephus, who sold out his fellow jews to the Romans. Karl Marx, whose early writings were filled with anti-semitic hate. Etc. Etc. (I should add, BTW, that I'm not Jewish, just a friend of Israel who's never been there.)

>> ...and is critical of some of Israel's policies.

Well, that would certainly explain his hanging out with the mass murderers of Hezbollah and fronting books on Holocaust denial.

>> The New York Times Book Review said he is "arguably the most important intellectual alive."

Ah, well, that clinches it.


I don’t know enough to know if he was anti-Semitic, he could have been. But your quote really doesn’t make him seem an anti-Semite. If that’s the worst leveled against him, I think it’s just hot air.

Where does he say anything against Jewish people? Claiming his comment is anti-semetic is anti-semtic.

> I wish I could find the exact book, but there was a philosopher writing about anti-semitism after WWII.

You may be thinking of Sartre's Anti-Semite and Jew

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semite_and_Jew

Here's a quote:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

(Thanks to 'geofft and 'tptacek for this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13089118)


Dieudonné is first an anti-semite and second a tax criminal and maybe a comedian as a distant third.

I hate the term anti-semite. I think it's one of the most overused terms in the media today. That is exactly what Dieudonné has allowed himself to become.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieudonn%C3%A9_M%27bala_M%27bal...


Interesting that one cannot critique Jews without being called an anti-Semite.

Apparently also anti-Semite.

Even if he was an antisemite at one point in his life or even his entire life, how does that change what the original poster said about him - that he was brilliant?

I'm genuinely curious because I've seen this kind of knee-jerk response across many avenues (e.g. x is an antisemite, is hitler, is a facist, is a commie, is a trump supporter) and I don't understand it.

In the medieval era most people participating in European civilization would qualify for the modern definition of antisemitism. Should I simply disregard the good works of writers and thinkers from that time period and geography?

If anything I am pro-semite but it's a struggle for me to grasp why the antisemitism of an individual should affect my opinion of their work or ideas. Even though I don't approve of their opinions regarding a people group it simply does not follow that I ought to dismiss everything they have ever said.


He's not accused of anti-Semitism, he labelled himself an anti-Semite.

> There's a paragraph dedicated to his views on Jews, and they're not particularly antisemitic

Are we reading the same article? It says 'Evola viewed Jews as corrosive' and that he believed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were broadly accurate even if they were fake.

I doubt that scanning a Wikipedia article is sufficient qualification to announce that someone has been confirmed an antisemite or not, but I'm sure victims of antisemitism are grateful for your judgement.


I don’t understand the spin. The article doesn’t mention that he was prime minister for more than 20 years previously until halfway through.

By most accounts a decent prime minister. But also a virulent anti-Semite: http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp506.htm


Correct. Also, it should be noted that Charlie Hebdo recently fired a contributor for mildly criticizing a powerful Jew:

"Below is the full text which got the cartoonist Siné fired and brought before a court on charges of anti-Semitism. He was acquitted and later won a wrongful termination suit against Charlie Hebdo.

"The back story was that Jean Sarkozy rear-ended a BMW driven by some random Arab guy. Instead of stopping, he fled the scene. The police were not interested, but the BMW owner’s insurance company tracked down the scooter driver and it ended up being the younger Sarkozy. He was eventually acquitted of all charges and walked away scot-free. He married an heiress to the Darty fortune (Darty is a chain of electronic stores in France similar to Circuit City in the US). It was rumoured he would convert to Judaism (his great grandfather was Jewish) for the marriage but he denies he did this.

"So in response Siné wrote the following in Charlie Hebdo: Jean Sarkozy, a son worthy of his paternity and already a general counselor for the UMP, was set free –almost with applause — from his criminal proceedings for the offense of on his scooter. The prosecutor actually requested his release! It must be said that the complainant is an Arab! But that’s not all: he [Sarkozy] just declared his intention to convert to Judaism before marrying his fiancée, who is Jewish and the heiress to the founders of Darty. He’ll go far in life, this lad!"

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/01/the-cultural-na...


I'm no fan of him and i'm not knowledgeable, but from a quick search the only thing antisemitic i could see from him was using on stage a pig with a david star and a dollar sign (sigh).

Not that it's ok at all, but is he known for other antisemitic displays/rhetoric? Or is fighting against Israel's apartheid and denouncing that politicians are sold to billionaires now antisemitic?

I'm really not OK with the "jews = money" trope which is a marker of far-right conspiracy theories and is growing more and more popular in the public discourse, at least here in France (especially since Dieudonné was repressed precisely for holding such bigoted views). I'm also really not OK with colonization and apartheid and the State of Israel. I'm not jewish but a lot of left-wing jews are on the same page.


But much of the Protocols was taken from an anti-Napoleon III tract which doesn't mention Jews at all: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dialogue_in_Hell_Between...

So just talking about conspiracies isn't a good indicator of anti-Semitism.


> Marx was an anti-semite. Why is he still taken seriously when "right-wing"[0] thinkers can be dismissed for "ties" to anti-semitism?

Perhaps I am uninformed, how could Marx be an anti-semite? He was ethnically Jewish.


Downvoted and commented. ----- Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. Jean Paul-Sartre

Anti-marxist-semite is still anti-semite in my book.

Jean-Paul Sartre, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

next

Legal | privacy