I have been seeing a lot of people recently on Tumblr go 0_o upon the wave of antisemitism that is flooding Europe, the USA and the Internet recently. The reason they are shocked by this, however, is not because of the antisemitism itself... But because they see it comes from "the left". And this turns out to be a shock for them, because they have a hard time understanding how people on the "left-wing" of the political spectrum could end up being VERY antisemitic, as antisemitism was - even before the Nazi party was created - typically associated to the extreme-right and to the right-wing part of the political spectrum.
Except that... when you have been paying attentions to little details and some history lessons, it comes to no surprise at all. The extreme-left (because we have to say things as they are, the current wave of antisemitism is partially born from the extreme-left) is basically the twin of the extreme-right. And I am not just speaking of the fact antisemitism exists as a principle beyond any political party and any religion (antisemitism has been carried on throughout History by the left, the right, by apolitics, by Christians, by Muslims, by basically everyone that is not Jewish).
There was a French comedy movie that is talked about a lot - because it is a movie that never got to be made. It is a movie called "Le Crocodile", "The Crocodile". One of the reasons this unmade movie is so famous is because it was planned to be the "final" movie of Louis de Funès, considered to this day one of the greatest French actors and a monument of French humor. Louis de Funès' archetypal character, his "type-casting", was as a greedy, tyrannical, wrathful and petty, but ultimately ridiculous and sympathetic, middle-management type of guy, an ambitious, vain and cowardly person in a position of power that abused of it, but ultimately ended up either humbled by the story/events/other characters, or had his good side come out in the end. He was an antisemitic factory owner who ended up learning how to love and appreciate the Jewish community ; he was a tyrannical maestro who ended up forced to work for the Resistance during World War II ; he was a scheming, pollution-endorsing mayor who ended up forced to abandon everything because he was bested by his wife ; he was an abusive and criminal minister that kept knowing disgrace after disgrace, and ended up doing heroic deeds but just because the villains of the story were preventing him from doing his own political conspiracy... And "Le Crocodile" was supposed to be the culmination of these specific roles, as de Funès was to play a dictator losing his power during a revolution.
Inspired by Charlie Chaplin's own take on dictatorship, this movie was supposed to depict Louis de Funès as a Pinochet-caricature, "Crochet", an extreme-right dictator in an imaginary country. After a series of adventures, the dictator ended up overthrown by a rival and sent to prison. But his cunning and scheming knowing no bounds, he ended up going back to power... by shifting to the left-wing of the political spectrum, joining with left-oriented political activist, overthrowing his replacement, destroying his own old extreme-right government, to replace it by a new, left-revolutionnary government... That quickly became an extreme-left dictatorship led, once again by Crochet. And this was supposed to be the final, bitter joke of the movie: the beginning and ending of the story were supposed to be identical, because despite the political goals and vocabulary having changed, the dictatorship Crochet had rebuilt in the extreme-left was in all identical to his extreme-right dictatorship.
The movie was never made, unfortunately, due to Louis de Funès passing before shooting could begin. But the same message can be found in the classics of a fiction genre that is much more well-known by English audience: dystopia. What defined the "classical" dystopias, born during the height of the Cold War? From George Orwell's "1984" to Harlan Ellison "I have no mouth and I must scream", there is always this recurring motif of "You had various super-powers with opposing ideologies that waged war against each other... and yet now, we can't actually distinguish these opposite powers from one another, because they are doing the exact same thing and their ideologies end up reaching the same goals and the same points." This was a reaction to the dead-end of the Cold War, where the extremes of the Americanized, capitalist, "Western" block and of the Sovietized, communist "Eastern" block matched each other, resulting in the two looking identical in the eyes of many countries and people stuck in the middle of the two... But the lesson can be applied to any other situation, because it contains one core, fundamental truth people seem to have forgotten about today. Any extreme is bad ; and any good thing, taken to an extreme, will be horrible.
Take Christianity! A religion built on love and peace, and giving your food to the poor and offering the other cheek when you are slapped and forgiving those that betray you... And we ended up with the fucking Inquisition, and the witch hunts, and the religious wars, and many more atrocities, all in the name of "love and peace".
I digress here but honestly I want to get all of this out while I can, so that I have no more to say.
So yes, the "left" as people learned to know it today is based on good principles. (I personally hate reducing things to the "left" or the "right" when it comes to social matter, because for example defending people's right to have their own sexual orientation respected and recognized is not a political question, it is a human question... But since Tumblr users are still in shock unable to understand why the "left could be bad", and since we are facing extreme-left movements, I'll stick to this binary system for now). Yes, the left is the "side of the people" that works on helping the masses against the elite ; yes the left is the side of the "minorities" against "oppresors", yes the left has fought for excellent and needed things like feminism and acceptance and anti-racism... All good principles. And all principles that are turned into tools of hatred and oppression by the extreme-left.
I don't think I need to explain why the extreme-right is bad - in general people on Tumblr are very aware of it, and history has proven us what happens when the extreme-right rises up. Racism, discrimination, xenophobia, homophobia, religious fanaticism... All things typical of the extreme-right, no need to go further. But a lot of people seem to have a hard time wrapping their head around the system and the processes that lead to the "left" becoming the "extreme-left", and why the extreme-left can end up mirroring the extreme-right.
But the answer is very simple. It is this logic as old as time of "reverse bullying". When the bullied decided to take their revenge on the bully by bullying it in return, the bullied becomes the bully, and it does not solve anything since it just reverses the situation. Or more generally speaking: when the defense, love and acceptance of a minority/victim/side becomes hatred and rejection of the majority/bully/other side, there is an open gateway for BAD things. And the wave of antisemitism currently going on is a perfect representation of that.
I personally strongly disliked the extreme-left long before the whole Hamas-Israel situation. I hated the extreme-left because, especially in France, the extreme-left had the worst possible thing when it came to anti-intellectualism. Extreme-left politicians and activists have explicitely spoken against or attacked things such as higher education or any kind of school beyond high school, as well as things such as classical literature or old books. There is this "populist" idea behind the extreme-left, that, as "men/women of the people", as the "voice of the masses", they need to opposite, shit on and destroy anything seen or deemed as an "elite". But the "elite" isn't just your old rich white guy, oh no! The elite also means stuff seen as the intellectual elite. For example, classics of literature. Authors of older generations. And if you wonder how bad it can be: when during the last presidential elections the candidate for the extreme-left was not elected, its young supporters went to the university of the Sorbonne and trashed it. They destroyed computers, destroyed rare books within the university's library, they destroyed the papers and works of the students and teachers in there... Because they were angry at their candidate not being elected. And an university as old and as famous as the Sorbonne, THE French university, was thus seen as the "enemy" and as a symbol of what opposed the access of their candidate to the presidential position. And the result was... destroying books. Yes, bookburners can be as much from the right as from the left. Quite literaly some times.
There was this very hilarious but very very sad thing that happened in French Canada some years ago... There was this group of Canadians (white and Christians if I recall well) that wanted to show an open support and public excuses for how the Catholic Church, how the Canadian government and how white settlers treated the people of the First Nations and the discrimination they had to face. Nice, isn't it? The intention is good, public manifestations recognizing this dark side of the history is good, doing events to move forward is good, right? Except... we are talking about French-Canadians here. French-Canadian-Christians, who are... really something. So what did they do, to show their support to the First Nations? Give back some of their land? Remove some of the horrible laws against them? Recognize them more rights? NO! THEY BURNED BOOKS! Sounds like a joke? It is not. To show their support, what they did was take various comic-books and children books from the early-to-mid 20th century with representations of Native-Americans considered "offensive", and they burned them in a great bonfire. They literaly did... book-burning. To fight colonization and racism. A perfect example of how fucked up and warped it can all be.
This incident above is just one of the many incidents that I have collected across the years and that illustrated what I called the "bad woke". Now... when designating those ridiculous and dangerous excesses, I hate to just say "woke". Because the root of the "woke" ideas are good! Good and positive things: defend trans-people, defend gay people, encourage diversity and body-positivity and fight against racism and religious discrimination. These things are good! And too many people who are just homophobic, transphobic, racist or any other of fucked up jerk use "woke" as an insult and as a derogatory term for just being a normal uman being. So I do not like using "woke" alone to designate the fucked-up extremes the polar opposite side can ledn itself to. But... I have to recognize that there is a bad, extreme and toxic form of "wokeness", and until I can find a better term to designate this phenomenon, I will use the term "bad woke". And the process, the thought-system, the workings of the "bad woke" are the exact sames behind the extreme-left, and the sames that led to this wave of antisemitism drowning the Internet.
I evoked an incident that took place in France again years ago, which was more of an unthought, stupid mistake than an actual malicious intent, but showed how a slight twist can turn "good" from "bad". A "safe place" had been created somewhere, for women and trans people to be able to gather without any presence of men or non-trans people. So far so good, but the twist of the story is that when creating this space the rules for it were too summarized and too-shortened up, and so the creators of the space said this and plastered this on the walls: "Only women and trans people allowed. No men allowed." Do you see the logical problem? What about trans men? Trans men literaly didn't know what to do, since "trans" people were accepted and this space was built for them... and yet "men" as a whole were forbidden. Meaning if a trans man entered the space, they had to somehow not be recognized as a man, but as rather something closer to a woman?
This truly was just a stupid mistake by people who had not thought about it - but it actually shows the process by which defending one minority or an oppressed group can end up harming or hunting another minority/oppressed group. We are all aware of what happened when feminists and the feminism fight to defend women or provide them equal rights, ended up drifting into transphobia and hate on trans women for not being "real women". It is all a messy bag of snakes.
And so, what is the link to the antisemitism today? What does all this proves when it comes to the extreme-left and the Jews? Well, easy.
Why is the extreme-left antisemitic? Because one of the core of the extreme-left is, as I said, to fight against the "elite". Be it a social, cultural, ethnic or political elite, the "left" defined itself mostly as "the mass against the elite, the many against the few". This is mixed with the left fighting against racism, and also fighting against things such as colonization. Again, all very good things. But let's place ourselves in the mind of an antisemitic extreme-leftist. What happens? Why would I come after the Jews, who themselves are known to be an oppressed and discriminated against minority, in both ethnic and religious terms? Why would the extreme-left decide to make a prey out of the people the extreme-right was known to hunt?
Because they are seen as the "elite". We know that extreme-left groups feed into the same antisemitic delusions and conspiracy theories that the Jews are the secret elite controlling the world. Even if they are not hardcore conspiracists, the extreme-left movements have several Jewish stereotypes widespread among them - to take France, just a recent study showed that a lot of people who identified on the left-wing also recognized that Jews were wealthier than regular French people, that they had too much presence in finances, and too much presence in media. The extreme-left searches for a form of elite to fight against and shit upon and hate with all of its might - and when the antisemitic cliches present the Jews as this elite, as some sort of secret powerful cabal controlling the finances and the media and being wealthy and friends with politicians, the extreme-left will latch onto these ideas as if truth, because they hate any form of elite, no matter if the elite actually exists or not. It is no surprise that the same conspiracy cliches about "satanic cults murdering babies and drinking human blood" are used for both the Jews (supposedly the shadow elite) and the actual rich and wealthy, white WASPs family of the USA. Same conspiracy theory, different people.
Of course, the Hamas-Israel war has been what sparked the fire. Because Israel is seen as a colonizer, the Jews as a whole are identifying with other colonizing countries and historical colonizing empires. Because Israel currently has a right-wing/extreme-right government, the Jews are a whole are seen as being from the extreme-right. Because of the retaliation against the Hamas attacks upon Gaza are just a massive unleashing of destruction causing massive deaths and a humanitarian crisis, Jews are a whole are seen as being genocide-endorcers. With people even going as far as to say they became as bad as Nazis or worse, or that they are causing a new Holocaust - the Jewish history being literaly returned against them. Everything that surrounds the Hamas-Israel war needs a post of its own because we have EVERYTHING all at once. We have people who refuse to understand a conflict is not black and white, and that in this war there is no good guy or bad guy, just people suffering on both sides and a lot of deaths and horrors on both sides. We have people who generalize Israel as being somehow the embodiment of all the Jews in the world, and consider Jews from Africa or Europe or America to be responsible for Israel's actions - and who disguise antisemitism as "anti-zionism". We have people who, in their effort to paint Israel as the sole villain, will literaly treat the Hamas as heroes, and ignore for example the fact that they are a terrorist organization, that they actually attacked Israel in terrorist attacks (people even deny the Hamas attacks even happened, the same way you have negationists of the Holocaust), or that they are using the people of Gaza as meat-shield for Israel attacks, or that they have extremely fanatical and racist ideologies based on a genocide of Jews as a whole and the destruction of the USA. And the list goes on and on and this is such a mess...
But here is the thing... The Hamas attacks on Israel and Israel's retaliation were just the spark. Meaning there was fuel before that. And I already started explaining why. The extreme-left had strong latent antisemitic feelings which were widespread, but since not openly hostile or aggressive were not much spotted. (Unlike for example fanatical extreme-right Christians which are very loud and open about their hatred of Jews and parade Jewish caricatures around on signs). And while I evoked before the warped belief that the Jews are somehow an "elite", hence the discrimination, there is another factor that must be taken nto account... What I call the "pick-and-choose your minority" game.
To take for example extreme-left groups in France - but I think it works in other countries too. They are very open about defending minorities and people of color, and they have been strongly standing by the side of black people and Arab people and Muslim people and people from African descent. So far, so good... But the thing is that when you are careful, you see that they do nothing about or never speak about other minorities. For example the Jews, but also Asian people. Not a word, not a peep. And we know there is discrimination in France against them - we already have studies that proved that in universities (which, surprise, are mostly left-leaning) a "common" antisemitism was very widespread, not physical, but taking the form of discriminatory joke, the common use of slurs and other verbal abuse. But we also had a wave of discrimination against people of Asian ethnicites (mostly people of Chinese culture or descent, but given the perpetrators were racist I doubt they'd make a difference between China, Japan or Korea). There was a wave some years ago of brutal street-agressions and mugging and theft targeting Chinese women and Chinese elders (or Chinese-looking people). And the thieves and muggers, once caught, gave the same excuse antisemitic thieves gave: "Everybody knows they have money."
But the thing is that while extreme-left groups are very vocal and very violent when it comes to islamophobia or racism against black people... they are very quiet and discreet when it comes to antisemitic or discrimination against Asian people. (Or at least they were, because since their antisemitism was revealed, they have been very vocal about Jewish people on media, to defend themselves). And this little phenomenon, that mostly went unnoticed and unanalyzed by media, reflects a larger concept that was found everywhere - and in fact very present on the Internet - and that imbues the extreme-left. And this perverse concept is "Some minorities are real minorities. Others are not. Some people are real POCs. Others are not."
To be clear: many people consider that Jews or Asians are not supposed to be minorities, couldn't be oppressed and shouldn't be defended as much as "actual" people of colors or "true" minorities". Because, in their words, these ethnicities are "too white", or "too close to white people". They are "model minorities", they were "integrated", they are seen as coming from either "powerful" nations ranked the same as former colonialist powers (Japan, China), either from "sheltered" and "untouchable" areas (the massive Jewish acceptance and defense after WWII). And the result of these considerations is that the extreme-left treat these groups as just "shades of White people", and they get conflated with things such as "those racist WASPs folks" or "the dominant all-white Christian xenophobes". And then all the stereotypes are thrown at them - the Jews, just like Asians, have supposedly too much influence on politics, too much presence in media, they are naturally wealthier than regular people, they are naturally less discriminated and less hated than others... And in turn, the extreme-left decides "We will not speak of them. We will not fight for them or stand up for them because they do not need it, because they are too close to the elite, because they are too close to our enemies. We'll focus on more "important" people."
And thus, from the noble cause of defending oppressed and discriminated minorities that knew a long history of racism and persecution... we go perpetuating the discrimination and erasure of OTHER minorities and ethnicities that had a long history of racism and persecution. It is... like some sort of perverse "discrimination contest" where people somehow "deserve" to be defend against discriminations and others do not? Some sort of fucked-up ethnic hierarchy that in the end is literaly no different from the same ethnic hierarchies racists of the extreme-right put in place to justify their hatred.
And if the slightest event produces a spark strong enough to set the fuel ablaze... the extreme-left goes from ignoring and passive discrimination to active discrimination. As we can see today by the left of extreme-left antisemitism.
I don't think I have anything else to say? This post is very long, but I got to say everything I had to say, and I am quite glad I did. I wrote it all in one go, so there might be typos, but I do not think I can sum up my words anymore than that.
