Dr. josef Mengele and other happy Nazis

Please click here to see a remarkable video.

David Irving's "frisson" and "secret thrill"

"You're a Reactionary Fraud, Alex"

Rancor, hate, resentment. Like the poor, they are always with us, but, praise be to God, they do not dominate all of our lives.

Unless ... unless we are members of a group dedicated to the celebration and perpetuation of these emotions. Examples, unfortunately, easily come to mind. The terrorist groups that train suicide bombers and killers of all kinds are the most obvious. But there are also groups that are less violent (and less well-known) that cultivate such emotions, and, the democracy that we are, they ply their trade close to us. The interesting thing is that more often than not the participants in these groups direct their rancor less upon the outside world than at their own close comrades in arms.

This rancor-turned-inward has long been known and described for religious groups such as the Exlusive Brethren. And now we have a remarkable description in the New York Times of January 16 concerning a Marxist band of (self-described) revolutionaries that operate the government-regulated radio station WBAI in New York. These comrades get their regular kicks from bitter, vicious (and often comical) denunciation of one another. Nominally they are committed to denouncing the capitalist and imperialist enemy, of course; some wear Chilean sweaters and Palestinian scarves to attest to that. But their most most fervent hatreds, it seems, are directed to the people sitting next to them at WBAI board meetings.

[For many of these rancor groups, there are bodies of ex-members and dissident members, eager to expose and tell all. For the Exclusive Brethren, for example, see peebs.net]

Dostoevsky, describing the Nineteenth Century Russian terrorists ("The Devils"), knew about the hatreds for one another among such people. It seems to be one of the unwritten laws of all extremist movements. And obviously, this tendency to self-destruct among the crazies is something for which must be grateful.

Jews Who Hate Israel

Some well-known Jewish writers -- Noam Chomsky being the best known -- do not just criticize Israel, but they hate Israel. Hate is a strong emotion, and we do not expect it in print a great deal, and certainly not when it is directed toward one's own people, one's own family. But here it is: a few dozen writers, a few thousand signers of petitions, all claiming to be Jews, all asserting a strong hatred for Israel. Why ?

I have written an essay that I call "Prolegomena to the Study of Jews Who Hate Israel" that seeks, not easy answers, but answers nonetheless, but mostly tries to point to ways in which we could come to a better understanding of these interesting folks. Click on the link and let me know what you think, won't you.

Thanks.

Werner

Al-Quds University and Radical Chic

The Arab name for Jerusalem is Al-Quds. Al-Quds Day, for example, is observed in Iran and some other countries as a day for denouncing Israel. And then there is an Al-Quds University (AQU) in Jerusalem which is dedicated to ... well, all kinds of things, but, in my interpretation of its website, primarily to pushing an anti-Israel political agenda.

But wait, is that a fair description ? AQU has influential and powerful connections to Western institutions which would seem to foreclose any crude or hateful stance on Israel or on peaceful solutions to the Israel-Arab conflict. For example, AQU has agreements of collaboration with the Jewish Brandeis University in Massachusetts, and also with Bard College in New York, under its Jewish president Leon Botstein. ( Bard's interest, I have been told, is in building bridges with the Palestinians, in helping to improve the education of Palestinians, etc. , all aims with which I find myself in full agreement. And I suppose Brandeis would have the same kind of objectives in mind when it shares its resources and lends its good name to the promotion of AQU.)

So what gives here ?

The AQU website, unfortunately, leaves no doubt about the strident political commitments of the institution. The site's central "General Information" is a lengthy, rambling history of Jerusalem from an anti-Israel point of view. The establishment of Israel in 1948 is described as "the 1948 Nakba," using the Palestinian nationalist term meaning "Catastrophe." Beyond that, there are references to various writers and scholars all of whom seem to say that the Jews have not had a historical connection to the land of Israel, that there was no such thing as King David, that the Western Wall could not have been related to a Jewish Temple, etc. etc. Obviously, one could make some sort of reasonable case for some of these assertions. But this General Information is a piece of special pleading; it is all tied together with propagandistic glue. Whatever writings fit the parti pris is carefully adduced; whatever scholarship tends in a different direction is carefully ignored.

About two years ago there was a controversy at Barnard College about an anthropologist, Nadia Abu El Haj, whose politically-inspired writings, similarly, held that Jews have no historic claim to the land of Israel. Professor Alan Segal, also of Barnard, is an expert on the relevant archaeology and wrote a trenchant criticism of Abu El Haj. This article can also serve as a criticism of AQU's scholarship.

Over and above AQU's unfortunate and unscholarly politicization of the history of Israel, I am also worried about how it might deal with certain other matters of Jewish history. In particular, what kind of teaching is done at AQU about the Holocaust ? It might be a problem for them, judging by how they treat the issue of Jerusalem. There is a revealing article by Mikael Tossavainen on the place of the Holocaust in Arab political thinking. It sheds a great deal of light on the matter at hand.

Has either Bard or Brandeis looked into any of this ? Has either of these institutions tried to restrain their protégé in any way ? Not as far as I was able to find out. On the contrary, both Bard and Brandeis, is their public pronouncements, have nothing but praise.

That seems curious considering what we must assume to be the ordinary, customary criteria for scholarship at these institutions. It would be insulting to think, and wrong, that anything less than a critical weighing of evidence and dispassionate scholarship can win acclaim at either Bard or Brandeis. Obviously no institution is perfect, and it would be naive to think that the ideals of scholarship are always attained even in our most elite institutions. But on the other hand, no, the propaganda-as-scholarship that emanates from AQU surely could not be tolerated in our best colleges and universities, and not at B & B, on any matter other than Al-Quds. So why, why, do both Bard and Brandeis "collaborate," as they say, with this sorry institution ?

The answer, I suggest, lies in the title of this posting: Radical Chic. Of course the reference is to Tom Wolfe's classic description of the relationship between Leonard Bernstein and the Black Panthers. Bernstein catered to people that he knew, or should have known, to be brutes. Why ? He did not, fundamentally, regard them as his equals, but he wished, in his vanity, to be associated with the frisson of Black Power. He obviously did not employ standards that he would employ for educated white people when he patronized the Black Panthers with his money, his connections, and his fawning condescension. Something like that, mutatis mutandis, I see as the heart of B & B's relationship to AQU.

The French Left and Islamist Anti-Semitism: A Dilemma

Olivier Besancenot: Mail Carrier, Recent Candidate for the French Presidency, Leader of the (Trotskyist) New Anti-Capitalist Party, and Anti-Israel Activist

For the Left in France, both traditional and new, there is a bit of a dilemma: one the one hand, its politics have historically been defined by a strict secularism (religion being the opiate of the people, and all that). But on the other hand, at least since 1967, the Left (except perhaps for some groups within the Socialist Party) has also been pledged to work against Israel. Now the most anti-Israel political force of them all is that of the religious, militant Islamists. What is there for a poor leftist do: make common cause with the Islamists and be considered soft on secularism ? Or denounce the militant Islamists and be considered soft on Zionism ?

Obviously, this being a French matter, and more particularly a matter for the much-fissured French Left, there have been a number of ways in which the dilemma has been faced. A very revealing article by Jean-Yves Camus, The French Left and Political Islam: Secularism Versus the Temptation of an Alliance, surveys the field.

The Gory "La Marseillaise" -- Why ?

www.institut-destree.eu/images/Publications/r..

Americans, in their national anthem, seem to worry most of all whether their flag is "yet" to be seen. The English hope that their Queen will be "happy" (and, of course, glorious). But the French, the French, they sing about bloody banners, about throats being slit, and, most dramatically, they hope that the "impure" blood of (unnamed) enemies will fertilize their countryside.

This is what I find puzzling: the French, judged in any other way, have as humane, as liberal, as tolerant a public life as any country on earth. But how did these bloody, anachronistic, sadistic sentiments remain in their official national anthem over the centuries ?

It isn't that the gore has been unnoticed. More than a hundred years ago, Jean Jaurès, father of the French Left, protested against it. But now in 2009 the text is still with us, an official monument to ancient hatreds and ancient rancor. Why ?

Allons enfants de la Patrie,	Come, children of the Fatherland,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé !	The day of glory has arrived!
Contre nous de la tyrannie,	Against us, tyranny's
L'étendard sanglant est levé, (bis)	Bloody banner is raised, (repeat)
Entendez-vous dans les campagnes	Do you hear in the countryside
Mugir ces féroces soldats ?	Those ferocious soldiers roaring?
Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras	They come up to your arms
Égorger vos fils, vos compagnes !	To slit the throats of your sons and wives!
Aux armes, citoyens,	To arms, citizens,
Formez vos bataillons,	Form your battalions,
Marchons, marchons !	Let's march, let's march!
Qu'un sang impur	May an impure blood
Abreuve nos sillons !	Water our furrows!

Stirring Songs II: from the religious traditions

Adon Olam -- from London



Ya'ase Shalom, a wonderful rendition by Angelica Primero, apparently a Mexican Christian



Abide With Me



Amazing Grace (by Mahalia Jackson)



Onward Christian Soldiers



In The Sweet Bye and Bye



The Old Rugged Cross



Last, but best (strictly musically, I mean): J. Bach (& Martin Luther), Ein' Feste Burg Ist Unser Gott

Stirring Songs of the 20th Century

Political commitments and political passions have found expression in what is known as "stirring songs." To what extent does such music contribute to causes ? The question also comes up in relation to the use of music in religion, to which I may wish to devote another posting.

La Marseillaise



The Internationale:



Horst Wessel Song:



God Bless America !



Oh Canada



HaTikvah

There was no holocaust: Israeli Arabs

More than forty percent of Israeli Arabs do not believe that the Holocaust ever happened, according to a poll conducted by the University of Haifa.

Earl Browder, being interviewed by Mike Wallace, 1957

I have just discovered this fascinating video.

It's sort of long, but what an experience !

Earl Browder was the boss of the American Communist Party for fifteen years prior to his sudden expulsion in 1945. Why and how did this take place ? The issue is explored by John Earl Haynes: Moscow was displeased by some independent thinking on the part of Browder. He was warned by the Kremlin, ignored the warning, and was then unceremoniously kicked out.

German Neo-Nazi Agitates Against Jews

Udo Pastörs, member of the provincial parliament and head of the neo-Nazi NPD party in the German province of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern attacks Jews and the "Jew-Republic" (i.e. the present Germany), more openly and more directly than ever before (Feb. 2009). The video here is a documentation furnished by German TV.






And here, in a second video, Pastörs can be seen at greater length:

The Chomsky Network: Churchill, Finkelstein, and especially Shahak

chrisduffel.wordpress.com

Professor Noam Chomsky has very enthusiastic fans, and also detractors. A great deal is written about him, a very great deal. But in all this material, it is his enthusiastic endorsements that reveal the most about him. Here I mention but three such cases: Churchill, Finkelstein, and, most important, Shahak.

1) Professor Ward Churchill has been fired from the University of Colorado for a variety of misdemeanors, most conspicuously intellectual fraud. Vincent Carroll of the Denver Post gives a good outline of what needs to be known about Churchill. With all that, Professor Churchill enjoys the full support, albeit couched in Chomsky-speak, of Noam Chomsky (as reported on Churchill's website):

Without reservations, I support Churchill’s right to free speech and
academic freedom, and regard the attack on him as scurrilous - and by
now craven cowardice as well, as the state authorities and other critics
pretend that the issue is (suddenly) his academic credentials and ethnic
origins. That’s a real disgrace.

As for his work, I’ve never read this article [on 9/11] and have no
interest in doing so–in fact, would not do so as a matter of principle in the present context, for reasons that go back to the Enlightenment origins of defense of freedom of speech. I was interviewed by Colorado
newspapers, and told them basically what I’ve just written. I was then
asked what I thought of his earlier work, and told the truth: that I found it serious and important, stressing again that these comments have
precisely nothing to do with the outrageous events now underway.
I have no idea what the plagiarism and other issues are, [but] if the
charges were serious, they would have been brought up before. For what it’s worth, there’s no indication of that in anything of his I read–that is, nothing more than is standard in scholarship. . . . . Such matters are sometimes raised in the context of political persecution, by cowards who are desperately seeking to conceal what they are really doing. Seems pretty transparent in this case. Why now and not before?

2. Dr. Norman Finkelstein's academic record roughly parallels that of Professor Churchill: fired for academic incompetence and for confounding extremist rhetoric with scholarship. (Click here for Paul Bogdanor's review of one of his books; click here for CAMERA's review.) But here is Noam Chomsky, calling Finkelstein "an outstanding scholar":


3. Finkelstein and Churchill are familiar to American newspaper readers. Not so Israel Shahak (1933-2001). By himself, Shahak would not at all be notable. He was an obscure instructor of chemistry in Israel, a Holocaust survivor, who, nevertheless, took it into his head that it was the Jews in history who were responsible for most of the calamities that have befallen the human race. I have reviewed his major opus "Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The Weight of Three Thousand Years some years ago; click here for this review. While some of Shahak's assertions are just funny ("Jewish children are actually taught" to utter a ritual curse when passing a non-Jewish cemetery; "both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands....On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God... but on the other he is worshiping Satan..."), the bulk of his book is viciously anti-Semitic, no less virulent than the Nazis. And, indeed, all the major anti-Semitic crackpots of our day have taken him up as one of their heroes, the only truly good Jew that they can find.

And Professor Chomsky ? "Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value." Noam Chomsky. Whatever else there is to be known about Noam Chomsky (there is a lot), this endorsement of Shahak is, to my mind, the most revealing.

Read "The Jews Are Bad," my review of Shahak.

Professor Chomsky finds that Hamas promotes peace...

but Hamas itself has a different view: please see the video on my posting just below.

So it would seem that Professor Chomsky, at least on this particular issue, is mistaken. Well, nobody, not even at MIT, can be 100% right all the time.

Hamas on Hitler's Birthday: All Jews Must Die

Speech by Hamas cleric, April 20, 2009


And here is another speech, by an unknown cleric:

The Westboro Baptist Church

Members of this sect have been in New York City within the last week, picketing Jewish synagogues, among other places, declaring that "Jews Killed Jesus," "God Hates Israel," etc.

About a year ago the BBC had its film maker Luis Theroux go to Topeka to do this hour-long documentary on these folk.

The Derg

Norbert Wiener, photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt (Time Inc)

"Derg" is a Ge'ez word meaning committee, and was used by Ethiopian Marxists to describe their regime, some twenty years ago. But more than Karl Marx, it was Norbert Wiener (seen here in a portrait by Alfred Eisenstaedt) who inspired the characters in this story.

A Dove of Peace or a Pigeon of Death ?

http://www.somaliradio.dk/images/Suicide-Bomber.jpg

It is notoriously easy to claim to be "for peace." Adolf Hitler himself made this claim, but not many today give it credence. On the other hand there does seem to be a market for a claim scarcely more credible, viz. that the random killing of civilians can be an instrument not only of peace but of a "just peace."

In the city of Vancouver on the west coast of Canada, a place where I lived for more than thirty years, a small group of people call themselves "Jews for a Just Peace." Some of these people are personally known to me. Some of them are indeed Jews but others are clearly not. At any rate, this JJP grouplet is devoted to denouncing Israel and praising those Arabs who make war on Israel. All that is fair enough if it weren't for the group's truly remarkable endorsement of random killings of Israeli Jews.

For some four years now, and despite repeated complaints, these self-styled proponents of a "just peace" have called for random, terrorist attacks in the streets of Israel.

In an "Open letter to Jews in Palestine" (their term for Israel), signed Khalid Amayreh, JJP warns that all Jewish civilians deserve death; in particular, they maintain, there is no such thing as a "personally innocent" Jew who lives in "Palestine" (i.e. Israel).

You, the Jews or Zionists (whatever you like to be called) have narrowed our horizons so much that you have made us feel that only two "choices" are available to us; either to die as suicide bombers or be slaughtered as sheep.

Therefore, I can dare say that blood of the "personally innocent victims" of the bombing is primarily on the hands of Sharon, Benalizer, Peres and other members of your diabolic government of assassins and war criminals

....

I won't give you the benefit of the doubt. I would be an idiot if I did.

This "Letter" is emblazoned with JJP's logo: a stylized dove of peace. A picture of the pigeon of death would be more truthful.

Also read: The Lying Tactics of the Anti-Israel Movement

Lady Renouf Now at Heathrow

Sydney Morning Herald

The Australian Queen of Beauty (Ret.) has arrived at Heathrow to support +Richard Williamson. Read a full report from the folks Down Under.

The Latest on Richie Williamson and Davie Irving and Davie Duke and Michelle Renouf

Richie Williamson (left) and Davie Irving
Times of London

Soo... Richie has been expelled from Argentina. He's off to Heathrow to meet his friend, the former beauty queen (and Davie Duke friend) Michele (one 'l' only, please) Renouf.

Beauty Queen (Ret.) Michelie Renouf and American pal Davie Duke

Now Michelie Renouf has hired the Australian Holocaust-denying lawyer Frederick Toben to represent The Most Reverend Williamson in his various legal and ecclesiastic travails. Ms. Renouf and Dr. Toben were members of the renowned Fact-Finding Committee On The Holocaust, appointed by the 2006 Iranian conference that found that the Holocaust never happened.

Now, don't misunderstand this arrangement. It is definitely not true that all these nice folks are anti-Semites. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ms. Renouf, for example, has said that she is definitely not anti-Semitic, no way, but she does allow that Judaism is a "repugnant and hate-filled religion."

Read more in the Times of London

Read the e-mail correspondence between Davie Irving and Richie Williamson

German Prelates Distance Themselves from Vatican

Cardinal Karl Lehmann (Mainz)

At least seven high-ranking German Catholic prelates have distanced themselves publicly from the Vatican on the matter of the anti-Semitic SSPX. While all statements have been respectful of the Pope, as indeed they need to be, none left a doubt that these high-ranking bishops, and in one case a cardinal, were dismayed by the anti-Semitic implications of the Vatican's reaching out to the SSPX sect.

These are the seven whose statements I have seen so far:

1) Cardinal Karl Lehmann (Mainz)

2) Archbishop Reinhard Marx (Munich)

3) Archbishop Werner Thissen (Hamburg)

4) Bishop Joachim Reinelt (Dresden-Meissen)

5) Bishop Franz-Josef Bode (Osnabrueck)

6) Auxiliary Bishop Hans-Jochen Jaschke (Hamburg)

7) Bishop Gebhard Fürst (Rottenburg-Stuttgart)

The German news service Tagesschau carries most of the details. The particularly strong statement by Cardinal Lehmann, demanding an apology from the Vatican, is reported by swr.de.

UPDATE, Feb. 4: Yet another German cardinal, George Kardinal Sterzinsky, the archbishop of Berlin, has critized the Vatican: "To lift the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops is, for most people, incomprehensible and outrageous," according to the report by Bild.

Merkel, and Obama, about the Pope and the Holocaust

Tagesschau

The Europeans are up in arms about the Vatican's rapprochement with the Catholic anti-Semites of the SPXX. Not so the Americans.

The New York Times's expert on religious affairs, Peter Steinfels, reports that American bishops have kept mum on that SSPX affair, in which Pope Benedict has revoked the excommunication by his predecessors of the] SSPX sect (see NYT, 1/30/09).

In sharp contrast, European bishops, at least one cardinal, and many lay Catholics and Catholic publications have sharply criticized this Vatican rapprochement with the SSPX. And not only Catholics. Europe's most famous daughter of a Protestant pastor, Chancellor Angela Merkel, has weighed in courageously.

The French and German press brings more details and commentaries on a daily basis. Since I read only German and French, I cannot comment on what the press of Italy, Spain, etc. may contain. But from what I see in Le Monde of France and Tagesschau of Germany, it appears that many prelates in Europe were moved to distance themselves from the Vatican and to reaffirm their solidarity with the Jewish community. The liberal press in these countries, which is often highly critical of Israel, nevertheless seems unanimous not only in condemning the old-fashioned anti-Semitism of the SSPX crowd, but also in expressing surprise that the Vatican has taken this startling initiative to placate SSPX.

These European liberals, obviously, have agendas of their own. In France, for instance, some of the SSPX folks were found among the ultra-right Front National; historically, the sect has been identified with the Petainist right wing in French politics. Moreover, the Vatican has annoyed the liberals again this week by appointing a right-wing auxiliary bishop in Austria, a certain Gerhard Maria Wagner, apparently against the wishes of the Austrian hierarchy. European commentators also point out that Benedict, while showing great indul;gence toward his right-wing, remains resolutely hostile toward the liberal and left-wing forces in his Church. English-only readers may wish to consult the English-language version of Der Spiegel, which recently featured a background article.

But, as is the case with Chancellor Merkel, European reaction cannot be reduced to political or theological liberalism. She is, remember, head of the CDU, the conservative party of her country. Hers is now the most conspicuous criticism of the Pope. She has publicly demanded from Benedict XVI that he explain clearly: is it or is it not acceptable, to deny the Holocaust ? According to Tagesschau, the Vatican has responded as follows: we have nothing to explain.

Now President Obama --- has he said anything ? I actually don't know.

SSPX's Floriano Abrahamovicz: Jews are the People of the Deicide

So here we have yet another leader of the SSPX sect. He is Floriano Abrahamovicz, or Father Floriano Abrahamovicz to those willing to give credence to an SSPX's ordination. He is the spokesman for North East Italy of the sect. He says that he has Jewish origins on his father's side (may G'd help us).

Catholic Culture describes his charming opinions:

In an interview with an Italian newspaper yesterday, Father Floriano Abrahamowicz, spokesman for the Society of St. Pius X in northeastern Italy, called the Jews “the people of deicide.” Insisting that the Society is not anti-Semitic-- “it’s truly impossible,” he said, “for a Catholic Christian to be anti-Semitic”-- Father Abrahamowicz nonetheless came to the defense of Bishop Richard Williamson’s “imprudent” comments on the Holocaust. Father Abrahamowicz added that he does not know how many Jews died in the Holocaust and whether the gas chambers were used for purposes other than disinfection.

The priest added, “If Bishop Williamson had gone on television to deny the genocide of 1.2 million Armenians by the Turks, I don’t think that all the newspapers would have talked about his statements in the same terms they’re using now. Who has ever talked about the Anglo-American genocide in the bombing of German cities? … And the Israelis certainly can’t tell me that the genocide they suffered from the Nazis is less serious than that of Gaza, simply because they’ve taken out a few thousand persons, while the Nazis took out six million. This is where I fault Judaism, which exasperates rather than honoring the victims of genocide decently. It’s as if there were only one genocide in history, that of the Jews during the Second World War.” The Jews, he added, are “the people of deicide.”

What does the Pope think ? The Jesuit magazine America carries a disquieting article. It suggests that the Pope is preparing a full-fledged rehabilitation of the SSPX people, essentially on their terms. Its seems that the notorious anti-Semitism of the SSPX seems to bother the Pope less than their ultra-conservatism pleases him.

Read also: Deborah Lipstadt's coverage of the SSPX story

SSPX's Father Franz Schmidberger: Today's Jews are Guilty of Deicide

Mit dem Kreuzestod Christi ist der Vorhang des Tempels zerrissen, der Alte Bund abgeschafft, wird die Kirche, die alle Völker, Kulturen, Rassen und sozialen Unterschiede umfasst, aus der durchbohrten Seite des Erlösers geboren. Damit sind aber die Juden unserer Tage nicht nur nicht unsere älteren Brüder im Glauben, wie der Papst bei seinem Synagogenbesuch in Rom 1986 behauptete; sie sind vielmehr des Gottesmordes mitschuldig, so lange sie sich nicht durch das Bekenntnis der Gottheit Christi und die Taufe von der Schuld ihrer Vorväter distanzieren. Im Gegensatz dazu behauptet das II. Vatikanum, man könne die Ereignisse des Leidens Christi weder allen damals lebenden Juden ohne Unterschied noch den heutigen Juden zur Last legen (§ 4).

With the death of Jesus on the cross, the old covenant is abolished. The Church now encompasses all peoples, cultures, races, social classes. With that, not only are the Jews of our days not "our elder brethren in faith," as the Pope maintained in a visit to a Rome synagogue in 1986. They are, rather, guilty of the murder of God, insofar as they do not embrace the divinity of Christ and accept baptism, the only actions that would distance them from the guilt of their forebears. But Vatican II maintains, wrongfully, that the sufferings of Jesus cannot be attributed either to the Jews of His days nor to the Jews of our days (§ 4).

This is an excerpt from a letter sent by Fr. Franz Schmidberger to the Roman Catholic bishops of Germany in October 2008. Fr. Schmidberger is the German head of that very Society of St. Pius X (SSPX -- see previous posting) whose members have now been re-admitted to full communion in the Roman Catholic church by Pope Benedict.

Hamas Speaks !

MEMRI: New Iranian book denying Holocaust

MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, has released the following information about yet another Iranian Holocaust-denial initiative:

On September 26, 2008, the Iranian news channel IRINN reported on the publication, in Iran, of a 100-page book of cartoons on the Holocaust, which it billed as "tak[ing] a critical look at the great distortion of the historical event called the Holocaust, using the art of satire." The report included comments by an Iranian university chancellor, the book's cartoonist, and an Iranian cultural expert.

The news story also explained that the book "is an effort to expose the need to research the event of the Holocaust."

The following is the transcript of the report.

To view the clip, click here.


Voiceover: "The book Holocaust takes a critical look at the great distortion of the historical event called the Holocaust, using the art of satire. The book describes the history of the Holocaust and its obvious contradictions, by means of cartoons and satirical writing. It raises questions about the Zionist claims that six million Jews were murdered by the German Nazis during World War II."

Mohammad Saeed Jabalameli, chancellor of Iran University of Science and Technology: "In order to question the Holocaust, experts needed to conduct studies, but the important thing is that fundamental questions have arisen in recent years: If the Holocaust is indeed a historical event that really took place, why don’t they allow this issue to be investigated? Why don’t they let academic circles investigate this issue? This alone is an indication that it is a fabrication, with no historical validity."

Mazyar Bijani, the book's cartoonist: "[The book] contains 52 cartoons, accompanied by historical satirical writing, regarding the way the Holocaust issue arose and became connected to Palestine. The way they managed to link Palestine to the 'genocide' of the Jewish people in Europe constitutes, in our opinion, dark satire. There is no connection between them."

[…]

Voiceover: "The 100-page Holocaust book has been released in 7,000 copies."

[…]

Parvin Pour, Iranian cultural affairs expert: "Mr. Mazyar Bijani, our country’s talented cartoonist, drew the cartoons in the book, and the writing is by Mr. Omid Mehdinejad, one of our talented poets and satirist."

Voiceover: "The Holocaust is a pretext of the Zionists to occupy the land of the oppressed, fighting people of Palestine. The Holocaust book is an effort to expose the need to research the event of the Holocaust."

How to Become a Clergyman in the United States

Rabbi Michael Lerner

Would you like to become a minister of the Gospel ? Would you like to have a license to perform marriages ? Plus, perhaps, a Ph.D. to make it all more legit ? No problem, it seems. Google "ordination," and, with just a few more clicks on the computer (and the payment of suitable fees, it goes without saying) and voila, you are the Rev. SoAndSo. To get a Ph.D., in apparently any subject, google "Ph.D." There are plenty of businesses out there to help you. "Earn a degree in 7 days, pay in installments." What could be simpler, what could be more legit ?

The rabbinate is no more difficult to obtain the Christian ministry. There is, to cite just one example, the Rabbinical Seminary International, which will ease you into that honor. The Seminary does, it seems, require a full day of "intensive" attendance; well, nothing is that easy.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, well known for his espousal of Good Causes and Palestinian demands, was ordained as follows, according his own website:

For ... nineteen years he pursued a course of study that intensified his knowledge of Jewish texts and Jewish mysticism, until he received rabbinic ordination in 1995 from a Beyt Din (a religious court) of 3 rabbis (each of whom had received orthodox smicha).

It would be interesting to interview those three rabbis, but their identities have never been disclosed, as far as I know.

Cyntia Ozick has examined the bona fides, or otherwise, of Rabbi Lerner. Her essay appeared in a pamphlet "Israel's Jewish Defamers," published by CAMERA just now. She has kindly made it available to our readers here.

Ms. Cynthia McKinney

Here is Ms. Cynthia McKinney, former Congresswoman, now presidential candidate for the Green Party:

Sabeel and Halper and Ellis

A group of Christian anti-Israel people, "Sabeel," has the support of two Jewish opponents of Israel in this video: Mr. Jeff Halper of Israel, and Mr. Marc Ellis of the United States. To hear Mr. Ellis's noteworthy oration, be sure to watch the video to its bitter end. For material on the American friends of Sabeel, see an earlier posting.

Ellis is employed by Baylor University. He has descriptions of himself as professor there and also as provost. He has furnished yet another description for his post as Director of the Center for Jewish Studies. All stress his many accomplishments, and give details of the praise he has received from famous men like Noam Chomsky and Edward Said. There are also "downloadable publicity shots of Dr. Marc H. Ellis." A more critical appraisal of him is furnished by Steven Plaut.

Update, 9/9/09: Read Plaut's new material about Ellis, Tony Judt, etc.

Truths and Lies -- The Language of Hate, ct'd.

Pravda ['The Truth'], Central Organ, Communist Party of the Soviet Union

"Werner, you LIE," a gentleman screamed at me, at everyone, at a faculty meeting some years ago. The screamer was someone I had known for years, and our children were friends. But he was a leftist, and I was not, and he didn't like my opinions on an issue that he construed as political.

I must say that I was startled even though I knew then as I know now that to extremists anyone who disagrees tends to be a "liar." Professor Noam Chomsky has been pleased to call me a "liar" and a "pathological liar," both in print and in private correspondence. The accusation that an enemy is a "liar" is also commonplace in Nazi and Communist propaganda. Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf speaks of Jews as liars as if that is no more than to be expected (p. 324 in the Manheim translation). Vladimir Lenin, the founder of Bolshevik Communism in this respect as in so many others, speaks of the "renegade Kautsky" as not only stupid and venal but also, and not least, a liar. ("The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky," originally published in 1918, is available, for instance, in The Lenin Anthology, ed. by Robt. C. Tucker, 1975).

Seldom are there mistaken opinions in the world of extremism; opinions tend to be either "correct" or outright lies. In the current debates on the Iraq war, the Left has concluded that "Bush Lied, People Died." Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post has pointed out the factual difficulties with this proposition, but whatever the factual basis or lack thereof, complex political questions, to people who are not extremists, can seldom be reduced to a simple question of truth versus lie.

Martin Luther in 1520.
Portrait by Lucas Cranach the Elder

Before Hitler and Lenin, even before Professor Noam Chomsky, it was Martin Luther who castigated those he hated as "liars;" Chomsky and these others can justly be considered latter-day Lutherans in this respect.

Luther's 1543 work "On the Jews and their Lies" is described as follows in Wikipedia:

In the treatise, Luther writes that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."^[1] They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine,"^[2] and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."^[3] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,^[4] afforded no legal protection,^[5] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.^[6] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them."^[7]

<sup>Most later commentators have pointed to a continuity from Luther's thought to that of the Nazis and modern anti-Semitism, though there is, of course, a crucial difference: Luther did not not seem to have a concept of "race" in his animosity toward the Jews. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that there are anti-Semitic sites on the internet today that promote Luther's book and make it available to the public.

But whatever the genealogy of modern anti-Semitism, which is not our concern here, it would seem that Luther -- so influential in the development of modern Germanic languages -- must be counted as one of the fathers of today's use of "lie" and "truth" in the arsenal of vituperation.

This Lutheran use of the couplet "truth" and "lie" confounds two usages of the terms, both of which are common, but which are usually kept apart.

1. The most ordinary meaning of "truth -- lie" is descriptive. "The dog ate my homework," assuming he did not, is a lie. "I never did my homework," assuming that in fact I did not, is the truth. I will call this the secular-rational meaning.

2. The second meaning of the couplet comes to us from sacred scripture. A clear example is in John 14-6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Here "truth" is not so much descriptive as it is an affirmation of faith. Jehovah's Witnesses, speaking to one another, might ask "how long have you been in the truth ?". This is their way of asking for the length of adherence to the JW organization. ( Lynn D. Newton has compiled a glossary of Jehovah's Witness in-speech.) Similarly, "lie" is not a statement that is contrary to fact but is rather an attribute of the devil:</sup>

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. (John 8-44)

This second meaning is religious, emotive, non-rational. There is no problem in understanding this usage in a religious context, which is its natural home. But the problem with the Marxists and other extremists is that they do not provide the context in their polemics to signal clearly their non-rational meanings in their use of "truth -- lie." It would seem that these polemicists and propagandists are not themselves aware of the confusion. Their world is made up of virtue and evil, as is that of the sacred scriptures, rather than of truth and untruth in any empirical sense. Such propagandists, even when professors at prestigious universities, seem to simply confound truth with virtue (as they see virtue), untruth with evil (as they construe evil). Their mental life is different from that of people who engage in rational debate.

................................................................................

American Nazis

An American Nazi rally, with participation of the KKK, Lansing, Mich., 4/22/06

Hitler's Animal Attributions

We have seen (below) the use of animal attribution in the Stalinist vilification of enemies. Here are some examples of this device in Hitler's hate message against the Jews. All quotations are from Mein Kampf as translated by Ralph Manheim, Sentry Edition, 1962, pp. 300-327.

Their [Jewish] apparently great sense of solidarity is based on the very primitive herd instinct that is seen in many other living creatures... The same pack of wolves which has fallen on its prey together disintegrates when hunger abates ... The same is true of horses which try to defend themselves ... in a body, but scatter again ...

...the [Jewish] qualities of egoism come into their own, and in the twinling of an eye the united people truns into a horde of rats, fighting bloodily among themselves.

the Jew ... is mostly found in the art which seems to require least original invention, the art of acting. But even here, in reality, he is only a 'juggler,' or rather an ape;

he was never a nomad, but only and always a parasite in the body of other peoples.

His spreading is a typical phenomenon for all parasites; he always seeks a new feeding ground for his race.

His blood-sucking tyranny becomes so great ...

... the eternal blood-sucker ..

he adds to .. financial straits .. by crawling around ..

he has squeezed and sucked their blood again and again...

With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles ..

The Language of Hate: 1. Animal Attribution

This series of postings will look at some rhetorical devices used in extremist propaganda. In this first installment, we will look at the use of animal imagery ("animal attribution") to characterize enemies. But first some introductory remarks.

Introductory Comments on the Language of Hate

api.ning.com

Why do people hate ? Why do they hate so much ? Why do they seem to hate everywhere ? Why do they kill for this hatred ? I have no answer and will not attempt one. But first, I must call attention to a disturbing article by Jared Diamond of UCLA in the New Yorker of April 21, 2008, "Vengeance is Ours," which tells of the deeply-rooted tradition of deadly revenge killings in a non-literate culture in New Guinea. It is a story with which we are familiar, in its manifold variations, from Nazi Germany, from Ireland, from Bosnia, from all over Africa. But Diamond's account from a culture that has no connection to the familiar racial, religious, and ethnic hatreds of Europe and Africa gives a jolt. Does it point to some sort of universal human propensity ? I will not speculate.

Back to Europe and its hatreds.

In this occasional series of postings, I hope to discuss some of the peculiarities of the language that is used by those who incite hatred. I do not know enough about the Bible, or the Greek and Roman Classics, although I have been told that hatred can be found there. At some future time I may have something to say about the hate texts of Martin Luther, say his 1543 opus On the Jews and their Lies, but this is not for now. For some postings, at least, I intend to take a look at some of the details of the Communist and Nazi propaganda of the twentieth century.

The rhetorical devices of hate of these two movements differed in important ways, but had even more important similarities. Overall, there is the remarkable violence in this propaganda: the enemy is seen as being evil in all possible ways, with the implied and often express message that he should be physically eliminated. This is perhaps the most important distinction between these extremist movements and moderate opinion. The latter can muster respect, no matter how grudging, for a common humanity of the opponent while the former will make no such allowance.

Among the devices of hate used by both Communists and Nazis in the twentieth century, there is only one that I will describe today:

Animal Attribution

It is common in our colloquial language to express disapproval by way of attributing animal characteristics or even animal identities: 'he is a pig,' 'she is a bitch,' 'a louse,' 'a swine,' and so forth. But such expressions are generally taboo is formal discourse. Not so in the propaganda of extremist movements. Here is a recent statement by Hamas about Condoleeza Rice:

With the arrival of that black scorpion with a cobra's head, Condoleezza, I began to worry that she would use her venomous fangs and hiss to kill this initiative and new spirit that we should protect.

Both Nazi and Communist propaganda used the idea that an enemy is not at all human, that he is, in fact, a vicious or dangerous, or sometimes merely ridiculous animal. On the Communist side, the speeches by the prosecutor of the Moscow show trials of the 1930's, Andrey Y. Vyshinsky, form a handy source of Stalin-era Communist hate rhetoric. In particular, I have used Vyshinsky's 1936 and 1938 court summaries, to which I happened to have easy access.

In the so-called Moscow Trials of 1936, 1937, and 1938, the Stalin government accused high-ranking members of the Communist Party of treason and disloyalty to the Soviet government. Almost the entire top level Bolshevist leadership was eventually killed by Stalin and his collaborators. Vyshinsky was the chief prosecutor at these trials (later he would represent the Soviet government at the Nuremberg trials). No serious historian today gives credence to Vyshinsky's wild accusations against his erstwhile comrades.

The trial of 1936 had Zinoviev and Kamenev as the chief defendants. Both had been top Communist leaders under Stalin. All sixteen defendants were sentenced to death and executed. Vyshinsky's prosecution summary , in English translation, is available on line.

The trial of 1937 had seventeen defendants, including the old Bolshevik Karl Radek. Thirteen of the defendants were shot, but Radek escaped with imprisonment in a labor camp.

The trial of 1938 had twenty-one defendants, all of whom were eventually killed by the Stalin government. I happen to own the 1938 English-language, official Soviet publication "Anti-Soviet 'Bloc of Rights [sic] and Trotskyites'," which contains Vyshinsky's summation for the prosecution.

Vyshinsky's conclusion in the 1936 trial was as follows:

"I demand that dogs gone mad should be shot -- everyone of them !"

As we have seen, the court obliged, and, indeed, all sixteen defendants were executed. Rarely does hate speech have such immediate effect.

Here are some other excerpts from the 1936 document:

"These mad dogs of capitalism tried to tear limb from limb the best of our Soviet land."

"Liars and clowns, insignificant pigmies, little dogs snarling at an elephant, this is what this gang represents !"

"All their bestial rage and hatred were directed against the leaders of our Party...against Comrade Stalin, against his glorious comrades-in-arms."

"We will now pass to Kamenev, the second pillar of the so-called Zinovievite group, this hypocrite 'in an ass's skin,' as he himself expressed it ..."

Here are excerpts from the 1938 document:

"And Bukharin -- that damnable cross of a fox and a swine -- ..."

"Our whole country, from young to old, is awaiting and demanding one thing: the traitors and spies who were selling our country to the enemy must be shot like dirty dogs !

Our people are demanding one thing: crush the accursed reptile"

I will seek to demonstrate the Nazi use of animal attribution in a future posting.

Comrades !

Robert Service

"Comrades ! A History of World Communism," by Robert Service, Harvard U.P., 2007

Here is a book that, at first blush, has it all: an overall treatment of Communism, written by a professor at one of the world's great universities (Oxford), published by the press of another great university (Harvard), and having an overall point of view that I share (anti-Communism).

So, what went wrong ? In a word, Professor Service's work is superficial and riddled with errors.

I enjoyed Professor Service's taking-down of the likes of Beatrice and Sidney Webb, and other fellow-travelers. In retrospect, and not only in retrospect, these cultured products of the West were more harmful to liberty than regiments of Soviet troops. But even when Professor Service is so obviously right, he goes wrong. "What inspired [the Webbs] to speak for Stalin ? .... They believed in central and state planning...." (P. 207) If only things were that simple !

I assume that the author's treatment of the Soviet Union is competent, but this cannot be said of what he has to say of the Communist parties in Western Europe and America. A seemingly small error is indicative of much that went wrong with this book.

Speaking of the famous African-American baritone Paul Robeson, Professor Service tells us (p. 278), without benefit of footnotes of any kind: "He never joined the Communist Party of the USA. (Not that this saved him from investigation by Joe McCarthy.)"

The first thing that is curious here is that Professor Service gives a nod to those -- unlike himself -- who think that the late Senator McCarthy was a far greater threat to humanity than the late Joseph Stalin. Coming from a staunch anti-Communist like Professor Service, this is a false note.

But what about the substance of the claim that Robeson never was a Party member ? How does Professor Service know that this is so ? True, Robeson always claimed, throughout his life, that he was not a member. But those who know about the American CP -- this is the main point -- also know that there always were secret members in addition to the open ones. Robeson's unfailing support of every twist of the Party line, including his support of the Stalin-Hitler pact, always led to the strong suspicion, among those who understood the Party, that he most probably was under Party discipline, i.e. that he was a member. If Professor Service has no such suspicion, I would say that he knows little about American communism.

Of course, in the case of Robeson, we can go beyond suspicion. We have evidence, from the very mouth of one of the horses, that he was a Party member: "My own most precious moments with Paul were when I met with him to accept his dues and renew his yearly membership in the CPUSA. I and other Communist leaders like Henry Winston, the Party's late, beloved national chair, met with Paul to brief him on politics and Party policies and to discuss his work and struggles." (Gus Hall, "Paul Robeson: An American Communist," published by CPUSA, 1988.)

The Robeson matter by itself is a detail. But Professor Service's complete misunderstanding of the political alignments of the 1930's is more than a detail: "But undoubtedly it was the socialists in Europe and North America who bowed lowest in their admiration of Stalin." This goes with Professor Service's ignoring of the profound anti-Stalinism of the Weimar-era SPD in Germany, of the inter-war SFIO of France (think Leon Blum !), of the anti-Bolshevism of British Labour, of the anti-Communist struggles of the CCF in Canada and the Socialist Party of the US (think Norman Thomas !).

A reader looking for further reading about, say, the French or German Communist parties will find no help at all in Professor Service's sparse footnotes. Take the rich historiography on the French CP. It seems that Professor Service is completely innocent of any knowledge here. The important "Histoire" by Courteois and Lazar is not on the bibliography. There is no title by Annie Kriegel. There is no mention of Robrieux. And, as far as Professor Service is concerned, the German scholars who spent so many years studying the KPD (Ossip Flechtheim, Hermann Weber, etc.) might as well have saved their trouble.

In short, no, this book is simply not good enough.

Hohenschönhausen

A place you need to see in Berlin. Even if you hadn't planned a trip there at all, you need to pick yourself up and go there, soon.

I spent six days in Germany last month. I went to witness the neo-Nazis' ("Nationaldemokratische Partei") participation in the provincial legislature in Schwerin, capital of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. It was worth the trip. The six neo-Nazi members of the legislature performed right on cew, denouncing foreigners in Germany and what they thought were signs of German regret for the Holocaust. But most of all they denounced all the other political parties, who, they maintained (as their Nazi precursors had done in the Weimar period), were part of a vast conspiracy of "the system." It was my impression, as it had been before I made the visit, that the other parties are behaving well in resisting any sort of collaboration with this NPD.

But the highlight of my visit, by any measure, was my visit to Hohenschönhausen in Berlin. It is the site of the former interrogation prison of the Stasi, the secret police of the former East German communist regime. The installation had originally been built in the Nazi period as a food preparation center for the Strength Through Joy organization. After the war the Soviet secret police turned it into a detention center for political prisoners and then turned it over to its East German counterpart, the Stasi, which ran it as its notorious central interrogation center. After the Communist regime ended in 1989, former inmates began to turn the place into a memorial site and to conduct tours. (Most tours are of course conducted in German, but it is possible to arrange one in English. Click on the link above for details.)

The West has known about the horrors of Soviet interrogation techniques at least since the publication of Arthur Koestler's "Darkness at Noon" in 1940. I read that, and many other accounts since, but nothing prepared me for the immediacy of the experience of my visit to Hohenschönhausen: seeing the interrogation cells, I could feel the psychological sadism of the interrogators (who worked only at night, every night), the terror of the solitary confinement that lasted for years in some cases, the degradation of man by man. It was a life-changing experience for me to visit this site.

Last year the German film maker Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck released, to great acclaim, his movie "The Lives of Others." The movie revolves around Stasi's spying on its citizens in the former East Germany. All those of my friends who saw the movie were greatly impressed. I thought that it was good, but I also thought that parts of the plot were contrived. Now that I watched some clips from it (see below), I notice that Hohenschönhausen gets a mention in the movie. The movie is in some ways unsparingly realistic, but it is of course fiction. My guide at Hohenschönhausen pointed out that one aspect of the movie is completely counter-factual: not a single case has come to light in which a Stasi operative attempted to aid a victim of the regime.

On the contrary, some of these former Stasi members are now engaged in a campaign of vilification against the memorial effort at their former torture site. The site is an official government installation and receives Berlin city subsidies. But for some years the city Senator in charge of museums, and thus of Hohenschönhausen, was a member of The Left, the successor to the East-German ruling party. His name is Thomas Flierl, and, if we trust German press reports about him, he cannot quite make up his mind whether he is in sympathy with the former Stasi or their victims.

Professor Norman Finkelstein: All Honor to Hizbullah !

Professor Norman Finkelstein advises the Lebanese to wage war against Israel. His Lebanese interviewer demurs. But Professor F. has the solution for her country: "Israel has to suffer a defeat !" Hizbullah fights Israel, unlike so many other Arabs, so it, but not the other Lebanese, is following Professor F.'s advice. It, Hizbullah, but not the other Lebanese, deserves high grades from the Professor.

Professor Finkelstein's argument for praising Hizbullah is one of analogy. He states that while he does not know much about the movement, he must nevertheless honor it for fighting Israel. Why ? Because when the Soviet Union ("no bed of roses," according to Prof. F.) resisted the Nazis during the second World War, people honored it for resisting. So now, he argues, it is Hizbullah that resists, hence it must be honored. Those who resist must be honored. Q.E.D., as they say in these Professorial circles.

What about those who resisted the Soviets ? What about those who today resist the Syrians in Lebanon ? Let me attempt to formulate a Finkelsteinian answer to such quibbling (taken, in fact, from one of his speeches): "Drop dead !"

(revised 2/21/08)

Who is a Rabbi, and Who is a Nun ? Caveat Emptor.

Sister Elaine Kelley

We live in a free country, and anyone is legally entitled to call himself a Rabbi, a "Reverend," a priest, a minister. All such titles and degrees are available by mail order, for little money. But who needs to buy through the mails ? You want to be, say, a priest of the Very Catholic Diocese of Utopia, be my guest. Print your cards. On the computer.

All that is well known and generally discounted by the discerning public. So it should come as no surprise -- but it did -- that being a nun, sort of, is as easily accomplished.

Out in the state of Oregon, there is a support group for anti-Israel Palestinian Christians that calls itself Friends of Sabeel. What does Sabeel mean ? Well, never mind. But it so happens that when I wrote to this group to exchange some views regarding the legitimacy of Israel, the person charged with answering my mail was Sister Elaine Kelley, SFCC. What does SFCC mean ? "Sisters for Christian Community." The Sabeel site tells us that Sr. Kelley is a Roman Catholic. But who or what is SFCC ? The Catholic Church does not recognize this group. It's strictly a home-made, self-made ploy, well, to mislead. Two items in the New York Times (1, 2) tell much of the story. OK, nothing new in this. As ever, please, caveat emptor.

Addendum, February 23: The mainline Christian group Christians for Fair Witness on the Middle East has condemned Sabeel's message as anti-Semitic.

The New Nazis Speak

In this year of the 75th anniversary of Hitler's seizure of power in Germany, the new German Nazis -- "National Democratic Party of Germany," NPD -- seem well established in at least two of the provincial legislatures of the German Federal Republic: Sachsen and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (MVP). Both of these provinces were part of the former East Germany. In Sachsen, the NPD received 9.2% of the vote in the elections of 2004, and in MVP it received 7.3% in 2006. The NPD has seats in both of these legislatures and uses them with very considerable skill to advance its shrill xenophobic campaign.

The remarkable video below (in German only) was taken on January 31 in the legislature of MVP in the city of Schwerin. Its shows the NPD leader Udo Pastörs deliver a harangue against foreigners in Germany. He has it in mostly for the Turkish residents of Germany, but he also pays particular attention to Jews, their synagogues, and those who pretend to be Jews in order to benefit from German social programs. His biggest enemies, for all that, are the democratic parties (as they call themselves in this context) that form the majorities in both federal and provincial legislatures. The video should be studied not only for its particular content but also, at least as much, for the oratorical style of these new Nazis and also that of their enemies.

The democratic parties, it would seem, have done a good job at keeping these new Nazis at bay. In this video, we see Peter Ritter of the Left party, and, more tellingly, Sylvia Bretschneider of the Social Democrats (who is the president of the provincial parliament) deliver strong and effective rebukes to Pastörs and his message of hate.

[addendum, 2/11/08: The original video here, which had Pastörs speaking to the legislature in Jan. of 2008, with responses from the president of the chamber, no longer seems to be available. I have substituted another video, which has Pastörs speaking a few days later, to his party comrades, at another venue. Additional videos with this gentleman are available on YouTube.]




[addendum, 2/26/08: Here is another video. This is a revealing reportage by the German "heute-journal" ( Sept. 19, 2006) of the 2006 neo-Nazi victory in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Sorry, it's all in German.]

All the Jews Will Be Killed

All the Jews in the world, of whatever country, will be killed when Islam rules the planet. And, as is explained in a separate sermon, not by gunshot but by torture. This cheerful proposal comes to us from Sheich Ibrahim Mudeiris, speaking on the TV station of the Palestinian Authority on May 13, 2005. There are a number of his sermons that you can find on YouTube, but this one is the nicest that I found. He has a truly beautiful singing voice. Of course I have never heard an Islamic sermon before, so I cannot tell how this once compares. But the delivery here, at least, is beautiful.

Why does the Sheich talk like that ? The sermon, I was told by an American Arab, is of course hateful. But it is the "inevitable" result of Israeli policy in Gaza.

Addendum: The New York Times of April 1, 2008, carries a revealing, front-page article about the virulent anti-Semitism of Hamas.

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein and the IFCJ

Among the more persistent intruders into my e-mail inbox there is a frequent missive from IFCJ, which I have taken to call IFcich but which its senders insist stands for an International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. The missive is always signed by, or makes reference to, Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein. The prose, to this student of the sociology of religion, is reminiscent of Evangelical Christianity. The message invariably asks for money, and seems to insist, for reasons I cannot fathom, that I have a Christian duty to help Israel. For those who are not fortunate enough to be on the rabbi's e-mail list, the IFCJ also maintains a blog.

Who is Rabbi Eckstein ? A left-wing Israeli member of Knesset, Ran Cohen, quoted by the Jewish Week, seems to think that Eckstein is a convert to Judaism, but that is almost certainly incorrect. A New York Times writer thinks that Eckstein is the son of a "Chief Rabbi of Canada," but since I never heard of such a position in my 31 years of residence in that country as a practicing Jew, this latter press report, like the former, seems, well, spurious.

What does seem well established is that Rabbi Eckstein has quite a bona fide ordination from Yeshiva University but that he has angered many other orthodox rabbis by his inordinate communing with Evangelical Christians. On the other hand, Rabbi Eckstein has molded his IF organization into a major fund-raising group for Israeli charity. The funds seem to be mostly raised from Christians and the benefits seem to go mostly to Israel and needy people in Israel. And the big news now -- top item in the December 28, 2007 issue of the Jewish Week -- is that in return for a donation $45 million over the next three years from IF, the Jewish Agency has agreed to give Rabbi Eckstein a seat on its Executive Board. The Jewish News suggests that this deal means that Evangelical Christians and their agenda now have a say in the top councils of Zionism.

The Israeli writer Zev Chafets, writing in the New York Times Magazine of July 24, 2005, gave an informative and amusing account of the IF rabbi, although, to this reader, the article could have been stronger with a little less sneering.

There is also a quite informative piece by Marvin Schick about Eckstein. Schick is a free-lance columnist who contributes (apparently unpaid) advertisements of his pieces to the Jewish Week, and now also runs a blog.

Addendum, Feb. 18, 2008: David Brog has written a very informative book-length description of the Christian Evangelical support for Israel, together with an insightful analysis of the various Jewish responses to this effort.

Anti-Semitism: A new Gift of God ?

Well, here we have it: Monsieur Dieudonné ("Mr. Gift of God," or "Mr. G of G" for short). He's a super-sophisticated French comic, of mixed African and French background, and he has given a new voice and opened a new audience for extreme anti-Semitism. He does not like, it seems, the "Americano-Zionist Axis." But it's all in good fun, right ? His views sound extreme left-wing, but heck, hold on: his best friends, some of them, are in the Front National, and that includes the wife of Jean-Marie Le Pen. All this is told by Tom Reiss in The New Yorker of November 19, 2007. Read the whole article, and don't miss the last paragraph.

To listen to Mr. G of G in person is painful, especially if you can understand French. But, for those francophones out there blessed with a touch of masochism (or sense of humor, as G of G would no doubt have it), here is his sketch "Mes Excuses" that Reiss has described in his article:



Update, Nov. 2009: Mr. Dieudonné has announced that his friends in Iran have graciously consented to finance him in the making of "anti-Zionist" movies.

Dotage and Fame: the Case of Ferdinand Sauerbruch

Ferdinand Sauerbruch by Max Liebermann

Here is a story of a German physician's occupational prestige, with its concurrent power over the lives of others, and how it was able to sweep aside, at least for a time, all evidence of incapacity and senility.

At the top of this posting we see a picture of Ferdinand Sauerbruch, the most famous of German surgeons of the twentieth century. The picture is the 1932 work of the Jewish artist Max Liebermann. Sauerbruch and Liebermann were neighbors and friends, apparently even after the Nazis took power. But Sauerbruch was, at the same time, a supporter of the Nazis. As with so many other German in public life at the time, the best that can be said on this topic is that his relationship to the regime was one of ambiguity.

Sauerbruch was recognized as one of the very top scientists of his generation. He was nominated for the Nobel prize no fewer than 54 times over a period of 14 years. But then a well-known German opponent of the Nazis, Carl von Ossietzky, received the Nobel Peace prize for 1935. Hitler was furious and forbade German citizens to accept further Nobel prizes. In their stead, the Nazis created a special German prize, apparently in compensation, and Sauerbruch accepted this all-German, Nazi-sponsored prize at the annual Nazi rally of 1937.

After the war, Sauerbruch made a similar peace with the Soviet occupation of East Germany, with whose help he continued his world-famous work in the world-famous hospital in East Berlin, the Charité (it was here, by the way, if childhood memory of what I was told can be trusted, that my own father worked with Sauerbruch as a young assistant after the first world war).

But now, soon after the end of WWII, comes the sad decline of Sauerbruch's mental powers, which he steadfastly denied to himself and to others. And here is the shocker: he continued to operate on patients without realizing what he was doing, causing untold calamities, unrestrained for some years by the authorities. After the Charité finally dismissed him, he continued to see private patients, gratis, from both parts of Berlin, causing more harm. The most fascinating part of the story is the fumbling, hesitant reaction of the German medical profession. Sauerbruch's prestige had been so high that the medical authorities, for a very long time, refused to stop his mayhem. The whole story, well told by the physician-journalist Jürgen Thorwald ("The Dismissal," 1960), is now well known to German physicians. But the German general public seems to know little. The German Wikipedia article on Sauerbruch, though it dutifully lists Thornwald's book, mentions nothing of his late-life dementia, and my attempt to insert some words to this effect was immediately edited out. (There is a mention of the problem, however, in the American Wikipedia).

Old Age and Religious Views

The New York Times Magazine of November 4 has an article on the distinguished British philosopher Antony Flew. It seems that after a lifetime of espousing atheism -- as one the most trenchant and clear-thinking writers in that field -- the aging Professor Flew has recanted and now espouses a form of deism. This turn has been widely publicized, and apparently manipulated, by religionists. A new book that bears Flew's name as author, for example, does not seem to have been written by him at all, but was authored by his new religious friends. The writer of this New York Times article, Mark Oppenheimer, suggests that the turn can largely be attributed to a form of senility on the part of Professor Flew. He has interviewed Flew in his home (Mrs. Flew serving glasses of water), finding that Flew was unable to remember crucial points that were made in what is ostensibly his own new book. Nor does he seem to recall many other things. Of course all that is very sad. It is obvious that our political and philosophical views are in some sense related to our state of health. That much is obvious on its face. But it is seldom that a specific instance of psychopathology-as-philosophy, or dotage-as-religion, can be so well documented. A memorable article.

The Weather Underground

The Weatherman organization, variously known as Weather Underground, etc., existed in the United States for roughly ten years, from about 1969. But it was actually only for a few months that it had a viable existence; after its members inadvertently blew up a townhouse at 18 West 11th Street in Manhattan (March 2, 1970), killing three of their own, it was all downhill. Together with its allies in the Black Panther Party, Weatherman was the most violent American opposition to the Viet Nam war. It adopted Ho Chi Minh as its ideological father.

The video shown above is but one of a number of such treatments by a largely sympathetic press. Weatherman is most often pictured as idealistic, devoted to human betterment, but as using unacceptable methods, i.e. violence.

The most informative description of Weatherman is probably that by Kirkpatrick Sale in his book "SDS," published in 1973. SDS, Students for a Democratic Society, was the large student organization of the 1960's which later morphed into Weatherman. Like most writers on the subject, Sale writes as a sympathizer of this larger "Movement," but he writes with absolute realism about the darker side of Weatherman: its violence, blind fanaticism, hopeless self-righteousness, ridiculous posturing.

We now have a new account by one of the former Weathermen, or Weatherwomen, who were in that townhouse on 11th Street when the bomb went off. In fact that building belonged to Cathy Wilkerson's father. Her book is entitled "Flying Close to the Sun," Seven Stories Press, 2007. It adds very little to our knowledge or understanding of the movement. It does have a useful table of Weatherman bombings (taken from a 1974 book by Jonah Raskin), most of which took place after Sale's book was published. Wilkerson can also tell us, as Sale could not, what it was like to be a rank-and-file member. It seem that the leaders had (literally) caviar while the followers subsisted on peanuts. And it also appears that Weathermen considered themselves above all the laws of human restraint. Wilkerson participated in a sexual orgy with fellow members (but the sex was not good) while the love of her live was in jail for a few weeks.

Wilerson lived in hiding for years and also served time for her part in the bombings, but she has now repudiated her violent past. Her account is wooden and formulaic. Ho Chi Minh, after all that has happened to the international movement of the Communist dictatorship, is still her hero. Her book is much more recent, and is written by a participant, but it lacks the understanding, the descriptive power, and yes, the intelligence of Kirkpatrick Sale.

Weatherman will continue to be of interest to students of social movements. For one thing, it invites comparison to the movements of our day.

a) Weatherman was one of the most conspicuous opponents of the Viet Nam war. Today we have the Iraq war, and a variety of movements to oppose that. One contrast, well illustrated by Weatherman, is that today's war opponents do not champion the other side. There are no "Sadam, Sadam, Sadam Husein" chants that could be compared to Weatherman's "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh."

b) Weatherman believed in direct action, violence, and the use of dynamite. In that it invites comparison to the terrorists of our day, say the Islamists. The contrast could not be more stark. Weatherman was careless in its use of bombs, but any loss of life, it would seem, was inadvertent. This surely cannot be said of the Islamists.

Weatherman, if not the only home-grown terrorist group in American history, was probably the most spectacular, certainly in modern times. But its fanaticism and violence were soon spent. It seems that there were no deep cultural American roots to sustain it in the long term.

Mr. Galloway Implodes

davidChief

The British political movement "Respect," led by George Galloway MP, has imploded after existing for all of three years. One might say that Mr. Galloway himself has imploded.

Mr. Galloway, GG, has been an explosive, unpredictable, divisive force from the beginning of his career. A BBC report gives a restrained overall aperçu: always troubled by charges of financial irregularity, a declared enemy of "Bush, Blair, and Israel" (see the video below), yet an effective rabble-rouser and far-Left politician, Mr. Galloway nevertheless could never manage to cooperate even with those whose views are identical to his. The Independent adds the detail of Mr. G's justifying, in advance, a suicide murder of Tony Blair.

Mr. Galloway was originally a Labour MP from Scotland, as his truly pretty brogue will attest. But alas Labour expelled him. So Mr. G., with Muslim and Trotskyist supporters, created "Respect," and then was narrowly elected in a riding in England, defeating the only Black woman in the House in the process.

But now Respect, or so it would seem, has effectively come to an end. It has split, and will hold two rival conferences next week. It's hard to see how anything effective can survive.

The movement was cobbled together by joining British Muslim groups with the Trotskyist "Socialist Workers Party." What they have in common is this: all hate the West, all hate America, all hate Israel. It was a matter of lining up, in Mr. Galloway's memorable phrase, against "Bush, Blair, and Israel."

But while for the Muslims there surely is a God (at least so one would hope), for the Trotskyists there is no God but Trotsky (well, maybe Marx too). So, like all good things, Respect has come to an end. Galloway still has most of his Muslims, and with them has walked out to found "Respect Renewal." The SWP retains the old Respect. But without GG, how can that be more than an empty shell ?

The British writer Oliver Kamm has been able to hold his nose long enough to give us news, more or less blow-by-blow, of Renewal's implosion. The SWP has its own version, and so of course does Mr. Galloway.

George Galloway, MP, at Anti-Israel demonstration, London, August 2006

Mr. George Galloway, about whom I will have more to say soon, does not like Israel. Some say that Israel loses little and gains a lot from having Mr. GG as such a devoted adversary.

"The Internationale" with Scottish brogue

The Scottish Socialist Party gives us this bit of leftist shmaltz. Watch Barbara Scott. By the way, Mr. George Galloway (see later postings on this blog), one-time socialist MP from Scotland but now absconded to England, has never liked the Trotskyist SSP. Too much competition, I guess.

In one of those truly weird stories that plague extreme leftists from time to time, the Trotskyist SSP has had a great deal of grief from its former leader Tommy Sheridan. It's all about sex and alleged lies about sex -- so much so that the political side of these left-wingers has been seriously compromised. The links I have just provided will fill you in, if you're looking for a spot of entertainment.

The Front National in Paris, April 2007

J. & G.

Supporters of the French Front National listen to their leader, Jean-Marie LePen, at the Palais des Sports, April 15, 2007

The Extreme Right in Today's Germany -- ct'd

Mohanphoto4u

They cannot escape history. Whatever similarities there may be with radical-right groups in other countries, it is the post-war extreme right in Germany that is uniquely shadowed by the figure of Adolf Hitler.

Last year's book by Toralf Staud, "Moderne Nazis" (in German), gives a thorough and vivid description of the Nationaldeutsche Partei Deutschlands and its variously associated but independent local "Kameradschaften." We are indeed fortunate to have this measured and scholarly account. One of its many virtues is its excellent bibliography of the scholarly and journalistic literature. If I have a criticism, it is its failure to provide photographs. As was true of its Nazi predecessors in the Hitler period, this post-war extremist milieu must be seen to be appreciated-- if not in person than at least in pictures. (Both YouTube and Flickr have pictorial materials, a small part of which I have presented on this blog earlier).

How large is this grouping in the Germany of today ? The German parliamentary system has a five-percent threshold that prevents splinter parties from entering the legislatures. As a result, the NPD has never been able to elect a representative to the national parliament. But in the late sixties and earlier seventies it was able to seat representatives in several Länder (states) of the then-West Germany. Today the NPD has representatives in only two Länder, Saxony and Mecklenburg - East Pomerania, both of which were in the former East Germany. The party garners between five and ten percent of the votes in those states, but can receive in excess of twenty percent in some small cities and towns. In the west, the NPD today is a hopelessly small splinter grouping.

As Staud shows in detail, the weight of the extreme right can only imperfectly be assessed by the voting strength of the NPD. The extreme right is somewhat heterogeneous, and some of its formations seem to be at odds with one another. On the one hand, for example, is the staid, traditional conservatism of German nationalism (harking back, in some respects, to the German-National Peoples Party [DNVP] of the pre-Nazi era), but on the other hand there are the very rowdy, unruly, brawling skinheads and right-rock enthusiasts. It is this latter scene, in particular, that seems to have given the extreme right wing, with the NPD at its center, a great new dynamism.

All sections of the extreme right have, more or less as articles of faith, these similarities:

1) First and foremost, a fierce xenophobia, especially a hostility to Germans of non-German origins, in particular those who came from Turkey.

2) A greater or lesser admiration of the Third Reich, or least a rejection of all views that saw Hitler as evil. Sometimes this takes the form of no more than nostalgia for the Wehrmacht, the trade in Nazi-era paraphernalia, etc. The new movie "The Unknown Soldier" (see review by A. O. Scott) documents the attempts of the extreme right to prevent the showing of an exhibition concerning the Wehrmacht in the Nazi era.

2) A rejection of the "system," i.e. of the constitutional order of the German Federal Republic. There is much talk of "revolution" and the need to re-make the world. This has not always been true of the NPD. When it was founded, shortly after the War, it seemed content enough to work within the established order. In this earlier period it was able to elect representatives to western state legislatures, which it is unable to do now in its revolutionary incarnation.

3) Anti-Semitism. It came as a surprise to me that this theme is little stressed and seems to have low salience. It is simply taken for granted that Jews are to be hated, but little energy seems to be expended in this pursuit.

4) Opposition to Israel. The NPD and its fellow-travelers regularly embrace the anti-Israel stance of Arabs and left-wing Germans. This does not seem to cause discomfort in a movement that regularly denounces both the Muslims of Germany and the German left-wing.

5) Opposition to the West, particularly the United States. Sometimes this is expressed in terms of up-to-date international politics, but always also in terms of history, of the still-resented Allied victory in WWII.

Now, with Adolf Hitler as the unspoken but constant subtext to this movement, certainly so in the eyes of its many German detractors, we must observe some crucial differences from the Nazi movement of the 1920's and 1930's.

A. Unlike the NSDAP (Nazis) of the late Weimar republic, the NPD has no sizable popular base. In west Germany it seems to have no base at all, and in the eastern states, overall, it has a following of less than five percent of the population. At present, at least, it does not constitute a threat to German democracy.

B. Again unlike the NSDAP, which ultimately came to power only through deals with respectable parties, the NPD has been almost completely ostracized by other political formations. As long as this ostracism holds, it is difficult to see the NDP insinuate itself into any position of power anywhere in Germany.

C. Neither the NDP nor any other grouping on the extreme right has a charismatic figure who would command loyalty or admiration or respect within his own movement, let alone in the general public. In short, and alas for these new Nazis, there is no living Adolf Hitler now that they need one so badly.

D. The choreography of these two movements is radically different. The old NSDAP based itself on military traditions. It built a para-military grouping around itself, with uniforms, banners, badges, insignia, and a bold crimson flag that its Führer had personally designed. The extreme right of today, originally using traditional folk music and folkish cultural elements, is today dominated by the cultural styles of skinheads and rock enthusiasts. There are no uniforms. There are no storm troops. There are no para-military barracks.

What these differences imply for the future of the movement is hard to say. What is clear, though, is that the NSDAP has not found any sort of afterlife for its most significant features.

LaRouchies, 2006

This picture was taken on March 17, 2006 and uploaded to Flickr by Bob Greer. It shows a demonstration by one of the LaRouche organizations ("Lyndon LaRouche Choir") to protest against Vice President Cheney.

Kameradschaft Radebeul, December 2006

mattministrator

Young people -- skinheads, right-wing rock enthusiasts, members of informal "Kameradschaften" -- seem to be the dynamic force behind the extreme right in Germany today.

The Extreme Right Wing in Today's Germany, part 1

I expect to post information about this troubling phenomenon from time to time.

Today's extreme right wing in Germany has not been well reported in the western press, although the German media carry full, and disquieting, details. The movement, while heterogeneous, is united in its key tenets: anti-foreigner, anti-Semitic, respectful of the Third Reich, anti-American, anti-Israel.

At the center of this movement is the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, or NPD. The party cannot currently obtain the support of any appreciable number of voters in the old, western regions. But in recent years it has made spectacular electoral gains in two of the new, eastern "Laender" (provinces) of the Federal Republic:

1) Sachsen. This is the land of the two important cities of Dresden and Leipzig. It is densely populated, having about 230 inhabitants per square kilometer. In the last (2004) provincial elections, the NDP obtained 9.2% of the vote, sending 12 deputies to the provincial legislature in Dresden.

2) Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. This is largely rural and small-town territory, north and east of Berlin, with a population density of about 73 inhabitants per square kilometer. In 2006 it elected 6 NDP deputies to the provincial legislature in Schwerin, the party having obtained 7.3% of the vote.

There is little that the English-only reader can find that is either reliable or comprehensive. I thought that the (English-language) Wikipedia article on the NDP is particularly biased -- in favor of the NPD. But there is much in German that is informative. The German Wikipedia article is very good. There is also, among a number of other good German resources, the blog operated by Patrick Gensing.

Finally, there is the book-length study by Toralf Staud, "Moderne Nazis -- Die neuen Rechten und the Aufstieg der NPD," again, only in German so far. It should be issued in an English translation. I hope to report on this book in more detail in a future posting.