FringeGroups

The Chomsky Network: Churchill, Finkelstein, and especially Shahak

2009-07-12T00:32:00.012-04:00

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...

2009-06-29T12:25:00.002-04:00

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

2009-06-29T00:11:00.001-04:00

Speech by Hamas cleric, April 20, 2009

The Westboro Baptist Church

2009-06-24T15:55:00.007-04:00

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

2009-06-13T13:30:00.005-04:00

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 ?

2009-05-28T15:13:00.012-04:00

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.

Lady Renouf Now at Heathrow

2009-02-26T23:14:00.003-05:00

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

2009-02-24T23:45:00.006-05:00

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

The Innocent Hands of the Pope

2009-02-04T13:18:00.004-05:00

Tagesschau: The Innocent Hands of Pope Benedict XVI

Well, after intensive criticism from the fatherland, most especially from Chancellor Merkel, the Pope has had second thoughts: No, Williamson is not acceptable unless and until he renounces his Holocaust denial. Fat chance for that. The story is reported by Rachel Donadio, an unusually well-informed reporter for the New York Times.

But the German press is not charitable towards its wayward son the Pope. In a biting reference to Matthew 27-24, Tagesschau has this headline for its story: "Pabst wäscht seine Hände in Unschuld," 'Pope washes his hands in innocence.'

German Prelates Distance Themselves from Vatican

2009-02-03T22:04:00.006-05:00

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

2009-02-03T14:42:00.008-05:00

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

2009-01-31T14:57:00.006-05:00

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

But now Benedict does love us, honest

2009-01-29T15:36:00.009-05:00

Some of Hitler's Boys (Hitler Youth members) in 1933
(Wikipedia)

Some four days after causing an uproar throughout the world by reinstating notorious anti-Semites to the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI has made amends. Today's New York Times reports that the pontiff now "expresses his solidarity with Jews," strongly condemning Holocaust denial, etc. etc.

I for one fully accept the sincerity of the Pontiff's new statement. Nevertheless, I for one will not easily forget that

1) this new statement has come only after days of extraordinarily intense criticism of the Pope on the part of the world press, especially in Britain, Germany, and France;

2) that this statement, like the earlier reinstatement of the neo-Nazis of SSPX, comes from the former "Hitlerjunge" (Hitler's boy, i.e. member of the Hitler Youth) Joseph Ratzinger.

Of course, obviously, better late than never, your Holiness.

(On the other hand: 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.)

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

2009-01-28T21:34:00.008-05:00

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.

Pope Benedict and "Bishop" Richard Williamson

2009-01-25T19:52:00.013-05:00

Richard Williamson, a British-born member of the para-Catholic Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), was made a bishop by the late schismatic Catholic Marcel-François Lefebvre in 1988, against the order of then-Pope John Paul II. Williamson and three other such irregular "bishops" were excommunicated at the time. Now the current pope, Benedict XVI, has just voided these excommunications.

But Williamson is not only a self-described bishop, he is also a very active anti-Semite. (Watch the video -- Williamson doesn't shy away from that description.) (As you will see in the video, Williamson cites the writings of a certain Fred Leuchter for evidence for his assertion that the Nazis never gassed Jews. There are thorough refutations of Leuchter, which Williamson never mentions.)

Pope Benedict, of course, was a member of the Hitler Youth when he was a youngster, unlike other, very brave, very rare German Catholics who found ways of avoiding this membership. But that is a very long time ago, and probably not at all connected with his astounding lenience toward Williamson now. No doubt His Holiness has reasons that ordinary folk like you and I cannot begin to understand.

Read the hard-hitting article on this story in The Times of London.

Read also Adam Holland's

SSPX "Bishop" Williamson's Letters reveal pathological anti-Semitism

Hamas Speaks !

2009-01-16T16:51:00.002-05:00

MEMRI: New Iranian book denying Holocaust

2008-10-27T17:48:00.005-04:00

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

2008-10-09T14:02:00.006-04:00

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

2008-08-17T02:16:00.002-04:00

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

Sabeel and Halper and Ellis

2008-07-13T23:42:00.006-04:00

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.

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

2008-07-07T17:48:00.012-04:00

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]

^{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:}

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

2008-07-03T14:01:00.002-04:00

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

Hitler's Animal Attributions

2008-06-22T23:44:00.003-04:00

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

2008-06-17T21:20:00.020-04:00

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 !

2008-05-24T13:21:00.004-04:00

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.