RUTHFULLY YOURS

London cemetery charges fee to see late communist’s memorial

HIGHGATE CEMETERY, LONDON—On a summer visit to the grave of Karl Marx, Ben Gliniecki found that he would have to pay £4, or about $6, to pay respects to the man who sounded the death knell for private property.

Mr. Gliniecki, a Marxist, said no.
Karl Marx
Karl Marx

“Personally, I think it is disgusting,” the 24-year-old political activist said. “There are no depths of irony, or bad taste, to which capitalists won’t sink if they think they can make money out of it.”

The charity that looks after this cemetery has long taken swipe at a different irony: Karl Marx’s decision to buy a burial plot in a private London graveyard over the then state-provided alternatives. They say their cover fee subsidizes the upkeep of a cemetery where 170,000 other people rest.

The two sides have squabbled since the early 1990s, when the Friends of Highgate Cemetery began charging to fund the conservation of a burial ground whose elaborate gothic tombs and winding paths had fallen into disrepair. Now, the charge is infuriating a new generation of Marxists. Interest in his legacy is gaining fresh legs in Britain following September’s election of Jeremy Corbyn, a self-described Marx admirer, as leader of the opposition Labour Party.

The day after Mr. Corbyn’s victory, Mr. Gliniecki sold 50 copies of the Socialist Appeal newspaper at a rally attended by the new Labour leader. Mr. Gliniecki says he would typically sell 20 to 30 copies at such a rally. This year, the Marxist Student Federation has seen a surge in new freshman members at British university orientation weeks, said Mr. Gliniecki, who helps run the organization.

Alain El-Mouchan is the pen name of a professor of history and geography in Paris.
In the effort to enforce its political principles, France is weakening them.

Sincere thanks to Ruth Wisse, Joshua Muravchik, and Michel Gurfinkiel for their thoughtful responses to my reflections on the twilight of French Jewry. Together, they raise a number of issues that deserve further clarification.

Both Joshua Muravchik and Michel Gurfinkiel chide me for, in their view, an overly optimistic description of the social and political comfort enjoyed by Jews in France in the long era between the 1789 French Revolution and the beginning of the present century. Everything they say is of course pertinent. My point, however, was not to indulge in historical reconstruction but, sticking to the realm of ideas, to investigate how the Jewish issue brings the French Republic face to face with its own deepest political principles, if not its reason for being.

In the realm of historical facts, we can all agree that the level of anti-Semitism in France has matched that in other West European states. In this sense, indeed, France has never been a “paradise” (my word) for Jews. During World War II, Muravchik reminds us, “one-quarter of the Jews living in France were murdered in the Holocaust, with French connivance.” Nevertheless, it is also a fact that three-quarters of French Jews survived the war, and they did so thanks to the numerous Frenchmen who challenged Nazi and Vichy laws. As real as was French “connivance” with the Nazi occupier, it has to be placed next to the far higher degree of complicity displayed by many other European countries during the war.

But, to repeat, I was speaking less about facts than about principles, and here an intellectual problem arises. France developed a republican model of governance that Anglo-Saxon liberals still have a hard time either understanding or accepting as a legitimate and authentic way of implementing the political ideals of the Enlightenment. Thus, Muravchik is right that “America is the place where the . . . values of the Enlightenment were first and most successfully put into practice,” but, as he himself admits, he is also being chauvinistic in his claim that the American version of those values—a version influenced most profoundly not by the European but by the English and Scottish Enlightenments—is also the “best.” I myself would argue that, from a philosophical point of view, republican values may well be the best.

As Europe is being inundated with “refugees” from the Third World, the fantasy of multiculturalism is colliding violently with reality.

In the 1994 TV movie, Fatherland, Germany is depicted as having won World War II, at least on the European continent, which now has been consolidated into a single political entity, Germania, or the Greater German Reich, stretching from the Mediterranean to Finland (see a summary of the story here).

In April 1964, Germania is preparing to celebrate Hitler’s 75th birthday. By 1964 standards, Berlin looks prosperous and completely rebuilt after the failed Allied bombing. A former German U-Boat commander, played by Rutger Hauer, now is a top detective in the criminal division of an SS that resembles a uniformed FBI. He investigates a murder which ultimately leads to his discovery of a cover-up of the Nazi “final solution”: that all the Jews were exterminated, though the government maintains the fiction that they were all “resettled” in Russian territory conquered from the U.S.S.R.

At the same time, Hitler has persuaded President Joseph P. Kennedy to pay a “reconciliation” call in Germania and meet with him. The discovery of the “resettlement” fiction and of a series of murders of the Nazis responsible for the Holocaust would squelch any amicable relations between the U.S. and Germania. The still operative Gestapo goes to work to silence anyone who would be able to jeopardize that “peace process,” beginning with the murders of all the Nazi higher-ups who took part in the Wannsee Conference. All these men had to die because they otherwise could have spilled the beans to the Americans about what really happened to the Jews – or at least blackmailed the Nazi government.

Despite promises of amelioration from Iran’s current President, Hassan Rouhani, the situation for Christians has not improved at all.

Rouhani, came to power as a proponent of human rights and reform, and has been considered a reformer and moderate in the West ever since. He made countless declarations of his intention to pursue a human rights agenda and guarantee equal rights for all Iranians: Every one of those promises has been broken, yet the U.S. continues to put faith in Rouhani as an honest broker.

“Christians continue to be arbitrarily arrested… [They] disappear for weeks at a time… Detainees are sometimes told they must to convert to Islam or their families will be killed.” — Ruth Gledhill, journalist

Even though many Sufi Muslims are fervently pious in their devotion to the faith of the Shi’a, clerics in Qom declared Sufis to be apostates and attempted to expel them from the town and to take over their religious centre.

The document organized the methods of oppression used to persecute the Baha’is, and contained specific recommendations. When Iranian judges offer the Bahai’s life in exchange for abandonment of faith it is a clear admission of a purely religious motive.

“Human traffickers and the media in their home countries are making promises that do not correspond to reality.” — Hans-Joachim Ulrich, regional refugee coordinator.

The migrants said they were angry they were being asked to sleep in a huge warehouse rather than in private apartments. Hamburg officials say there are no more vacant apartments in the city. “The city lied to us. We were shocked when we arrived here,” said Syrian refugee Awad Arbaakeat.

“One of the men, who spoke broken German, said they [a family of asylum seekers from Syria] were not interested in viewing the property because I am a woman… I was taken aback. You want to help and then are sent away, unwanted in your own country.” — Aline Kern, real estate agent.

“A constitutional state cannot allow itself to be blackmailed.” — Marcel Huber, Bavarian politician.

“I man. You woman. I go first.” — Muslim male with a full shopping cart at the supermarket.

The ayatollah has already vowed to break the terms of agreement.

On Oct. 18 President Obama signed his nuclear agreement with Iran and thus began his administration’s implementation of it. His action followed the many international headlines proclaiming that Iran’s parliament — the “Majlis” — has ratified the nuclear weapons deal agreed to by Obama and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council.

Mr. Obama’s actions are premature and those headlines are comprehensively false for one compelling reason: The Majlis’ “ratification” never happened. To understand why requires some dissection of Iran’s internal politics.

They’re not willing to sacrifice their Jewish identity in exchange for their security as individuals.

By coincidence, on the same day “The Twilight of French Jewry, the Twilight of France” was published in Mosaic, I came upon some highly pertinent remarks by Christine Angot in Le Monde’s weekly literary supplement. Angot, a staunch liberal now in her mid-fifties, is a prize-winning playwright and novelist whose plotlines are largely drawn from her own life as the product of a dysfunctional family. (The French term for this is autofiction.) The subject of her remarks was a television program in which she had participated for Arte, the quality French-German channel, about Chateauroux, the town in central France where she was brought up.

Some Americans may remember Chateauroux as the locale of a U.S. army base in the 1950s and early 60s. Until recently, it could be described as quintessentially “deep France”: a sleepy local capital, surrounded by dark woods and rivers. Things are changing, however, as Angot realized with a start on her filmed visit there. Muslim immigrants are taking over many parts of the town, including her former neighborhood of public housing, and turning them into semi-independent enclaves, what the French police refer to as “no-go zones.” As she put it in Le Monde:

When we arrived—all of us, the TV crew complete with their cameras and sound booms, and the writer who grew up there—we had to account for ourselves, to show our identity cards, to prove who we were, to state exactly where I had lived. . . . And then, the director’s first name—David, his full name being David Teboul—supplied material for unsavory jokes…. Some of the locals tried to intimidate us, saying that television was a cartel of the Jews… All this was uttered in a very menacing tone.… We shot a few scenes under a running fire of jibes and jeering, and as we left we were told to pay our compliments to the Talmud…. I swear we felt most uncomfortable.

One of America’s allies in the fight against ISIS is dropping out. On Monday Canada elected the left-wing Liberal Party after ten years of Conservative rule. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Designate Justin Trudeau announced that he had spoken to President Barack Obama about his commitment to pull Canada’s fighter jets and ground troops home.

“Canada has a role to play in the fight against ISIL but he understands the commitments I’ve made around ending the combat mission,” Trudeau told reporters of his phone call with Obama.

Canada’s air commitment is small, just six CF-18 fighter jets, but those jets have been involved in thousands of bombing missions.

In addition to the fighter jets Canada has sent special forces troops to help train Kurdish fighters and “paint targets” for incoming air strikes.

Trudeau has said Canada will engage in other ways such providing increased humanitarian assistance. During the election campaign Trudeau pledged to quickly bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees.

With all the problems both nations face…this is what is most important???rsk
“Recognizing the challenge climate change poses to the security and livelihoods of all, the United States and Australia reiterated their resolve to work toward an ambitious climate agreement at the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change in Paris later in 2015.”

Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop, Minister for Defence Marise Payne, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter met on October 13 in Boston for the Australia-United States Ministerial (AUSMIN) consultations.
Seventy five years after the United States and Australia established diplomatic relations, more than 60 years into our alliance, and a decade into our free trade agreement, our common values and shared history form the foundation of a lasting partnership that remains crucial to addressing a range of regional and global challenges.
The United States and Australia reaffirmed the strong state of bilateral defense and security cooperation under the Alliance, bolstered by more than a decade of operations together in Afghanistan and Iraq and more recently through our work together as part of the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Angela Merkel’s remarkable offer to find room in Germany for legions of asylum seekers is not playing well in her own country. In Hungary and Europe’s other doormat states, the consequences of her charity are fences, riots, wild scenes. Chaos has become the norm
Under EU rules, those seeking political asylum must apply in the first European country that they enter. Since the beginning of the year that is what has been expected of the growing numbers of migrants, mostly, but not exclusively from Syria, who have entered Hungary across the 108-mile border with Serbia. None of the arrivals has wanted to settle in Hungary itself—wages here are low, there are few available jobs, and the Hungarian government has made it emphatically clear that it does not want them. However, many migrants have been reluctant to apply because the rules require that if the country of their choice subsequently refuses to accept them they would be returned to Hungary. Some have therefore destroyed their papers in an attempt to frustrate the registration process, or have simply disappeared from the increasingly crowded reception camps in which they were placed by the Hungarian authorities.

Between January 1 and May 31, 50,000 migrants tried to cross the border—an 880 per cent increase on the same period in 2014, which meant that Hungary received more asylum seekers per capita during this period than any other country. Some were refugees fleeing war or persecution, others were clearly economic migrants. Struggling to expand the facilities at reception centres, the Hungarian government sought sympathy and financial aid in Brussels, but complained that its concerns were disregarded. Nevertheless, the average time spent in Hungary by migrants as they headed for the border with Austria by road or rail was a mere thirty-six hours and most ordinary Hungarians were unaware that their country had become an increasingly important conduit for those fleeing from war and persecution or simply seeking a better life. Then in late summer the numbers crossing the border from Serbian suddenly soared—despite the construction of a four-metre-high wire fence and the repeated warnings of the Hungarian government that immigrants would not be welcome.