Displaying posts categorized under

ANTI-SEMITISM

Intelligentsia Elegy American intellectuals are at odds with the workings of democracy. E. M. Oblomov February 3, 2017

The Russian language boasts a formidable literary tradition. A handful of Russian words have made their way into English agitprop, apparatchik, commissar, gulag, Kalashnikov, nomenklatura, pogrom, samizdat, vodka, and now kompromat. But while the Russian language is expressive, it is mostly a borrower, not a lender, of words. The word intelligentsia made its first English appearance in 1918, shortly after the Russian Revolution. It exploded in usage thereafter. What was missing from the West’s conceptual inventory in 1918 that we had to import a foreign word from Revolutionary Russia?

Intelligentsia, a very Russian concept, is difficult to pin down with precision. Russia has always been a caste society and the intelligentsia was a particular caste, consisting of educated people who did not fit into one of the traditional categories—clergy, nobility, peasants, merchants, or the urban middle class. But the line of demarcation for membership was never clear. When I was a child in the Soviet Union, I thought it meant nice Jewish people who read books, wore spectacles, tucked in their shirts, and didn’t slurp their soup. In my parents’ circle, these were mostly engineers and scientists, with a smattering of musicians and doctors. None had any sort of formal connection to academic social science or the humanities, since in the U.S.S.R. these fields were political minefields, difficult for decent people to negotiate. But most seemed to dabble in poetry or playwriting, and all could recite large chunks of Evgenii Onegin from memory.

The concept of the intelligentsia was easier to define negatively. Anyone connected with the organs of state power—government functionaries, law enforcement, the military—fell way outside the pale. Party membership was disqualifying. A more-than-casual interest in sports, while not in itself disqualifying, was deeply suspect. Ultimately, membership came down to a self-designation, a certain recognizable set of manners, turns of phrase, and habits of mind. It was an aesthetic and an outward pose. “Intelligentnost’”—the quality of belonging to the intelligentsia—stood for whatever was perceived to be the opposite of the backwardness, stupidity, alcoholism, profanity, ignorance, and mud of provincial Russian life. Taken too far, it could become a kind of cult: a pious, atheistic godliness.

As a metaphysical ideal of intelligentnost’, imagine a professor of philology at the University of Vienna around the turn of the last century settling down in his library with a brandy, his pince-nez, and a volume of Proust, after an evening at the Philharmonic, where he watched Gustav Mahler conducting Beethoven. This fantasy of antique Central European gentility stood in contrast with a shabby and stunted Soviet reality. Decades of exposure to constant propaganda inevitably left its mark on all but the strongest of intellects. Cut off from contact with the outside world and normal cultural, intellectual, and artistic influences, the Soviet intelligentsia’s tastes were frozen sometime around 1937. Its members found escape in their book collections, which were always nearly identical, consisting of the same multi-volume editions of the nineteenth-century Russian and European classics, certain twentieth-century modernists and social realists, as well as volumes of foreign exotics like Lion Feuchtwanger, Mark Twain, John Dos Passos, Jack London, O. Henry, Ernest Hemingway, and a few other officially approved Westerners. Anton Chekhov was especially well-loved. A physician by temperament and training (the most intelligent of professions), his plays and short stories had no discernible politics and were characterized more than anything else by their fellow-feeling and concern with human decency.

The Politics of Caesar’s Wife Maintaining high Victorian standards of sexual behavior in a sexually saturated culture. Bruce Thornton

In 62 B.C., the tribune Clodius Pulcher was caught sneaking into Julius Caesar’s house during a religious ritual forbidden to men. Clodius was allegedly attempting to seduce Caesar’s wife, Pompeia, who was hosting the ceremony and was rumored to welcome Clodius’ advances. Because the scandal happened at Caesar’s house, he divorced her.

At Clodius’ trial for sacrilege, however, Caesar testified that he knew nothing of the matter, despite the evidence and despite widespread rumors about Pompeia and Clodius. When asked by the prosecutor why then he had divorced his wife, Caesar responded with the now proverbial, “I thought my wife ought not to be under suspicion.” But as Plutarch adds, Caesar’s decision was not about upholding standards of religious purity or virtuous behavior. Caesar had made a political calculation: the accused was a tribune of the people and a favorite of the masses, who were threatening the jurors with violence. As a leader of the populares, the people, Caesar couldn’t afford to alienate his volatile supporters by testifying against their champion.

The recent numerous accusations of sexual misconduct, harassment, or assault by politicians and celebrities, some of which date back forty years, have been accompanied by condemnations of the accused redolent of the “Caesar’s Wife” standard: political leaders “ought not to be under suspicion.” In Caesar’s time as in ours, this rigorous standard of behavior reflects politics as much as a commitment to virtue.

After eight women accused U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) of various forms of sexual harassment, more than 30 senators, including 21 women, five of them Republicans, called for him to step down. Most of the accusations comprised unwanted physical contact and clumsy passes; one, a photograph of Franken pretending to grope a sleeping journalist’s breasts, was clearly a juvenile gag. Franken in his resignation announcement did not apologize or admit his guilt. Instead, he claimed that some of the allegations were “simply untrue,” and others he remembered “differently.” He also decried “the false impression that I was admitting to doing things that, in fact, I haven’t done.” At this point, little corroborating evidence has surfaced that definitively proves Franken’s guilt.

As well as exposing a sexual offender, however, and asserting high standards of personal behavior, the reaction to the charges against Franken to many smacked of political expediency. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) was the first Democrat to call for Franken’s resignation, saying that “any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn’t acceptable.” A few weeks earlier, after Gillibrand had criticized former President Bill Clinton for not resigning over the Monica Lewinsky scandal, many questioned why it took nearly 20 years for Gillibrand to acknowledge Bill Clinton’s transgressions.

MY SAY: THERE WILL ALWAYS BE AN ENGLAND

There is much to admire in England- bravery and resolve and a civilized society- the land of George Eliot, Lord Josiah Wedgwood and the Christian Zionists, Margaret Thatcher, Robert Conquest the great historian, Douglas Murray, Andrew Roberts, marvelous Netflix mysteries and the adorable Kate Middleton.

There is much to despise them and their sordid and duplicitous and murderous history with respect to Palestine. The series of White Papers after the Balfour promises truncated the Jewish state into only 20% of Palestine. Furthermore, their obstinate and venal appeasement of the Arabs shut the gates of Palestine to millions of Jews who might have been saved from the genocide. Their post war turpitude led them to apprehend and fire upon thousands of traumatized survivors of the Holocaust seeking refuge and succor in Palestine….thousands died in the sinking vessels and others were interned in harsh conditions in Cyprus detention centers. See http://www.zionism101.org/ for a full narrative of the struggle for Israel.

At the conclusion of the 1948 Arab war against Israel, Great Britain and Pakistan were the only nations that recognized Jordan’s illegal occupation of the “West Bank” and East Jerusalem.

And their latest vote in favor of a blatantly anti Israel resolution in the U.N. is just a continuation of their bias for when it comes to anti-Semitism there will always be an England.

Let Us Sing of Greater Things ‘Messiah’ is a Christian masterpiece known by everyone. By Rich Lowry

It is surely possible to be somewhere in the United States in the Christmas season without ready access to a performance of Handel’s “Messiah,” perhaps in the middle of Denali National Park or the Mojave Desert.

The work is ubiquitous and deserves every bit of its popularity. It is a Christian masterpiece known by everyone, a soaring work of genius that never loses its ability to astonish and inspire, whether at a performance of the New York Philharmonic or at a local church singalong.

After hearing it performed on Christmas Day in 1843, Ralph Waldo Emerson described a common reaction, “I walked in the bright paths of sound, and liked it best when the long continuance of a chorus had made the ear insensible to music, made it as if there was none; then I was quite solitary and at ease in the melodious uproar.”

In his new book, Messiah: The Composition and Afterlife of Handel’s Masterpiece, Jonathan Keates traces the history of the work.

A native German who lived in London, G.F. Handel was extraordinarily prolific, composing roughly 40 operas and 30 oratorios. His towering status isn’t in question. Beethoven, born nearly a hundred years later, deemed him “the master of us all.”

Although the “Messiah” is invariably called “Handel’s Messiah,” it was a collaboration. The librettist Charles Jennens, a devout Christian, provided the composer with a “scriptural collection,” the Biblical quotations that make up the text.

Jennens wrote a friend that he hoped Handel “will lay out his whole genius and skill upon it, that the composition may excel all his former compositions, as the subject excels every other subject. The subject is Messiah.”

He needn’t have worried. Handel completed a draft score in three weeks in the summer of 1741. The legend says that while composing the famous “Hallelujah” chorus, he had a vision of “the great God himself.” There is no doubt that artist and subject matter came together in one of the most inspired episodes in the history of Western creativity.

An oratorio shares some characteristics of opera, but there is no acting. Handel was an innovator, writing English-language oratorios and giving the chorus a bigger role. Typically, leading characters anchored a dramatic plot. The drama in “Messiah” was the Christian story itself, the birth, passion, and resurrection of Christ told in scripture.

The work premiered in Dublin, at a performance so crowded that the ladies were urged to come without hoops in their skirts. A correspondent rendered a verdict that has stood up: “The Sublime, the Grand and the Tender, adapted to the most elevated, majestic and moving Words, conspired to transport and charm the ravished Heart and Ear.”

Paul Collits Position Vacant: Australia’s Trump

The US President tapped a body of sentiment that repulses the mainstream political class, and that opportunity also exists here. If you want to shop safe from imported Muslim hell drivers, miss affordable electricity and think little kids should master sums before sodomy, all you lack is the right candidate.

One of my American conservative heroes, William F. Buckley, attempted over the decades to deliver the great right wing project, “fusionism”. This was the building of a right of centre coalition of the willing. Libertarians and conservatives together. His early political project was Barry Goldwater. His later project was Ronald Reagan. Bill was indefatigable, and lieutenants, such as Frank Meyer, set out to herd the cats of the right into something of a competitive political and philosophical force that would stand athwart history and yell “stop”. They would attain power and deliver broad conservative policy outcomes. And they would build this on the back of a philosophical synthesis.

Listening to Mark Steyn speaking recently at the Restoration Weekend organised by the great and courageous David Horowitz – that rare lefty who realised before it was too late he had been an idiot – and hearing the repeated boos at Mark’s every mention of Bill “Never Trump” Kristol, one was shaken to realise that the American right is now hopelessly fractured. The fracture is the result of Trump’s ascendancy and the growing, sullen realisation by his critics that he can actually run a productive, can-do government that is delivering real benefits to great swathes of the American people.

You won’t read that in the Guardian, the mentally enfeebled Fairfax Press or that endless spigot for inner-city received opinion, the ABC, but the fact that such agents of New Establishment orthodoxy all share that view demonstrates its truth. Is there one issue – wind turbines, the benefits of industry-killing electricity costs, the literary worth of all who get invitations to their mates’ writers festivals – on which the Left gets it right? Trump hatred is but more of the same.

The Clinton kleptocracy and its fellow travellers predictably are aghast at what they see in Trump. But this Clintonian regret is driven by self-interest, essentially. The Clintons are toast now; no longer useful, as Hillary will never be president, they have no influence to peddle and must now slouch towards their grim, shared sunset. The left-of-centre political class which they exemplify is being consumed by its own corruption, and, as we have seen recently, its lust.

HOLIDAY GREETINGS FROM RUTHFULLY YOURS

T’WAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS AND ALL THROUGH THE NATION,
THERE IS HOPE AND OPTIMISM BUT GROWING FRUSTRATION.
I TOSSED AND TURNED WITH INTERRUPTED SLEEP
THINKING ABOUT A PRESIDENT WITH PROMISES TO KEEP.
WHEN OUT ON THE LAWN THERE AROSE SUCH A CLATTER
I SPRANG FROM MY BED TO SEE WHAT WAS THE MATTER.
T’WAS GLORIA ALLRED ON A BROOM WITH MUCH ADO
TOWING A GAGGLE OF DAMSELS WEEPING #ME TOO!
PUSSY HATS STOWED AND WHIPS DEPLOYED TO TRASH REPUTATIONS
NO DUE PROCESS OR BURDEN OF PROOF OR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
SOME MAY DESERVE IT BUT WHERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE?
HAVE WE BECOME A NATION OF SELECTIVE LAWS?
AT THE FBI ALL THE LIGHTS BURNED LATE
AS MUELLER AND COHORTS STOKED PARTISAN HATE.
WHILE THE INTERNET BURNS WITH CLINTON TRANSGRESSIONS
THERE IS NOT A PEEP FROM RECUSED AG SESSIONS.
STATUES WERE TOPPLED IN THE LATEST RAGES
AND IGNORANT TANTRUMS OF THE MILLENIAL AGES.
AND PRONOUNS ARE NOW THE EDUCATIONAL WHIM
NO MORE HE OR SHE, NOW IT IS “HIR”-“ZEY” OR “SHIM.”
THESE ARE CAVILS BUT THERE ARE REASONS FOR ELATION.
EMBASSY MOVE, TAX REFORM, NO GRATUITOUS REGULATION.
A PRESIDENTIAL CALL FOR SECURITY AND GROWTH IN OUR LAND,
IN FOREIGN POLICY A POWERFUL AND PRINCIPLED STAND.
FAKE NEWS, CLIMATE FRAUD AND JUNK SCIENCE TOOK A DIVE
AND THE SPIRIT OF 1776 IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE
SO WITH RENEWED OPTIMISM AND CHEER
I WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR! RSK

MY SAY: EUPHEMISM, POLITICS AND REPORTING AND ORWELL

Of all the words in the barrage of reporting on Israel or terrorism, “moderate” is a great example of euphemism. Thus, PalArabs who invoke murder and faith driven jihad against Israeli civilians; who praise the memory of Hitler; who reward terrorists financially and honor them by naming streets and schools for them; who indoctrinate their acolytes with blatant anti-Semitism in school books, lectures and sermons; …..in Arabic are called “moderates” because in silky English they speak of a two state (dis)solution of Israel.

George Orwell phrased it well and he is quoted by By Howard Husock in an article:

Orwell Is Alive at HHS On politics and euphemism https://www.city-journal.org/html/orwell-alive-hhs-15615.html

It all comes down to the importance of euphemism as a way to minimize opposition. Orwell saw it clearly in 1946:

“Political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, “I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.”

MY SAY: THE U.N. AND THE U.S.

On November 10, 1975, While the late Senator Daniel Moynihan was ambassador to that vile organization, the U.N. passed Resolution 3379 which declared that Zionism is a form of Racism. Moynihan rose after the resolution passed and proclaimed:

EXCERPTS : FOR FULL TEXT GOT TO https://www.unwatch.org/moynihans-moment-the-historic-1975-u-n-speech-in-response-to-zionism-is-racism/

“The United States…does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act…… There will be time enough to contemplate the harm this act will have done the United Nations. Historians will do that for us, and it is sufficient for the moment only to note the foreboding fact. A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-semitism — as this year’s Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow just a few days ago — the abomination of anti-semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty — and more — to the murderers of the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon us — the realization that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened.As this day will live in infamy, it behooves those who sought to avert it to declare their thoughts so that historians will know that we fought here, that we were not small in number — not this time — and that while we lost, we fought with full knowledge of what indeed would be lost…… The lie is that Zionism is a form of racism. The overwhelmingly clear truth is that it is not.”

MY SAY: A GREAT JEWISH-AMERICAN TRADITION MOVIES AND DIM-SUM

This year as in decades past, I will spend Christmas holidays the way many Jews do. There will be movies, some at home on Netflix and Chinese food. The Chinese food is far removed from the choices from columns 1 and 2 which always followed a double feature at a movie on Southern Boulevard that my brother and I frequented every Christmas after we came to America.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan famously said at her confirmation hearings “Like all Jews I was probably at a Chinese restaurant on Christmas…..” Senator Chuck Schumer added :“If I might, no other restaurants are open.”

There is actually a documentary about the Jewish/Chinese food axis “The Search for General Tso” (http://www.thesearchforgeneraltso.com/).

Latkes, chicken soup, kreplach, and gefilte fish became compatible with chow mein-pronounced “show mein” by the Bronx epicures.

Happy holidays!

What the Bishop Bell Case Reveals about Our #MeToo Moment An uncomfortable truth is that false accusations can and do happen. By Douglas Murray

In a tense exchange earlier this month between Dustin Hoffman and John Oliver, the HBO talk-show host said something remarkable. Responding to Oliver’s set of questions about claims of harassment against the actor, Hoffman pointed out that Oliver seemed not to be keeping “an open mind” but instead appeared to believe whatever he read in the press. To which Oliver replied about one claimant in particular, “I believe what she wrote, yes. Because there’s no point in her lying.” It was a fascinating exchange which unwittingly illustrated a problem that is roiling through every aspect of our societies, with no signs of abatement.

Any reasonable person not engaged in mob justice should be able to imagine a number of reasons that someone might falsely make an accusation against someone else. These range from the accidental (false or mistaken identification) to the deliberate (avarice, revenge). It is no more the case that everybody who makes an allegation against somebody else must be telling the truth than it is that they must be lying. A small but important case from the United Kingdom seems capable of shedding some caution on the furor occurring everywhere.

It relates to the former Bishop of Chichester, George Bell, a much-admired clergyman who died in 1958. Two years ago — in 2015 — an allegation of child abuse by the bishop was made public. The accuser (who remains anonymous) alleged that Bell repeatedly abused her more than six decades ago. No other similar charges have been made.

What was remarkable was not just the allegation, but the way in which it was reported. In Britain, the story was splashed across many of the national and local newspapers and prominently relayed on the BBC. It was given fuel by the Sussex Police, who (ever-keen on pursuing people who died decades ago) issued a statement stating the charges and editorializing that “the information obtained from our enquiries would have justified, had he still been alive, Bishop Bell’s arrest and interview under caution, on suspicion of sexual offences.”

Even more surprising was that the institution to which Bishop Bell had dedicated his life — the Church of England — also appeared to accept that the bishop had been guilty of the terrible crime of which he had been anonymously, posthumously accused. Despite a number of Bell’s living associates protesting that the claims could not be true, and a number of inconsistencies in the accuser’s own account, the Church said that it had “found no reason to doubt” the claims and made a financial offer to the accuser. No defense of the accused was heard. None of the evidence contradicting her testimony appears to have been sought out. While the accuser remained anonymous, the reputation of the man she had accused looked like it would be posthumously destroyed for all time.