#and that’s the extent of their quote on quote activism for Jews | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dwellordream · 3 years

Text

“...In early portraits Livia sports the nodus hairstyle, in which the hair rolls forward over the forehead and is then drawn back to form a distinctive topknot. This style was seen by Ovid as a useful corrective to a very round face. Generally in the heads of this group the face is a regular oval with broad cheekbones. The eyes are large and the brow above them arches slightly. The nose is large and aquiline, while the curving mouth and the chin are very small. The portraits project an image well suited to Livia—one of ageless and elegant beauty, calm and dignified, perhaps strangely emotionless.

The severity of the nodus style would be less appealing with age. Thus the hair in portraits of the Tiberian period generally has a centre parting, and falls from either side in waves. The head is still relatively youthful, given that Livia must have been now in her seventies, a tradition maintained by modern aging monarchs, whose images on stamps and coins tend to be frozen for several decades. It could be argued that the elusive issue of Livia’s appearance is irrelevant in a political biography. But it has some historical importance. The sources suggest that Augustus was drawn to Livia initially by basic sexual attraction. Some knowledge of her physical appearance would help us place that claim in a proper context.

Whatever attributes Livia was granted by Nature she could enhance by Art. When it came to dress, Ovid attributes to Livia a surprisingly progressive attitude, that she was simply too busy to spend a lot of time on her appearance. The assertion has to be seen against the background of a large household and an enormous staff, whose task it would have been to pay attention to those details deemed unworthy of their mistress’s time and effort. The evidence for the wide range of functionaries operating within the household of Livia is dealt with in chapter 9.

At this point we can limit ourselves to noting the surprising number of helpers devoted to Livia’s personal appearance. Inevitably there were several ornatrices (dressers), as well as staff a veste/ad vestem, whose task it was to keep her clothes in good order. In addition, the ab ornamentis would have had responsibility for her ceremonial garments and accessories, along with a specialist who looked after those she wore as priestess of Augustus, a freedman ab ornamentis sacerdotalibus. Her calciator made her shoes. Augustus liked to boast that his clothes were made by his wife and sister. Perhaps, but they would have had help. Livia employed both lanipendi (wool weighers) and sarcinatores / sarcinatrices (sewing men / women). For her comfort she had an unctrix (masseuse).

Perhaps most striking are the skilled craftsmen who would have been employed for the manufacture and maintenance of luxury items. Her aurifex (goldsmith) and inaurator (gilder) might have been occupied mainly with furniture, but the margaritarius (pearl setter) sounds like someone who would have been employed to work on her personal jewellery. Elizabeth Bartman has noted the absence of jewellery from the sculpted images of Livia, which she describes as ‘‘bordering on the ascetic.’’ This, of course, may have been a deliberate fabrication of Livia’s image in the sculptural prototypes that she allowed to be distributed. There was a tradition of Roman women making a sacrifice of luxury items for the good of the state, such as the women who donated their jewellery to help fund the war against Veii in the early republic.

But it may be that Livia aimed for understated elegance, to be simplex munditiis, as Horace expressed the concept in his famous poem. This could explain why Augustus aroused amused disbelief among the senators when he held up Livia as an example of womanhood and, when pressed to explain, cited as evidence her appearance and dress and her exodoi (her public forays) as illustrations of moderation to be emulated. Augustus had the evidence of his own eyes, and he admired her for avoiding extravagance. But the senators perhaps may have seen a kind of elegant moderatio, the appearance of simplicity that only the best dressmakers, coiffeurs, and jewellers can produce, using the finest and most expensive material.

Livia’s energies would have been channelled mainly into her role as wife of Augustus and as mother of Tiberius. We know little of her private interests, or of how she tried to relax. Only one scrap of evidence survives for anything remotely approaching frivolity. She seems to have competed inanely with Julia, the granddaughter of Augustus, over the record for owning the smallest dwarf. This was settled honourably, as Julia owned the smallest male, at two feet, one palm (about sixty-seven centimetres), but Livia could boast the smallest female dwarf, Andromeda, height not recorded. We might also detect perhaps a hint of a certain silliness when she was a young woman.

The story of her trying to foretell her child’s sex by means of a hen’s egg is noted in chapter 1. After Tiberius’ birth she seems to have consulted an astrologer (mathematicus), Scribonius. He was able to forecast that her son would govern, but without the trappings of monarchical rule, an especially impressive performance, because he anticipated this before the principate had been established and before Livia had even met Augustus. But this kind of behaviour should be viewed in the context of its age, and Livia was probably no more unsophisticated in such matters than the great mass of her contemporaries.

Otherwise her interests are likely to have been more serious, and she seems to have been a literate and educated woman. At any rate, in one of his letters to her Augustus quotes frequently and extensively in Greek, presumably on the assumption that she would understand him. She did of course spend some time in the Greek world during the period of her first husband’s exile, but she would at that time have moved mainly in a Latin-speaking milieu. It is more than likely that she learned the language through formal tuition. Given her family background, we can assume that Livia would have been well educated as a child. Roman girls shared domestic tutors with their brothers before their marriage. There are many examples of the happy result of this practice. Pliny the Younger was flattered to find his young wife reading and memorizing his works, and setting his verses to music. Cornelia, the wife of Pompey, was educated in literature, music, and geometry, and enjoyed attending philosophical discussions.

The existence of the highly educated woman, at least at a slightly later date, is confirmed by the caustic observations of the atrabilious Juvenal, who proclaims horror at females who speak with authority on literature, discuss ethical issues, quote lines of verse the rest of humanity has not even heard of, and even correct your mistakes of grammar. Apart from Livia’s knowledge of Greek, however, we have no concrete evidence of her intellectual pursuits, in contrast to her great-granddaughter Agrippina, whose memoirs survived and were read by Tacitus. But we do have some testimony about Livia’s intellectual sophistication. Philo was a contemporary and, though a resident of Alexandria, very familiar with Rome and the imperial house.

For example, he met Caligula in person when he headed a delegation to Rome to represent the case of the Jews of his native town. In a speech that he attributes to Caligula’s Jewish friend Herod Agrippa, he has Agrippa cite the precedent of Livia, whom he represents as a woman of great mental ability and untypical of her sex, for he contended that women were generally incapable of grasping mental concepts (whether this is Agrippa’s or Philo’s prejudice is not made clear). Agrippa supposedly attributed Livia’s superiority in this sphere to her natural talents and to her education (paideia). Livia was well disposed to the Jews and generous to the Temple, and we might expect some gilding of the lily. But Philo’s characterization of her could clearly not have been absurdly wide of the mark, or the arguments attributed to Agrippa would have been discredited.

The Corinthian poet Honestus describes Livia as fit company for the muses, a woman who saved the world by her wisdom. The inflated language traditional in such a dedicatory piece, however, means that it has little historical value. Apart from the uncertain case of Honestus, we have no other case of Livia’s supporting any cultural or intellectual endeavour, although she was an active patron in many other areas. In this sphere she was eclipsed by Augustus’ sister Octavia, who was a sponsor of the architect Vitruvius and to whom the Stoic philosopher Athenodorus of Tarsus dedicated a book of his work. Although Livia’s interest in fostering artistic and cultural undertakings might have been limited, there was one field in which her enthusiasm seems to have been boundless: the issue of healthy living, both physical and psychological. Despite her general reserve in most other matters, she seems to have been willing, even eager, to impart her views on the issue of how to live a long and robust life.

She was ahead of her time in her use of what would now be called a grief counsellor. When her son Drusus died in 9 bc, she was devastated. That she managed to handle the situation with dignity was due to no small extent to the counselling given her by the philosopher Areus (or Areius) Didymus of Alexandria. Areus was basically a Stoic but kept an open mind to other schools and ideas, the kind of eclectic pragmatist that the Romans found appealing. He was clearly a man of great charm, and at the time of Actium, Octavian described him as his mentor and companion. Octavian reputedly spared all the Alexandrians after the battle and stated publicly that he did so because of the fame of Alexander the Great, the beauty of the city, and his regard for one of its citizens, Areus. In the event Alexandria did not emerge totally unscathed, for Octavian followed up his generous gesture by visiting the corpse of Alexander, where he behaved like the worst kind of bad tourist, touching the nose and breaking it off.

According to Seneca’s account, to which the author undoubtedly added his own imaginative touches, Areus, in giving his advice to Livia, described himself as an assiduus comes (constant companion) of her husband and claimed to know not only their public pronouncements but also the secretiores animorum vestrorum motus (the deeper emotions of the two of you). He clearly knew his patient well, and in the event proved a highly effective consultant. He gently observed that Livia had been in the habit of repressing her feelings and of being constantly on guard in public. He encouraged her to open up when dealing with the subject of Drusus, to speak to her friends about the death of her son, and to listen to others when they praised him. She should also dwell on the positive side of things, particularly the happiness that he brought her when he was still alive. The advice may have the shallow ring of the popular psychology handed out in the modern media, but it worked.

Seneca observed how well Livia coped with her loss by following this advice, in contrast to the morbidly obsessive Octavia, sister of Augustus, who never ceased to be preoccupied with thoughts of her dead son Marcellus. Livia lived a long and, by her own description, healthy life, with only one serious illness recorded, when she was already eighty. Her formula for her robust constitution seems to have been proper diet and the use of ‘‘natural’’ remedies. She clearly had the irritating habit of healthy people who insist on inflicting on others their philosophy of wholesome living. For history this has proved fortunate, because some of her dietary recommendations are recorded. In her early eighties she anticipated a trend that was to reemerge almost two thousand years later, attributing her vigorous condition to her daily tipple. She drank exclusively the wine of Pucinum. This was a very select vintage, grown on a stony hill in the Gulf of Trieste, not far from the source of the Timavo, where the sea breezes ripen enough grapes to fill a few amphorae. Pliny confirms its medicinal value, which he suspects might long have been recognised, even by the Greeks.

It need not be thought that in following this regimen Livia had simply invented a formula for healthy living. In fact, she was echoing a nostrum that had become very trendy in her youth, and in doing so marked herself as an acolyte of one of the master-gurus of health-faddists, Asclepiades of Prousias. According to tradition, Asclepiades started as a poor professor of rhetoric before turning to medicine. During his career he acquired considerable fame (Pliny speaks of his summa fama) and provoked the animosity of other medical writers—he was still being attacked by Galen almost three hundred years after his death. The anger of his fellow healers is not hard to explain, because he turned ancient medicine on its head by distancing himself from dangerous pharmacological and surgical procedures, even describing traditional medicine as a ‘‘preparation for death.’’ Instead, he placed emphasis on more humane and agreeable treatments—diet, passive exercise, massages, bathing, even rocking beds. Pliny felt that he mainly used guesswork but was successful because he had a smooth patter.

How effective he was cannot be gauged now. He is said to have recovered a ‘‘corpse’’ from a funeral procession and then to have successfully treated it. But famous doctors in antiquity routinely restored the dead to life. Perhaps more impressive, and more alarming to the medical profession, was Asclepiades’ pledge that by following his own prescriptions he could guarantee that he would never be ill, and that if he lapsed, he would retire from medicine. He was apparently never put to the test, and eventually died by accident, falling from a ladder. It is not hard to believe that Asclepiades might have exercised an influence on Livia, especially in that Pliny remarks that he almost brought the whole human race round to his point of view, and Elizabeth Rawson argues that a case can be made that he was the most influential Greek thinker at work in Rome in the first century bc. Pliny notes a dilemma that has a strangely contemporary ring—whether wine is more harmful or helpful to the health.

As the champion of the latter belief Pliny cites Asclepiades, who wrote a book on wine’s benefits, based to some extent on the teaching of Cleophantus. Asclepiades received a familiar nickname oinodotes (wine giver), although to avoid being cast as someone who encouraged inebriation, he did advocate abstinence under certain circumstances. As Pliny words it, Asclepiades stated that the benefits of wine were not surpassed by the power of the gods, and the historian, like Livia, seems to have been won over, conceding that wine drunk in moderation benefitted the sinews and stomach, and made one happy, and could even be usefully applied to sores. Livia might have become acquainted with Asclepiades’ teaching while he was still alive (it is uncertain when he died), but in any case Pliny makes it clear that after his death his ideas took a firm hold on the population, and would still have been in circulation for many years after he made his ultimate precipitous descent from the ladder.

Apart from her views on the benefits of fine wines, Livia was known for other health tips. Pliny adds his personal recommendation for one of her fads, a daily dose of inula (elecampane). The elecampane, with its broad yellow petals, is a common plant throughout Europe, and its root has long been a popular medicine. Because it is bitter and can cause stomach upset if eaten alone, it is usually ground up, or marinated in vinegar and water, then mixed with fruit or honey. It was supposedly useful for weak digestion. Horace describes its popularity among gluttons, who could overdo safely by using elecampane afterwards. Then, as now, celebrity endorsements helped; Pliny observes that the use of the plant was given a considerable boost by Livia’s recommendation. In some modern quarters it is still promoted as an effective tonic and laxative.

…These curiosities do provide a possible context for one of the charges levelled against Livia, which the scholarly world generally agrees was groundless: that of using poison to remove those who blocked her ambitions. The accusation is one that powerful women in competitive political situations throughout antiquity and the middle ages found difficult to refute, because poison has traditionally been considered the woman’s weapon of choice. Because women took the primary responsibility for family well-being, they would have been the inevitable targets of suspicion if a person died of something brought on by gastric problems. If Livia had insisted on inflicting her home cures on members of her family, it is not difficult to imagine that a malign reputation could have arisen after a death that was advantageous to her. One also should not discount the possibility that the combination of birthwort and ash of swallows did more harm than good, and that she might indeed have helped despatch some of her patients, despite the very best of intentions.

Allied to Livia’s preoccupation with herbal remedies is her passionate interest and regular involvement in various aspects of horticulture. The most vivid illustration of this comes from her villa at Primaporta . The highlight of the complex is the garden room, built and decorated around 20 bc in the form of a partially subterranean chamber nearly 12 metres long by 6 metres wide, perhaps a dining room intended for summer use. The most impressive feature of the room is the magnificent wall painting, unparalleled for its scale and detail. It creates an illusion of a pavilion within a magical garden, teeming with flowers and birds. Unusually for the Pompeian Second Style of painting, all structural supports have been dispensed with, even at the angles, although along the tops of the walls there is a rocky fringe, which conveys the impression of the mouth of a grotto. In the foreground stands a wicker fence. Behind that is a narrow grassy walk, set with small plants, bordered on its inner side by a low stone parapet. A small recess is set in the wall at intervals to accommodate a bush or tree.

Behind it stands a rich tangled forest of carefully painted shrubs and trees, with various types of laurel predominating. The rich mass of foliage is framed at the top by a narrow band of sky. The painting is detailed and accurate, with flowers and fruit and birds perched on the branches or on the ground. The birds, of many species, range freely, with the exception of a single caged nightingale. Flowers and fruit of all seasons are mingled together. This rich extravaganza belonged clearly to an owner who exulted in the richness and variety of nature. But Livia’s horticultural interests went beyond a mere feast for the eye—she had a direct and practical interest in produce. She developed a distinctive type of fig that bore her name, the Liviana, mentioned by agricultural writers and recommended by Columella and Athenaeus, and which may have contributed to the tradition that she eliminated Augustus by specially treated figs grown in their villa at Nola.“

- Anthony A. Barrett, “The Private Livia.” in Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome

#livia drusilla #livia first lady of imperial rome #history #roman #ancient #anthony a. barrett

38 notes · View notes

girlactionfigure · 3 years

Text

Four Days in May

This story has everything: the moral bankruptcy and cowardice of Western academia, the obsessive need of Palestinians and their supporters to make everything about them, and the emptiness of their insistence that they are not antisemitic, only “critical of Israel.”

On 26 May 2021, the Chancellor and Provost of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, released a statement* by email condemning recent antisemitic violence, called “Speaking Out Against Acts of Antisemitism.”

Recent incidents of hate directed toward Jewish members of our community again remind us of what history has to teach us. Tragically, in the last century alone, acts of prejudice and hatred left unaddressed have served as the foundation for many atrocities against targeted groups around the world …

If you have been adversely impacted by anti-Semitic or any other discriminatory incidents in our community, please do not hesitate to reach out to our counseling and other support services on campus. Our behavioral health team stands ready to support you through these challenging times …

We have also been witnesses to the increasing violence between Israeli forces and Hamas in the Middle East leading to the deaths of children and adults and mass displacement of citizens in the Gaza region and the loss of lives in Israel.”

On 27 May, the infuriated Rutgers Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) replied in a long post on their Instagram account (here significantly shortened):

… The Chancellor and Provost’s statement exclusively addressing antisemitism comes during a time when Israel’s occupation of Palestine [sic] is finally receiving widespread criticism, and despite mentioning the “deaths of children and adults and mass displacement of citizens in the Gaza region,” conveniently ignores the extent to which Palestinians have been brutalized by Israel’s occupation and bombing of Gaza.

… the fact that [the statement] comes at such a critical time involving global protests and critiques against Israel’s occupation of Palestine [sic] is a decision that cannot be separated from widespread attempts to conflate antizionism [sic] with antisemitism and derail Palestinian voices and activism. …

Chancellor Molloy and Provost Conway proceed to refer to “increasing violence between Israeli forces and Hamas in the Middle East.” By choosing to center the crossfire between Israeli Occupation Forces [sic] and Hamas, rather than Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine [sic], the Chancellor and Provost minimize the impact of settler-colonialism on Palestinians and attempt to portray the violence as an equal conflict, which we know it not to be in the slightest. …

Most importantly, the Chancellor and Provost notably neglected to use the words “Palestine” or “Palestinian” in their statement, instead opting to use phrases such as “the Middle East” and “the Gaza region.” This refusal to acknowledge and affirm the existence of Palestine [sic], and thus the Palestinian faculty and students at Rutgers University, reveals the administration’s inability to stand in genuine solidarity with the Palestinian members of its University, a community that is grieving the death of over 200 Palestinians including many women and children. It isolates them and shows that Rutgers does not stand with or support them in their struggle for freedom and liberation, and contributes to the racist efforts of zionists [sic] to erase Palestinian identity and existence. …

We therefore demand an apology from Chancellor Molloy and Provost Conway for dismissing the voices and visibility of Palestinians and allies, as well as demand an acknowledgement and explanation of why they did so. We demand that the Rutgers administration call out and expose any and all ties to Israeli apartheid and commit to action that reflects a global call to uplift the humanity of Palestinians, to recognize their violent displacement by the state of Israel, and acknowledge the gross mass murders occurrings [sic] at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces, adjacent to the American police violence condemned by the University.

On 28 May, the Chancellor and Provost sent a second email,* titled “Apology.”

Rutgers University–New Brunswick is a community that is enriched by our vibrant diversity.

However, our diversity must be supported by equity, inclusion, antiracism, and the condemnation of all forms of bigotry and hatred, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

As we grow in our personal and institutional understanding, we will take the lesson learned here to heart, and pledge our commitment to doing better. We will work to regain your trust, and make sure that our communications going forward are much more sensitive and balanced.

It is absolutely stunning that university officials found it necessary to apologize for condemning antisemitism! But of course the apology was inadequate to calm the fury of SJP, who had demanded far more, and on the same day they produced an even longer Instagram diatribe, from which I will quote just one piece:

… Chancellor Molloy and Provost Conway had no urgent or context-based prerogative to address antisemitism. Condemnation of the unjust murders conducted by a Zionist institution does not equate to condemnation or attack upon Judaism or Jews; to explicitly cite the Jewish community in need of support in context to global criticisms of the Zionist occupation of Palestine [sic] is to conflate antizionism [sic] with antisemitism and derail Palestinian voices and activism.

In other words, SJP holds that the antisemitism university officials have condemned is actually just anti-Zionism, which SJP sees as totally justified! SJP admits that anti-Zionism is essential to Palestinian identity, and therefore to condemn it is to “erase” Palestinian identity. I agree with them: the only uniquely “Palestinian” part of Palestinian culture is its opposition to Jewish sovereignty. But it is becoming more and more clear that the anti-Zionism of Palestinians and their supporters is viciously antisemitic.

At this point, well-deserved criticism for their craven apology rained down on the poor Chancellor and Provost. And so, on 29 May, Rutgers found it necessary to release a third statement, this one by the President of the University, to un-apologize, and to make it clear that like the US Congress, they oppose every imaginable form of bigotry (and therefore criticize no one).

Rutgers deplores hatred and bigotry in all forms. We have not, nor would we ever, apologize for standing against anti-Semitism.

Neither hatred nor bigotry has a place at Rutgers, nor should they have a place anywhere in the world. At Rutgers we believe that anti-Semitism, anti-Hinduism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism, intolerance and xenophobia are unacceptable wherever and whenever they occur.

An Orwellian note: with each iteration of its position, Rutgers replaced the previous one on their website. All the links in the media that pointed to the original statement, the apology, and the un-apology now redirect to the same place, the un-apology. The others have been dropped into the memory hole.

Some 140 members of the Rutgers faculty joined SJP in opposing Israel’s right to self-defense. You can read their letter here. These are the folks that would teach your children if they go to Rutgers.

I can’t imagine that I would want my children to study in a North American or European university today. Far better for them to learn a trade; they will come out with smaller debts and without antisemitic baggage.

_________________________________

* I would have liked to provide “official” links to the complete, original emails, but as I wrote, they no longer can be found. The quotes provided are taken from several news accounts that included the content of the emails.

Abu Yehuda

#Academia #Jew Hatred

25 notes · View notes

menalez · 3 years

Note

Okay, so I want to be clear when I say again that white women in the suffragette movement said/did racist things, just as white women in feminists movements today say/do racist things,. Even white anti-racist activists will, at least on occasion, say and do racist things simply by growing up in a white supremacist society. I don’t want to give the impression that I’m disputing that reality. I only mean to illustrate some of the nuance (and why that matters today).

I sent those quotes in an effort to illustrate how the women’s suffrage movement was intertwined with universal suffrage, both white women and black men campaigned for each other’s right to vote. The women’s suffrage organizations grew directly from the basis of abolitionist movements. The initial suffrage (and wider women’s rights) movement was indistinguishable from the civil rights movement. When the 14th/15th amendment was proposed splits in the civil rights movement deepened — both white women and black women (and presumably some black men) campaigned against any amendment that didn’t include women. Similarly, black man and both white and black women favored the 15th amendment even without including women (of any race), who argued that women could wait. Ultimately the latter group saw their wish, and the division resulted in two separate organizations that continued to campaign for women’s suffrage.

The quotes you screen-shotted are undeniably terrible and exemplify the racism within the movements. To be nuanced however, they also span a wide range of individuals — from actual slave owners to women who said something racist but also directly participated in anti-racist activism.

To illustrate (from the quotes you provided):

Rebecca Latimer Felton - terrible human, slave owner, all out white supremacist

Carrie Chapman Catt - she later said “our task will not be fulfilled until the women of the whole world have been rescued from those discriminations and injustices which in every land are visited upon them in law and custom”, lobbied against the word “white” being added to the 19th amendment, and lobbied congress/used her presidency of the League of Women Voters to advocate for people of color and Jews

Elizabeth Cady Stanton - she also founded the Women's Loyal National League that led the largest abolitionist petition drive at the time, organized the American Equal Rights Association a suffrage organization that explicitly supported universal suffrage. The organization split when (mostly) the black men in the organization supported the 15th amendment without advocating for it to be extended to women. (She definitely said racist things around this time, similarly Frederick Douglass, who was both her friend and one of her main critiques at the time, said many sexist things.) The split was later merged back into one organization that she headed.

Anna Howard Shaw - I know very little about her. She definitely said many racist things, but she did champion universal suffrage and campaigned to end racial violence (arguing that universal suffrage would end lynchings). Still, she also failed to condemn racist actions by her peers.

Same as (1)

Belle Kearney - terrible human, slave owner, all out white supremacist

Frances Willard - confusing mix of actively recruiting and working with black women and also promoting racists myth that white women were in danger of black men that facilitated lynchings (due to her “temperance reform”). Also appeared to be more laissez-faire when president of the WCTU since she let conservative states hold on to conservative and/or moderate positions regarding reform for both women’s rights and racial justice.

Same as (1)

As for why it matters today:

No, women definitely won’t have the right to vote revoked for discussing racism in past movements. But there’s a difference between discussing racism, and perpetuating misinformation. One of the main ways the American government disrupted activist movements throughout history was to sow dissension in their ranks. (And the American government/military taught many of these techniques to foreign countries.) An excellent example of this is the COINTELPRO operation, but it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Their goal was to divide and conquer - a movement can’t make progress if it’s busy fighting itself - and poison the public’s opinions of the movements, so as to dissuade new members from joining. (At this point, I want to reassure you that while this may sound like a conspiracy theory, it is very much proven and it/other programs did much harm to domestic and foreign reform movements.)

The myth that the suffragette movement was specifically racist, rather than operating in concert with and emerging from, anti-racist activism contributes to this divide and conquer method of disrupting activism. If you (general you) can convince women of color that the “original feminist movement” (ignoring the ahistorical nature of such the label itself) actively campaigned against them, then it’s much easier to dissuade them from considering feminist activism or to divide activist movements. (And, if it were true, it would be entirely justified!)

Of course, that’s not to say that feminists shouldn’t criticize (or disavow, to the extent possible) white supremacists like Felton or Kearney, or that we shouldn’t discuss and reform the racist sentiments in past and current movements. (In fact, I believe, and expect you do as well, that doing so is not only permissible but necessary, because to deny the racism that did exist in past/current movements would alienate women of color just as much as the idea that the feminism-of-old was solely for white women, and would in fact be an expression of racism in and of itself.)

I hope this clarifies what I’ve been trying to convey.

im surprised about the claim that white women and black men campaigned for each other's right to vote. i was under the impression that the civil rights movement was largely focused on black men and often outright excluded black women having a say, so i don't really know why they would support other women (such as white women) having a say when i heard they didn't support that for black women, who were always black men's biggest supporters.

i do get your point, to a degree-- and i think we agree overall but simply word things differently. i don't think that the women's suffrage movement was Bad and i don't think the white suffragettes back then were like, all evil and more racist than the avg white person in their society. i would say overall, those women were quite forward thinking and progressive for their time. i don't doubt that a significant portion of women were far worse than that, and even opposed women's rights (bc of the society they grew up in where this was a controversial thing). my only argument is that pretending they weren't also racist and had traits worthy of criticism (such as their racism) is innaccurate. a lot of prominent suffragettes were quite racist, and that's not to say that their feminist beliefs lead to that or that women's rights is interwined with racism, but just to point out that even those women who fought for the right to vote for women were not particularly good allies to poc but most specifically black people, and more importantly, black women. i also wanted to point out that being anti-slavery and campaigning against it, did not mean they were generally anti-racism or fighting against racism overall. they were fighting against the worst and most extreme forms of racism in their time, but they were all still racist in their own right. i'd like to reemphasise what i initially shared that you disagree with (+ my tags, and my previous comment on it so as to be fully transparent), which is not that different from what you're saying imo:

now i'm not trying to argue the origin of the movement, what it rose out of, how it relates to racism or anything else; my qualms are with the claim that the suffragettes were not racist. maybe back then, they were closer to allies to black people than most, however they were still quite racist. similarly, since you brought up white allies, white allies today may be the best we have and the best in our time, but they are also still often quite racist themselves.

my main and only point is that these women were still racist, and this is not to discount the women's suffrage movement, i just think that when we deny that aspect of the past then what we're doing is alienating woc. i've noticed a general trend of white women on here saying that white women were targetted by the KKK for example, fixation on stuff that is targeted at white women like 'karen' and placed on equal grounds with calling black women 'laquisha' to berate them, arguments that white women dont have racial privilege, etc and while i don't think the people making such arguments are necessarily coming from a bad place, many woc seeing this will end up feeling like the movement is geared towards white women and does not properly consider & include woc. that's why i take issue with the claim that xyz white female historical figure wasnt racist bc she was pro-slavery abolition, like, sure that must've been really progressive for its time but at the same time it doesn't change that the same woman did work w white supremacists and white supremacy was used as an argument to support white women's suffrage. it probably worked as a strategy and helped pave the way for other women, but its good to acknowledge these issues and criticise them esp since they remain relevant today when people are still indirectly debating how much woc should be considered in feminism.

7 notes · View notes

thinkveganworld · 6 years

Text

Here’s something I wrote years ago on a subject that’s being discussed lately - the subject of Nazis in the Republican Party. What’s interesting to me is that Democrats and the corporate media are now using Cold War propaganda tactics and fear-mongering against Russia - tactics Republicans once used to justify and prop up fascists. People need to know and understand history to avoid repeating it. When anyone is surprised I don’t seem horrified with what’s going on today regarding the resurgence of Nazi influence, I want to tell them it’s because I’ve seen it all before (even recently). What’s going on now has been in the works for a long time and is the logical outcome of the facts I’m describing in what follows.

Nazis and the Republican Party

In his book Blowback: America’s Recruitment of Nazis and Its Destructive Impact on Our Domestic and Foreign Policy, award winning investigative reporter Christopher Simpson says that after World War II, Nazi émigrés were given CIA subsidies to build a far-right-wing power base in the U.S. These Nazis assumed prominent positions in the Republican Party’s “ethnic outreach committees.”

Simpson documents the fact that these Nazis did not come to America as individuals but as part of organized groups with fascist political agendas. The Nazi agenda did not die along with Adolf Hitler. It moved to America (or a part of it did) and joined the far right of the Republican Party.

Simpson shows how the State Department and the CIA put high-ranking Nazis on the intelligence payroll “for their expertise in propaganda and psychological warfare,” among other purposes. The most important Nazi employed by the U.S. was Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s most senior eastern front military intelligence officer. After Germany’s defeat became certain, Gehlen offered the U.S. certain concessions in exchange for his own protection. Gehlen promoted hyped up Cold War propaganda on behalf of the political right in this country, and helped shape U.S. perceptions of the Cold War.

Journalist Russ Bellant (Old Nazis, The New Right, And The Republican Party) shows that Laszlo Pasztor, a convicted Nazi war collaborator, built the Republican émigré network. Pasztor, who served as adviser to Republican Paul Weyrich, belonged to the Hungarian Arrow Cross, a group that helped liquidate Hungary’s Jews. Pasztor was founding chairman of the Republican Heritage Groups Council.

Two months before the November 1988 presidential election, a small newspaper, Washington Jewish Week, disclosed that a coalition for the Bush campaign included a number of outspoken Nazis and anti-Semites. The article prompted six leaders of Bush’s coalition to resign.

According to Russ Bellant, Nazi collaborators involved in the Republican Party included:

Radi Slavoff, GOP Heritage Council’s executive director, and head of “Bulgarians for Bush.” Slavoff was a member of a Bulgarian fascist group, and he put together an event in Washington honoring Holocaust denier, Austin App.

Florian Galdau, director of GOP outreach efforts among Romanians, and head of “Romanians for Bush.” Galdau was once an Iron Guard recruiter, and he defended convicted Nazi war criminal Valerian Trifa.

Nicholas Nazarenko, leader of a Cossack GOP ethnic unit. Nazarenko was an ex-Waffen SS officer.

Method Balco, GOP activist. Balco organized yearly memorials for a Nazi puppet regime.

Walter Melianovich, head of the GOP’s Byelorussian unit. Melianovich worked closely with many Nazi groups.

Bohdan Fedorak, leader of “Ukrainians for Bush.” Fedorak headed a Nazi group involved in anti-Jewish wartime pogroms.

The Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article on the Bush team’s inclusion of Nazis (David Lee Preston, “Fired Bush backer one of several with possible Nazi links,” September 10, 1988.) The newspaper also ran an investigative series on Nazi members of the Bush coalition. The article confirmed that the Bush team included members listed by Russ Bellant.

Journalist Martin A. Lee, has written for The Nation, Rolling Stone, The San Francisco Chronicle, and other esteemed publications. In his book The Beast Reawakens, Lee confirms that during both the Reagan and Bush years, the Republican Party’s ethnic outreach arm recruited members from the Nazi émigré network.

Lee says that the Republican Party’s ethnic outreach division had an outspoken hatred of President Jimmy Carter’s Office of Special Investigations (OSI), an organization dedicated to tracking down and prosecuting Nazi war collaborators who entered this country illegally. Republican Pat Buchanan attacked Carter’s OSI after it deported a few suspected Nazi war criminals.

According to Lee, public relations man Harold Keith Thompson was principal U.S. point man for the postwar Nazi support network known as die Spinne, or the Spider. In the late 40s and early 50s. Thompson worked as the chief North American representative for the remaining National Socialist German Worker’s Party and the SS. Lee writes that the wealthy Thompson gave generously to Republican candidates Senator Jesse Helms and would-be senator Oliver North. Thompson’s money gained him membership in the GOP’s Presidential Legion of Merit. Lee says Thompson also “received numerous thank-you letters from the Republican National Committee.” Those letters are now in the Hoover Institute Special Collections Library.

Christopher Simpson writes in Blowback that in 1983, Ronald Reagan presented a Medal of Freedom, the country’s highest civilian honor, to CIA émigré program consultant James Burnham. Burnham was a psychological warfare consultant who promoted something called “liberationism.” Just before the 1952 election, the CIA worked up a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign aimed at selling Americans on expanding Cold War activities in Europe. Part of the guiding theory (given the name “liberationism”) was the idea that certain Nazi leaders from World War II should be brought in as “freedom fighters” against the USSR.

Reagan said that Burnham’s ideas on liberation “profoundly affected the way America views itself and the world,” adding, “I owe [Burnham] a personal debt, because throughout the years of traveling on the mashed-potato circuit I have quoted [him] widely.” Reagan may not have known Burnham’s theories were based on his work on projects that enlisted many Nazi collaborators, but it seems that Reagan’s CIA Director William Casey or former CIA Director, Vice President George Bush, would have informed him.

At a May 9, 1984, press conference, writer, Nazi hunter and Holocaust survivor Simon Wiesenthal said, “Nazi criminals were the principal beneficiaries of the Cold War.” The Cold War mentality, hyped by Reinhard Gehlen and other Nazis, became the shelter for tens of thousands of Nazi criminals. Helping the far right in this country to promote Cold War hysteria became the Nazi war criminals’ “reason for being.” As Christopher Simpson says, the Cold War became those criminals’ means "to avoid responsibility for the murders they had committed.”

Journalist Seymour Hersh says Christopher Simpson’s Blowback is “the ultimate book about the worst kind of Cold War thinking, in which some of our most respected statesmen made shameful decisions that they mistakenly believed to be justified.” To this day, says Simpson, the U.S. intelligence agencies hide the scope of their post-World War II collaboration with Nazi criminals.

Are Republicans such as George H. W. Bush, Oliver North, and Jesse Helms, aware they have been assisted by Nazi collaborators? Bush once worked for the CIA and should have known about the nature of the Nazis in his ‘88 campaign. No doubt he knows the history of Nazi/CIA collaboration. Whether or not Bush knew of the fascists’ involvement in his campaign, the Republican Party should have done a far better screening job. One thing is certain: The intelligence agencies know the scope and extent of Nazi involvement with the political right in this country. It is a shame they keep it hidden from the majority of the American people.

Again, today Democratic Party leaders are joining Republicans in manipulating the public using propaganda techniques very similar to those of Hitler’s propagandist Joseph Goebbels. See my earlier posts on a must-watch Chris Hedges interview with NYU media studies professor Mark Crispin Miller for specific details and reference sources. I recommend William Shirer’s books in addition to the Simpson book mentioned above and another of his called The Splendid Blond Beast.

32 notes · View notes

eighthdoctor · 6 years

Text

@smaauggg replied to your post “love me some antisemitic propaganda in my dr who”

i think it was more against the bigoted and exstremist interpretation of the old testament by a very catholic king

@careforasmoke replied to your text post

smaauggg Agreed. It felt more like the Doctor was pointing out the hypocrisy

@smaauggg replied to your text post

careforasmoke yeah, like "you don't even respect your religion what's the point" and that's a shade to the whole catholic church

great. cool. here’s the problem: “Love thy neighbor as thyself” literally comes from Leviticus. that’s the source text. when it shows up in the New Testament (Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31) it is explicitly as a quote. Jesus is explaining to the Pharisees what the two greatest commandments in the Law (literal translation of Torah) are, one of which is “Love thy neighbor as thyself”. In order for him to say that, though, it must have come from the Old Testament. And it did: Leviticus 19:18 reads “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am Adonai.”

so if this was really about demonstrating hypocrisy, the dr could have said, “You need to read your Scripture more, Love thy neighbor”.

but here’s the thing, here’s the context you miss as goyim: in the Christian narrative, the Old Testament is violent and barbaric and was replaced by the civilized, loving New Testament. this matches with the way the dr framed their response (”in the sequel”). as someone, however, who doesn’t find religious validity in the New Testament, where does that leave me? with a violent and barbaric source text, according to Christians.

not surprisingly, then, Christians use this--the narrative they constructed--to explain that Jews are violent and to justify forced conversions, torture, and judicial murder. it’s for our own good, after all. we have to be shown the light.

furthermore, it sets up Christianity as a moral superior. even if (big if) Jews are compliant and passive, we are still attacked for the moral inferiority of our faith--because it comes from this text that has been stereotyped as violent and cruel, never mind that many of the Christian doctrines are taken from it.

so in sum, cultural context matters. there were ways to make the case that the witchhunters were hypocrites that did not also cut at Jews. but the script writers didn’t phrase the conversation that way.

some more trivial points: James wasn’t Catholic, not by this point in his life. this had to have taken place after 1603 (when Elizabeth died, in order for him to be King of England) and during most of his adulthood he practiced Presbyterianism (Scottish Calvinism, in short, or a branch of Protestantism). to the extent that the people in Bilehurst Crag were Catholic, they were far and away more likely to be witches: the Pendle witches (who this episode is plainly based off of, link) may have been accused because of petty drama, but the witchhunters focused on Lancashire because it was a hotbed of Catholic activity and England was supposed to be Anglican (Protestant). so if anything, James was a Protestant king unfairly attacking Catholics in this episode.

furthermore, bigoted and extremist interpretation? this was an extremely standard interpretation. no one (Christian or Jew), in the 1600s, would disagree that the text said witches should be killed. the debate was over whether there was a moral obligation to seek out witches and kill them, or whether you could quietly ignore them until they did something that also violated secular law. this didn’t split neatly in Christian denominations, btw: pre-1530 English Catholics tended to live and let live, but French Catholics of the same era were absolutely out for witches (and heretics more broadly).

finally, early modern catholics...did...respect their religion. I don’t like it, I don’t agree with it, and I’m vehemently opposed to some of the ways they carried it out, but catholicism has had a very long time to work out its inconsistencies and every source we have says that early modern catholics, lay or clerical, were by and large sincere believers.

#conversations for ts #smaaugg #careforasmoke #long post for ts #dw spoilers #doctor who #antisemitism tw #judaism #another scripture thumping hack from galilee #history

37 notes · View notes

thispabulum-blog · 2 years

Text

Women Who Like Dudes Who Like Dudes Who Like Women

Thoughtful Thursday

I don't have stats on this (shocking, I know), but I would venture that at least half of the guys I talk to or am involved with are bi or pan. It's not something I actively seek out, so I suspect it's more a symptom than a cause. Why, though?

Cuddlebug: "But uhhhh, if I were to guess, empathy is very hard for a majority of people, so having firsthand experience with pushy guys would lead to higher likelihood of being empathetic toward females"

I also suggested that I just like people who are really sexually open-minded, so there's naturally a lot of overlap.

Today I want to poke at that.

I’ve talked a bit about how I like to think I don’t have a type, and how I absolutely have a type which is bearded, Hispanic, long-haired nerdy gamer musician potheads.

But there’s something else, as well. I'm sure there's a term for a kind of guy I'm noticing myself drawn toward, but for the life of me I can't figure it out. The closest thing I can think of is what would have been called "metrosexual" in the early 2000s.

Not quite "softboi" because there's not that hipster-like sense of like

"ooh I'm so deep and tortured, look at me in my Doc Martens smoking my cigarette and reading Bukowski"

but a guy who doesn't mind being emotionally vulnerable, uses nice bath products, wears pink and maybe floral patterns and color coordinates, likes twinkle lights, wants to be the little spoon sometimes, gets visibly/audibly excited about things, doesn’t wear a lot of blue jeans or cargo shorts, has a good group of friends, is more than likely attracted to men. Baymax had many of these qualities. Meximelt, too. Cuddlebug, to an extent. And I can't say that it's a reflexive reaction of wanting to be with guys who are the opposite of Dr. Strangelove, because it’s definitely not a new phenomenon.

So what is this, and why?

I imagine some of it is just wanting to be around men who are laid-back, low-pressure, and not necessarily physically intimidating, for trauma-related reasons.

Though, that being said. Space Kitten is an imposing figure, (relevant Space Kitten quote: "I am secretly a physically potent individual.") but they are also soft as marshmallow fluff in a spiritual sense. I explained this to them at some point a while back

Me: But yes the low pressure thing. Because I feel like that’s always been established with us, but particularly with where I am rn mentally and emotionally it’s unbelievably comforting to know that there’s no pressure or obligation or frustration, and also just…really refreshing to be around someone to whom that kind of thing is important.

SK: Yessss.

Me: And especially with regards to how…you are a physically large person and trauma brain can say ‘whoa that’s scary’ but everything about your actions and personality is completely Not That, and it’s like ‘Hands so big!! But touch nice and sweet’. And it’s really the most disarming thing and so precisely what I needed to be reminded of.

There's just something about a man who is capable of being strong, but knows when to apply that and when not to. Self-control, self-awareness, discipline, empathy. Very sexy qualities.

They say women are always looking to date men who remind them of their fathers, but I think that depends on how terrible your father is and your level of self-awareness. I tend to go in the opposite direction - my father would hate the men I date, which is fine by me because he doesn’t have to meet them.

Sidebar: Maybe that’s why I’m attracted to Jewish guys? My father once told me that “the only Jews (he) likes are dead ones”, which was a horrifying statement.

I think the biggest thing is that I have this need to be involved with people who are more…outgoing? Not necessarily extroverted, but social for sure, willing to do things, not isolated. We can talk more about how that relates to Dr. Strangelove on Monday. I like people who bring out the qualities in myself that I want to work on developing.

And while I was looking for that Space Kitten conversation, I found another from 2013 which is semi-relevant, so I'll include it so you can judge how pretentious and EXACTLY THE SAME I am.

Me: [Prairie Chicken] made a comment that I want your opinion on.

SK: Hmm?

Me: I was talking about, like I explained to you earlier, how he's very much the "type" that I like, but rarely actually get with (short, stocky, Hispanic, into science and video games). And how most of the guys I see are none of those things.

SK: Right.

Me: "And he said that he finds that hard to believe, because (and he put it nicer than this, I promise) he doesn't really see why non-nerdy guys would be interested in me.

SK: Ha.

Okay.

What are you wondering?

Me: I think the way he put it, when pressed, was that for a nerdy guy, I'm kind of perfect, but with other guys he doesn't see what we would really have in common. And I was wondering whether you agree with that. As a nerdy guy, as someone who knows me, and as an objective observer of human nature and social interaction.

SK: I'm inclined to disagree. But I mean, I think that's because you don't have to interact with someone on nerdy levels to be appealing.

Me: Me personally, or people in general? Define your "you".

SK: Both.

Me: Okay.

SK: I intended you personally.

But both makes sense.

I think it's because sometimes people just wanna interact with a warm-body. I dunno. I don't really picture you with extremely "average" people for the most part, but that's because I figure in a lot of cases you'd just be disinterested.

Me: I mean, for me...I am usually attracted to nerdier guys, but I can have relationships with "non-nerdy" people, because the way I see it, nerdery is all about being passionate about something. Like we've discussed at length, what I (and you) like to see most in people is a passion for something, whether that be music or Star Trek or D&D, or something less "nerdy" like fishtanks or motorcycles.

It just tends to be that most "average" people are made "average" by their distinct lack of passion for anything which might mark them as extraordinary or individuals.

SK: Yes.

But also like.

You're like "I like movies." That gives you a lot of common ground with most people.

You're also relaxed and easy to talk to, and you have some sexual vibes goin' on.

So that's why I'm like... I don't think it'd be an issue for other people to be attracted to you that aren't nerdy.

Me: But when I say "I like movies" I don't mean "I like rom-coms and bullshit comedies and lots of explosions". I mean "I like disturbing foreign films with Nazi pedophiles and graphic rape scenes". And that's where me and a lot of people tend to part ways.

[Tarantino] and I had a similar problem. We were going to go out to eat, and I was thinking great, there are a ton of options. I know of this great Mediterranean place off University, or maybe that tiny Mexican place where I had that lengua torta. And he says "Is there like a burger place or maybe somewhere for pizza?"

I think non-nerdy people have an easy time being attracted to me on a superficial level. It's a lot harder for me to have a deep, special connection with someone else.

I have changed so little in 8 years; I just went on a weird detour away from living my best life.

That's enough brain dumping for today.

Tomorrow we'll check in on the responses I got to the Icebreaker questions!

#okcupid #dating #poly #online dating #dating app #tinder #Spotify #dating apps suck #thoughts

0 notes

litheammunition · 4 years

Text

On the subject of secondary school, the surge in BLM support this summer led to an open letter being written to my own alma mater, signed by a number of my classmates. That would usually be something I’d wholeheartedly support, but after reading the letter it was sort of bemusing.

The letter set out a list of demands, including the following: “teaching of the importance of black African music in how popular music is made today (The History of Black Music by Samuel A. Floyd), studying of non-white artists in Art, analysing race relations within lessons on literature (Othello, To Kill a Mockingbird), the teaching of non-white authors within English classes, focussing on religions outside Western Christianity as a credible option within R.E classes.”

That’s all well and good, except that we did study Othello and To Kill a Mockingbird and discussed their themes, did our RE exams on Hinduism, and spend an entire term of music class on the history and origins of rap music (the only major project I can remember doing). The rest of our English class was spent studying a poetry anthology entitled ‘poetry from other cultures’, which featured perspectives from non-white poets from all over the world and their take on themes such as slavery and apartheid.

The letter also requested that libraries were stocked with books by black authors, giving the example of ‘Noughts and Crosses’ by Malorie Blackman, which is again strange to read because in my time it was not only stocked but front and centre of the display (and the only book I remember when I picture it). But they didn’t spend much time in the library, or looking for that kind of book to read.

It’s just really strange to read as a nerd. I remember studying all of this stuff, properly taking it in and being moved by it, whilst the signatories were passing notes and talking and laughing at the funny names. I can quote parts of one poem which I particularly liked, but I also remember sitting near a girl whose only takeaway was how cool and exotic the poet’s first name was, and changed her Facebook name to wear it as her own surname until she was an adult. She signed the letter requesting ‘the teaching of non-white authors within English classes’.

She would probably also sign one which said ‘our culture is not your costume’. So would the girl who went to a white dude’s fancy dress party at university, where the theme was ‘Indian’, dressed in a sari and bindi, and got angry at me when I suggested that might be problematic. She signed the letter. So did their friend, who I spent years having to tell off for making awful ignorant comments about Muslims and Jews at every opportunity.

But now BLM is popular and they’ve joined the bandwagon, so now they’re criticising the school for not teaching them, when they were the ones who didn’t want to listen to what we were taught – even when explicitly told by me. We did discuss To Kill and Mockingbird, but whilst I was engaging they were complaining about how boring it was. I worked really hard on my rap research and essay, but they put it off like all their homework.

Now they have forgotten we were ever set them, and blame the school. But the library could have had a hundred more books by black authors, and they wouldn’t have read them any more than they read the ones that were there, even when they were promoted above all others! Studying Islam as well as Hinduism would have just given them another chance to zone out or make fun and forget it all to the extent that they sign a letter complaining they were never taught it.

Like, I am fully on board with the sentiment. I especially think that history lessons should have been expanded and given us all of the uncomfortable truths, because we really need to tackle the blind patriotism that comes from our national mythology. But surely we have to take some responsibility as well. We need to educate ourselves, and actively listen and study and so on, if we are to have any hope of awareness on these issues. You can’t just sit back and complain that nobody spoon-fed it to you.

0 notes

brehaaorgana · 7 years

Note

(In case my reblog will go unnoticed) I'm sorry but could you explain what you meant by saying Poland has "a bad track record for the entirety of Holocaust"? It sounds like you're acussing us of being complict in Holocaust, which is very much not what happened.

So let me make this very clear: as a convert, I had no family who died in the Holocaust, and none who survived it. However, I am real appalled at your claim on behalf of the people who do have that family, and also on behalf of actual history.

Were Polish gentiles also victimized by Nazi Germany? Yes. Were they also often (not all, but most) antisemites? Yes. Does Poland have a large amount of righteous gentiles? Yes. Did many Polish gentiles actively participate in the murdering of Jewish people, the stealing of their homes, the torture and abuse? YES.

Prior to World War II, antisemitism in Poland had been growing, and Polish authorities had taken various measures to exclude Jews from key sectors of society. Some Polish politicians pressed for the mass emigration of Poland’s Jewish population.

[…]

After killing in mass shootings almost 1.5 million Jews in hundreds of locations in occupied Soviet territories, the Germans decided to construct stationary killing centers in occupied Poland, Auschwitz-Birkenau being the most well known. The ghettos became “holding pens” for Jews before deportation to a killing center.

As German forces implemented the killing, they drew upon some Polish agencies, such as Polish police forces and railroad personnel, in the guarding of ghettos and the deportation of Jews to the killing centers. Individual Poles often helped in the identification, denunciation, and hunting down of Jews in hiding, often profiting from the associated blackmail, and actively participated in the plunder of Jewish property.

There were incidents, particularly in the small towns of eastern Poland, where local Polish residents—acutely aware of the Germans’ presence and their antisemitic policies—carried out or participated in pogroms and murdered their Jewish neighbors. The pogrom in the town of Jedwabne in 1941 is one of the best-documented cases.

Collaboration and Complicity in the Holocaust

And:

Polish peasants and villagers played an instrumental role in rounding up and denouncing Jews during the Holocaust, often taking initiative without any encouragement from the Germans, according to a soon-to-be-published study by Holocaust historian Jan Grabowski.

In “Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland,” Grabowski argues that Poles living in the countryside served as enthusiastic accomplices to the Nazis and that many Jews who had managed to survive the ghettos and escape transports to the death camps eventually lost their lives only because they were turned in by their Polish neighbors. The book is scheduled for publication in October by the Indiana University Press.

[…]

“For one, I had always thought to myself that the main instigators, actors and perpetrators were the Germans,” he explained. “Second, I knew there were horrific things going on, but I thought it was all part of a popular, disorganized activity – killing people who no longer enjoyed protection of the state and were in a free-for-all situation. What I did not know – and there was not even one single article in the entire published historiography about this – was the extent to which these efforts were organized. And this was all going on practically without any German involvement – in most cases, the Germans were sitting in cities 15-20 miles away.”

Holocaust Survivors Miriam Kuperhand and Saul Kuperhand wrote in Shadows of Treblinka that: “For every noble Pole who risked all to rescue a fellow human being, there were tenscoundrels who hunted Jews for a livelihood.” (page 51. Quote citation found via this Master’s Thesis, entitled Bystanders, Blackmailers, and Perpetrators: Polish Complicity in the Holocaust.

Or what about the Kiecle pogram – the one AFTER German defeat, where Polish gentiles decided to murder 42 Holocaust survivors in 1946?

So maybe it’s not that Poles were never complicit, maybe it’s that you don’t know the whole story. y’all have some gall.

#doing this on shabbat too #holocaust tw #Shoah tw

485 notes · View notes

frmartinshomiliesandreflections · 5 years

Photo

23rd February >> Fr. Martin’s Gospel Reflections / Homilies on Matthew 5:38-48 for the Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A: ‘Love your enemies’.

Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time

Gospel (Europe, Africa, New Zealand, Australia & Canada)

Matthew 5:38-48

Love your enemies

Jesus said to his disciples: ‘You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who asks, and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away.

‘You have learnt how it was said: You must love your neighbour and hate your enemy. But I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; in this way you will be sons of your Father in heaven, for he causes his sun to rise on bad men as well as good, and his rain to fall on honest and dishonest men alike. For if you love those who love you, what right have you to claim any credit? Even the tax collectors do as much, do they not? And if you save your greetings for your brothers, are you doing anything exceptional? Even the pagans do as much, do they not? You must therefore be perfect just as your heavenly Father is perfect.’

Gospel (USA)

Matthew 5:38–48

Love your enemies.

Jesus said to his disciples: “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand over your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.

“You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Reflections / Homilies (2)

(i) Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time

There is a story told of a holy man who used to meditate every morning under a large tree on the banks of the river Ganges in India. One morning, after he had finished his meditation, the old man noticed a large scorpion floating helplessly on the strong current of the river. The scorpion became caught in the tree’s strong roots that extended into the river bed. The more it struggled to free itself, the more entangled it became in the tree’s roots. The old man reached out to free the scorpion and, as soon as he touched it, the scorpion lifted its tail and stung him. Yet he reached out again to free it, until it was finally freed. A young man was passing and saw what was happening. He shouted out, ‘What is wrong with you? You must be mad. Why bother risking your life to save such an ugly and thankless creature?’ Speaking through his pain, the older man asked him, ‘Friend, because it is the nature of the scorpion to sting, why should I give up my own nature to save?’ He was determined to live out of his own best nature, even though his good actions were meeting with resistance that brought him pain.

That story from the Hindu tradition is not too far removed from the spirit of today’s gospel reading where Jesus calls on us to relate to other people not simply on the basis of how they relate to us. The Old Testament law of ‘eye for eye and tooth for tooth’, which Jesus quotes, was an enlightened piece of legislation at the time. It attempted to put a limit on revenge, one eye only for one eye and one tooth only for one tooth. Prior to that law, if a tribe killed a member of another tribe, the second tribe felt justified not only in killing one member of the first tribe, but in wiping out the whole tribe. We don’t have to go back too far in our recent history to find evidence of that kind of thinking, whereby the death of one person becomes an excuse for massive retaliation against a whole people. The law of ‘eye for eye and tooth for tooth’ was an attempt to ensure that retaliation was proportionate. However, even though that law was enlightened in its context, Jesus sets it aside. Evil is not to be met with proportionate evil, rather it is to be met with goodness, the kind of generosity of spirit that will eventually shame and transform the evildoer.

The most striking articulation of this attitude that Jesus is promoting is to be found in the second part of today’s gospel reading where Jesus says, ‘love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’. Jesus’ words would have been shocking at the time. They retain their shock value today. Jesus is calling on us to be loving people, full stop. We are to be as loving towards those who oppose us and wish us harm as we are towards those who love us and wish us well. The kind of people we are to become is to be shaped not by how people relate to us but by something much deeper. It is to be shaped, according to Jesus in the gospel reading, by how God relates to us and to all humankind. In the course of his teaching, Jesus gives us many images of God. The one that stands out for many people is the father image of God in the parable of the prodigal son. In that story the son ‘persecuted’ his father, in the language of today’s gospel reading. Yet, the father never ceased loving him, and as soon as the father saw his son on the horizon, he ran towards him to express his love, a love that remained constant even though the son had tormented him. The parable calls on us to love others in the way the father loved his son, to have a love that is as constant as God’s love for us. Jesus was the one who gave the fullest expression to that kind of love in his life. Even when his enemies did their worst to him, nailing him to a cross, he remained the most loving person the world has ever known.

There was a bishop in a diocese in southern Mexico between 1960 and 2000, named Don Samuel Ruiz. He was well known for having empowered the indigenous people of his diocese, and, also, for his role as mediator in the conflict between the Zapatista rebels and the Mexican government in the 1990s. For this work, he had received many death threats. In an interview he gave before his death in 2011 he was asked how he had come to live so completely the command to love one’s enemies, when he had so many enemies. He replied, ‘I have no enemies. There are some who want to make themselves enemy to me, but I have no enemies’. Here was certainly someone who related to people out of something much deeper than how they related to him. He related to others with the constancy of God’s love. It is only the Holy Spirit who can empower us to love in this way, because such a love is truly of God.

And/Or

(ii) Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time

The terminology of today’s gospel reading has made its way into our day to day speech. We often speak of someone turning the other cheek or going the extra mile. Our initial reaction to hearing today’s gospel might be to think that it is not very practical. Yes, it is a wonderful ideal, but it is impossible to achieve. It is good to have such a noble text among our Scriptures, but we can hardly be expected to take it too seriously.

Yet, that kind of reaction may point more to our own unease with this challenging text than to any problem with the message itself. At the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus called for a virtue that goes deeper than that of the scribes and Pharisees, a way of life that was a step beyond what the Jewish Law required. Today’s gospel reading is the fullest statement of this deeper virtue that Jesus calls for. The Old Testament stipulation of ‘an eye for eye and tooth for tooth’ was an enlightened effort at the time to put some limits on the extent to which people could retaliate for an injury inflicted on them. The tendency towards disproportionate retaliation had become the norm, several eyes for one eye and several teeth for one tooth. The teaching of Jesus goes beyond the Law’s attempt to limit retaliation by calling for no retaliation at all. There is to be no room for vengeance on a personal level among Jesus’ followers.

Jesus not only calls on his followers not to take vengeance on those who do them harm, but to go further and to love the enemy. He thereby calls for a love that is comprehensively inclusive. As one commentator on this passage puts it, ‘Who else is left to love, after one has loved the enemy?’ The love that Jesus calls for is not just a feeling but finds expression in active service. We might think of the parable of the good Samaritan, in which the Samaritan renders loving service to the injured Jew, who would have been regarded by the Samaritan as an enemy. Jesus declares that love of the enemy will also find expression in prayer for the enemy, as when Jesus asked his Father to forgive those who were responsible for his crucifixion. We all have a tendency to restrict the scope of our service of others and of our prayer for others. We tend to focus our love on those for whom we have strong feelings of warmth and affection. This is natural, but in the language of the gospel reading, it is not exceptional. ‘Even the pagans do as much’, Jesus says.

Jesus calls on us to stretch beyond those that our love would naturally embrace. This gospel reading does indeed stretch us. Human wisdom might argue against allowing ourselves to be stretched in this way. In loving the enemy, are we not leaving ourselves open to being taken advantage of? Is it not the case that charity begins at home? Yet, as Paul reminds us in today’s second reading, ‘the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God’. The wisdom of God is of a different order to human wisdom; God’s wisdom is revealed above all in the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Jesus forgave the disciple who denied him; he washed the feet of his betrayer; he died for all, including those who executed him. Therein lies the wisdom of God and that is what Jesus puts before us in today’s gospel reading, the wisdom of a love that excludes nobody. There is a yawning gulf between God’s wisdom and what passes for human wisdom; as the prophet Isaiah declares, God’s ways are not our ways and God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. That is why we find the message of today’s gospel reading so shocking and so unreasonable. We might be tempted to think that this call to perfection really only applies to a special group within the church, those who are in monasteries or whatever. Yet, in the gospel reading, Jesus is calling on all his disciples to move in the direction of God’s ways, to reflect in the way we relate to others the God whose love causes the sun to rise on bad people as well as good, and the rain to fall on honest and dishonest alike. Mercy without measure is the obligation of every Christian. Jesus pays us the compliment of asking us to be as perfect as God, even in an age of chronic imperfection. He puts before us a radically divine way of being human.

If we feel that this call is beyond us, we have the assurance of Paul in today’s second reading that as the Lord’s followers we are God’s temple and God’s Spirit is living among us. The way of life that Jesus calls us towards is only possible in the power of the Spirit who lives among and within us. Jesus calls us to a way of relating that is truly of God and he also offers us the Spirit of God to enable us to respond to that call. The perfection or completeness that the gospel calls for is primarily the fruit of the Spirit at work in us. As Paul reminds the believers in Thessalonica, ‘the one who calls you is faithful and he will accomplish this’.

Fr. Martin Hogan, Saint John the Baptist Parish, Clontarf, Dublin, D03 AO62, Ireland.

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Parish Website: www.stjohnsclontarf.ie Please join us via our webcam.

Twitter: @SJtBClontarfRC.

Facebook: St John the Baptist RC Parish, Clontarf.

Tumblr: Saint John the Baptist Parish, Clontarf, Dublin.

0 notes

technoprophecy · 5 years

Photo

Abolish Human Abortion And Their Worldview First, let me say that I am for passing a law that outlaws abortion. This would be a wonderful miracle for America to accomplish if it were possible. Abortion is murder because life begins at conception. The fact that life begins at conception accords with Scripture and Science. Recently, science apparently discovered there is a flash of light at conception confirming observationally that life begins at conception. (https://youtu.be/VYoPPvLgUxM). If verified, the physical light of the fertilized ovum is a marvelous analogy of Jesus Christ Son of God, who is the Light of the world and the Light of life (Jn. 8:12). Jesus Christ is the Light of both eternal life and physical life as He is the Word that created time and space and all life within it - John 1:3-4 says, “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.” The question remains though, how is the body of Christ going to proceed in their work against abortion? Before I researched this question, I thought and assumed most Christians and conservatives were working together against abortion to try to save as many babies as possible, or by some miracle to even outlaw abortion. But that is not the case. In fact, the abolitionists go out of their way to differentiate themselves from the Pro-Life movement. They not only differentiate themselves; they demonize, belittle and even shame the Pro-Life people because they have not made abolition of abortion the greatest work of the church and/or the only work of the church. They also demonize us because the Pro-Life movement accepts incremental changes to the abortion laws by saving some, but not necessarily saving all aborted babies. In this quote, Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) at http://abolishhumanabortion.com even differentiates themselves from the Church, while trying to shame the church because of our supposed unbelief in the Gospel. “This is not mere adoption of the rhetorical power of Christian ideology. We are not trying to gain the ear of church people with our religious appeals or use biblical language to attract fellow believers. We actually believe [the Gospel] is true, and we have put all our hope in it.” Is it not reasonable, even Scriptural, to fight for some life, any life, even if one is not able to save and win the entire battle? Jesus said in John 15:13- “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.” There is no guarantee in this life that if a soldier gives his life to save his friends that his actions will lead to total victory in his lifetime. Many others may have to die in the course of the war, for war is evil, but that is the direct result of the fallen world that can never be completely or even significantly fixed by man until Jesus comes in glory to establish His throne on earth. I think of Oskar Schindler of Schindler’s List. He saved more than 1200 Jews from the gas chamber out of a total of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust. He is hailed as a hero by the Jewish Community today, and rightly so. Those 1200 survivors will never forget what Schindler has done for them. Yet, it is obvious that Schindler did not save all the Jews from the Holocaust. He accepted the fact that he could save some however, and that was a noble act of courage on his part. Yet, the abolitionists will demonize the most Pro-Life president we have ever had in America? All because he, that is, Trump, has personally taken on the greatest enemy of unborn babies in America, Planned Parenthood (PP), with several presidential orders. The latest order being that he has outlawed PP from ever counseling a client to have an abortion. This perhaps could have the effect of first wiping out PP entirely, and/or significantly reducing the abortion rate in this country. I ask you. How is that action by the president in any sense evil? Even so, AHA writes, “With few exceptions the visible and professing church of Jesus Christ in America currently does little more than offer token expressions of opposition to the greatest and most dehumanizing evil of our age.” In their zealous fanaticism, the abolitionists have reduced the definition of the Christian life to the work of radical abolition, to the extent if we are not picketing, or peddling memes, or politicking, or supporting one-issue abolitionist candidates, then we are sub-Christians, or more likely not Christians at all. This was my FIRST RED FLAG. The SECOND RED FLAG occurred to me when I began researching what abolitionism believes and why. According to AHA, abolitionists actually try to tie abolition to Jesus’ Great Commission statement. They don’t try to connect it loosely, but attempt to tie it DIRECTLY to Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:20 (“teaching them to observe all that I commanded them”). To do this, abolitionists must truncate Jesus’ corpus of teaching to “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” This command gets applied specifically and directly as abolition of abortion. Never mind that every social gospel and progressive Christian group that exists, as well as most human religions on earth, truncate their beliefs to “LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF.” That, however, is the picture not of the true Biblical Church, but of the old social gospel church, today known as the social justice church. In a word, AHA is adding to the Great Commission something that is not there, and it becomes another gospel, a different and false gospel. The AHA website says the following about the Great Commission and abolition. “But a faithful examination of the Scriptures will confirm that just as faith without works is dead, so also is a “Great Commission” without the work of abolition.” In truth, however, there is no Biblical way to interpret Jesus words to mean that abolition of abortion is the greatest work and need of Christianity today to the exclusion of all other Christian works. Clearly, abortion is one heinous sin, but one among many other heinous sins that need attention today from Biblical Christians. That is why Jesus said to teach ALL that I commanded you, not just a truncated version of Christianity, which is indicative of the false social justice gospel we observe today. The THIRD RED FLAG came to me when I realized that according to AHA, the work of abolition is not supposed to be a special calling for just some radical activist Christians, but is an all-consuming OBLIGATION for ALL Christians. Again, abolitionists say, Christians who don’t engage in abolition are either sub-Christians or not Christians at all. AHA writes, “When we are faced with our unborn neighbor being killed, we’ve somehow misplaced it into the “calling” category, as if it is a talent one possesses, to stand in the gap for the weakest among us, as they are about to be slaughtered. We’ve told ourselves, and one another, that establishing justice and mercy, loving our oppressed neighbor is “a calling” when in fact, scripture tells us it is a command.” This reminds me of Mormonism, where the path to salvation must include two years of missionary service going two by two to the neighborhoods on bicycles or you cannot become a true Mormon. Of course, Ephesians 2:8-9 has something definite to say to this issue, in which justification is completely separated from our works, which can NEVER save or make anyone a true Christian. To add the obligation of abolition for all is a form of Judaizing, and requiring something that is not revealed in the New Testament, and is again a different gospel and a false gospel. Paul said in Galatians 1:6-7 - “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” Disturbing and distorting is how I would describe AHA’s white hot radical activism and vehemence against other Christians who do not hold to their views. AHA has a cult-like presentation with their demands upon the church that cannot be substantiated from Scripture. Some have even labeled AHA a cult. Is Historical-Biblical Christianity really about receiving Christ, and then doing the works of abolition, which in their emphasis, eclipses the Gospel in terms of significance? Is that the true purpose of the church? If so, then why didn’t the Apostolic church, the most pristine and purest version of Christianity, look like the version of Christianity presented by the millennial abolitionist groups today? Why didn’t Paul radicalize Christian converts to activism against the Roman forms of abortion and infanticide, which were rampant even then? (https://earlychurchhistory.org/medicine/infanticide-in-the-ancient-world/). We don’t see activism of any kind at all because the early church didn’t see themselves as building the Kingdom of God on earth. They saw themselves as fighting a spiritual battle against an evil world whose god is Satan. The world was not their home, and they believed the world was something to be rescued from, not a place to try to transform into the Kingdom of God. Paul wrote in Galatians 1:3-4 - “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.” The early church under Paul and the other Apostles had a proper understanding of eschatology, and were not trying to create a Christian kingdom on earth as the postmillennial abolitionists are trying to do today. This brings me to the radical theology that is being employed by the abolition movement today. What is the theology that drives abolitionism? As I was being exposed to the writings and arguments online by those who espouse abolition, I was first struck by their one-issue only politics. They seemed totally unconcerned with who they mowed down verbally. If the public official, candidate or Christian voter doesn’t espouse radical abolition, they are protested against period, and not supported. It doesn’t matter whether they are Pro-Life or whether they support Biblical values. Only the people who support 100% radical abolition and act upon it are supported. The abolitionists support one issue and one issue only, even if it causes conservative candidates to lose by taking votes away from them, and causing the cultural Marxist progressives to win elections. This appeared completely unreasonable to me that Christians would create anarchy in the political realm, while labeling Christians trying to vote for conservative law and order in our country as “human wisdom”. Does it really need to be pointed out that if we don’t support and vote conservative Christian values into office, as in Biblical views of marriage and family, that not only do the abortion laws worsen (e.g., New York’s recent egregious the day before birth abortion law), the LGBTQ agenda will also continue to explode and our nation will be cursed into oblivion? Remember, that is what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah! Abraham and Lot were not told by the two angelic hosts to preach the Kingdom of God on earth. Lot was told and even forced emphatically to FLEE! Then I realized that there was something else going on below the surface of the abolitionist movement that is motivating this unreasonableness. The abolition gospel is deeply tied to an eschatology that believes they are building the Kingdom of God on earth. They believe they can force the abolition law upon America because the Church’s responsibility is to change the culture and to transform the world for Christ. Then in such a way the world will be gradually prepared for Christ so that He can then take His throne on earth. This quote is from the AHA site: “Abolitionists aim to transform this wicked culture and society, by the grace of God, with the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah and His holy law.”

This theology is known as postmillennialism, but has not even a shred of Biblical support. Nowhere in Scripture do we find gradualism - where the world grows incrementally more and more Christian until Christ comes. What we do find is Christ coming suddenly and apocalyptically to a world and to an apostate church at war with Christ and His Word, completely Satanic, and who are opposed to God’s rule. A mystical phrase that captures this rampant eschatological belief is: “Immanentize the Eschaton.” This means to try to bring about the eschaton, or the return of Christ, in the immanent world. This is precisely what abolitionists are DEMANDING to do with placards, memes, and utter political anarchy. Never mind that our culture is completely inundated and totally absorbed in and 100% committed to two massive pillars. These are the pillars of: (1) the abortion right of Roe, and (2) the same sex marriage right of Obergefell. Furthermore, on top of these unmovable pillars is the political philosophy, (frankly, it is the political philosophy of Antichrist), that is now saturating the world, namely the progressive gospel of social justice and globalism, which is nothing more than socialism and cultural Marxism with a Christian slant. Neither abortion, nor the homosexual agenda, nor the social justice gospel will be lightly given up by our world. They are immovable no matter how loudly abolitionists beat the drum and try to force their hand. In fact, the church by and large is even jumping on the bandwagon embracing LGBTQ and social justice and globalism and even whitewashing the Democratic Party, who are the chief architects and propagators of abortion, so that the church will vote Democrat. It is clear that abolitionists have a woefully faulty and completely false view of eschatology, and are actually helping Satan’s plan for Antichrist and globalism to come to fruition by trying to immanentize the eschaton. Thomas Ice wrote, “The call for believers to exercise a premature dominion is at the heart of Satan’s promise to Eve in the garden.” The serpent’s lie to Eve was, “ye shall be as gods…” (Gen. 3:5). There is much evidence that the theological motivation for abolitionism is postmillennialism, but with a new, improved form of postmillennialism called Dominion Theology (DT) and Kingdom Now. The first is embraced by the Reformed/Calvinist camp, while the second by the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition. I would like to point out here, that before I looked at sources critical of the means being utilized by abolitionists today, I was led by my past knowledge of DT, and saw the connections myself first. Besides the clue of the political anarchy of the abolitionists I pointed to earlier, which inferred a subterranean belief below the surface that would drive such unreasonableness. There were more direct references to DT that struck me such as the following quote from AHA’s website. “We strive to provoke a clash of absolutes between the Gospel of Christ and the worldly wisdom of man. The goal of all abolitionist movements is the redemption of man from the dominion of man.” Yet, nowhere in the New Testament is it written that the church is to take matters into their own hands by thwarting the dominion of man on earth. This is not the role of the church in the world today. We are called to preach the Gospel to the whole world. It is Christ who changes the hearts of people through the Good News, and as some men are changed, we poke holes in the darkness, but never take the world over for Christ until after the apocalypse. The wider world remains under the control of Satan until Christ’s return. 1 John 5:19 says, “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.” In the meantime, the Word of God tells us that human governments are established by God (Gen. 10; 11:6-8, Rom. 13:1), and are His avengers to punish evildoers (Rom. 13:4). Christians are to be subject to government (Rom. 13:1), not anarchists disrupting politics, and trying to establish dominion over the governments of the world. No where in the early church did Paul command the church to picket Rome for any reason. DT is a radical and false system that works into the hands of Satan, who with his servant the Antichrist, will establish Babel 2.0 on earth, the final evil globalist government that will shortly come onto the world stage (Rev. 13:7-8). Christ does not, nor can He, reign on earth until after the Antichrist and the False Prophet fulfill for a short period of seven years their globalist, socialist, Satanic domination of planet earth. No one can prevent Antichrist’s evil empire from growing and finally taking place, because prophecy can never be undone by the Church, by Satan, or by anyone or anything for that matter. The Church should remember one simple rule about the history of the world, and it is antithetical to all postmillennialism theology. The human race gets worse, and worse, not better and better as they continue to fall ever deeper into the control of the Deceiver, who is the god of this world. As Paul said, “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (II Tim. 3:13). In this section, I will give some pertinent quotes from my research on DT, mainly from two articles both by Thomas Ice. The title of the first article is “What is Dominion Theology?” (WIDT) The second article is “New, Improved Postmillennialism.” (NIP) (1) The question of the timing of the Millennium affects the goals and objectives of believers today. Therefore, it is extremely important that we correctly understand scripture on this important subject. (WIDT) (2) The New Covenant (NC) speaks only of changing individuals during the current age, while the Old Covenant (OC) dealt with both individuals and institutions. Institutional change will occur in the future millennium, building upon the foundation of individual change of the present age. Since the Christian Reconstruction Movement (CRM) understands the present age to include the Millennium, therefore they misplace the timing of God’s plan for changing institutions. (WIDT) (3) The call for believers to exercise a premature dominion is at the heart of Satan’s promise to Eve in the garden. Since dominionists are wrong about the timing of the kingdom (Kingdom Now), and about the means of establishing the kingdom (DT believes the kingdom is established by means of the work of the church rather than Christ through Christ personal return), therefore they cannot help but be involved, either knowingly or unknowingly, and furthering Satan’s kingdom, to the extent that they apply their deviant theology. (WIDT) (4) Christians are instructed to seek after the things above, to set our minds on things above (Col. 3:1-2), while we eagerly wait for our Savior’s return (Phil. 3:20). Our calling in the present is not to take dominion, but rather to preach the Gospel to the world and to wait for God’s Son - - Christ - - from heaven who will deliver us from the wrath to come ( I Thes. 1:10). Then, and only after our Lord’s return to earth, we will reign and rule (have dominion) with Christ as overcomers (Rev. 2:26-27; 3:21). (WIDT) (5) The preterist approach removes the apocalyptic obstacle by dumping all those passages into a 40 year dispensation ending in A.D. 70. Anytime a reconstructionist encounters text that through normal exegesis negate their progress approach, they are mishandled by feeding them to the friendly preterist monster. Gulp! “Out of sight! Out of mind!” (NIP) (6) First, there is absolutely no record in all church history of anyone who understood the prophetic Scriptures in this way until a Catholic, Jesuit named Alcazar gave birth to this approach in 1614. Alcazar argued that the pope cannot be the antichrist, as the protestants were charging, since prophetic events and personalities had all been fulfilled by the Christianization of the Roman empire A.D. 33. (NIP) (7) It appears to me that the only possible motive for adopting the preterist approach could be to remove the apocalyptic element from the Bible so that the Reconstructionist view of upward evolution can be inserted. The hermeneutic can in no way follow from comparing Scripture with Scripture. It is simply another chapter in the long history of allegorical interpretation. (NIP) (8) The ingredients which composed the postmillennial system of the current Christian reconstruction movement parallels the false notions Peter warned believers to look out for in the last days (2 Pet. 3:1-18). (NIP) (9) Peter is not saying that these mockers will deny the [Second Coming] SC, instead they will deny the promise of an “any-moment,” sudden, or cataclysmic coming. The mockers attempt this by replacing the apocalyptic, any-moment nature of Christ’s return with their false uniformitarian notion that “ever since the father fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation” (v. 4). This amounts to the replacement of an apocalyptic hope for a present process hope.” (NIP) (10) Since Reconstructionists “distort“ the texts of Scripture in this manner it gives them a distorted view of the future, resulting in misdirected action in the present. This defect blinds the development of their theology to pitfalls that are present within Satan‘s current arrangement of the world system. Specifically, they seek a premature establishment of the Millennium. This has long been Satan‘s goal. He has tirelessly tried to preempt God by tempting man to help establish the Kingdom. His twofold tactics have been to get people to use false means and trying to establish a kingdom at a time of his choosing rather than God’s. (NIP) (11) The means which God has ordained for the establishment of Christ’s Millennial Kingdom is through a cataclysmic interruption into history, like Creation and Noah’s Flood. Reconstructionists hold that the millennial blessings will be mediated through the present dynamics of the Church. (NIP) (12) The reconstructionist view of a mediated reign results only in a watered down, spiritualized, even truncated, reduction of the true reign of Christ. Their second rate spiritualizations of millennial fulfillments have more in common with current non-Christian efforts then they are willing to admit. (NIP) (13) Postmillennialists suppress the future millennial career of Jesus Christ, transferring to mortal mankind what belongs to Him. Control of the last thousand years of world history belongs to the Risen Christ, as immediate theocratic agent, and to His brethren, the “sons of the resurrection” - -not to any combination of well-intentioned mortals in an ecclesiastical status quo development. (NIP) (14) False hope’s concerning the means of bringing in Christ’s Millennial reign make Dominionist theology open to intermingling with current false views of the Kingdom, both Christian and non-Christian. This has been their track record: devastatingly wrong movements that have tried to use the wrong means to subdue the world for Christ. Some of these movements include: the Munster Revolt, Fifth Monarchists, Oliver Cromwell, the Abolitionist of the Civil War, the Social Gospel, and according to reconstructionist David Chilton, Nazism and Marxism. (NIP) (15) The other area in which Reconstructionists err is over the timing of Christ’s coming. He does not return after millennial conditions have been mediated by the Church, but rather it is His return which then produces such conditions. Much could be said concerning this matter, but space only permits the single point: Christ has promised to eat and drink with believers when He enters into his Kingdom (Luke 22: 14-23). He instituted the Lord’s Supper for us to practice “until the kingdom of God comes” (22:18). The fact that Christ instituted this to be observed during the interim demonstrates that we are not yet in His Kingdom, nor has he returned to set it up. (NIP) (16) The challenge remains: produce one passage of Scripture which teaches postmillennialism. It cannot be found within the apocalyptic nature of God’s Holy Revelation. (NIP) We have seen from this overview of DT, that beliefs and ideas concerning the Millennium strongly influence our actions as Christians. There is absolutely no basis for Postmillennialism, DT or Preterism from Scripture. Christians who attempt to “immanentize the eschaton” as DT teaches, are in effect aiding and abetting Satan in his goals of bringing in a premature kingdom without Christ reigning on earth. Satan’s lie - - “Ye shall be as gods!” - - continues to ring down through history in the form of secular and ecclesiastical movements where the ends justify the means. While on the other hand, the pure Biblical Gospel is watered down by DT in the form of Social Justice. That is clearly a recipe for disaster and changing of the true Gospel to a false one. Paul defined the true Gospel in 1 Corinthians 2:2, “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” There is nothing here adding anything to the Gospel, or requiring obligations as AHA has done. Others have also seen the connections between DT and today’s abolitionist movement. The author of this Tea Party article, “Oklahoma GOP Chairman David McClain Outed as Member of Radical Dominion Theology Group” (https://ymlp.com/z2FGNS), identifies AHA, former candidate for Oklahoma governor Dan Fisher, and GOP chairman David McClain as deeply connected to DT. “Last week Oklahoma GOP Chairman David McClain was exposed as an executive board member of a fairly radical dominion theology organization that appears to be controlled by the John Birch Society. Dominion theology is a group of far right Christian political ideologies that wish to usher in a nation ruled only by Christians using biblical law.” The group is known as City Elders (https://cityelders.com). Their core value Number 6 says it all. “The church has a responsibility to supervise government.” Unfortunately, that statement has no support from Scripture. That will not be the Church’s role until we reign with Christ on the earth during the Millennium. To attempt to “immanentize the eschaton” in this way will bring a premature kingdom that will have far-reaching unintended evil consequences. “We saw firsthand the damage that dominionism does in the Abolitionist movement in 2018. A radical group hell bent on enforcing “God’s law” turned on the Pro-Life groups and leaders and pulled out all the stops and battered anyone standing in their way. T. Russel Hunter, backed by the John Birch Society controlled OCPAC, and Dan Fisher, raged at the Pro-Life leaders as “baby killers” and picketed their churches and attacked House and Senate leaders over their refusal to pass a patently unconstitutional bill that would outlaw abortion.“ The article continues… “If you wish to understand the crux of why this City Elders movement is such a danger to mainstream Republicans and to Republican office holders consider the 2018 gubernatorial election. Dan Fisher is and has always been a dominionist and Fisher pulled in less than 8% of the Republican primary votes despite running on a platform of abolishing abortion in the state.” I’m not a Tea Party member, but when this article was emailed to my wife from a friend, and she read it to me, I thought their connections between DT and AHA were accurate based on my own independent research. I was curious though about his statements on Dan Fisher. I emailed the author of the Tea Party article asking him what his source was for Dan Fisher. He (his name was Al) wrote me back saying: “Fisher has long been a dominionist, calling for religious control over government. The easiest way to pick them out is to listen to the terminology they use, Kingdom of this, kingdom of that, mixing religion and politics constantly. I first met the guy back in 2010. Died in the wool JBS politician, OCPAC went all out supporting him without even voting on who to support in the 2018 gov race.” Though Al and the Tea Party don’t represent all of my political views, I do appreciate their conservative views on America, law and order and the Constitution. Connecting AHA and Dan Fisher to DT helped corroborate my research. By the way, the connection between AHA and Fisher appears deep as AHA leader T. Russell Hunter was the secret Head of Communications and Strategy for the Dan Fisher campaign. I have attempted to find a contact for Dan Fisher. However, what Al writes about him appears reasonable. Speaking of the controversial head of AHA, T. Russell Hunter. My research indicates this man is a radical activist, a reviler, extortioner, and even cultish, if not an outright cult leader. Even just reading his fanatical language and firebrand demeanor on the AHA website is eye opening. He does not represent a Biblically oriented Christian, but rather, a white-hot Pharisee raging on one topic only, and that is the abolition of abortion. His handling of Scripture is cultish. Attempting to prove that abolition is part of the Great Commission is far from exegesis, but is classic eisegesis. Though the goal of abolition is noble, his means to this end don’t represent Biblical Christianity in the slightest. The radical activism, picketing, peddling memes, threatening, and hatred for conservative Christianity that Hunter espouses is appalling. Nor does his personal lifestyle represent Christ-likeness as Hunter was recently busted for DWI, an apparent deep and not one-time problem… See https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/05/16/aha-leader-russell-hunter-busted-for-dwi/ Paul wrote to us about the Hunters of the Church in 1 Corinthians 5:11 - “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat.” Reformationcharlotte.org has labeled AHA a hate group in this article… https://reformationcharlotte.org/2019/01/19/anti-church-hate-group-sets-eyes-on-r-c-sprouls-church/ “The controversial anti-church hate group known as Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) has in its cross-hairs St. Andrews, the church founded by the late Dr. R.C. Sproul. The congregation at St. Andrews is now led by Burk Parsons.” “AHA has been known for its anti-church rhetoric, threats of violence against pastors and members, and even acts of terror against churches, including a failed attempt at bombing a church. One well-known figure head of AHA has even suggested tasing pastors while another, Bojidar Marinov called for the bombing of churches.”

Searching Bojidar Marinov revealed this man has a very checkered past, being a part of one radical group after another according to this article by Pulpitandpen.org,… https://pulpitandpen.org/2017/09/21/aha-abolish-human-abortion-brain-trust-suggests-bombing-churches/

“Bojidar Marinov first became known as a fire-breathing theonomist, insistent that all Mosaic Judicial Law be strictly enforced by the government – including Mosaic penology, requiring the death penalty for such crimes as rebellious adolescence and promiscuity.”

“However, when theonomy’s chief non-retired leader, Joel McDurmon, abandoned the basic tenets of theonomy several years ago, a strange shift began to develop among those once holding to the abiding obligatory nature of Mosaic Law; they did an ideological 180º and turned to hyper-libertarianism, bordering on anarchist ideology. Transitioning from advocacy for a totalitarian theocracy to extreme libertarianism is impressive enough, but that they could do it with few noticing was impressive, indeed. Marinov has continued to be in the mix of this ideological transition and has turned the corner from asserting theonomy as the historic position of the institutionalized church (a ridiculous claim in itself) to now asserting that there is no institutional (or organized) church and has turned against the Bride of Christ, now attacking it regularly. The ecclesiastical positions of Marinov range from Sectarian Minimalism to Ecclesiastical Docetism.“

I personally searched Marinov’s website called reconstructionistradio.com. Right off the bat, we see his radio show promotes and is an apologetic for the Christian reconstruction movement, which is just another name for DT. His transcript of a talk he did on his radio show called “Abolition and True Leadership” summarizes his radical ideas and legalistic activism (https://reconstructionistradio.com/abolition-and-true-leadership/).

“And as I tackle true leadership, I want to do it in the context of a growing movement, or, rather, a growing ideology, or, rather, a growing worldview in the Church in America today, namely, Abolish Human Abortion. Why do I want to do it in this context? Well, because the abolition of abortion is about the most “radical” of all ideas that are floating in the church today… Hated, radical ideas meet a different kind of reaction from the world. Such truly radical idea today is the abolition of abortion. Judging from the reaction of the world-and judging from the reaction of the vast majority of alleged “church ministers“ - it is truly a radical and hated idea. Thus, obviously, if there is an area where we will have to see true leadership, it will be in the abolition of abortion in America. Preaching the same old theological milk from behind safe 501©(3) pulpits or making celebrity debates and conferences on long-resolved theoretical and theological topics is not where true leadership is exercised.”

Marinov is clearly looking at AHA for its radical effect upon the Church and society, and using the movement as a powerful tool for changing America into his version of Christianity. Needless to say, this is far from a Biblical model of leadership. Where is the fruit of the Spirit for such a worldly approach? Love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law” (Gal. 5:22-23). Marinov is like the short-lived rebels Theuduas and Judas of Galilee mentioned by Gamaliel in Acts 5, but so unlike the Apostle Paul in his approach to Christian ministry. That is a major problem that cannot be solved by simply ignoring the AHA warning signs, and sweeping Biblical doctrine under the rug all because we want to abolish abortion. Marinov, the dominionist-abolitionist continues to rail on… “In short, we obey and follow and elevate and idolize people whom God despises. And we despise those whom He has really raised as His servants, for the growth and maturity of His Church. And it is because of this widespread failure that the American church in the last one century has seen such a disaster, delivering into the hands of the enemy a culture that our ancestors in the faith had won for Christ.”

That is completely WRONG analysis from the word go. The truth is, rather, that the missionary Church of the last one century, as led by the American church, is the Church that Jesus praised so wonderfully, and had no condemnation for them, because they “kept My Word” (Rev. 3: 7-13). It is Marinov’s version of the church that is condemned so utterly and completely, that there is not even one word of praise whatsoever from Jesus. The Lord, in fact, pukes this church out of His mouth because they were lukewarm, did not keep His Word, talked big and even radically. Jesus said to them in Revelation 3:18 - “I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eye salve, that thou mayest see.”

There is nothing gold, nothing pure, or nothing anointed in Marinov’s radical theology. There is only a pull yourself up by your own bootstraps social justice church, that rejects God’s Word, and that is in the end “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.”

Marinov and Hunter among other AHA leaders, are cultish, or more likely, full blown cultists that are an example of the false church of Laodicea in the last days. They are Judaizers on the one hand, that press on the Church the obligation of abolition, a false gospel, instead of the pure Gospel of Christ. On the other hand, for globalism sake, they denigrate doctrines of the Word of God. Paul says of them in 2 Timothy 3:5 - “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” Their form of godliness, which is obviously their abolitionism, trumps the pure Gospel, which, clearly, is the power that this church denies. They, likewise, hate with a white-hot passion the true historic Church for preaching the Word of God, which is the true way and true teaching established, and once for all handed down by the Apostles.

Furthermore, Paul predicts this false church will turn away from doctrine to something more “tickling” and even more radical. He warns in 2 Timothy 4:3 - “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.”

In summary, the doctrine of AHA has truncated the message of the Word of God to just one message - - ABOLITION! They are not preaching the historical and Biblical doctrines of the Church. In fact, they are demanding the laying aside of Biblical doctrine for the coming together globally of the Church to do the work of abolition. Nowhere in God’s Holy Word do we see Christ or His Apostles laying aside the Scripture for globalism sake, in order to do some supposed greater work. There is no greater work than the spreading of the good news of the Gospel, which is the only message that truly changes lives. Rather, the true Church is to look to the Word of God for guidance in these last days when so many false prophets like wolves are among us. Jesus said, in Matthew 7:15-16 - “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.” Of these, Jesus said in Matthew 7:22-23 - “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? ‘And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from ME, you who practice lawlessness.” Finally, abolition is a radical message to immanentize the eschaton, a premature attempt to create the Kingdom of God on earth without Christ. This reminds me of the case in 2 Thessalonians where a prominent false teacher sent a letter claiming, in the name of Paul, that the day of the Lord has already come. Paul warned the church against such false teaching, and gave them the proper sequence of prophetic events. We, too, must watch for false groups and false claims to the effect that the Kingdom of God is come and present on earth now. (A popular false DT slogan is: “The Kingdom is now, but not yet.”) To attempt to force the laws of God on a world ripe for the Man of Sin, is not only failing to fulfill Christ’s purpose for the Church. It also plays into the hands of Satan’s last days purpose, and will fail miserably like all other postmillennial groups and causes of the past.

I will end with Paul’s warning against the disturbing and false eschatological message being fostered in his time.

2 Thes. 2:1-3 - “Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.”

0 notes

ganzeer · 7 years

Text

OH ART, WHERE ART THOU?

May 1879, an independently published satirical journal –a precursor to the “zine”– printed a crudely illustrated political cartoon showing the ruler of Egypt, Khedive Ismail Pasha, standing next to an auctioneer offering up the Sphinx and Great Pyramids in exchange for British Pounds. Foreign buyers and dignitaries gather round with interest.

The paper was called Abou Naddara Zarqa, or “The Man in the Blue Glasses” and the force behind it was a sole individual: James Sanua, an Egyptian/Italian Freemason Jew who indeed wore blue spectacles and identified as an Egyptian Nationalist. The publication of this particular cartoon was only three years before the British officially occupied Egypt, making it a rather accurate premonition.

Although Sanua produced the paper entirely on his own from a small printing shop in Paris, located in the Passage du Caire –No, really!– its influence cannot be understated. The reason it was produced from Paris is because that’s where Sanua went into exile after two failed attempts on his life were made by the Egyptian regime. This after 15 issues of the paper had been produced from within Egypt all in the span of just two months. Being heavy on satirical criticism, and being the first ever Arabic publication to employ cartoons and colloquial Egyptian Arabic in its writing, the Khedive knew that it had the power to undermine his rule, even in a country boasting a population of, at the time, over 5.5 million of which 94% could not read or write. But still, Abou Naddara was influential nonetheless. According to Blanchard Jerrold (1826 - 1884), a prolific English journalist and author of Egypt Under Ismail Pacha, which appeared in print a short time before the Khedive’s forced abdication, “[Abou Naddara] was in every barrack, in every Government-office. In every town and village it was read with the liveliest delight.” Often times, people gathered round in the coffeeshops to hear it read out loud to them. Such was the popularity of this unconstrained journal –which in its heyday reached a circulation of 50,000 copies– that the Khedive wrote to Sanua in Paris promising titles and fortune should he refrain from further violating the ruler’s dignity. This is according to Sanua anyway (it’s hard to tell fact from fiction with these damn satirists, isn’t it?). Sanua’s reaction, being the gloriously outspoken person that he was, was to publish the Khedive’s letter in full. Through his work, James Sanua may have brought a number of innovations to the Arab-speaking world, such as the use of colloquial dialect and political cartooning in mass print media, and before that, the introduction of colloquial Egyptian dialect to modern theatre, the precursor to Egyptian cinema, which is still the most influential across the Arab world today. But in reality Sanua was galvanizing a very Egyptian tradition: satire. 81 years prior to the launch of Abou Naddara Zarqa, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt. A campaign that lasted only 3 years and ended with Napoleon fleeing the country and leaving his troops behind, thanks in no small part to the Egyptian brand of satire which sent the European despot into fits of “narcissistic rage” according to Avner Falk in his book Napoleon Against Himself. One French prisoner of the British –who intervened in Egypt to keep it from French influence– had this to say: “When I was in Egypt… it would have been beyond my power to prevent the population from speaking freely in the coffeehouses. They were freer and more independent in their speech than the Parisians. Though they submitted to slavery in everything else, they meant to be free in that respect. The coffeehouses were the castles of their opinions.” In a cave not far from the Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut to the south of Egypt is a piece of rather rebellious graffiti that is a few thousand years old. It depicts what is thought to be Hatshepsut, female Pharaoh of Egypt from 1478-1458 B.C, bent over and getting penetrated from behind by her Chancellor and royal architect Senenmut. Although the female Pharaoh’s rule is largely considered prosperous by most historians, this piece of graffito may be a clue as to the control enacted over Hatshepsut by her Chancellor, and the general resentment felt by the populace towards that dynamic.

Was the Pharaoh actually romantically involved with her Chancellor or was this piece of artistic expression something of an exaggeration? A sort of... satire? In my mind, that’s not really the important question to ask, because the Ancient Egyptians believed that the spoken word had an effect on the physical world. And even more powerful than the spoken word was the written word. The thing is though, throughout much of Ancient Egyptian history, words and pictures were interchangeable things. The act of carving such an image, of manifesting the idea into physical form, even if in a far away cave visited by no one, would have enough of an impact on the physical world to make it true. If the cave was however visited –even if by a select few– then such an impact would almost be guaranteed. If Hatshepsut and her Chancellor were not actually romantically involved, perhaps the witnessing of such a vulgar piece of graffito by a peasant or two, even in secret, would create enough “buzz” around their relationship that they would indeed eventually end up romantically involved. Or, if not, they would still be remembered as such long after they’re dead, no matter what the reality actually was. Such is the power of words and pictures, especially ones charged with satire. As Alan Moore, self-proclaimed shaman and arguably the greatest anglophone author of our time is quoted as saying: “Bards were feared. They were respected, but more than that they were feared. You piss off a bard, and forget about putting a curse on you, he might put a satire on you. And if he was a skillful bard, he puts a satire on you, it destroys you in the eyes of your community, it shows you up as ridiculous, lame, pathetic, worthless, in the eyes of your community, in the eyes of your family, in the eyes of your children, in the eyes of yourself. And if it’s a particularly good bard, and he’s written a particularly good satire, then three hundred years after you’re dead, people are still gonna be laughing at what a twat you were.” In that sense, there is no magic greater or more powerful than the magic of words, which we’ve already established is interchangeable with images. What that means is that words and pictures, Art essentially, is magic. And with it, one can actively change the world. Perhaps that is why the Old English term for “be” was also “art”. With that notion in mind, one cannot help but feel completely disheartened by the vast majority of art produced and exhibited today. Art that lacks intent, wielded by individuals who seem to be completely unaware of the magic at their fingertips. Of course there will be artists, very good ones at that, who will say that this here publication is not a work of true art. How can it be spoken of in the same breath as anything produced by a Duchamp or Pollack? They will say the same of James Sanua’s work, an individual never cited in their art history books. This of course is understandable, as there are a great many among us who cannot get past the need for legitimization from big old established institutions. But rest assured, for the original journals of Abou Naddara continue to be successfully auctioned by the likes of Sotheby’s and Christie’s today. Art aside, there are those with legitimate concerns surrounding the propagation of fake news. But as the fantastic English author Neil Gaiman once said “'Once upon a time' is code for 'I’m lying to you'.” Personally, I don’t see why the words “Breaking News” can’t be used to that extent as well. In fact, I’m sure they already are to some degree or another, even by those claiming to be telling the truth. I’m willing to bet that James Sanua would’ve agreed. Mark Twain definitely thought so. I should point out, though, that everything in this here article is true by the way. No, really, I promise you. 100%.

Ganzeer Los Angeles, CA January 24, 2017

First published in ALTERNATIVE FACTS, a fictitious newspaper created for the exhibition MAGIC CITY in Munich, and later Stockholm. Also appeared in Ganzeer’s newsletter, RESTRICTED FREQUENCY, on April 22, 2017.

#text #ganzeer

2 notes · View notes

apenitentialprayer · 7 years

Text

Gandhi and the Holocaust

An odd title, I know. But given the post I’ve seen circling around yesterday and today, a post that has unfortunately gotten the attention of thousands, I feel the need to address several of the points that it brings up. Before we go into some of these points, however, I feel like I need to mention that Gandhi’s way of thing was not anthropocentric in nature; it was theocentric. And right off the bat, that means a lot of you will not really accept to even consider his worldview as valid. Which is fine, whatever. But that is important; the two paths to God that he claimed were higher than any others were Truth and Nonviolence. In the case of the former, this does not necessarily mean factual truth, but rather adherence to an educated, well-formed conscience, and in this way follows a view similar to that of Thomas Aquinas. This adherence to the conscience should be absolute, even if this demands immense suffering or even martyrdom at the hands of those who seek to convince a person to rescind their most sacred convictions. In the words of Gandhi, quoted by Erik Erikson, “To make any progress we must not make speeches and organize mass meetings but be prepared for mountains of suffering” (Gandhi’s Truth, 306). In the case of the latter, nonviolence must be understood in its proper context. Gandhi saw two separate types of nonviolence; the first, “nonviolence of the weak.” This type of nonviolence is that of passivity in the face of evil because one does not have the power to confront that evil, and so this form of nonviolence has no moral value whatsoever. In fact, Gandhi equated such nonviolence with cowardice, and said that it would be better to violently confront evil than to give in to the temptation of this nonviolence. The morally perfect nonviolence, the “nonviolence of the strong,” was essentially the nonviolence taught by Jesus; though you have the ability to fight back, you choose not to. This choice must not be out of fear, or it is actually of the first variety, nor should there be any hatred towards persecutors, or the act of nonviolence is stained with an implicit form of violence. Rather, it should be done out of love of, and recognition of the humanity of, the persecutor. This does not ensure easy victory, of course; as Erik Erikson states, “it is almost a rule that powerful opponents, in their stubborn bewilderment over being faced with this new nonviolent kind of struggle, become more ruthless” (Gandhi’s Truth, 342). But the point of such nonviolence is not necessarily victory within this lifetime, but the purification of the individual through suffering for the Truth. This, of course, invites metaphysics into politics, something that many of even his closest friends did not like. To a certain extent, this even more savage response can be seen as a good thing, because it presents the persecuted with more chances of being witnesses to love and truth, and will hopefully affect the consciences of the persecutors (or, at the very least, the indifferent masses who see these events unfold). Much like the early Christian martyrs, then, Gandhi advocated for upholding truth at whatever the cost, enthusiastically suffering for the truth when given the chance of rescinding their views or being punished, and loving and identifying with the humanity of one’s persecutors. For more information on how this would have worked on a theoretical level, I highly recommend Raghavan Iyer’s The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi. Now, let’s move on to how this influenced Gandhi’s view of the Holocaust : “Criticized the Jews for defending themselves against the Holocaust because he insisted that they should have committed public mass suicide in order to “shame” the Germans instead of fighting back. His exact words were, “But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from the cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.” Okay. Let’s start with an early letter, dated to late November of 1938. What we see in this letter is an admittance of Hitler’s psychopathy (”The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone”). We also see Gandhi exhorting German Jews to organize and fight this oppression nonviolently, and doing this even if individual Jewish people must act alone at first. Gandhi knew that they were dying; and (as the above quote from that insufferable post even shows) it is by virtue of the fact that they were being killed that Gandhi saw the need for them to nonviolently resist. “If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now.” In fact, in Gandhi’s mind, it would be better; they would “preserve their self-respect,” and give them “inner strength and joy.” Further, “what has today become a degrading man-hunt can be turned into a calm and determined stand offered by unarmed men and women possessing the strength of suffering given to them by Jehovah. It will be then a truly religious resistance offered against the godless fury of dehumanised man.” This goes back to Gandhi’s conceptions of victimhood and sacrificial love (see Faisal Devji’s The Impossible Indian: Gandhi and the Temptation of Violence, pages 143-146 for more information). In Gandhi’s way of thought, victimhood in and of itself grants no moral dignity to the victimized. This is an admitted divisive statement; some people will argue against it tooth and nail, while others will agree that claiming victim status does not make one morally superior. That’s not a question I want to go into right now (though I suspect the former will never reconcile themselves to Gandhian morals and metaphysical ideals). What makes victimhood a path to moral virtue, then, is one’s willingness to suffer it with love. This course of action has two effects; first, it grants agency to the persecuted. The persecuted is no longer just a victim to circumstance, but an active force that has to power to decide how they are going to die. The human will being equated with the very essence of personhood in Gandhian thought, this is absolutely paramount. The second effect deals with the persecutor; by accepting the humanity of the persecutor and allowing oneself to die, the persecuted gives the persecutor the chance to, in turn, recognize the humanity of the persecuted and change his actions based of off this recognition of a shared humanity. In other words, the persecuted allows himself to become an opportunity for the persecutor’s redemption. This is a radical idea, one on par with the ideas taught by Jesus and the early Church Fathers. Gandhi’s hope was that the persecuted everywhere would come to love their persecutors so radically that it would evoke a change within the persecutors, if not at the moment of persecution than at least in the future, when they had time to reflect on their actions. This is, again, clearly not a particularly humanistic view; Gandhi subordinates the value of human life to what he sees as the ultimate values of Truth and Nonviolence. And, as Faisal Devji points out, given that the Allies were willing to sacrifice millions of lives to defeat the Axis powers, is it really fair to call out Gandhi’s own willingness to sacrifice lives to end the war? Of course, this letter also reveals just how badly Gandhi misunderstood the Nazis’ ultimate goal; Gandhi compares the Indians of South Africa to the Jews of Germany, stating “the Indians occupied precisely the same place that the Jews occupy in Germany.” This is a statement that is extremely ignorant, and unequivocally false, even at this early stage of the war. Gandhi also believed “the persecution had also a religious tinge.” This is also false; the German hostility towards the Jewish people was racial in nature. Here, Gandhi has confused the (not unprecedented, but not yet mainline) racial antisemitism of the Nazis with the theological antisemitism prevalent in Christianity. In other words, Gandhi at this stage believed that the Jewish people were being persecuted because of their beliefs and practices, and not for simply existing. Had Gandhi had realized this earlier, the way he would have wrote about the Jewish persecution in Germany may have been different. In fact, Faisal Devji goes so far as to say “Had he known about it, the Mahatma would undoubtedly have pointed to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943 as an illustration of his teachings. For this struggle was dedicated not to the victory or even the survival of the Jews trapped in Warsaw who resisted the German armed forces in an unequal battle, but rather to ‘the honor and glory of the Jewish people,’ words the uprising’s motto in defiance of all political calculation” (The Impossible Indian, 144). If you’re interested in seeing a Jewish perspective of victimhood and agency in a German concentration camp, I highly recommend Man’s Search for Meaning, the first half of which is Viktor Frankl’s memoir of his time at Auschwitz death camp (you can find some quotes from it in my Viktor Frankl tag) What we see in Gandhi is a man whose appreciation of suffering, like Mother Teresa’s, is deeply misunderstood by the secular mind. Gandhi believed above all else the supremacy of the twin values of Truth and Nonviolence, and the lengths at which he would talk about them on a theoretical level are enough to make many people uncomfortable. But this was not some cold-hearted disregard for the Jewish people. This was Gandhi’s understanding of the value of suffering, the heroism of martyrdom, and (to a fair extent) his ignorance of the Nazi state of mind. You don’t have to agree with his viewpoint, and it is fair to criticize it, but to label him a monster for it is misguided, at best. @patron-saint-of-smart-asses and @marschattpanosh, I had seen you two reblog the cursed post.™ If you have any comments about this, or want me to address any more questions and concerns about Gandhi, let me know.

#Mahatma Gandhi #Martyrdom #Suffering #Warsaw Ghetto Uprising #Holocaust

2 notes · View notes

thinkveganworld · 7 years

Text

A friend asked me to re-post this article I wrote a few years ago on the subject of Nazis in the Republican Party. What’s interesting to me is that Democrats and their corporate media mouthpieces are now using Cold War propaganda tactics and fear-mongering against Russia - the same kinds of tactics Republicans once used to justify and prop up fascists. Neither major political party is a friend to the public today. People need to know and understand history to avoid repeating it.

Nazis and the Republican Party

According to Russ Bellant, Nazi collaborators involved in the Republican Party included:

Nicholas Nazarenko, leader of a Cossack GOP ethnic unit. Nazarenko was an ex-Waffen SS officer.

Method Balco, GOP activist. Balco organized yearly memorials for a Nazi puppet regime.

Walter Melianovich, head of the GOP’s Byelorussian unit. Melianovich worked closely with many Nazi groups.

Bohdan Fedorak, leader of “Ukrainians for Bush.” Fedorak headed a Nazi group involved in anti-Jewish wartime pogroms.

Christopher Simpson writes in Blowback that in 1983, Ronald Reagan presented a Medal of Freedom, the country’s highest civilian honor, to CIA émigré program consultant James Burnham. Burnham was a psychological warfare consultant who promoted something called “liberationism.” Just before the 1952 election, the CIA worked up a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign aimed at selling Americans on expanding Cold War activities in Europe. Part of the guiding theory (given the name "liberationism”) was the idea that certain Nazi leaders from World War II should be brought in as “freedom fighters” against the USSR.

At a May 9, 1984, press conference, writer, Nazi hunter and Holocaust survivor Simon Wiesenthal said, "Nazi criminals were the principal beneficiaries of the Cold War.” The Cold War mentality, hyped by Reinhard Gehlen and other Nazis, became the shelter for tens of thousands of Nazi criminals. Helping the far right in this country to promote Cold War hysteria became the Nazi war criminals’ "reason for being.” As Christopher Simpson says, the Cold War became those criminals’ means "to avoid responsibility for the murders they had committed.”

3 notes · View notes

recycledstars · 8 years

Text

I just saw Hidden Figures! (Finally!! Australian release was so late.) And all these thoughts just … haven’t quite coalesced yet but let’s give ‘er a whirl anyway:

When the movie was released in the US I remember seeing a tumblr post + accompanying tags (@bethanyactually I think they were yours!) about the scene were Generic White Dude In Charge destroys the coloured bathroom sign. The tags were lamenting the fact that it took someone point out the problem for him to fix it and that we should pay more attention to the plight of others if we’re in a position of privilege. (I agree with this.) But there were follow ups along the lines of “he was just doing what a decent person would do” and “that’s not something to be celebrated.”

Which I actually vehemently disagree with. This story happened in the midst of Jim Crow. This is before Selma. This is before Martin Luther King had a dream. This is right around the time Rosa Parks would not give up her seat on the bus. This is the middle of the Civil Rights movement. Virginia at the time was racist af man. Nowhere in the US fought harder to keep schools segregated than Virginia. The supreme court said segregated schools were unconstitutional and what did the state of Virginia say to that? They said they would close schools rather than allow integration. And they did! They literally just closed public schools in districts that forced the issue. A whole generation was denied an education for some four or five years because the governor of Virginia was so staunchly racist. That shit ran deep.

And by the way, none of this was all that long ago. Most of you probably have parents that remember watching the moon landing live on TV - my dad talks about it and feeling this incredible since of awe at the accomplishment - and if not parents then definitely grandparents that lived through the Civil Rights movement. This is easily within living memory.

Humans are social creatures, we accept social norms because we want to fit into our social group. If, in the middle of Jim Crow, some white dude at NASA had stood up and said ‘there will be no more segregated bathrooms’ that would be a big deal. That would be something to celebrate. Even now. Even after all those attitudes seem outdated to most of us. You know why? Because they weren’t at the time. They were radical.

And I think that’s important, to view the actions of individuals from within the correct historical/cultural lens. Because it’s easy to be complacent, it’s easy to say “I would have helped Jews escape Hitler” or “I would have supported the Civil Rights movement.” It’s a lot harder to remember that being on the right side of history comes at personal risk and cost and is rarely easy. It involves standing out and that’s discomforting: because we’re social creatures and we want to fit into our social group.

It’s easy to recognise that yesterday’s leaders should have taken a stand against these things. It’s a lot harder to accept that their struggle is our struggle now. Hindsight is 20/20. Foresight is more like 20/200, but we need to not give ourselves free passes. Celebrating people who were on the forefront of progress - even when that progress is easy to take for granted by modern standards - is an important reminder that change does not come from inside your comfort zone. Not then, and not now.

So yeah, if some white dude had stuck up for desegregating the bathrooms at Langley, that would have been worthy of putting in a movie.

The problem is, that never happened.

In the book, Katherine Johnson basically says there was no coloured bathroom outside the west campus so she used the regular one and no one ever told her otherwise, so she just kept on doing it. Much like she just kept on asking until she was let into meetings, or putting her name on research reports. Her story is actually a great embodiment of “nevertheless, she persisted.”

The book talks about a sign in the cafeteria designating the table for coloured computers back in the World War II days and how a black woman called Miriam Mann kept stealing it. It was the black women at what eventually became NASA fighting to get rid of the coloured signs! Not some white guy!

Well, unless you count LBJ, but even then, he was petitioned by early leaders of the Civil Rights movement to sign executive order 11246 (which is like the opposite of every Trump EO so far) that prescribed equal opportunity in federal employment. There was a lot of desegregation around the time the NACA became NASA and yes, the management at what became NASA obviously supported or at least, didn’t hinder that progress despite the policies of Virginia at large.

And yeah, the book talks about how Katherine Johnson’s work eventually spoke for itself, and the team of engineers she worked with accepted her despite her gender and race because of the value of her contributions. She authored research reports and co-authored the research report that pretty much allowed the US to put a man in space and get him down again safely. That all happened.

But there was no character like that of That White Guy in the non-fiction novel on which the movie is based.

There was a white guy who took one of the girls under his wing - Mary Jackson’s mentor, the Jewish man whose parents were killed in a concentration camp? Yeah, that guy was real. That happened. (Not sure on the parents story … but he was Polish.) And she did fight to become an engineer, including going to court to be allowed to attend the white high school for night classes.

But That White Guy? Not so much.

That White Guy is such a stereotypical white Hollywood intrusion into a black story that solely exists to make a historical narrative more palatable to a modern (white) audience. It surreptitiously allows us to say we would “be like that guy” and not like one of those bad, racist people even though statistically, we’d be the latter. It’s a narrative choice made solely to make white people feel comfortable! And newsflash, this is not a movie that should be about white people feeling comfortable!!

I understand possibly why Hollywood makes decisions like this, because yeah, alienating your audience isn’t great for sales and to some extent getting the story to a mass audience is more important than a historically accurate rendering that no one watches but come on man. Dear (fellow) white people, you SHOULD feel uncomfortable in a period movie about race. You’re not special. It’s your legacy too. Own it. Make up for it in your activism and your choices and how you live now. But you don’t get to just insert a saviour snowflake character to project on and make history more acceptable to you. It’s so fucking offensive. And disingenuous. And a whole bunch of other things which mean I really can’t condone it as a narrative decision.

So yeah, there was Polish guy with a Jewish name who helped Mary Johnson become NASA’s first black woman engineer. That White Guy? Not so much. But who got far more screen time? Not the real Jewish guy. Wonder why that is.

(Not to mention, Kirsten Dunst’s character was inserted and I like that they cast the white woman as the racist antagonist and the white man as the progressive hero. Again, wonder why that is.)

Anyways you should still see the movie because please, support all the movies about women in STEM and black women and black women in STEM. But you should also read the book, which was written by a black woman and doesn’t pander to white people (not that I felt alienated reading it as a white person! actually I felt all nice and warm and fuzzy inside to read about the successes of black women!!!!) and, to quote my review on Instagram:

I was tearing up just in the introduction, out of gratitude for the women who forged paths that made it easier for me and my peers to follow, and out of affirmation. Because women have always been a part of science, black women have always been a part of science. And science and history belong just as much to us and especially our black sisters - #blackgirlmagic ✨ - as they do to white men. 💪🏼💪🏽💪🏾💪🏿

The movie is not a perfect or particularly faithful adaption of the historical account given in the novel, but I’m still very glad this movie exists to give these women the part in history they deserve. I’m glad that when Katherine Johnson sadly leaves us, we will all know her name and celebrate her achievements, deservedly. Truly, she’s someone I admire, someone who has become one of my idols (as a fellow lady scientist and somewhat-still-aspiring math nerd) and I had never heard her name or her achievements before this movie happened.

But y’know, I’m also very glad I read the book and I recommend you do the same.

Also I’d like to place one (1) order for Hollywood to stop taking history from women and people of colour and making white saviour-y, sexist-ish adaptions of real events. cash on delivery, ty in advance.

#hidden figures #thinky thoughts #long post #extremely long post #oops #i just have LOTS OF THOUGHTS #also white saviour narratives suck #it's late i'm tired sorry for typos

9 notes · View notes