Antisemitism in Europe

From Greece, Harry Papasotiriou writes: "Christopher Jones needs to clarify his views somewhat, if he wishes not to be identified as an apologist of Hitlerism. Let us in good faith accept his statement: "Obviously the end was cataclysmic and in retrospect, any possible democratic or monarchical alternative to the Nazi regime would have been preferable." Nonetheless, in an earlier posting he seemed to approve of the Nazi "Germanification of the German economy", presumably viewing German Jews as not German. He persistently rails against some "Zentralrat", presumably some Jewish body, making it sound like the center of some vast network or conspiracy. He produced a list of Jewish members of the Franklin Roosevelt administration, as if this would explain Roosevelt's policy toward Stalin. Perhaps his undisputable anti-Semitism is not of the neo-Nazi variant, but is rather like the older anti-Semitism of European right-wing circles before the era of the two world wars, for example in late 19th century France at the time of the Dreyfus affair. But he ought to be aware that we Europeans are no longer prepared to tolerate that older variant of European anti-Semitism, in the light of what happened to European Jews during the brief moment of Nazi domination over much of our Continent. That does not make us supporters of Sharon's policies, which are overwhelmingly criticized in Europe, nor does it link us to the "Zentralrat", whatever that body is. It means that we are truly ashamed about what happened in our continent, supposedly the center of modern civilization, during the dark era of Hitler and Stalin and all their miserable collaborators".

RH: I did not interpret "Germanification of the German economy" as having anything to do with the Jews, but rather as a reference to the autarchy which Hitler promoted. Autarchy, an extreme form of protectionism, meant that, when I was in Germany. we had ersatz coffee, not real coffee. Globalization is the direct opposite of autarchy.

Christopher Jones answers Harry Papasotiriou "How a historian and political scientist like Harry Papasotiriou can ignore the existence of the "Zentralrat der Juden" in Germany is incredible. Of course there is a Zionist-Jewish conspiracy, if not I wouldn't see Michael Friedman, newly rehabilitated on my morning news broadcasts from Germany. He was expelled as vice president of the Zentralrat and fired from his position as moderator of "Vorsicht Friedman" because he was a cocaine addict and was caught with several Ukrainian prostitutes in a Berlin Hotel. The Zentralrat is an organization that coordinates activities to promote Jews inside Germany. It is partly funded by the German government. So tell me, how could Friedman get back on TV as an editorial commentator? Do you seriously think that any full blooded German likes this individual? He says that 80% of Germany is a "braune Sumpf" or brown swamp. Do you believe that as a "European?"

As an eminent scholar, Mr Papasotiriou should know that the famous "Neo Cons" began their lives as socialist Jews and moved on to the right as a better way to make the Palestinians disappear. The Jewish/Zionist Neo-Con goal is clear: to dominate the Middle East by dominating the US in order to completely annihilate the Palestinians -- the Zionist final solution. Finally, Harry Papsotiriou claims to speak for all Europeans. For a European like me and one who became European through choice, he is starting to use the language of exclusivity so cherished by Adolf Hitler. There are many Europeans who agree with me and who consider many figures of the old French right like Charles Maurras great patriots. In the last elections to the European parliament the result was clear for all to see. The Front National doubled its vote and the Mouvement pour la France of the neo monarchist Philippe de Villers scored an impressive 6 percent. The total "populist" right scored close to 18 % -- I will not go into the vote for Vlaamskeblok, or UKIP in the UK".
Christopher Jones and John Heelan are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but they agree in condemning US coverage of the Middle East situation. Christopher writes: "Let me thank John Heelan for his frankness and solidarity, I have noted that instead of addressing the issues raised, if they can be disputed at all, some WAISers have personalized the argument into a "us against the anti-semite". This is offensive in the extreme because I do not consider myself an antisemite. The list of Jews in FDR's government for example, was an attempt to show that Jewish influence over US policy goes back a long, long time. This influence, which is now exerted by a foreign power (Israel), is at the heart of the "War on Terror" which is really a war on radical Islam. I was criticized because I said that I considered ABC News less reliable as the Glasgow Herald because Michael Eisner is Jewish. I sent in a rebuttal about this, detailing Eisner's antics, bullying and interfering in journalistic independence. However, as Jim Tent wisely wrote, most on both the left and right have lost confidence in US reporting on the Middle East and in particular in the US press' ability to report objectively on Israel's tactics in Gaza and the West Bank. American WAISers are just going to have to live with this fact. I am sincerely sorry if some of my messages have caused anger among WAISers, but this subject is (hidden) at the epicenter of the world's political problems. Until the Arab world perceives that the US can stand up to Israel and the American Jewish lobby, the possibility of a "firestorm," is very real.

Finally, most liberal minded Jews are offended at the word "conspiracy." But unfortunately it is there and quite easy to detect. For example, I could have added that Michael Friedman was engaged by an old "Kirsch" group station that was bought early last year by an Israeli multimillionaire. Does anybody think for a minute that Martin Hohman and General Günzel will find a job so fast after their "infamous" remarks?".

RH: Americans may not like it, but what Christopher says represents a virtual consensus of informed world opinion. The latest manifestation of the Israeli government's attitude is its contemptuous rejection of the International Court's criticism of the wall it is building in Palestine territory.

 

Ronald Hilton -


Webmaster