Tuesday, December 9, 2014

The New York Review of Books Visits the Museum of the History of the Polish Jews and Stumbles Upon Bieganski

Let's go out into the woods and drink vodka. Source

On December 6, 2014, the New York Review of Books blog ran an article, "Poland's Jews: Under a New Roof" by Shelley Salamensky. The article addresses the new POLIN: Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw. The bulk of the article is very bland and unoriginal. It merely restates facts that might be found in something like a pamphlet or a Wikipedia article. Anyone who knows or cares anything about Polish-Jewish relations will be familiar with the facts relayed in the bulk of the article.

In its final paragraphs, the article presents a little Bieganski scenario. Poles are described as xenophobic, anti-modern, woodsy peasants. Excerpt:

"When in recent years I found myself in the area on research, its gentle landscape of forests and fields looked little changed from family tales…

While Polish national politics may be edging from far-right to right-center, Poland's southeast corner is a stronghold of anti-abortion, anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, and—with burgeoning Roma communities in Slovakia, just a few miles away—anti-Roma sentiment. It is still possible to encounter medieval Catholic notions of Jews as Christ-killers and money-grubbers, and while it is nearly impossible under Polish law for Jews to reclaim property confiscated in the World War II era, news of revival activity in Warsaw prompts fear that descendants of Polish Jews will show up and take their homes and farmland back.

However, so few natives who have stayed in the region have knowingly encountered Jews that this is less a matter of anti-Semitism than cultural insularity and ongoing misinformation…

In a mid-sized city near Sanok not long ago, I fell into conversation with a group of middle-aged Poles in a café. They informed me, in evident earnest, that Poland was poor today because "the Jews stole all the money from the treasury."

"When?" I asked.

"Before the war," a woman said. Others nodded.

"What did they do with it?"

"Ran off to Israel and New York."

When I asked about concentration camps, I was told that they were where Polish patriots were killed.

"Have you ever met a Jew?" I asked. A few said they'd seen some.

"What do Jews look like?" With their hands they traced bulbous noses and long sidecurls in the air.

"What would you say," I concluded after too much wódka, "if I told you I was a Jew?"…

But there is reason to believe that the museum's message of respect and understanding will be embraced, especially among younger generations exposed to new ideas by the Internet and, increasingly, employment abroad. After a thousand years, a few more shouldn't be so long to wait.

End of excerpt.

You can read Shelley Salamensky's full article here

The reader will not be focusing on the material in Salamensky's article that is merely a replay of material found elsewhere. Salamensky's original contribution is the anecdote about the allegedly anti-Semitic, backward Polaks with whom she drinks vodka.

Poland, it is implied, has been an oppressive place for Jews for a thousand years. Jews are "waiting" for tolerance in Poland. Tolerance will be imported by Poles who travel abroad and learn about it abroad, and bring it back home. And, of course, from the Internet.

"Bieganski" takes on, and dismantles, the idea that "tolerance" is "modern" and that "backward, primitive" Poland must import it from more modern locales.

I learned of this article through an email sent by a Polonian. "I wanted to cry when I saw this," the Polonian said to me.

I understand my correspondent's tears, but I wanted to confirm. "Why did you want to cry?" I asked.

My correspondent made clear why he/she wanted to cry. The article goes out of its way to depict Poles as primitive bigots. The article does this while ostensibly celebrating a much-heralded new museum dedicated to Polish Jews.

The article smears all Poles on the basis of rather flimsy grounds. A group of unnamed Poles associated Jews with money, large noses and forelocks.

News flash: it is conventional for people around the world to associate Jews with money, large noses and forelocks. Jews make this association themselves. That may be a good thing, a neutral thing, or a bad thing. One thing it is certainly not is a Polish thing.

The idea that Jews stole money from the treasury and ran off to Israel and New York is a new one for me. I have never heard that. I don't doubt that there are Poles who believe it.

Salamensky concludes her otherwise bland article with this ugly, provocative anecdote. It is what the reader will remember. This ugly, inflammatory anecdote is the takeaway.

I would never do what Salamensky does here. I would never end something that I hoped thousands of people would read with an ugly, inflammatory anecdote depicting Jews sitting around a table, handling coins – the closest analog I can come up with to Poles in a woodsy, rural location sitting around drinking vodka – and talking about what animals Poles are.

Bieganski is in the details here. No, Salamensky never says "Poles are the world's worst antisemites." She doesn't have to.

One more thing. The Polonian who sent me this link asked that I not publicly identify him/her, and I will not.

This Polonian understands that there are consequences for Polonians who speak out about the Bieganski stereotype.

I understand that, too. I have spoken out, on the record, about the Bieganski stereotype. I have paid the price, and the work has not been, for the most part, supported by Polonia. An example. I've been invited to speak by Jewish institutions. I am still waiting to be invited to speak by a Polish one. Hello, Kosciuszko Foundation. Hello, Indiana Univeristy Polish Studies Center. I spoke there under the late Tim Wiles and I would very much like to speak there again. Hello Polish American Congress.
One step in addressing the Bieganski stereotype: Polonia needs to support her own.

Update: more on this topic here

33 comments:

  1. I am middle-aged. I am of Polish parentage and have traveled to Poland frequently. In all the conversations I've had with people roughly my own age I have never heard anybody say that Jews stole all the money from the treasury before the war or ran off to Israel and New York with it. The author seems intent on implying that the Poles she spoke to thought there are so few Jews in Poland because they all ran away before the war.

    Nor have I ever heard any Polish people say that only Polish patriots died in the concentration camps. Is the author suggesting these Poles sitting in the café were Holocaust deniers?

    The author claims these Poles said they had seen some Jews and traced bulbous noses and sidecurls in their hair. I have been going to Poland since the early seventies. I have never seen this particular kind of Jewish person anywhere. I'm fairly sure these Poles never saw that stereotype either except in books or paintings. Why would they say they had?

    You would have to live in a land without television, radio, the cinema, newspapers to believe any of the things the author claims these people said. Poland is a modern country. People have access to the media! And it’s fair to say that Polish radio and TV channels cover a lot of history.

    I don't deny there are some racists and bigots in Poland; there are racists and bigots everywhere. Most Poles, however, are glad that there ‘s a revival of Jewish and Yiddish culture and are pleased that since 1989 they’ve been able to understand the history of their country better. The author may have forgotten that that privilege was denied them for 44 years.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe you should have some kind of mechanism for grading the comments on your blog, Danusha, like some others do - with a plus or a minus or whatever. If you did, then I'd give the above comment the thumbs-up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Linking to the comment of 'Anonymous' about Poland's history, I'm reading a book published in Poland in the seventies about the Middle Ages and Renaissance in Poland and so far there hasn't been a single mention of any Jewish presence in the country! Post-communist Poland has a lot of catching up to do!

    As for Shelley Salamensky's article, I thought it was mostly positive. I assume she is fluent in Polish and that she didn't need an interpreter and so I see no reason to doubt the truthfulness of her account. What she stumbled upon wasn't exactly the backwoodsmen from "Deliverance", but "Anonymous" (above) may have to agree that it's somewhat difficult to defend the indefensible.

    The question of judging people according to whether they are "toothless peasants" - (in T. Snyder's famous description) - or urban sophisticates is something else. Just because you're a suave city-dweller doesn't mean you're going to be free from prejudice and the converse is true about villagers: just because you live in the sticks doesn't mean you're necessarily a raving bigot.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Andrei GolembowskiDecember 9, 2014 at 4:31 PM

    It seems like the latest in "advocacy journalism". This story seems to have already written when she was born - it was known already then that her parents would teach her what to write in this story. Look at the UVA case of Sabrina Rubin Erdely - any chance that she was biased because of what she was taught about these "others" (WASP males) by her inculcating parents? There is a vicious cancer at work here and no one wants to address this.

    On a slightly separate note, one might ask the writer what she thinks she really is. She begins her article by describing "Canaan"... If the Sanok people really did "take her for a Pole", might that suggest that perhaps her background really does lie with Poles rather than any Canaanites? Has she looked in the mirror and asked how she is what she is? Any consideration as to whether she is where she is now because sometime in the future she actually did have Polish ancestry? Perhaps even more than any Canaanite ancestry? Has she thought about why, say, Arafat did have a "bulbous" nose and she does not? If she were black would she not ask where did I really come from? Or would that cause too much of a midlife identity crisis? Of course, you can "consider" yourself what you want to consider yourself but that won't necessarily make it so - a donkey is a donkey and an elephant that thinks it's a donkey is still an elephant. Moreover, denying the part of yourself that comes out so vividly is denying a portion of your ancestry which makes the spirits of your ancestors weep.

    She can make all kinds of excuses for herself (my ggggmother was no doubt raped by some drunken peasant) but, looking at her picture, I just think of her as one of our lost Polish souls. Some are lost to the Germans as in the Lebensborn program but others are picked up by other cultures whose benefits and perks are greater than those offered by our culture. And the ancestors weep on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Andrei GolembowskiDecember 9, 2014 at 4:38 PM

    One also has to wonder here about the veracity of the article - but, given the subject, I am willing to bet that fact-checking was fast tracked if it took place at all... Who today remembers Jerzy Kosinski? What he wrote about Poles? That his book Being There was purest plagiarism?

    The world's oldest form of attack is to accuse others of wanting to attack you. They never went to "witches" and said we don't like you so we'll kill you - they always said "you are witches and no doubt you are scheming against us". These women would say "no, we're not!" And the answer would be "prove it!" And here we go again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Forget the Polonophobia. Shelley Salamensky’s leftist agenda is transparent. He wrote that, “….Poland's southeast corner is a stronghold of anti-abortion, anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-immigrant…” How awful!

    Advocacy journalism? And how! Obviously, Shelley Salamensky would have us believe that all the changes that liberals have forced on the USA, since the 1960’s (through media propaganda, mis-education, high-pressure tactics, and court decisions) are all fine and dandy, and should now be forced on Poles.

    How backward and bigoted of those Polish hicks to protect their own culture, and resist the left-wingers shoving their views down the Poles’ throats!

    Bravo, Sanok-area Poles!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the point is the political context in which these things are written. It is hardly a neutral one.

      Delete
  7. @ J.Peczkis - Jan, without getting into a lengthy debate with you about leftists v rightists - (it's too near Christmas anyway, and there's stuff to do -) I just want to ask you if that's a typo of yours where you said that Shelley Salamensky was a "he"? it's made pretty clear in the NY Review article that Shelley is a "she".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct about my error. Gender-neutral names can be confusing.

      As for rightists and leftists, you may be interested in a left-wing book that I had recently reviewed about tolerance in Poland, as defined (or re-defined) by leftists. To see it, please click on my name in this specific posting.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the link. I'll read your review when I get a chance. I'm truly amazed at the sheer volume of your reading (and reviewing).

      Delete
    3. Jan - I've just read your review. Pretty forthright stuff. I'm sure you know what you're doing, but don't you think that describing someone as a 'neo-Stalinist' is a bit OTT and, in fact, could be actionable?

      Delete
    4. In reply to my own question - I've just checked on Wiki and it looks as if the description "neo-Stalinist" is a fairly common, if derogatory, term bandied about by academics.

      Good grief.

      Delete
    5. Hi, Michal,

      neo-Stalinism is a respectable term for those who wish to rehabilitate Stalin.

      There is a less respectable use of the term: anyone who isn't a Dmowski style Polish chauvinist.

      I have been accused of being a neo-Stalinist by these crazies.

      So, using "neo-Stalinist" to talk about someone who wants to put a positive spin on Stalinism is respectable, in my view.

      Using "neo-Stalinist" to demonize anyone who isn't a Dmowski style chauvinist is not intellectually respectable.

      Just my two cents.

      Delete
  8. For what it's worth, there is more on this topic here:

    http://bieganski-the-blog.blogspot.com/2014/12/when-someone-you-love-says-something.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. The definition of a neo-Stalinist is simple: One who recycles Stalinist-era attacks on devout and patriotic Poles by calling them anti-Semites, fascists, Nazis, etc. That's all it means.

    It does not have to mean admiring Stalin, and it has nothing to do with supporting Dmowski.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Naturally, I understand what Jan is getting at. There are clearly people out there who are quite happy repeating the anti-Polish propaganda and cliches first promulgated by Stalin's apparatchiks, who used the same as a means of absolving their own war against the Armia Krajowa, for example, or as a way of justifying their own territorial designs and their subjugation of a sovereign state, but my point is that the term 'neo-Stalinist' is unnecessarily provocative. In fact, in Jan's case, I think it is actually self-defeating. By giving common currency to the description, it rather minimizes the impact of Stalin-era crimes than otherwise, given what we now know about life in the USSR of the time. Even fervent Russian nationalists are faced with the paradox of Stalin the great war leader and Stalin the supreme tyrant.
    I believe people should think long and hard before employing terms like 'neo-Hitlerite' or 'neo-Stalinist'. Cliches tend to enter the language very easily. (Viz- the recent case of a writer describing Poland as "the home of the death camps").

    As far as Dmowski is concerned, it seems that although they were compelled to work together, the great pianist and statesman Paderewski never actually warmed to the extreme nationalist. Dmowski was not the world's most sensitive person, it appears: apparently he described music as mere "noise".




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have read and reviewed Paderewski's memoirs, and find no explanation for his apparent falling out with Dmowski. I have never heard of Dmowski making derogatory comments about music.

      In fact, those who knew Dmowski described him as a very educated and cultured person. His nationalism was described as non-extremist and his personality a jovial one free of bitterness, vindictiveness, etc.--quite the opposite of the stereotyped nationalist. For more detail, please read the first comment when you click on my name in this specific posting.

      Then again, one would not expect a bulldog to be a cuddly lap dog. One would also not expect a ferocious defender of Poland's national interests to be exactly Mr. Nice Guy.

      As for the term neo-Stalinist, since when has the other side cared a whit about being "unnecessarily provocative", especially with regards to Poles? If anything, Poles have been much too forbearing for much too long. That's why they've been dumped on so long.

      I cannot imagine the term neo-Stalinist taking away from Stalin's crimes, if only because the world generally only cares about Nazi crimes against Jews, and does not care about Stalin's crimes--least of all if they were against Poles.

      Finally, Stalin's war against the Polish soul was of much more long-term import than Stalin's war against the Polish nation. For this reason alone, the current leftist war against the Polish soul makes the neo-Stalinist term all the more appropriate.

      Delete
    2. Maybe Dmowski wasn't being derogatory about music and maybe he literally just heard 'noise' - some people just don't have an ear for music - but I imagine it was hardly the kind of comment that Paderewski would have appreciated. I can't remember where I came across that particular anecdote. Must have been in one of the Paderewski biographies.

      Delete
    3. You realize don't you that without Dmowski at Versailles there would have been no Poland, right? Dmowski was one of the greatest Poles of the 20th century - whether you consider him "extreme nationatlist" or an "anti-semite" is also absolutely irrelevant for purposes of that assessment. I also suspect that you have never read his books other than perhaps an occasional cut-out out of context?

      Delete
    4. Did I call Dmowski an anti-Semite? That's a description you have just supplied. And nowhere did I disparage his efforts at Versailles. Please re-read my posts. I was merely commenting on his working relationship with Paderewski. And apparently, Pilsudski wasn't too keen on him either.

      Delete
    5. @ Haeli Unlikely

      And even the description "extreme nationalist" does not imply any criminality (unlike some other descriptions found on this blog post). By all the accounts I've read of him, Dmowski may have been an extremely clever and able person, but his personality and his extreme views tended to antagonize many people

      Delete
  11. Salamensky's piece not only offends for pushing crass stereotypes, but also on another level.

    Salamensky claims that it was "nearly impossible" under Polish law for Jews to reclaim property confiscated in the World War II era. In fact, thousands upon thousands of properties were reclaimed by Jews without incident. Recent research shows that several hundred properties were reclaimed in each of these three small towns alone: Wlodawa, Zamosc, and Parczew. This is not something that was previously unkown. According to the American Jewish Year Book, 5708 (1947-1948), which closely monitored conditions in Poland, "The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly."
    See: http://www.glaukopis.pl/pdf/czytelnia/Tangled_Web_3.pdf

    Rather than carry out some minimal research, Salamensky chooses to rely on dark legends that conform to her stereotypical view of Poles. This is driven home by her omission of the widely known Gwozdziec synagogue project that took place in Sanok, in favour a "more representative" episode in that town that she chooses to dwell on.
    See:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/arts/16iht-synagogue16.html?_r=0
    http://www.handshouse.org/painting-workshops/

    It is also worth comparing her piece to David Mazower's "A Jewish festival in a town without Jews" - See: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30214204

    ReplyDelete
  12. It has been alleged that people who say that Poles committed the crimes at Jedwabne are "neo Stalinists."

    Well, the IPN says the following, according to Wikipedia: "The perpetrators of the crime sensu stricto were Polish inhabitants of Jedwabne and its environs"

    No, the IPN is not made up of neo-Stalinists.

    And, no, I do not want a lengthy debate about neo Stalinists here. I just wanted to answer that charge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) report on Jedwabne has to be read with caution, as it contains inconsistencies and ignores a great deal of the evidence. On the one hand, its author lays the blame on a group of Poles for carrying out the actual murder of several hundred Jews; on the other hand, he admits that he is unable to establish the precise role of the Germans. How then can he establish the precise role of the Poles, especially when he ignores most of the eyewitness testimony? The forensic expert, whose report was buried by IPN, severely criticized the restrictions placed on the exhumation.

      The first eyewitness reports conveyed shortly after the events by two Jews who escaped from Jedwabne underscored the direct involvement of the Germans:

      (1) “With the help of local farmers, the Germans gathered the Jews of these places, with the rabbi and leaders of the community at the front, in the market square. At first, they beat them cruelly and forced them to wrap themselves in their tallitot, to jump and dance, accompanied by singing. All this was done under an unceasing flood of lashes from cudgels and rubber whips. At the end, they pushed all the Jews, while beating and kicking them, into a long threshing house and set it on fire with them inside.” [Deliverance: The Diary of Michael Maik, A True Story (Kedumim, Israel: Keterpress Enterprises, 2004)]

      (2) “Later on, some Jews who had fled Jedwabne told us when the Germans first entered their town, they had herded all the Jews into a barn and set it ablaze. Anyone who tried to get out was cut down by machine-gun fire.” [Harold Zissman, The Warriors: My Life As a Jewish Soviet Partisan (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2005)]

      The mention of German machine-gunning is not surprising given that hundreds of German bullets were found inside the barn where the first group of Jews was likely shot before the barn was set on fire, which occurred only after the arrival of the second, larger group. That robbery was not the motive – contrary to Gross’s suggestion – is evidenced by all the valuables retrieved during the exhumation. Several hundred Jews managed to flee from Jedwabne; at least 150 returned and were housed in several buildings until they were deported.

      No one report is sacrosanct. The two international commissions sent to investigate the pogroms in Poland in 1919 produced four reports that differed considerably among themselves. Those reports are generally ignored by Jewish historians for allegedly “whitewashing” Polish crimes.

      Delete
  13. Okay, Danusha. I suppose you don't want a lengthy debate about Dmowski and Paderewski either. I guess we have strayed a bit from Shelley Salamensky's article.

    Looking forward to any guest blog of hers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No problem with Dmowski v Paderewski.

      I don't want the debate about the term "neo Stalinist." I have been labeled a "neo Stalinist" by the small clique of people who call anyone who isn't a Polish chauvinist a neo Stalinist.

      I am not interested in the conversation.

      Those who are interested in what Jan has to say about neo Stalinism, can clique on his ample and frequently supplied links.

      I think it's an unhelpful and inaccurate term. I don't think it's a good use of time to debate it.

      I will politely refrain from posting any more of Jan's defenses of the term. If he wants to post just one more link defending the term, he may.

      Delete
  14. This blog entry sums up this blog's position to Dmowski:

    http://bieganski-the-blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/remembrance-without-commemoration-brian.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank you, Dr. Goska, for one more turn. I am sorry that you were called a neo-Stalinist. If this helps, note that I have been called a lot worse things. It just goes with the territory.

    This neo-Stalinist situation all started when the aptly-named neo-Stalinist Jan T. Gross resurrected Stalinist-era falsehoods of Poles as Nazi collaborators and Jew killers. His Jedwabne “revelation”, based on the shoddiest of sources, made him a great hero in the media, which just loves Jewish-victimization anti-Polish stories. The more lurid, the better.

    Gross’ slanderous accusation was this: The Poles, acting freely and on their own, murdered the Jews of Jedwabne by shoving them into a barn and burning them alive, while the Germans merely stood around and took pictures.

    Later, the IPN commission was touted by the media for “proving Jan T. Gross right”. IT DID NO SUCH THING.

    I have studied the IPN Proceedings, WOKOL JEDWABNEGO, and have written a detailed review with supportive quotations. Please click on my name in this specific posting, and read the first Comment.

    The IPN Commission came to two conclusions: 1) The neo-Stalinist one that Poles were responsible for the massacre at Jedwabne, and 2) The German role in the barn-burning is inconclusive.

    The foregoing two contentions CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE! If it is definitely said that Poles were responsible for burning the Jews of Jedwabne, then it cannot simultaneously be said that the German role was inconclusive. Conversely, if it is definitely said that the German role is inconclusive, then in cannot simultaneously be said that Poles are responsible for the massacre of Jews at Jedwabne!

    Since the German role is inconclusive, it CANNOT be said that Poles definitely acted freely, and most definitely it CANNOT be said (as neo-Stalinist Jan T. Gross had asserted) that the Germans merely watched and took pictures.

    What probably happened was this: The Germans forced the Poles to kill Jedwabne’s Jews. Note that this is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from Jan T. Gross’ accusation that Poles freely conducted the massacre while the Germans just stood around and took pictures. Thus, the media-promoted notion that the IPN investigation “proved Jan T. Gross correct” is EGREGIOUSLY FALSE.

    When the evidence against a defendant is inconclusive, the accusation against the defendant is NOT PROVED, and the defendant must be acquitted. Since the German role is inconclusive, it follows that the degree and free-will of Polish action is ALSO inconclusive. Therefore, Polish guilt has not been proved, and Poland is NOT GUILTY.

    It is high time that these neo-Stalinist lies about “proved Polish responsibility for Jedwabne” come to a well-deserved and long-overdue death. The fact that they don’t speaks volumes about the lack of integrity in the media.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is Jan that I have to ask if the facts are actually wanted here. My own feeling is that they get in the way of the political agenda. For example, if this were about what the Nazis did or didn't do, don't you think the other countries that were in the Axis Powers would be mentioned now and again?

      But weren't they quietly removed from the arena ages ago?

      Now articles are coming through in which even Germany isn't mentioned, but Poland is featured strongly.

      One of the difficulties of talking about this - apart from the fact that the whole area is a dangerous swamp full of the crocodiles of Political Correctness (and all those crocodiles are pointing at us!) - is that I am not wanting all the countries who were in the Axis to be continually harangued and vilified and told how awful they are.

      Isn't the truth that both sides in WW2 did some terrible ungodly things, and neither side has the moral high ground from which to judge the other?

      And isn't it true that, as the Inspired Scriptures warn, "the whole world" is lying in the power of the one who is called "the father of the lie"? The one who told the first lie ever told in Eden.

      And maybe it can even help us to note how the world has erected a smokescreen of Evolution, Evolution, Evolution, so that we miss the urgent, vital, message of Genesis?

      Delete
    2. Agenda? Of course there is an agenda. It is called the Holocaust Industry. Please read my detailed review of Norman Finkelstein's classic work, which can be found by clicking on my name in this specific posting. For an interview with Finkelstein in which he specifically warns the Poles of what is afoot, please check the Comments under my review.

      Finkelstein paid the price for courageously speaking the truth. He was denied tenure at DePaul University because of his book, although some other pretext was used.

      In the many years since Finkelstein wrote THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY, it has grown even more bold in its attacks on Poland.

      As for spiritual matters, which you always bring up, I think that it is more than possible that Satan has a special hatred for Poland because of the devoutness of many of her people.

      Delete
    3. Well, bear in mind Jan that the Inspired Scriptures tell us that "the whole world" is lying in the power of Satan. He is called both "the father of the lie" (as he told the first lie ever told, in Eden), and also "a manslayer".

      And they also tell us that all the kingdoms of the world - all, no exceptions - lie in his power. He is the one pulling the strings.

      And, in harmony with that warning, we see the truth of World War 2 being turned on its head within living memory of the events.

      I have read about Norman Finkelstein. He is a brave and outspoken man, but certainly his career will have suffered if he stood up for the truth.

      In "Bieganski", Danusha records what happened to Bob Lamming, who lost both job and teaching career, after he protested - politely protested - the teaching of "Maus" in the Catholic College where he taught.

      Delete
  16. "The Holocaust Industry" is one of the most offensive terms there is.

    I am grateful that there are people who study and disseminate knowledge of the Holocaust.

    And, no, I don't want to debate this topic here, either. Please don't post more about it. If people want to discuss it they can go to your link.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All right.

      I refer the reader to a book that has recently come out about this subject. To see my English-language review of this Polish-language work, please click on my name in this specific post.

      Delete

Comments are moderated.
Your comment is more likely to be posted if:
Your comment includes a real first and last name.
Your comment uses Standard English spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
Your comment uses I-statements rather than You-statements.
Your comment states a position based on facts, rather than on ad hominem material.
Your comment includes readily verifiable factual material, rather than speculation that veers wildly away from established facts.
T'he full meaning of your comment is clear to the comment moderator the first time he or she glances over it.
You comment is less likely to be posted if:
You do not include a first and last name.
Your comment is not in Standard English, with enough errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar to make the comment's meaning difficult to discern.
Your comment includes ad hominem statements, or You-statements.
You have previously posted, or attempted to post, in an inappropriate manner.
You keep repeating the same things over and over and over again.