Friday, July 20, 2018

"The History of Jihad from Muhammad to ISIS" Robert Spencer's New Book




"The History of Jihad from Muhammad to Isis" by Robert Spencer


Friend, this is what you need to do. Go to your favorite brick-and-mortar store, or your favorite online site, and purchase a copy of Robert Spencer's, "The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to Isis." Producing this book was a tremendous act of courage by Spencer and Bombardier Books. The same opponents of Western Civilization who rioted over the Danish Muhammad cartoons, who slaughtered the team at French humor magazine Charlie Hebdo, who murdered 37 innocent Turks at the Sivas Massacre, and who stabbed and shot the Japanese and Italian translators, and the Norwegian publisher, of Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" – those same dark forces want to riot and stab and bomb and slaughter over the words on these pages. Spencer and Bombardier deserve at the very least your investment in its full purchase price.

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Free Polish Books

I have about fifteen Polish books to give away. They are maybe about forty years old. They are from Poland, and Poland back then didn't have great paper, so the paper is brittle and yellowed, and they do smell like old books. 

Most of the text is in Polish. Some are in English. Topics include Polish folk tales, folk architecture, every day life, and a couple of basic readers for those studying the Polish language. Some are picture books. One is a novel. I want to send them all to one person. I don't want to provide any more details. If you want these books, you'd be getting a bunch of general, introduction-to-Polish-culture books from communist-era Poland. 

All I ask is that you pay for postage. I've not yet had them weighed so I don't know how much it would cost. I'm guessing about ten dollars but that's just a guess. Media mail is very cheap. 

Let me know. If' I don't hear in about a week, I will recycle them. 

Monday, July 9, 2018

Interview about Bieganski



Recently I was contacted by Polish journalist, Aleksandra Rybinska. Her questions and my full answers are below. You can read the interview in Polish, here

I'm a Polish-American. I was born in the US of immigrant family. My parents were from peasant families. My dad was Polish. My mom was Slovak. My dad mined coal as a child. This was a typical job for Polish immigrants. My mom cleaned houses. This is also a typical immigrant job.

I went to graduate school and earned a PhD, which is not a typical thing for a Polish-American of my generation to do. I was supposed to become a house cleaner or factory worker.

In grad school, I was often treated with hostility and contempt. This surprised me. Professors insulted me openly in class, or one-on-one in private meetings. Not all professors, but plenty.

The insults' theme was that Poles are ignorant, bigoted, primitive, anti-Semites.

The prejudice I faced in grad school inspired my dissertation and book, "Bieganski, the Brute Polak Stereotype, Its Role in Polish Jewish Relations and American Popular Culture."

In that book, I talk about how American, Western European, and Israeli culture cultivate and disseminate an image of Poles and other Eastern Europeans as brutes. We are supposed to be stupid, brutal, hateful, dirty, and anti-Semitic. This image is found in films, in novels, in TV shows, in poetry, in memoirs, in news accounts, and in academic writing.

When and if Polish-Americans resist this image, they are told that they are resisting exactly *because* they are brutes. They are in denial about their own nature.

I document this extensively in the book. I cite film after film, novel after novel. Readers are often shocked by the sheer amount of data. It is undeniable that Americans, Western Europeans, and many Israelis have an unconscious bias against Poles.

If your readers hear nothing else from me, they need to hear this. If they care at all about addressing stereotypes of Poles, they must read "Bieganski," either the English language version or the Polish language version available from Wysoki Zamek publishing. They should also read my Bieganski blog.

Polish people have not addressed this stereotype in a strategic way, and many of their efforts are self-sabotaging.

This brings me to your first question.

"The relationship between Israel and Poland soured after the Polish parliament adopted the so-called Holocaust law. The reaction of many Israeli politicians and members of the Jewish diaspora surprised the Polish government and many average Poles, who thought that all the historical facts were known and agreed upon. Were they naive to think so? Are we still settling our accounts?"

Aleksandra, the Polish government made a huge mistake. Because the Polish government is clueless.

Forgive me for repeating myself, but I must. Poles MUST read "Bieganski." They must inform themselves about the Brute Polak stereotype. It is pervasive. A good part of the time, the Brute Polak stereotype, not objective reality, fashions how people think about Poles and Polish-Jewish relations.

Poles have said to me, "Oh, your book is not necessary, because Poles are no longer peasant immigrants. Now they are computer programmers and entrepreneurs."

The human mind doesn't work that way. Stereotypes follow the dictates of what the mind needs to be true.

The Act on the Institute of National Remembrance, what is often referred to as the Polish Holocaust Speech Law, is a public relations disaster. It is a disaster that never needed to have happened, if only anyone in power in Poland had read my work.

To repeat. The Brute Polak stereotype is widespread. People who aren't even aware that they harbor prejudices against Poles often reveal, upon questioning, that they DO harbor prejudices against Poles. My informants would often say to me, "I have no prejudices against Poles. I would never tell a dumb Polak joke." But then, upon further questioning, they would say things like, "I can never forgive the Poles for the Holocaust." Or, "I knew he was Polish so I just assumed he was anti-Semitic."

When people who harbor the Brute Polak stereotype hear that Poland has instituted a law criminalizing some speech about the Holocaust, these people automatically conclude that Poland is ashamed of having carried out the Holocaust, and, out of its shame, Poland is living up to the brute image and suppressing free speech.

With this law, Poland shot itself in the foot. Poland sabotaged itself. Poland played right into the hands of those who despise Poles.

What can and should Poles and Polonians be doing? I offer a plan of action at the following blog post, entitled, "There's Hope! What You Can Do about The Crisis in Polonian Leadership, Organization and Vision." Here's the link: http://bieganski-the-blog.blogspot.com/2011/11/theres-hope-what-you-can-do-about.html

Aleksandra, your next question.

"Today politicians in Poland accuse each other of not having done enough to rectify lies or half-truths told about the role of Poles in WWII and to not have promoted the Polish historical narrative enough. Do we indeed have ourselves to blame?"

I'm from the US, but I have visited Poland five times, first in 1978. Each visit was long. In 1988-89 I lived in Poland for the year. In addition to having lived in Poland, I've also lived and worked in Africa and Asia. Both times I lived and worked in countries classified as among the poorest on earth.

As someone who has lived internationally, I can say that I found daily life in Poland to be very hard. In fact, in some ways, life in Poland under Communism was harder than daily life in the Central African Republic. Yes, in Africa I had to confront the unpredictable violence of a failed state, pervasive parasites and disease, and equatorial heat that sucked the life out of you. No electricity, no running water. But in Africa there was hope. This isn't just my subjective opinion. Polls show that Africans are exceptionally hopeful. See, for example, the 2013 Pew Poll of Global Attitudes, here.

Poland had been through hell. Hell, Aleksandra. Hell. When I visited for the first time, in 1978, I was walking past people who had seen the Nazi invasion, the Blitzkrieg, concentration camps, resistance, the Soviet invasion, betrayal at Yalta, and one uprising after another crushed.

The long lines. The malaise. The Kafkaesque challenges of daily life, like acquiring feminine sanitary supplies.

During those same years, I, as an American, never had to face hunger or poverty or the aftereffects of my country having been invaded by the Nazis and the Soviets simultaneously.

As an American, I did not live under an oppressive regime that lied about me and my people. I did not lack for food, and I did not lack for psychological sustenance, either. I could turn on the TV, pick up a novel, go to school, and hear about heroic Americans, and indeed heroic women from New Jersey, my home state, like Molly Pitcher and Tempe Wicke who aided the American Revolution.

People need stories. Poles needed stories to get through the Soviet era. So they told heroic stories. It's not my place to judge this.

Let's compare how Poles tell their own story to how the Japanese tell their own story. I once taught a class with students who were born in Japan and other students who were born in China. A Japanese student gave a presentation in which she insisted that Japanese people are very peaceful and could teach the world about peace.

The Chinese students, who were normally quite stoic, looked as if they were going to rise up and do damage to this student. The Chinese were too shy to speak up publicly, but they sent me lengthy notes afterward saying that no Japanese person had a right to talk about peace.

Japanese prime ministers have worshipped at Yasukuni, a shrine interring war criminals. Comfort Women and their representatives are not satisfied with Japan's post-war handling of their victimization. When we think of WW II atrocities, we think of Nazi Germany, not Imperial Japan, even though Japan committed atrocities every bit as horrific as those of Japan.

Courageous historian Iris Chang, author of the 1997 "The Rape of Nanking," struggled to bring to light the suffering the Japanese visited on the Chinese. Her work, and attacks by Japanese nationalists, were so overwhelming that they contributed to her 2004 suicide. Japan has whitewashed its history, and the world has cooperated.

And don't get me started on how history is suppressed in the Muslim world. Orhan Pamuk won a Nobel Prize. He *mentioned* the Armenian genocide. And "modern, liberal" Turkey arrested him!

And how about the US? Many of my students have never heard of the My Lai Massacre. I guarantee you that none of them have heard of the Lattimer Massacre or the Ludlow Massacre or the Homestead Massacre, all massacres of workers, often immigrants, during the period of Polish and other Eastern and Southern European immigration to the US.

My students don't know that approximately 1,300 white people were lynched, and a fair number of them were immigrants. They don't know about the lynching of Leo Frank or the Scientific Racism that was almost universally accepted in early twentieth-century America and that inspired Nazism.

No. I'm not excusing Poles for not having perfectly balanced history books in schools or perfectly balanced coverage of WW II in the press or in museums or monuments. I am, rather, rejecting a standard that applies *only to Poles.*

We all know that history is contested and open to debate. We in the US are still debating the Civil War. In 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia, Heather Heyer, a protester, was killed by another American in a fight over a Civil War statue. Western Europe is still debating how best to tell the history of the Crusades and the Witch Craze of hundreds of years ago. Israelis have not reached agreement on the balanced history of the founding of their state. Why is Poland expected to live up to a standard that other nations have never reached?

Here's why. Because it plays into the Brute Polak stereotype endlessly to repeat that Poles are such uniquely primitive, hateful people that they can't tell their own history correctly. This charge is a way to demonize and condescend to Poles.

"You wrote in your February 19, 2018, Haaretz article, "How Poles Are More Vilified as 'Bestial' Brute Jew Killers Than German Nazis Themselves" that 'Poles are more vilified as brute Jew killers than the Nazis themselves.' Why is that so? It was the Germans that perpetrated the Holocaust. Not the Poles."

Aleksandra, yes. Poles are often more vilified than German Nazis themselves. Why? Please forgive me for repeating myself, but you must read my book. Seriously. And, after you have read it, let's do another interview. In any case, the answer is provided in detail in the book. A key chapter is entitled "The Necessity of Bieganski."

"There was indeed anti-Semitism in Poland before the war. Some scholars claim that it stemmed from a deep-rooted Catholicism. But it was Poland where over the centuries many Jews found shelter, who were persecuted elsewhere. The Polish-Jewish history is long and many Poles risked their lives to save Jews. But this doesn’t seem to matter today. Did the events of WII wipe that common history out entirely?"

Many would argue that the interwar era, that is 1918-1939, is the period of the most anti-Semitism in Polish history. As you say, many attribute this anti-Semitism to Catholicism. That is one, but not the only, reason that Bieganski exists. Much of the push to redefine the Holocaust as a product of primitive, Polish Catholic peasants, is a three-pronged push.

First prong: demonize Catholicism. This prong serves the Marxist left. Marxism has always been at war with Western Civilization's Judeo-Christian roots. Don't get me wrong. I support realistic and necessary criticism of Catholicism. I support coverage of the sex abuse crisis, for example. But the Christophobic left's hatred of the Judeo-Christian tradition is every bit as scary and deadly as anti-Semitism. To these Christophobic, leftist ideologues, the Holocaust is merely a commodity that exists to be exploited in their war against the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Second prong: those who want to exploit the Holocaust for their agenda want to place hatred in the past. This is nonsense. The Nazis were the most modern people in the world. They justified their crimes with the newest ideas. They were close to developing a nuclear weapon. The left wants to argue that if we re-educate people in new ideas they won't hate. This is a fallacy. Hatred is not of the past. It is with us now and always will be. It is eternal, and there will never be a "brave, new" human who has been cleansed of hate.

The third prong of the above argument is related to the second prong. Leftists want to rewrite the foundations of Nazi thought. Nazis were inspired by romantic nationalism, scientific racism, social Darwinism, and neo-Paganism. You can read about these roots in my essay "Against Identifying Nazism with Christianity" here.

Many don't want Nazism's real roots to be discussed. Richard Weikart has documented Nazism finding inspiration in Social Darwinism and he is regularly attacked for this. Many on the left want to insist that Catholicism caused Nazism, at least partly because that insistence protects Nazism's real inspirations from critique.

There are reasons that Poland was such fertile ground for anti-Semitism in the interwar period, and those reasons have little to do with Catholicism. Roman Dmowski, the most prominent anti-Semite of the interwar period, was influenced by Social Darwinism.

Rather, we need to look to theories of why any nation, not just Poland and not just a Catholic nation, would become so intolerant of a minority. In my book, I cite Edna Bonacich and Amy Chua's work on how various factors inflame intolerance. Again, I hope you will read the book.

Also, we must remember that interwar anti-Semitism was not a perfect predictor of wartime behavior. There are examples of pre-war self-identified Polish anti-Semites aiding Jews and indeed losing their lives to aid Jews. They said that Nazism's genocidal anti-Semitism bore no relation to their largely economic anti-Semitism. I talk about this phenomenon in the "Bieganski, the Brute Polak" which you can view here.

You mention the rescuers and how they have been tossed down the memory hole. We're talking about incomparably heroic people whose names should be inscribed in immortal lettering. Witold Pilecki, Jan Karski, Jozef and Wiktoria Ulma and their seven children, Irena Sendler, too many others to mention. Why have these names been erased? Why would so many like to erase them? Why, if they are mentioned, are they used to support the Brute Polak stereotype?

Seven years ago, I wrote to Yad Vashem about their page on the Ulma family. The page was composed in such a way that the main impression it would leave on the reader was not that the Ulma family were heroic Catholic Poles, inspired by the words of Jesus Christ, to rescue Jews, but, rather, that Poles were a bunch of anti-Semitic scum who did just about nothing to rescue Jews. I wrote to Yad Vashem about this. You can see the letter here.

Why are heroic rescuers buried, or their histories distorted? Because of, as I mentioned above, "The Necessity of Bieganski." Read the book.

"Some argue that Germany bought Israel's forgiveness with money. Poland on the other hand did not have the means to pay restitution for Jewish property lost during or after the war so it is vilified today. Is that a plausible argument to you?"

I talk about this in the book. Yes, economic factors did play a role in the embrace of Germany after WW II. The reparation Germany paid Israel is not the only economic factor. Germany is a very important cog in the world economic machine. Right now Germany is ranked as the fourth most important economy in the world. No one could afford to write that off.

Thus, on the economic front, the Marshall Plan. And, on the cultural front, the shifting of blame for the Holocaust to the east. Check out my blog post "Hollywood Exculpates Nazi Germany: 'Decision Before Dawn.'" This blog post discusses in detail how one Hollywood movie was used to rewrite history and allow Americans to embrace Germany.

"We also see a strange competition going on: Jews tell Poles to look at their faults in the past and Poles ask Jews to do the same and look at their own instances of collaboration. And make amends. Will this attitude get us anywhere or will it just make matters worse?"

I hear you asking what will make things better. For me the answer to that is up above, in this previously mentioned link: http://bieganski-the-blog.blogspot.com/2011/11/theres-hope-what-you-can-do-about.html

"The battle over the Polish Holocaust law has fueled genuine hatred on both sides of the barricade. Antisemitism has flared up in Poland and we have seen some very distressing instances of anti-Polonism on the Israeli side. Is it possible to overcome this division? It often seems as if this dispute is just temporarily frozen and can flare up again at any time."

Yes, I'm aware of flare-ups of anti-Semitism in Poland and anti-Polish prejudice among Jews, not just in Israel, but in the US as well. I'm sure you've seen the Ruderman Family Foundation Polish Holocaust video. If not, it's here. It consists of Jews saying the words "Polish Holocaust." Clearly, in their eyes, the Holocaust was planned and carried out by Poles.

And I'm aware of anti-Semitism among modern-day Poles, for example Piotr Rybak burning a Jew in effigy in Wroclaw. That event occurred before the debate about the Holocaust speech law. It troubled me greatly. I wanted to respond but did not know how. I posted ten posts that saluted Polish Jews. You can see those posts here, "Ten Posts Dedicated to Polish Jews: A Response to the Anti-Semitic Buffoon in Wroclaw."

If one is to study Polish-Jewish relations, one is to come in contact with peerless heroism. I mentioned some of the heroes, above. One will also come into contact with undiluted evil. The Nazis and Soviets, of course, But also Jedwabne, szmalcownicy who betrayed Jews to the Nazis, the destruction, under Jakub Berman, of Home Army heroes, and more. This is all evil. How to respond?

One must have a spiritual standpoint. Each person must choose his or her own standpoint. I am Christian. My home is at the foot of the cross. Everything I learned in Catholic elementary school helped me to deal with this overwhelming material. "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me." That's the 23rd Psalm. It's not for everyone, but everyone must have that touchstone, or this material will incinerate them.

What can we do? What Jesus tells us to do. Feed the hungry, comfort the sick, and visit the prisoner. My essay "Political Paralysis" talks more about what one can do in a world gone mad. You can read that essay here.

"What role does language play in all this? It seems as if there is a difficulty on both sides to communicate on this sensitive matter."

I think the biggest barrier to communication between Poles and Jews right now is the Brute Polak stereotype and yes I am going to repeat, one must read the book.

"What lessons should we all draw form the Holocaust, Jews or Poles alike?"

For me, the single most important interpretative sentence written about the Holocaust is, "Ludzie ludziom zgotowali ten los." "People prepared this fate for people." Too many exploit the Holocaust to use it as a cudgel to damn this or that identity group. It was hard for me, but I had to get over my hatred of Germans. An essay I posted on my blog, "Ripples of Sin," written by the son of a Nazi soldier, helped me to get over my anti-German hatred.

Not just Germans do bad things. Poles do bad things. Anyone can do bad things.

And anyone can be a victim of bad things.

No identity separates us from the evildoers. No identity shields us from the pain of the victims. We must replace the pronoun of the Holocaust. It's not a story about "them." It's a story about us. We must all take upon ourselves the duty to be good people, to resist evil, both within ourselves, and in the wider world.

Thursday, July 5, 2018

Claude Lanzmann 1925-2018 by Filip Mazurczak


Claude Lanzmann 1925-2018 
by Filip Mazurczak 

French filmmaker Claude Lanzmann, whose works primarily dealt with the Holocaust, has died at ninety-two. I don’t plan on evaluating the artistic merits of his work, but I would like to write a little bit about his corrosive effect on Polish-Jewish relations.

It is no secret that Lanzmann had a very negative opinion of Poland and the Poles, which is evident in his films and statements. Lanzmann’s most famous film is the 1985 documentary "Shoah," which clocks in at over nine hours running time. I haven’t seen the film, so I can’t have an opinion about it. I didn’t see it not because I might disagree with parts of it; rather, I simply have too busy a life to devote nine hours of my life to watching a film. Marek Edelman, the late hero of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (and of the Warsaw Uprising and Solidarity) criticized Lanzmann as being self-indulgent in making such a lengthy film.

I have seen outtakes and fragments of it. The film was quite controversial in Poland in the 1980s. However, it was controversial because it showed numerous interviews with simple Polish peasants who made primitive anti-Semitic remarks. I don’t think that this was controversial only because many Poles were shocked by the fact that their countrymen harbored such hatred, but also because it showed a very one-sided picture.

Lanzmann’s film is long, but it features only a tiny fragment of the hundreds of hours of interviews he did across Poland. For the film, he interviewed Jan Karski, the famous courier of the Polish underground who informed Churchill himself and the British about the genocide of European Jewry. Lanzmann had told Karski that the film would include the stories of Poles who risked their lives to save Jews. Although Karski thought "Shoah" was a moving tribute to the victims of the Holocaust, he was disappointed that there was no talk of Polish saviors of Jews; every single Pole except him who is featured in the film is a primitive anti-Semite.

In an early report to the Polish government-in-exile in London, Karski famously wrote that anti-Semitism was the only “narrow bridge” where the German occupier and “a large part” of Polish society “found agreement.” In other words, Karski wasn’t someone who denied that Polish anti-Semitism was a widespread phenomenon, but even for him Lanzmann was not objective and unfair to the Poles. This lack of balance was also criticized by Władysław Szpilman, the real-life hero of Roman Polański’s film "The Pianist." Unlike Shoah, "The Pianist" shows Polish-Jewish relations in a balanced way and shows the sufferings of not only Jews, but of Polish Gentiles in German-occupied Warsaw. Szpilman gave an interview for the French press (I think it was for Le Monde, but don’t quote me on this) in which he blasted "Shoah" for showing a very one-sided picture of Polish-Jewish relations. Szpilman criticized Lanzmann for not showing Polish rescuers of Jews, while in the interview he himself emphasized that he owed his life to the concerted efforts of many non-Jewish Varsovians.

In 2015, I attended a screening in Krakow of Lanzmann’s interview with Tadeusz Pankiewicz that did not make the film’s final cut. Pankiewicz was a pharmacist who operated the Under the Eagle Pharmacy (“Apteka pod Orłem,” which now is a fine museum) in the Krakow Ghetto. Along with his small staff, Pankiewicz was the only non-Jewish Pole who was allowed to enter the Krakow Ghetto. He saved many Jews by giving them life-saving medicines; his pharmacy was a liaison point from which Jews were smuggled out of the ghetto; and during German roundups of Jews to be deported to camps, Pankiewicz gave tranquilizing medicines to Jewish families so that their children wouldn’t cry, which would inevitably give them away. (I recommend Pankiewicz’s moving memoir, which has been translated into English.)

Pankiewicz is featured in Thomas Kenneally’s novel "Schindler’s Ark," although not in Steven Spielberg’s film adaptation, even though a scene featuring the pharmacy was included in the script. Oskar Schindler was a German who initially employed Jews to have cheap labor. Only later did Schindler have a change of heart. Schindler never risked his life, unlike the thousands of Poles in Krakow who sheltered Jews. I find it unfortunate that Schindler is much better known than Pankiewicz. And the interview with Pankiewicz was not included in the final cut of "Shoah." This can only be seen as deliberate.

Returning to Karski, part of "Shoah" shows an interview with the famous courier. Back then, he was only known as a professor at Georgetown University; very few people knew about his heroism during the war. In fact, humility is a common trait of great souls, and Karski didn’t brag about what he did. On the contrary, he often suffered from depression, feeling irrational guilt for not succeeding in saving the European Jews from annihilation. Lanzmann’s documentary featuring the interview (I did see this fragment) only shows Karski about what he witnessed when he was smuggled into the Warsaw Ghetto, disguised as an Estonian guard. There is ABSOLUTELY NO INCLUSION of Karski’s tragic meeting with Roosevelt and the British and their absolute indifference to the tragic fate of European Jews.

In the 2000s, Lanzmann came under increasing fire for his omission, and the French writer Yannick Haenel wrote a novel about Karski that was a response to Lanzmann’s manipulative use of his interview with Karski. Haenel won the prestigious Prix du roman Fnac for this work. In response to Haenel’s criticism, only then did Lanzmann release his full interview with Karski.

Lanzmann has also made some pretty stupid and ignorant statements about Poland. He once said in an interview (I don’t remember where and when, but I definitely read this) in which he said that the Germans established concentration camps on Polish soil because the Poles are congenital smelly, primitive anti-Semites, and that it would be inconceivable for camps to be established in France.

Apart from the basic fact that Poland was under an extremely brutal occupation and that no Poles served as guards or administrators in the camps (unlike Ukrainians, for example, who made up the vast majority of the guards in Treblinka, where nearly a million Jews were gassed to death), no historian believes this balderdash. Lucy Dawidowicz, a well-respected historian of the Holocaust, wrote: “The Germans used Poland as their gigantic laboratory for mass murder, not (as has sometimes been wrongly charged) because the Nazis counted on Polish anti-Semitism, but because that was where most of Europe's Jews were concentrated and where the Germans expected to settle for a long time.”

Lest anyone accuse Dawidowicz of a pro-Polish bias, in the 1980s she spearheaded the effort to deny Norman Davies tenure at Stanford for what she felt was his minimization of Polish anti-Semitism. Davies ended up at Oxford.

Lanzmann was wrong when he said that the Germans didn’t build camps in France. Natzweiler-Struthof, built in Alzace-Lorraine (which was in the part of France annexed by the Germans, but Kulmhof and Auschwitz were similarly in parts of Poland that the Germans annexed and colonized, expelling 900,000 Polish and Jewish residents) featured a gas chamber. There, Jews were murdered so that their skeletons could be used for “scientific” study proving their alleged racial inferiority.

Meanwhile, unlike in Poland, France formed a collaborationist government that introduced anti-Semitic legislation with no German pressure (unlike in the case of Mussolini’s adoption of the Racial Laws in Italy) even more stringent than the Nuremburg Laws and deported 76,000 Jews to extermination camps, all but a couple thousand of whom died. The French state also ran a system of detention camps on French soil. The most famous one was at Drancy outside Paris, entirely run by French gendarmes. In them, 3,000 Jews were killed. For more information on the complicity of the French state in the Holocaust, I recommend the work of Columbia University historian Robert Paxton.

Claude Lanzmann also made some extremely stupid comments on Andrzej Wajda’s film "Korczak" when it premiered at Cannes in 1990 to a standing ovation. For those of you who haven’t seen this fine film (you can stream it on Amazon for $2.99), it tells the story of Janusz Korczak, the Polish-Jewish doctor, humanitarian, and author of children’s books that are still read in Polish elementary schools, who refused a hiding place outside the Warsaw Ghetto so that he could accompany the children from their orphanage to their deaths in Treblinka.

This is a sad, beautiful film; Steven Spielberg called it one of the best European films on the Holocaust. The film "Korczak" ends with the titular protagonist and his children in a train heading towards Treblinka. Their car detaches from the train, and the children run into a meadow filled with flowers. Showing how much of a bigoted fool he was, Lanzmann accused Wajda of Holocaust denial. And, since Wajda was a non-Jewish Pole, then, in Lanzmann’s estimation, he must have been an anti-Semite. The fact that the screenplay was written by Agnieszka Holland, the daughter of a Polish Jew and the Polish Gentile who saved him, made no difference.

Of course, this was a fantasy sequence that was supposed to symbolize how Korczak made his children’s tragic fate slightly more bearable by using the power of the imagination to make the Holocaust less horrific. This theme would reappear in Robert Benigni’s "Life Is Beautiful" eight years later. Andrzej Wajda was a very cultivated and educated man active in the Polish resistance during World War II. He knew this ending was not what literally had happened. Many Polish Jews, including Marek Edelman, defended the ending to Wajda’s film. In fact, there are a couple scenes in "Korczak" that present a very damning account of anti-Semitism in Poland in the 1930s and during the war. Unlike Lanzmann, Wajda was balanced and his film shows Korczak's numerous fans offering to risk their lives to hide him outside the ghetto.

Claude Lanzmann had a very negative on Polish-Jewish relations. Undoubtedly, the fact that he was recognized as an important cultural figure gave anti-Polish prejudices legitimacy. Like Jan Karski, I don’t deny that anti-Semitism was widespread in twentieth century Poland and that not all Poles acted as decently as Tadeusz Pankiewicz towards the Jews during the Holocaust, but I do believe that the sensitive topic of Polish-Jewish relations should be approach with balance and not by making blatantly false statements about history.


Thursday, June 7, 2018

Bieganski and Georgette Mosbacher, Nominated to be Ambassador to Poland



Georgette Mosbacher, nominated to be the next American ambassador to Poland, blames Poland's recent Holocaust speech bill for rising anti-Semitism in Europe. 

Read here and here

Monday, June 4, 2018

The Jack Phillips Masterpiece Cake Shop Decision and Bieganski

Priests in Bydgoszcz, Poland, about to be shot by Nazis. 

Some years back, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins entered the Masterpiece Cake Shop in Colorado and asked Jack Phillips, the proprietor, to design a cake for their wedding. 

Phillips declined, saying that he does not design cakes for same-sex weddings. He also refuses to design cakes for bachelor parties and Halloween. 

Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins received many offers of free cakes. That did not satisfy them. They, and their allies, wanted Jack Phillips to suffer. 

Suffer Phillips did. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court. 

Today, the Supreme Court decided in favor of Phillips, but not, alas, on the grounds of his freedom as an artist to accept or decline artistic commissions at will. Rather, they decided on the grounds that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was hostile to Phillips' Christianity. 

You can read their decision here

The Supreme Court cites the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's conflation of Jack Phillips' Christian beliefs with the Holocaust. 

That's right. Christophobes in power in the US conflated Jack Phillips' Christianity with Nazism. 

The Supreme Court said that that is wrong. 

Below please find  a quote from the Supreme Court decision: 

***


On July 25, 2014, the Commission met again. This meeting, too, was conducted in public and on the record. On this occasion another commissioner made specific reference to the previous meeting’s discussion but said far more to disparage Phillips’ beliefs. The commissioner stated:


“I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be—I mean, we—we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.”

To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere.

The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s antidiscrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation. 

***

That's right. An American CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION is staffed by Christophobes who insist that Christianity = Nazism. 

In "Bieganski the Brute Polak Stereotype" I argue that that stereotype exists at least partly to rewrite history, to shift blame for the Holocaust from Nazism, which was influenced by Social Darwinism, Romantic Nationalism, Neo-Paganism, and Scientific Racism, to Catholicism. 

You can read "Against Identifying Nazism with Christianity" here

Thursday, May 24, 2018

Jersey City Katyn Memorial Relocation Controversy


Folks, as you know, if you read my Save Send Delete blog, I have a lot going on right now, and no energy to devote to the Katyn Memorial controversy in Jersey City. 

If you have free time, you should be paying attention to this controversy. Just these few words from Wikipedia should clue you in: 

"In April of 2018, it was announced that there were plans to remove the memorial as Exchange Place was to be made into a park.[7]

Mike DeMarco, chair of the Exchange Place Special Improvement District was quoted by The Jersey Journal as being in favor of the removal calling the statue was "politically incorrect" and "I don't think the statue's appropriate for a major metropolitan area ... [The monument is] a little gruesome ... I can't imagine how many mothers go by and have to explain it to their children."[8]

Following an outcry by Poles, U.S. Veterans, Jewish organizations, numerous diplomats and politicians, this plan has now been rescinded and it has been agreed that the monument will be relocated 200 feet away but will remain on the waterfront in a location that is both dignified and practical.[9] The proposed site is a matter of controversy." 


The above-quoted Mike DeMarco describes himself as a "stone cold killer." See here

Write about Jerking Off; Win Valuable Prizes: Philip Roth and Bieganski

Philip Montgomery photo of Philip Roth source


If a writer's work works for you, nothing but your own life experience will separate you from that writer. If a writer's work doesn't work for you, it takes earth-moving-equipment-level effort to bring you to care about that writer.

Philip Roth died yesterday, and lots of old white male snobs, his demographic, are insisting that he was a great writer.

Me? Meh. I read one of his books, and it left me cold. I saw a movie based on one of his books, and it left me colder. And he hated me and others like me, Polaks, who are, as Roth put it, Jews' "worst enemy." At least Rabbi Warshaw, one of Roth's characters, put it that way. Note that Roth places his bigotry against Poles in the mouth of a man whose last name is a misspelling of the Polish capital, Warszawa or Warsaw.

Roth write a misogynist novel about jerking off, and he included Dumb-Polak-joke level comments about Polish people, and he won every literary award there is to win, except the Nobel.

If that isn't proof of the American elite's embrace of Bieganski, the Brute Polak Stereotype, I don't know what is. Ask yourself. If Roth had written about "Negroes" – a fusty term I associate with the old, white male snobs who love Roth – if Roth had written about African Americans the way he wrote about Polish people, would he have won any of those awards? Oh, come on!

Below are some snippets about Roth.

***


The process of firming and defining fragile group identity and solidarity through victimization and over and against a posited ethnic other of choice has been described in American- as well as Eastern European-Jewish literature. Philip Roth's Portnoy's Complaint provides an example. Portnoy, the novel protagonist, "recalls something that his father often said to him: 'A Polack's day ... isn't complete until he has dragged his big, dumb feet across the bones of a Jew' ... My father is right, these people are direct descendants of the ox." Alice Dembosky embodies the sensuality and stupidity of a stereotypical "dumb, blond, goyische beauty." This "Polack's plan" is to steal away a Jewish boy and "ruin his life." Uncle Hymie, using deceit and bribes, drives the threatening Polack away. Hymie's lies and bribery are justifiable; he is dealing with a Pole, an animal out to ruin Jews. Portnoy and his father agree on little else. On Bieganski, though, they can bond, and Portnoy, Roth, and his readers can experience the comforts of identity, whether they follow the six hundred thirteen commandments or not.

***

My Amazon review of The Plot Against America, Roth's book that depicts the Holocaust occurring in the US,

Question for fans who champion Philip Roth's "Plot against America" as a brilliant, moral analysis of anti-Semitism: How would you review a Palestinian "alterative history" that depicts Israelis feeding Palestinians into gas chambers? How would you review an "alternative history" by a real aid to former President Bill Clinton who depicts Clinton raping her, though he did not? A point blank question: what is the difference between an "alternative history," and a "lie"?

"Don't invent; just remember:" Roth announced as his dictum when he was writing "Plot." Thus Roth implicates himself as a case of self-induced False Memory Syndrome. This notorious condition, created by overzealous therapists, resulted in the jailing of innocent adults who had never harmed any child. *Real* child abuse -- like real anti-Semitism -- must be fought. It is exactly because anti-Semitism is so heinous that false charges of anti-Semitism are themselves so heinous.

Some individuals are so self-important, so divorced from common standards of decency, and so ravenous for unearned pity that they announce that they have been victimized when they have not. Philip Roth insists on imagining himself, Philip Roth, as the main character, the primary innocent victim, in the history of anti-Semitism in America. Like the woman who cries rape when she's never been touched, Roth does not care whom he slanders with his phony charge. He also does not care how much of the spotlight he hogs from real victims.

Slander Roth does. Yes, there was anti-Semitism in America in the interwar period. There was murderous hostility to largely Catholic Eastern and Southern Europeans, Asians, and blacks as well. But statistics speak volumes. So do the rows of white crosses above places like Normandy. Over sixteen million Americans fought fascism in WW II. Almost three hundred thousand Americans died. In "Plot," these lives were never lived, nor were they ever sacrificed.

Roth further lies about history by stating in so many words that Jews, and Jews alone, are the only imaginable victims. In fact, one would not have to imagine anything to write a genuine history of organized terror and mass murder in the case of twentieth century African American history. Too, not only Jews, as Roth insists here, were victimized by the Nazis; Gypsies, Homosexuals, Poles, Soviets, Jehovah's Witnesses, trade unionists, etc, were also targeted.

Roth's further twisting of facts abounds on every page. Pacifists and others who did not want to enter WW II had reasons other than anti-Semitism for their hesitation. Millions, including Americans, had just fought in WW I, and, by many assessments, had thereby accomplished nothing. Lindbergh and others who resisted America's entry into the war often criticized the British "race" as much as they criticized Jews, because Brits wanted America in the war. Walter Winchell, Roth's hero, was a vicious homophobe who destroyed careers of those who would not play along with him.

Hog the spotlight from real victims Roth also does. As the book makes its splashy debut, a real genocide is taking place in Darfur. If Roth were the least bit moral, he could use his fame to draw attention to the tens of thousands already dead in Darfur, and the millions slated to die.

As literature, the book is empty. Roth's opening descriptions of Newark are pedestrian. That's to be expected. Readers will rush these early passages to reach the "money shots," the titillating, "true" depictions of rabid Kentucky goyim burning Jews alive.

Roth's distortions are not random. They are part of a struggle to redefine Nazism. Authors like James Carroll, in his "Constantine's Sword," have been working to define Nazism as an expression of Christianity. For this definition to make sense, many historical facts must disappear, for example, that Nazis persecuted Christian populations, and that Nazis defined their own movement as an expression of ancient paganism and modern science.

In this profoundly immoral view, all Christians are essentially anti-Semites, and all Jews are essentially victims. This view can never explain genocides like that by Muslims against fellow Muslims in Darfur, and so, that genocide is best ignored. Much else must be ignored, including the millions of Americans who fought against fascism. One can see how "Plot" services this worldview.

Roth has lived, and now lives, a comfortable life, rich with rewards that any human might envy. He has written two books, "Portnoy's Complaint" and "Goodbye Columbus," that earned him hatred from Jews who denounced him as a self-hating Jew. With "Plot," Roth is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Don't swallow it.

Read Romeo Dallaire's "Shake Hands with the Devil" to understand genocide in our own day. Read Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning," to discover how one real survivor dealt with his real Holocaust experience. Read more recent books by survivors like Bernat Rosner and Betty Schimmel. And then read Roth. There will be no comparison.

***

From my Amazon review of Claire Bloom's book, Leaving a Doll's House.

Bloom's husband, the author Philip Roth, insists that a skunk has anti-Semitic feelings toward him. This anecdote goes a long way towards explaining Roth's new book, "The Plot Against America."

Pages 195-220 contain, without comment, Bloom's diary entries from a particularly rocky time in her marriage to Roth. This is the best, rawest, most detailed writing in the book.

As others report, Philip Roth is depicted here -- believably -- as a demented and sadistic man. He is also clearly depicted as an object of genuine pathos. It must be hard to be Roth's wife; it must also be hard to be Roth. Without ever using the term, Bloom creates a vivid portrayal of Roth as a kind of idiot savant with Borderline Personality Disorder.

Reading of Roth's self-induced wounds of greed -- he demanded that Bloom pay him huge sums of money as compensation for the time he spent with her -- paranoia, and sheer unhappiness is like reading of a patient tormented by self-induced skin rashes. It's simply hard to watch, and you can't help but say a prayer for his speedy recovery.

*** Below is my review of The Human Stain, a 2003 film based on the 2000 Roth novel.

"The Human Stain" is the product of Philip Roth's ego and attention deficit disorder. Roth's ego: characters are obsessed with Jews, because Roth is obsessed with his own Jewish identity. Naked, beautiful, young women throw themselves at wizened, physically unattractive college professors, because Roth is an older man. A novelist saves the day, because Roth is a novelist. There is not a single believable female character in the movie. There are four melodramatic deaths. A character who had been a coward and a traitor in one of the first scenes accuses himself – unbelievably – during a eulogy in one of the last scenes. There are two scenes where very beautiful women perform private stripteases for ogling men – porn for pseudo-intellectuals. Yawn.

Attention deficit disorder: the script attempts to address Clinton's impeachment, stereotypical "White Trash," crazed, homicidal, Vietnam veterans, the issue of passing, artistic burnout, college town hypocrisy, and political correctness. Even a gifted novelist would find it impossible to work all those themes into a coherent and effective narrative. Roth drops the ball big time here; every theme he attempts is aborted. But, Roth is a genius, so if we aren't swept off our feet by the fruits of Roth's labor, it's because we are too small to appreciate his great genius. That, in a nutshell, is the naked emperor syndrome. Feh. Step aside. Make room for better writers.

Though "The Human Stain" is a failure, in spite of itself, it contains some worthy work. Wentworth Miller, as the young Coleman Silk, the character Antony Hopkins plays in advanced age, is stunning. Miller is supercharged with star power and it is to be hoped that he goes far. Ed Harris can do no wrong. He elevates and ignites every moment of his screen time that we are lucky enough to enjoy – even when the character Harris is playing, as here, is a two-dimensional stereotype of a homicidal, wife beating, anti-Semitic, lower class white, Vietnam veteran. This is a stereotype so shallow a tyro writer could produce it based on watching grade B movies. Nicole Kidman never escapes the two dimensional, derivative, and divorced from real life quality of her character, a foul-mouthed, chain smoking, poor white nymphomaniac with a craving for plump old men. If Roth gets his homicidal Vietnam Vet characters from B movies, he gets his female characters from pulp fiction. And just from the paperback *covers* of pulp fiction. Not even from reading the text. It's actually kinda scary to contemplate how divorced Roth and his readers are from real poor white people, real women, real Vietnam veterans.

There is a very fine early scene where Professor Coleman Silk (Anthony Hopkins) is berated and threatened by a committee of self-righteous, politically correct, hypocritical, gasbag, (redundant, I know) college professors who falsely accuse Silk of making a racist remark. The scene is very well played. But it is never anything more than an anecdote. Journalism has outstripped fiction's ability to comment on events like this. Want to read about politically correct shenanigans on campus? Read "Until Proven Innocent" about the legal and media lynching of the Duke lacrosse players. Roth's novel can't begin to match that account. As for Roth's stripteases? Free on the internet.

***

Finally, I'm a Jersey girl. My parents lived in Newark but had to leave. They, categorized as "white," were targets of violent rage our people played no historical role in generating. At least one of my older brothers was born in Newark. I've worked in Newark and I go to Newark several times a year for medical care. That Roth was born in Newark means nothing to me as a Jersey girl or as a New Jersey reader. Roth does not write for me.

New Jersey's most important living wordsmith is almost certainly Bruce Springsteen. Listen to his lyrics; read his 2016 memoir, Born to Run. Springsteen captures, and evokes, much of New Jersey life. Few of us are rock stars, but any of us could have walked along the boardwalk, or negotiated race relations in a shifting landscape, or interacted with immigrant ancestors or close relatives with mental illness. Springsteen's description of his father's body is one of the most powerful passages I've ever read.

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Thank you Lukasz

I haven't posted much lately. Lukasz visited my other blog and discovered why. Lukasz I was very touched by your kind words. There has been a death in my family and other things are demanding my attention as well. If you'd like to visit the other blog, it's here

Smierc Ellenai by Jacek Malczewski 

Friday, May 11, 2018

An Armenian Joke and What It Says about Polish-Jewish Relations

Source
It takes one Jew to outwit ten Poles

It takes one Greek to outwit ten Jews

It takes one Armenian to outwit ten Greeks. 

I heard this joke in Poland, in Polish, from a Pole.

There are many variants to this joke. In place of "outwit," you could insert "cheat," "swindle," or "con." 

In some, the comparison is with Turks, or just undifferentiated Muslims. 

One can find variants here, here, here, here, here, here ...

There are two many versions of this joke on the internet to catalog fully here. 


Why does this joke matter to Polish-Jewish relations?

People, even otherwise friendly people, sometimes quite viciously attack my work, from my book, Bieganski: the Brute Polak Stereotype to my recent videos on the same topic. Their attacks reveal their agenda. 

YOU DON'T BLAME CHRISTIANITY ENOUGH!!! CHRISTIANITY MADE POLES HATE AND MURDER JEWS!

I've heard this attack again, and again, and again. 


An otherwise friendly viewer of the above-linked Bieganski video insisted that I don't mention blood libel, a religion-linked false belief, in the video. I *do* mention blood libel. But this viewer was so primed for an attack on Christianity, an attack that did not arrive, that he couldn't even see what was right in front of his eyes. 

I do talk about Christianity in my work, but not as much as Christophobes would like. 

I do focus on middleman minority status, a status that is more about society and economics than about theology. 

Armenians were a middleman minority group, like Jews. Like Jews, they were victims of a genocide. In the above joke, Armenians are elevated as champion middleman minority group members, superseding Jews. Armenians were Christian. Their Christianity did not matter. It was their status as members of a middleman minority, and thus crafty cheats, that mattered to those who have disseminated versions of this international joke for centuries. 

No, my book Bieganski does not essentialize. It does not agree that middleman minority group members are crafty cheats and deserving of genocide. Rather, I am pointing to this stereotype as generative of hatred, as did Edna Bonacich. 

My work is correct. We must not focus exclusively on theology as the explanatory factor for antisemitism. We must focus on middleman minority status as well. 

I realize in posting this that I'm a voice crying into the wilderness. The dominant paradigm is to demonize Christianity. The answer to that is for Poles to tell their own story, and for Christians to do a better job of addressing antisemitism's historical realities. 

Someday. 

Friday, April 20, 2018

Maria Kwasniewska, Olympic Medalist and Underground Fighter, Refuses to make Nazi Salute in 1936 Berlin




Maria Kwasniewska was a Polish Olympian who refused to give the Nazi Salute during the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Hitler called her a "little Pole." She said "I am not less than you." She later used the photo to aid her underground work. 

Thursday, April 19, 2018

Hans Asperger Aided Nazi Euthanasia Program

New research indicates that Hans Asperger, the pioneer of autism research, aided Nazi "euthanasia" of handicapped persons. See New York Times article here, Daily Mail article here.