|
|
Here are the Blogs in the Norman Berdichevsky category.
Monday, 11 January 2010
Last Night’s Concert

Yesterday evening, I attended a concert at The Bob Carr Concert Hall in downtown Orlando, a short walk from my home. The featured performance was Itzhak Perlman’s playing Beethoven’s Concerto for Violin in D major, op.61. The sell out audience of 4,000 was entranced and moved. To me, it was a testimony to the finest in human art, western civilization and the superb achievement of two individuals who overcame the enormous disabilities of the composer’s deafness and the violinist’s crippling polio to reward all of us for eternity. Also making it possible was the talented work of conductor Christopher Wilkins and the dedication of the Orlando Philharmonic Orchestra’s seventy musicians.
I had heard Beethoven’s concerto many times before on recordings but Perlman’s playing, those rich warm tones and the deft precise fingerwork made every note count and come alive with a soul of their own. More dramatically, his entry and exit from the stage on crutches, marked by each laborious step after the other was accompanied by rapturous applause from the audience. Several women sitting next to me had flown in to Orlando from Peoria, Illinois and had gotten up early in the morning to scrape the ice off their vehicle and clear a long driveway to get to the Chicago airport.
For me, each step and the audience’s ovation were a triumphal recognition that Beethoven’s work will live forever and of the Jewish and Israeli will to survive and thrive in a hostile world and enrich it beyond measure against all adversity, calumny, and envy.

Posted on 01/11/2010 7:11 AM by Norman Berdichevsky

Saturday, 10 October 2009
The Tarnished Peace Prize

President Obama’s feigned humility stands in blinding contrast to the true modesty of Hank Aaron following his lifetime achievement of surpassing Babe Ruth’s home run record. Aaron, like other Black stars deserve to be recalled by their elevation of American culture to world-wide prominence, the simple pleasure and inspiration they provided to millions here and abroad, their generosity, integrity, yes – even the nobility of their character, and the dedicated service they paid to their homeland beyond sports and entertainment in refuting the ugly lies hurled at the United States by proponents of Soviet style communism. They were entitled to more than a Noble Prize or a special prize for the elimination of the vestiges of real racism and a major contribution by their art and personal example to a more peaceful world – Jackie Robinson, Nat King Cole, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Billie Holiday, Joe Louis, Sammy Davis Junior and Louis Armstrong. Each was celebrated and then mourned in the minds and hearts of millions without the idolatrous media hype-glitzz of a Michael Jackson or Barack Obama.
Without them, a Martin Luther King Junior would not have so successfully been able to shame many white Americans that they had betrayed the promises of the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln and the vision of a multiracial society where people would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character and by their abilities and talents. What would the Reverend King who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 at the age of thirty-five have to say today of the infantilism, egoism, addictions, and idolatry that formed such a large part of the character of pop star Michael Jackson or the stand of a continually waffling President alert only to the latest polls and unable to make a moral decision or a judgment above his “pay grade” on abortion or any other moral issue?
King’s rhetoric came directly from our Judeo-Christian heritage with quotes that 99% of the American public knew from their childhood whether or not they were members of a church or synagogue. He spoke to all of us in terms that were intimately and immediately familiar from the Bible, both the old and New Testament. We could not doubt that the civil rights cause would not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."(Amos 5:24) He had a dream that “one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight;" "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together." Isaiah 40: 4-5. Of course, these same Hebrew prophets envisioned the Return of the People of Israel to their land (2,500 years before the Holocaust and 1,300 years before the birth of Muhammad and start of Islam), and are therefore regarded as an “impediment to peace.”
Were he alive today, would Martin Luther King recognize the spiritual malaise of the nation he loved so dearly, the bowing of a Black American President to a Saudi King, or the President’ s persistent apathy, passivity, or the fear of appearing in a church next to a cross?
Before his election, Obama sought inspiration in the messages of the most deviant, bombastic, and most divisive congregations in the land – those of the Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger whose message in and out of the pulpit glorify Black separatism and hatred for American society as cruel and unjust. Now the President avoids invoking God altogether but he has won the ignoble Noble Prize, a golden calf replica of the 21st century. The previous disastrous decision to award the Noble Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat caused Nobel Committee member Kare Kristiansen to resign in 1994. "What consequences will result," he asked at the time, "when a terrorist with such a background is awarded the world's most prestigious prize?"
The answer was clear then – the Prize which meant so much in the time of Martin Luther King has no moral standing or value now whatsoever, unlike the awards in physics, chemistry, and mathematics that cannot be politically spun.

Posted on 10/10/2009 7:13 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Saturday, 1 August 2009
The Emperor’s New Clothes

Nidra Poller is already the 2010 version of a female Emile Zola and her J’accuse against Barack Obama will stand the test of time like the French writer’s condemnation of anti-semitism. Never before in our history has so much good will across the racial divide been wasted by so many on such a man who will soon exhaust all revenues of support except his Muslim and Jewish-Liberal-Chicago crony axis. In the words of his former pastor the Reverend Wright “the chickens are comin’ home to roost”. In the words of Abraham Lincoln (Obama’s favorite), you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time but you can’t fool all the people all the time.
For most Jews who voted for him, Israel was certainly not uppermost in their minds or they had been mesmerized by the Liberal hechsher (mark of Kashrut – kosher approval) stamped on him by dozens of mostly Reform rabbis who still live in affluent suburbs in an upside down world where their concept of being a “Light to the Gentiles” (Or legoyim) is translated into demonstrating to their less enlightened fellow Americans how it is inadmissible and “beyond the pale” to express any concern that self-interest may at times differ from “minorities.” For them, self-interest must be in the words of the Lord High Executioner in the Mikado “denied and mortified”.
Now that the health bill reform has made clear to a majority of more elderly Americans (including the very large demographic of elderly Jews) that their future care may well be subject to government regulations, statistical averages and quotas (why object to them? – you didn’t seem to mind “affirmative action”), there is more of a willingness to examine the reality that the Pied Piper of Chicago has brought to politics and what that entails.
In the campaign, a number of younger Jewish enthusiasts for Obama such as Sarah Silverman (in her late 30s) set new standards of Jewish self debasement and lack of civility by publicizing a supposedly “humorous,” threatening video expressing the fear that if Barack Obama loses the election, it will be the fault of The JEWS (she was nuanced enough to point out that these will most likely be the elderly retired Jews in Florida (like me). This was followed by her own production of the hit song “I’m F**king Matt Damon”. Her description of 3,500 years of Jewish history is that they have produced the most “liberal, scrappy, civil-rightsey people there are” yet by her own admission in the hallowed New York Times,,,,,,“I have no religion. But culturally I can’t escape it. I’m very Jewish.”
Like her, are the many adults of her age (or those who strive to appear young), who call upon what they perceive as their Jewish heritage only to present their Liberal credentials. They are headed by the triumvirate of David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel and Alan Dershowitz.
The first has distinguished his career in politics by the campaigns he has managed and advised of South Carolina Senator John Edwards and former Governor of New York Elliot Spitzer. Rahm Emanuel is famous for his lack of ethical conduct and decency in the best traditions of the Mayor Daley Chicago administrations of corruption. He publicly humiliated his own father for remarks that could simply have been repudiated as not his own and for which his father should answer. Nothing is more foreign to Jewish tradition and concepts of honor and respect than this.
The third figure is Alan Dershowitz who indeed has been among the strongest defenders of Israel in the past against bigots political extremists and closet anti-Semites but whose concepts of individual rights leading to prominent stands in such cases as the defense of O.J. Simpson makes him out of touch and suspect in the hearts and minds of the great majority of ordinary, decent, law abiding Americans he claims to be defending.
These are Obama’s closest Jewish allies, all of whom enjoy wide currency among many Jews who are still living in a time warp and are ignorant or unaware of the near unanimous rejection of Obama during the election by America’s most distinguished Jewish writers, scholars, journalists, and intellectuals:
Senator Joe Lieberman who called on American Jews to vote for Senator McCain
Editor of Commentary magazine, Norman Podhoretz,
Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer,
Former White House Press secretary Arie Fleischer,
Rabbi Richard Rubenstein,
Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Joshua Muravchik,
Editor of Frontpage Magazine, David Horowitz,
National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg,
Columnist and editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol,
Political analyst and former campaign advisor to President Bill Clinton, Dick Morris,
authors and columnists ….
Bernie Goldberg, Dennis Prager, Monah Charen, Dianne West, Hillel Halkin.
film producer David Zucker and comedian Jackie Mason among many others.
Nevertheless in discussions that can be overheard at many Reform synagogues and Jewish Community Centers, remarks like “there are no serious intellectually capable Jews who oppose Obama“ are rarely challenged.
I guess they are waiting for more and more outspoken Blacks like Sergeant Crowley’s two colleagues to speak out rather than be struck dumb and blinded by the Emperor’s new clothes.

Posted on 08/01/2009 5:20 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Monday, 20 July 2009
A Surrealistic Delusion

The “whirlwind” program featuring a group of 28 imams and rabbis from 10 European countries who arrived for visits to interfaith centers to “break new ground” (there really isn’t any old ground) on Muslim-Jewish relations and combat Islamophobia and anti-Semitism in each other's communities is a surrealistic delusion. Practically NO decent, sane Italian-American or German-American had faith that such meetings just prior to World War II would change “the hearts and minds” of the German-American Bund or pro-Fascist organizations in America or Europe by 1939.
Rabbi Marc Schneier, president of the New York-based Foundation for Ethnic Understanding (FFEU) and chairman of the World Jewish Congress American Section is quoted as saying that “The impetus for the five-day visit came after "exponential" growth of anti-Semitism among Muslims in Britain, France and elsewhere in Europe, and "We want to help strengthen those in the Islamic world who are projecting this voice of moderation and to help them take their religion back from the cadre of extremists and fanatics in Islam,".
Had these remarks been uttered by any of the visiting imams, there might be grounds for some feeble hope but of course it was the rabbi who spoke them. His pathetic view only increases the delusions of many in the American Jewish community that the voices of “moderate American Muslims” would be heard anywhere in the wider Islamic world. All they have to do is watch several hundred videos showing Friday prayer sermons at mosques throughout much of the Arab and wider Muslim world in the archives of MEMRI-TV to gain an appreciation of how they are deluding themselves.

Posted on 07/20/2009 5:41 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Friday, 17 July 2009
The Queen and Our Presidents

Queen Margrethe II of Denmark is one of the few Western heads of state and certainly the only European monarch who has had the courage to warn her fellow countrymen not to tolerate certain behavior which some immigrant Muslims display. She has done this without any euphemisms or the standard political correctness and expression of concern about “fear mongering” and “dangerous stereotypes” in criticizing Islam, so frequently displayed by Western leaders, most notably former President George W. Bush and Barak Obama.
In her authorized biography (entitled Margrethe, 2005), she had this to say: "We are being challenged by Islam these years. Globally as well as locally. There is something impressive about people for whom religion imbues their existence, from dusk to dawn, from cradle to grave. There are also Christians who feel this way. There is something endearing about people who give themselves up completely to their faith. But there is likewise something frightening about such a totality, which also is a feature of Islam. A counterbalance has to be found, and one has to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on you. For there are some things for which one should display no tolerance. And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction."
There were none of the usual ifs, ands and buts and no attempt to distinguish Islam by adding the qualifying adjectives of political, extremist, radical or Islamist. As another Dane, Hans Christian Andersen maintained, praising the Emperor’s clothes when he is naked is an illusion that only enriches unscrupulous tailors.

Posted on 07/17/2009 10:31 AM by Norman Berdichevsky

Saturday, 11 July 2009
Black Icons Then and Now

For a majority of American “whites”, one decisive factor in the success of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s and support for the epoch making legislation following the death of President Kennedy was simply the recognition and admission of historical wrongs. Beyond that however, was the exemplary character, generosity, integrity, yes – even the nobility of major Afro-American “stars” in the world of entertainment and sports such as Jackie Robinson, Willy Mays, Nat King Cole, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Billy Holiday, Joe Louis, Sammy Davis Junior and Louis Armstrong. Each in his own way was indeed a role model and an American hero for both whites and blacks. Each was an artist whose talent AND CHARACTER touched people all over the world and each succeeded in spite of prejudice. Each was mourned in the minds and hearts of millions without the idolatrous media hype-glitzz for Michael Jackson that erased all other news for a week.
Without them, a Martin Luther King Junior would not have so successfully been able to shame many white Americans that they had betrayed the promises of the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln and the vision of a multiracial society where people would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character and by their abilities and talents. What would the Reverend King have to say of the infantilism, egoism, addictions, and idolatry that formed such a large part of the character of pop star Michael Jackson?
King’s rhetoric came directly from our Judeo-Christian heritage with quotes that 99% of the American public knew from their childhood whether or not they were members of a church or synagogue and he spoke to all of us in terms that were intimately and immediately familiar. We could not doubt that the civil rights cause would not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."(Amos 5:24)
He had a dream that “one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together." Isaiah 40: 4-5
Were he alive today, would he recognize the spiritual malaise of the nation he loved so dearly, one in which the President consistently reveals apathy, passivity or demonstrative neglect to religion. Before his election, he sought inspiration in the messages of the most deviant, bombastic, and divisive congregations in the land – those of the Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger whose message in and out of the pulpit glorify Black separatism and hatred for American society as cruel and unjust. Now the President avoids invoking God altogether.
During the campaign, Obama in the Iowa caucus primary emphasized his mother’s Mid-American background, her work in a defense plant and the white side of his family. Since his ascension to the presidency, I cannot recall them being mentioned. In Dreams from My Father (p.101), Barack Obama writes about his time at Occidental College in Los Angeles and brings up the subject on Joyce, a girl like him with a multiracial background.
She was a good-looking woman, Joyce was with her green eyes and honey skin and pouty lips. We lived in the same dorm my freshman year, and all the brothers were after her. One day I asked her if she was going to the Black Students' Association meeting. She looked at me funny, then started shaking her head like a baby who doesn't want what it sees on the spoon.
"I'm not black," Joyce said. "I'm multiracial." Then she started telling me about her father, who happened to be Italian and was the sweetest man in the world; and her mother, who happened to be part African and part French and part Native American and part something else. "Why should I have to choose between them?" she asked me. Her voice cracked, and I thought she was going to cry. "It's not white people who are making me choose. Maybe it used to be that way, but now they're willing to treat me like a person. No — it's black people who always have to make everything racial. They're the ones making me choose. They're the ones who are telling me that I can't be who I am ..."
Is this amazing revelation, a realization through self-analysis that Obama indeed rejected that part of his family that did not serve his political ambitions? In his books he characterizes even his white grandmother as guilty of racial prejudices in spite of her being a “decent person”.
His explanation about Joyce’s remark is indeed revealing….
They, they, they. That was the problem with people like Joyce. They talked about the richness of their multicultural heritage and it sounded real good, until you noticed that they avoided black people; To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling conventions. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.
But this strategy alone couldn't provide the distance I wanted, from Joyce or my past. After all, there were thousands of so-called campus radicals, most of them white and tenured and happily tolerant. No, it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.
Based on my own friendship with a young woman just like Joyce, I can confirm that her analysis is correct and Barack Obama’s is a rationalization. Joyce didn’t avoid or reject the “Black” part of her – she simply did not allow it to trump every other color and shade as Obama has done. Unlike all my “liberal” white friends, I was the only one who had a “Black” (multiracial) girlfriend and she was hounded by other Blacks at college because of her family’s mixed heritage – one she couldn’t and didn’t want to hide. Her father was a Republican Party chairman! So no amount of associating with foreign students, taking courses from Marxist professors, discussing Eurocentrism, playing loud blaring music, grinding out cigarettes on the carpet and feigned alienation would have succeeded in showing her loyalty to the black masses. Unlike Obama, she would not trade her integrity for the “loyalty” of any group.

Posted on 07/11/2009 3:09 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Monday, 27 April 2009
The Japanese Train Station

A Jew from the tiny village (shtetl) of Zalecie was sent by his firm to Osaka. He arrived at the local station and said to the station attendant “I want to buy a ticket for Osaka”.
Station attendant : "I don’t know where that is. Go to Warsaw and ask there!”
When the Jew reached Warsaw, he immediately went to the booth and asked for a ticket to Osaka.
Station attendant: "I don’t know where that is. Go to Moscow and ask there”
In Moscow, our Jew went to the booth and said “A Ticket to Osaka please”.
Station attendant: "Asaka? I’m not familiar with it but I advise you to take the train to Vladivostock on the Pacific Coast and ask there."
In Vladivostock our Zalecie resident approached the ticket booth and asked the station attendant “A ticket for Osaka please!”
Station attendant: "I don’t know where that is, but take the train to Tokyo and ask there – they must know!”
What did our Jewish friend do at the Tokyo station – he bought a ticket to Osaka!
When he finished his mission, he went to the Osaka train station wishing to return home.
The Jew: “I require a ticket for Zalecie please"
Station attendant: "Is that Upper Zalecie or Lower Zalecie?”
---Yosef Shemer

Posted on 04/27/2009 6:50 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Time To End Jewish Guilt and Masochism

All signs of public opinion in Israel show renewed confidence in the Israeli Army and its code of ethics designed to spare civilian casualties WHEN AT ALL POSSIBLE and a rising support for a victory for Bibi Netanyahu and his right wing allies in the coming Israeli elections. The crocodile tears shed for Palestinian civilians and children are of course an important propaganda weapon used by a weird assortment of Left-wing political and “humanitarian” groups including World War II revisionists such as Pat Buchanan (author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World) who are still bemoaning the injustice of the Versailles Treaty and the fire bombing of Dresden and America’s crime of dropping two atomic bombs on Japan.
Refusing to accept the professional opinion of how no other military in the world has taken so many risks to its own soldiers as Israel in order to minimize civilian casualties in built-up urban areas, these critics are salivating at the prospect of an eventual confrontation between President Obama and Netanyahu who may well win the next election with a centrist-right government. Liberal and Left-wing American intellectuals still celebrating their victory at the polls, especially Jewish-Americans who continue to blindly support Obama, will find it the tragedy of their lives (as Evangelicals have already begun to discern after only one week).
The time has come to end Jewish guilt and masochism – the formula used with such great success by Jewish-American authors and pseudo-intellectuals of the Woody Allan/Seinfeld/Portnoy Complains genre for the past two generations. If there is any human emotion and compassion for the victims, especially children who died in Gaza, why was it not in evidence in Darfur and the Iran-Iraq war where and when hundreds of thousands of MUSLIM and BLACK children were sent to clear minefields or murdered in their beds. Where was the outpouring of grief and charges of responsibility in the Madrid train bombing or the mayhem inflicted on hundreds of passers-by including women and children in Mumbai and the torture of Jews for the sake of sadism alone? The answer is of course that those guilty of their suffering were MUSLIM, ARAB and/or BLACK, and therefore not the subject of any enquiry, U.N. report or Red Cross appeals.
If JEWS are not involved, there is no NEWS. The behavior of the imams, mullahs, and leaders of Hamas and Hizbollah in recent conflicts, most noticeably in Gaza, is beneath contempt. Not even the Nazi authorities (with the sole exception of Hitler on the eve of his suicide when called upon the German people to lay waste their own country rather than surrender) tried to prevent German civilians from fleeing German cities under Allied bombing attacks.

Posted on 01/27/2009 7:34 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Thursday, 27 November 2008
Ask Not For Whom The Bell Tolls

The word fida’i (pl. fida’iyin) from the Arabic is “one who sacrifices himself.“ The “mujihadin” are those who carry out “holy war” (jihad) from the common root J-H-D for the extension of Islam throughout the world. The two terms are in common use throughout the world by Islamic terrorist groups. One does not have to be an expert in the Arabic or Farsi languages to know what the intent of all such groups are - blatant terror and a commitment to commit wholesale massacre and mayhem against all those who are “infidels” and must be eliminated because they stand in the way of Islam’s struggle to convert the entire world into submission (ISLAM).
Nevertheless, listening to the current coverage of the media’s coverage of the latest atrocity on a grand scale in India, one would have to listen very carefully to discover who the “militants” are in the mass murder of innocent tourists and the engagement of the Indian police and military across Mumbai (Bombay) to end the mayhem and rescue the hostages. The words “Islamic” and “Muslim” are still rarely or reluctantly used by the mainstream media who for the past seven years ever since the attacks of 9/11 want to assure all Americans that Islam is a “religion of peace” that only the extremists and militants have “hijacked.”
As long as a substantial part of pubic opinion in the West continues to believe in the fantasy and illusion that Zionism, Israel and the Jews are the reason for Arab and Muslim grievances, they will continue to be ignorant and amazed at each new atrocity elsewhere committed by a myriad of groups capable of mobilizing and blackmailing not only “disaffected young men” but the mentally ill, women and children to engage in suicide and mass homicidal terrorism.
In the blink of an eye, the democratic and humanitarian society of Denmark was turned into target number one on account of a few innocuous cartoons. Those in the West who continue to ask how to appease or “engage” Muslim “grievances’ do not know “for whom the Bell Tolls” - It tolls for thee.

Posted on 11/27/2008 1:45 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Saturday, 20 September 2008
Conference of Presidents Disinvites Governor Palin

On Friday I sent the American Jewish organization, “Conference of Presidents” the following one line e-mail:
"Your decision to dis-invite governor Palin is the most obvious act of Jewish self-debasement in my lifetime”.
These worthy gentlemen (is there a woman among the many Presidents?) in their website make the following statement to describe “Who we are”…..
For half a century, the Conference of Presidents has played a key role in American and world Jewish history. From mass public events to private diplomacy, the Conference has been in the forefront of mobilizing support for Israel and educating the public in times of war and conflict, and in the pursuit of peace.
Today, the Conference of Presidents remains American Jewry’s recognized address for consensus policy, collective action, and maximizing the resources of the American Jewish community. When events in the U.S., Israel and elsewhere affect the American Jewish community, the Conference of Presidents take the lead to explain and analyze issues, provide a link between American Jewry and the U.S. government, and marshal a coordinated community response.
Apparently their will to “take the lead to explain and analyze issues and…marshal a coordinated community response” must NEVER jeopardize the automatic political pledge of these self-proclaimed leaders of Jewish opinion in the United States to the Democratic Party. Rather than have the support of the Republican nominee for Vice-President, they prefer that no candidate for the top executive offices in the United States take part in the planned rally against Iranian Prime Minister Ahmadinejad due to the non-negotiable demand of the petulant Senator Hillary Clinton who had already been invited and accepted, that she would not attend if the invitation to Governor Palin was not withdrawn. This is how they interpret being in the “forefront of mobilizing support for Israel”
It matters not a fig to the distinguished Presidents as the spokesmen for American Jewry that 94% of Muslim Americans enthusiastically plan to support Senator Obama in his candidacy. For these paragons of Liberal Thought including the several willfully ignorant Reform Rabbis who have appeared on the History Channel and other documentary programs proclaiming in all their piety, innocence and assumed mantle of linguistic scholarship that ISLAM (meaning SUBJUGATION) really means PEACE, a hint from the CLINTONS or the deadly fear that someone might suspect Jews would demonstrate against Ahmadinejad either at Columbia University or the U.N. without the prior approval and blessing of the Democratic Party, is immediately to be stamped as NOT KOSHER.
They can no longer claim with any shred of credibility or decency that they are……………
“American Jewry’s recognized address for consensus policy, collective action, and maximizing the resources of the American Jewish community.”

Posted on 09/20/2008 7:23 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Sunday, 24 August 2008
The Politics Of Envy

Why the Democrats Silenced Enquiries about Senator Kerry’s wife’s Fortune of $500,000,000 but are obsessed with Cindy McCain’s wealth and several homes.
The presidential political campaign has already excelled in the amount of hypocrisy (Senator Edwards’ lying cover-up denials of his affair probably have set a new record that will be hard to eclipse) but the Democrat Party is well on the way to playing their favorite card - no, it is not the race card or the gender card) it is THE ENVY CARD. No other strategy has worked so well in the past as making the electorate envy the wealth of a candidate as focusing on his fortune as undeserved and the product of his political party’s insider alliance with privileged birth and inherited riches, Wall Street connections or political “pay-offs” for favors rendered.
The most recent attack on Senator McCain’s awkward response to the question about how many homes he and his wife own has been played up at full tilt by the Democrats even though it is only four years since their own candidate avoided, obfuscated and attacked as simply “unfair” any mention of his wife immense wealth. Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry is heir to the Heinz food fortune and is one of the wealthiest people in the United States making such family fortunes of political families like the McCains, the Roosevelts or the Kennedys small change. Moreover in the 2004 campaign, Mrs. Kerry refused to release her tax returns. In 2003, we learned that she earned more than $5 million from investments and paid more than $587,000 in federal income taxes (sounds like the government was shortchanged).
During the 2004 campaign, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry argued that she could not release her tax forms without violating the privacy of her three children from her previous marriage to Senator H. John Heinz III, Republican of Pennsylvania, who was killed in a plane crash in 1991. As a concession to public opinion. She released the first two pages of her 1040 form once it was prepared and filed in October explaining that 'John and I believe this strikes a balance between my family's privacy and the media's request for more financial information'. The first two pages show the amount of income, deductions and taxes but do not provide the details of how those sums were reached.
All major-party presidential and vice-presidential nominees have for the past 35 years made their tax returns public but what is unusual and what the Democrats tried to hide back in 2004 was the right of a wife to privacy. Then, it was argued that Mrs. Heinz Kerry had every right to file a tax return separate from her husband's. Her net worth has been estimated at considerably more than $500 million and had Senator Kerry won, they would have undoubtedly been the wealthiest people ever to live in the White House. Mrs. Kerry’s ownership of five homes never came up for discussion like Cindy McCain’s four. Of course, Republican candidate McCain had lived in a North Vietnamese hell hole for five and a half years without the benefit of any home, or elementary medical care and most ordinary people in considering such incredible hardship might find it understandable that a man in his situation and age running for national office might want to enjoy the luxury of several homes.
Is any of this relevant to the presidential election campaign. of course! But IT DEPENDS - The Democrats have vainly tried to hide many of their prominent candidates’ enormous (excessive ?) wealth, privileged status, Ivy League ties and other classical traits by which the general public identify the wealthiest class in America. Mrs. Heinz Kerry initially said she would release the first two pages of her 1040 form once it was prepared and filed in 'John and I believe this strikes a balance between my family's privacy and the media's request for more financial information'.
Even the eternally pro-Democratic New York times pressed Senator Kerry to convince his wife to release full details about her tax returns and the same Party of the People (the Democrats) nominated Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 for Vice-President who also tried to keep her husband’s tax records from public knowledge because they spoiled her working-class image. She regularly claimed to be exempt from disclosing her husband's finances, because she claimed to have had no knowledge of her spouse's financial activities and had not profited from them. The problem was that Mrs. Ferraro claimed the exemption although she was an officer of her husband's real estate firm, P. Zaccaro & Company.
For more than the past 30 years, all major-party presidential and vice-presidential nominees have made their tax returns public. President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Mr. Kerry all did so in 2004. When in another likewise awkward “gaffe”, Senator McCain was pressed to mention a ballpark figure to divide the “rich” from the rest of us, he hesitated and for argument’s sake, picked $5 million, for which he has been raked over the coals. Senator Kerry did his best to maintain a “populist” image although his wife’s gross fortune made her look like she was his “sugar mommy”. Their homes greatly exceed what is available to the McCains today and included a vacation home in Nantucket, a ski chalet in Ketchum, Idaho, an estate outside Pittsburgh, and a mansion in Georgetown manse as well as their own private red-and-white Gulfstream jet.
Worst of all is how Mrs. Heinz-Kerry spent a large part of her wealth to endorse ultra-radical causes. She has been a major contributor to the Tides Foundation, a 30-year-old grant-making institution that has funded organizations protesting the U.S. invasion of Iraq, calling for open U.S. borders, providing the legal defense of suspected terrorists and promote the spread of Islamist ideology in the U.S. Tides' Iraq Peace Fund and Peace Studies Fund supported the War Resisters League and Ramsey Clark's International Action Center. Clark - The former Attorney General under President Johnson actually offered to defend Saddam Hussein.
Another beneficiary, The Democratic Justice Fund, created by cooperation between Tides and George Soros, seeks to ease U.S. restrictions on Muslim immigration from countries designated by the State Department as “terrorist nations. Tides also supports the Council for American Islamic Relations, a group that bills itself as a “Muslim civil rights group,” (CAIR). Tides has also supported the National Lawyers Guild, which began as a Communist Party front. Maybe, in the future we could ask wealthy candidates and their spouses to give us a full accounting of the causes they support to give us more insight into what heir values really are and not just how much money they have in the bank or how many houses they own. There is not only a “guilt by association” that is valid but also a valid “guilt by charity and philanthropy”

Posted on 08/24/2008 5:14 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Friday, 30 May 2008
A Baseball Analogy

For all those who follow baseball with a passion, the current political drama of the 2008 Presidential Electoral campaign offers numerous and obvious points of coincidence. The one that comes most to mind is that of the brilliant “rookie” switch-hitter, Barack H. Obama whose eloquence, demeanor, and campaign achievements in more than two dozen primaries has made him a veritable slugger of Babe Ruth dimensions.
Yet as the season has lagged on and is about to enter the doldrums of June and July, it is clear that the rookie has not simply fallen into slump but has begun to hit an astounding number of ground balls that have been fielded and converted into classic double-plays by that outstanding team in the field rivaling that great trio from the old World Champion Chicago Cubs team of 1902-1910, Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance.
Newspaper columnist and Chicago native, Franklin Pierce Adams(1881-1960) who frequently wrote for the New York evening Mail and New York Tribune under the pen-name FPA, and was perhaps best known for his newspaper column, "The Conning Tower," and appearances on the radio show Information Please expressed the dismay of many New York fans who were forced to acknowledge the powerful Chicago Cub infield trio with his poem Baseball’s Sad Lexicon….. ..
These are the saddest of possible words: "Tinker to Evers to Chance." Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds, Tinker and Evers and Chance. Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble, Making a Giant hit into a double -- Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble: "Tinker to Evers to Chance."
For the past two months however, Obama has been mired in a terrible slump marked not so much by strike-outs as by his increasing propensity to hit into double plays fielded by his former teammates, the peerless fielding stars of the D.P. art, “Pfegler-to-Farrakhan-to-Wright. Whenever he has managed to smash a line drive, it has been caught by roving outfielder and ex-All Star team mate, Bill Ayres (Champion pinch hit batter of the Viet-Nam League).
Baseball is full of such stories of ex-teammates who haunt a former star player that was traded to another team or left of his own free will to follow his quest for stardom and a much bigger salary. The old teammates frequently tell stories of how the great star was once a “regular guy” who shared with them with the same enthusiasm and gusto all the same familiar pleasures of wild nights on the town, fast women, chewing tobacco and the slick tricks of the trade that could turn a hit into an extra base with the proper use of your spikes flying into the face of the second baseman or the use of an illegal extra weighted bat.
Now that the old hometown team-mate is an “allstar” and shadowed by the press and t.v., he has had to tread the straight and narrow path, pretending that, while his old gang may occasionally resort to such illicit and morally reprehensible tricks, he must reject all such ploys because, as a role model for American youth, he has to be above all such deception and suspicions. It hurts of course to disappoint the home town fans who still delight in the use of the spitball, hidden balks, dangerous baserunning, the weighted bats, and the disruptive behavior of the fans themselves to unnerve the opposition, but everyone knows today that these techniques no longer work before a huge crowd and nationally televised game. If the baseball analogy holds true going into the World Series, we are likely to witness a repetition of Ernest Lawrence Thayer’s poem, “Casey at the Bat” , The San Francisco Examiner - June 3, 1888. (Substitute Obama for Casey)
There was ease in Casey's manner as he stepped into his place; There was pride in Casey's bearing and a smile lit Casey's face. And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly doffed his hat, No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas Casey at the bat.
From the benches, black with people, there went up a muffled roar, Like the beating of the storm-waves on a stern and distant shore; "Kill him! Kill the umpire!" shouted some one on the stand; And it's likely they'd have killed him had not Casey raised his hand.
With a smile of Christian charity great Casey's visage shone; He stilled the rising tumult; he bade the game go on; He signaled to the pitcher, and once more the dun sphere flew; But Casey still ignored it, and the umpire said "Strike two!"
"Fraud!" cried the maddened thousands, and echo answered "Fraud!" But one scornful look from Casey and the audience was awed. They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain, And they knew that Casey wouldn't let that ball go by again.
The sneer has fled from Casey's lip, the teeth are clenched in hate; He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate. And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go, And now the air is shattered by the force of Casey's blow.
Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright, The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light, And somewhere men are laughing, and little children shout; But there is no joy in Mudville — mighty Casey has struck out.

Posted on 05/30/2008 9:56 AM by Norman Berdichevsky

Wednesday, 12 March 2008
Sweden And Denmark

Few neighboring countries were at war so often with each other from the Middle Ages until the end of the Protestant reformation as Sweden and Denmark--in much the same way as France and Germany from Napoleonic times until World War II. For most Americans this comes as a surprise, since both countries along with the rest of Scandinavia enjoy a modern image of peaceful states that enjoyed neutrality throughout most major modern European conflicts. The many similarities in culture, language, religion, the common reputation as "welfare states" with advanced social legislation and a social security net to prevent outright deprivation have obscured much of the same differences in outlook that distinguish Americans and Brits in spite of a long common history and shared institutions.
Like the differences that led to the American Revolution and the final separation from England in spite of the presence of a large contingent of loyalists who remained loyal to their king and oath of allegiance, Danes and Swedes could not agree on the form of the union between them. The differences separating them did not constitute an ocean but a common land boundary and narrow stretches of water. What we call Southern Sweden today is known by the regional name of Skåne (with its own flag). It was both in terms of physical geography, landscape, soils, vegetation and climate a part of the Danish Kingdom from the earliest appearance of a state embracing Jutland (Jylland), Skåne across the Øresund and the main Danish islands Funen, (Fyn) and Zealand (Sjæland), lying amidst the two "Belts" in the Kattegat.
Like the case of the English governors and the American colonial houses of representation, the Swedish and Danish nobility were diverse sources of power. Growing resentment of the Union led to the desire for renewed Swedish independence and the eviction of Danish control of Skåne, a move that would award Sweden a share in the control of the narrow straits, through which European maritime traffic passed from the North Sea and the Baltic.
It also meant the end of Danish monopoly. With two such contrasting visions of their future and status, the union collapsed and war followed war from 1434 until 1720. Even with Denmark's ability to mobilize allies, most notably the Russians, the results were almost continuously successful for Sweden, and a terrific blow to Denmark's prestige and image as the leading Scandinavian power.
The result was also a strong national enmity that built upon existing resentments. A final blow was dealt when Sweden picked the winner in the Napoleonic wars and Denmark was forced to cede control of Norway to its bitter enemy, adding a final humiliation and promoting Sweden to the undisputed position as the "big brother." This diplomatic victory was bitterly resented in both Denmark and Norway as an example of Swedish imperialism.
Although Denmark proper (Jutland, Fyn and Zealand) was never conquered by Sweden, it too suffered humiliation by its archrival as a result of constant military defeats that eclipsed its early domination of the Baltic. This ignominy served as a cause of irredentist hopes for centuries and prolonged the hatred between the two countries.
To this day, the Danish royal anthem sings of a naval victory of their King Christian IV over the Swedish fleet in 1644. By contrast, the Swedish anthem never even mentions the name of the country but exclaims, "I will live and die in 'Norden'" (a term, like Scandinavia, referring to the entire region).
World War II added a modern chapter when Denmark and Norway fell to a German invasion, while Sweden maintained a profitable neutrality and allowed transport of both German troops and German-controlled Norwegian and Finnish raw materials across its territory issues, which created an additional layer of resentment, rivalry and competitiveness.
The Danes have always had a reputation among their Scandinavian colleague as being much more European, especially because of French influence, and therefore are regarded as somewhat decadent, less puritanical, lackadaisical, sloppy, and more interested in good food and pursuing beautiful women than the aloof, industrious, neat, well-groomed, rational (the Danes would add "arrogant") Swedes--or the athletic, honest, nature-loving and athletic Norwegians. Of course, like all stereotypes, there is both exaggeration and enough of a grain of truth in these images to convince observers to look for confirmation.
The popular press, especially the mass circulation tabloids, delights in playful teasing and taunting the older brother rival that sometimes reaches grotesque proportions. Although educated people regard this pandering to old prejudices as the cheapest form of sensationalism, its continued emotional long-term appeal cannot be doubted.
A favorite part of this teasing is the double-meanings employed in manipulating the two closely related languages. Danes and Swedes will often prefer to converse in English rather than speak their own languages with each other. The written form is sufficiently similar so that the general meaning of texts can be generally understand but differences in intonation, pronunciation and the distinct different meanings of closely sounding words provide an endless form of humor. Swedes have a special "Sj" sound and most Danes use a pronounced glottal stop that are difficult for non-natives to imitate.
In 1944, a Dane and a Swede, Ellen Hartmann and Valfrid Palmgren Munch-Petersen, wrote a special dictionary titled Farlige ord og lumske ligheder i dansk og svensk (Dangerous words and awkward similarities in Danish and Swedish) that should be read by anyone needing to master the neighboring language and avoid embarrassing mistakes. One can imagine the reaction of an American woman to an expression like: "I came by yesterday to knock you up but nobody was home." For an Englishman until circa 1970 this simply meant: "I came by and knocked on the door to see if you were home."
All this may seem like making a mountain out of a molehill for many foreign observers who imagine that the Scandinavian peoples are so similar they should have long ago buried the hatchet. Indeed, all the Scandinavian states remain among the most stable in the world politically. They cooperate in many economic and social areas such as the joint SAS airline and are culturally, socially and linguistically similar, but maintain a distinct sense of political separateness.
History and especially geography has determined much of their foreign policy and prevented them from following a common one or joining in an alliance. Norway and Denmark joined NATO due to their inability to maintain their neutrality in World War II, while Sweden continues to be neutral. All three jealously guard their independence. Denmark's close proximity and border conflict over Schleswig (Slesvig) prevented Norway and Sweden from considering a Scandinavian alliance before the World Wars with their prospect of German expansionism and revenge.

Posted on 03/12/2008 4:53 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Sunday, 9 March 2008
Medved’s Five Points and The Hand of the Mahdi

Only fourteen years after the death of British General Charles George "Chinese" Gordon in 1885 near Khartoum, and the loss of his 7,000 loyal Egyptian and Sudanese troops at the hands of the followers of the religious fanatic “Mahdi”, Muhammad Ahmad, Winston Churchill wrote….……
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensuality deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. -- Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 [London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899]).
The Egyptian government had stood in a quandry before the Mahdi, a forerunner of Al-Qaeda, who claimed dominion over the entire Islamic world. Even the Ottoman Sultan regarded this fanaticism as a threat to his position as Caliph, but did not dare to challenge his claim. Gordon’s death was later avenged by a British Army (with the blessings of President Theodore Roosevelt) and in so doing, brought slavery to an end and rescued Egyptian nationalism from the threat of extinction by fundamentalist Islam. In the dramatic Hollywood film on the siege of Khartoum, the narrator plays tribute to Gordon …. We cannot tell how long his memory will live. But there is this….A world with no room for the Gordons is destined to revert to the sands.
After his victory, Muhammad Ahmad slaughtered thousands of civilians in Khartoum and took many thousands more as slaves. He became the ruler of most parts of modern day Sudan, and established a religious state, the Mahdiyah. It was governed by a harsh enforcement of Islamic law (Sharia). In Britain, Gordon was regarded as a hero and martyr and in 1898, an expedition against the Mahdists led by Horatio Kitchener avenged his death and re-conquered the Sudan.
What we know today is that there are no Gordons or Churchills in the West and that, like the helpless Sultan, there is no figure among Muslim national leaders capable of openly confronting what Churchill rightly called “this fearful fatalistic apathy“. In Gordon’s time, the Khedive of Egypt, Isma’il Pasha had sought the help of British and American military men to help create a strong Egyptian army and even if corrupt, he strove to place the welfare of the Egyptian people and their existence as a nation in the forefront of his policies. His successors committed Egyptian troops to oppose the Mahdi under Gordon's command.
Today there is no similar national ruler in the now independent Muslim states, not Mubarak in Egypt nor the third rate Shi’ite or Sunni “allies” we have in Iraq, nor Musharraf or his successors in Pakistan. Even less so among our European allies. Even when they themselves are targeted by the Islamic Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda or other fundamentalist groups, these leaders dare not try to openly move against these extremists and label their version of Islam as heretical.
This is why “Medved’s Five Points“ strike a responsive chord with many in the West, not just pacifists or ultra naïve Democrats. Even some conservative self-styled hardliners find Medved’s “logic” persuasive. This is of course, the same traditional “logic” of the old Middle East “hands” at the State Department, and the British and French Foreign Offices who recoil at the hint of a confrontation with extremist Islamists. This is why President Bush (and probably John McCain if elected) can only go so far before they are reined in by the “old hands“ at the State Department. All we have to do is listen to the most recent statements of Condi Rice and her constant apologetics for Mahmud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.
Even the ghoulish atrocity committed by a fanatic against Israeli rabbinical students in Jerusalem that elicited demonstrations of joy and street celebrations in Gaza has not been denounced by any established Muslim religious authority. The dead hand of the Mahdi continues to hold us in a strangle hold and we have reverted to the sands.

Posted on 03/09/2008 6:55 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Tuesday, 22 January 2008
Stormy Applause For Molotov

I recently came across the full text on the internet of Molotov's speech to the Supreme Soivet following the Hitler-Stalin Non-Aggression Pact of August 1939 and found one redeeming point in it. I and many others despair at the current unrelenting villification of America and Israel. Many Americans who are subject to the unremitting hostility of the Arab world claiming that they (not only "The Palestinians") are the victims, have an important ally in the impatience of "world opinion", the "desire" for peace (at any price) and often question whether cheaper oil isn't worth changing our stance.
When it comes to world history, we have the benefit of hindsight. I find it relevant and important to understand how this example of equal madness to today's lasted 22 months (August 1939 to June 1941) and for a time "made a case" appealing to those who called themselves "progressives" and "anti-war activists". Of course, it may look absurd and insane today but it is worth remembering..... especially the line that those who opposed Nazism in the West ........were waging an ideological war reminiscent of the religious wars of the olden times and that the principal victims of such a conflict were ...the working class. (Sound familiar?)
ON THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE SOVIET UNION
Report of Comrade V.M Molotov, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars and People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs, at Sitting of Supreme Soviet of USSR on Oct. 31, 1939.
Comrades deputies!
There have been important changes in the international situation during the past two months. This applies above all to Europe, but also to countries far beyond the confines of Europe. In this connection, mention should be made of three principal circumstances which are of decisive importance.
Firstly, mention should be made of the changes that have taken place in the relations between the Soviet Union and Germany. Since the conclusion of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact on August 23, an end has been put to the abnormal relations that existed between the Soviet Union and Germany for a number of years. Instead of enmity, which was fostered in every way by certain European powers, we now have rapprochement and the establishment of friendly relations between the USSR and Germany. A further improvement in these new, good relations found its reflection in the German-Soviet Treaty on Amity and the Frontier Between the USSR and Germany signed in Moscow on September 28. This radical change in the relations between the Soviet Union and Germany, the two biggest states in Europe, was bound to have its effect on the entire international situation. Furthermore, events have entirely confirmed the estimation of the political significance of the Soviet-German rapprochement given at the last session of the Supreme Soviet.
Secondly, mention must be made of such a fact as the defeat of Poland in the war and the collapse of the Polish state. The ruling circles of Poland boasted quite a lot about the "stability" of their state and the "might" of their army. However, one swift blow at Poland, first by the German army and then by the Red Army, and nothing was left of this ugly offspring of the Versailles Treaty, which had existed by oppressing the non-Polish nationalities. The "traditional policy" of unprincipled maneuvering between Germany and the USSR and of playing off one against the other has proved unsound and has suffered complete bankruptcy.
Thirdly, it must be admitted that the big war that has flared up in Europe has caused radical changes in the entire international situation. This war began as a war between Germany and Poland and turned into a war between Germany, on the one hand, and Great Britain and France, on the other. The war between Germany and Poland ended quickly owing to the utter bankruptcy of the Polish leaders. As we know, neither British nor French guarantees were of help to Poland. To this day, in fact, nobody knows what these "guarantees" were. (General laughter.) The war between Germany and the Anglo-French bloc is only in its first stage and has not yet been really developed. It is, nevertheless, clear that a war like this was bound to cause radical changes in the situation in Europe, and not only in Europe.
In connection with these important changes in the international situation certain old formulas - formulas which we employed but recently and to which many people are so accustomed - are now obviously out of data and inapplicable. We must be quite clear on this point, so as to avoid making gross errors in judging the new political situation that has developed in Europe.
We know, for example, that in the past few months such concepts as "aggression" and "aggressor" have acquired a new, concrete connotation, a new meaning. It is not hard to understand that we can no longer employ these concepts in the sense we did, say, three or four months ago. Today, as far as the European great powers are concerned, Germany is in the position of a state which is striving for the earliest termination of the war and for peace, while Great Britain and France, which but yesterday were declaiming against aggression, are in favor of continuing the war and are opposed to the conclusion of peace. The roles, as you see, are changing.
The efforts of the British and French Governments to justify this new position of theirs on the grounds of their undertakings to Poland are, of course, obviously unsound. Everybody realizes that there can be no question of restoring the old Poland. It is, therefore, absurd to continue the present war under the flag of the restoration of the former Polish state. Although the Governments of Great Britain and France understand this, they do not want the war stopped and peace restored but are seeking new excuses for continuing the war with Germany.
The ruling circles of Great Britain and France have of late been attempting to depict themselves as champions of the democratic rights of nations against Hitlerism, and the British Government has announced that its aim in the war with Germany is nothing more nor less than the "destruction of Hitlerism." It amounts to this, that the British and, with them, the French supporters of the war have declared something in the nature of an "ideological" war on Germany, reminiscent of the religious wars of the olden times. In fact religious wars against heretics and religious dissenters were once the fashion. As we know, they led to the direst results for the masses, to economic ruin and the cultural deterioration of nations. These wars could have no other outcome. But they were wars of the Middle Ages. Is it back to the Middle Ages, to the days of religious wars, superstition and cultural deterioration that the ruling classes of Great Britain and France want to drag us? In any case, under the "ideological" flag has now been started a war of even greater dimensions and fraught with even greater danger for the peoples of Europe and of the whole world. But there is absolutely no justification for a war of this kind. One may accept or reject the ideology of Hitlerism, as well as any other ideological system; that is a matter of political views. But everybody will understand that ideology cannot be destroyed by force, that it cannot be eliminated by war. It is, therefore, not only senseless but criminal to wage such a war as a war for the "destruction of Hitlerism," camouflaged as a fight for "democracy." And indeed, you cannot give the name of a fight for democracy to such actions as the banning of the Communist Party in France, the arrests of Communist deputies to the French parliament, or the curtailing of political liberties in England or unremitting national oppression in India, etc.
Is it not clear that the aim of the present war in Europe is not what it is proclaimed to be in official statements intended for the broad public in France and England. That is, it is not a fight for democracy but something else, of which these gentlemen do not speak openly.
The real cause of the Anglo-French war with Germany was not that Great Britain and France had vowed to restore the old Poland and not, of course, that they decided to undertake a fight for democracy. The ruling circles of Great Britain and France have, of course, other and more actual motives for going to war with Germany. These motives do not lie in any ideology but in their profoundly material interests as mighty colonial powers.
Great Britain, with a population of 47 million, possesses colonies with a population of 480 million. France, whose population does not exceed 42 million, is a colonial empire embracing a population of 70 million in the French colonies. The possession of these colonies, which makes possible the exploitation of hundreds of millions of people, is the foundation of the world supremacy of Great Britain and France. It is fear of Germany's claims to these colonial possessions that is at the bottom of the present war of Great Britain and France with Germany, who has grown substantially stronger of late as a result of the collapse of the Versailles Treaty. It is fear of losing world supremacy that dictates to the ruling: circles of Great Britain and France the policy of fomenting war with Germany.
Thus, the imperialist character of this war is obvious to anyone who wants to face realities and does not close his eyes to facts.
One can see from all this who is interested in this war, which is being waged for world supremacy. Certainly not the working class. This war promises nothing to the working class but bloody sacrifice and hardships.
Now judge for yourselves whether the meaning of such concepts as "aggression" and "aggressor" has changed recently or not. It is not difficult to see that the use of these words in their old meaning, that is, the meaning attached to them before the recent decisive turn in the political relations between the Soviet Union and Germany and before the outbreak of the great imperialist war in Europe, can only create confusion in people's minds and must inevitably lead to erroneous conclusions. To avoid this, we must not allow an uncritical attitude toward old concepts which are no longer applicable in the new international situation.
The relations between Germany and the other West European bourgeois states have in the past two decades been determined primarily by Germany's efforts to break the fetters of the Versailles Treaty, whose authors were Great Britain and France, with the active participation of the United States of America. This was what in the long run led to the present war in Europe. (STORMY APPLAUSE)

Posted on 01/22/2008 7:10 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Sunday, 16 December 2007
Final Remarks on Esperanto and a Real Answer to a Rhetorical Question

At the risk of turning the fine wine of a good debate into the bitter vinegar of an overly contentious subject (Esperanto with 28 citations on the statistical information of The Iconoclast), allow me to make a final statement to those who still have an open mind.
Mary Jackson’s latest remark on the issue takes the form of a question which, as usual, she also provides an answer for - “Is there an Esperanto Thesaurus? Esperanto should not really need one should it?” This tag question, as most native English speakers are aware of, is simply a rhetorical question asking for confirmation of a statement or belief and not a real question. This rhetorical device however often causes confusion for foreign learners of the language. If she is asking a real question, it deserves an answer.
For those who are actually still seeking to learn more about Esperanto, let me address a few final remarks on the matter as a native American speaker of English who is multilingual and fluent in Spanish, Hebrew, Danish and Esperanto.
The latest edition of the most widely circulated and thorough Esperanto-Esperanto dictionary La Nova Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto (The New PIV), also dubbed PIV2 (published in 2002 and already sold out) includes about 1,300 pages, 17,000 words and 47,000 lexical units. Many synonyms are mentioned in the definition of words and countless examples are given of how various grammatical and lexical devices are utilized in the form of prefixes, suffixes and infixes to alter the basic meaning of the root part of a word. I gave examples of this in my current December article “Why Esperanto is Different” as follows…..
Sano in Esperanto is the basic word for “health” and thus we have malsano (illness), sana (healthy), malsana (ill), saneco (healthiness), sane (healthily), sanilo (medicine), malsanulo (patient), sanulejo (health resort;) sanejo (health clinic), malsanulejo (hospital), sanigi (to cure) sanigi (to become well or recover), etc.
Knowing a single word for health (sano) enables the learner to immediately recognize the above twelve words according to their prefixes or suffixes and endings (o for all nouns, a for all adjectives and e for all adverbs).
There is no need for a separate Thesaurus as the speaker is perfectly capable of independently forming words according to the above schematic system. Yes, Esperanto also has synonyms like English that are based on a single word such as “bald” (kalva in Esperanto) and another that makes use of a specific descriptive ending attached to an independent word like “hairless“ (senhara in Esperanto). The prefix “sen” in Esperanto fulfils the same function as the ending -less in English to signify the lack of something speechless, mindless, fearless, etc.). English makes use of many of the same principles of word formation as Esperanto, the difference is one of degree and regularity. Esperanto is not a Stepford Wife and those who love her do not do so out of love of any theory but because they have found her to be so useful as well as attractive AND challenging.
I have written three books and more than 250 published articles and book reviews in English and a few dozen short articles in Spanish and Hebrew. Although I am fluent in these languages, I still make mistakes including in my own native language and even after proof-reading by friends, colleagues and my wife, have sometimes discovered an error in spelling, grammar or lack of clarity. This occurred much less frequently with the two short Esperanto plays and short articles I have had published.
In the book “La Bona Lingvo” by Claude Piron, whose five minute video Mary Jackson suggests (as I do) readers watch, to get an impression of the character of Esperanto, the following example by the author serves to illustrate how rich Esperanto is in synonyms. Piron names approximately 50 words and expressions in Esperanto for the equivalent French word timide (timid in English and timema in Esperanto), each one with its own nuance and amplified significance. I will analyze just one of the 50 to give the reader an idea of Esperanto’s richness and flexibility. One of the fifty synonyms is alfrontevitema. The reader immediately recognizes the root part of the word is alfront- signifying confrontation. The subsequent part of the word -evit- is the Esperanto root defining avoidance; em- is part of the final ending denoting tendency, quality, susceptibility and the final letter -a denotes an adjective. Without “thinking”, the Esperanto reader, even if he had never seen this word before can appreciate that its meaning has to do with fear some people are prone to when confronting issues and problems.
In an earlier reply to the repeated assertions that somehow Esperanto is not a living language, I made the comparison with Modern Hebrew and the Nynorsk language (one of two official languages in Norway) to show that all three were subject to exactly the same critical remarks in their early formative period of development. All three began as desk projects and were not the native, habitual or primary language of anyone. All three encountered the same criticism as Esperanto that they were “artificial”. Speakers of Yiddish mocked and satirized Eliezer ben-Yehuda and the woefully inadequate vocabulary of early Hebrew speakers in Palestine right up until the moment the British mandatory authorities recognized it an official language in 1921. Yiddish speaking visitors remarked that even in the 1920s, many Zionists promoting Hebrew lacked the necessary words for many essential objects and relations and spoke in a garbled, uncertain and “unnatural” way.
The same occurred in Norway where Ivar Aasen and his supporters had to find a “neutral” form for what they reconstructed and believed was the original Norwegian language that prevailed in the country before the Black Plague. Centuries of Danish rule had imposed a literary speech (Danish as spoken by educated Norwegians) and referred to it erroneously as “Norwegian“ something that many nationalists could not accept as the proper vehicle of expression and culture for their country and its aspirations to become an independent state.
All three are thriving today and two are the official languages of modern states - Israel and Norway.
Readers who would like to learn more about these and other language contradictions, revivals and conflicts are referred to my book “Nations, Language and Citizenship” (McFarland & Company, Inc. Jefferson, North Carolina and London. 2004. ISBN 0-7864-1710-2.)
Esperanto differs in that its speakers are not concentrated in a physical territory or defined by a common ethnicity. Many younger people today who are Esperanto speakers are NOT interested in the “Esperanto Movement” , propagandizing on its behalf or believe that the future of the language depends in any way on the long aspired goal of many idealists to achieve some form of international recognition. They are neither cranks nor idealists but continue to create an Esperanto culture that is shared around the world. They do so because they have found a vehicle of expression that they can shape that is largely free from the dominating influences of the major national languages.

Posted on 12/16/2007 5:41 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Saturday, 8 December 2007
Esperanto Is A Living Language

Mary Jackson has kindly posted a video by Claude Piron, one of the most distinguished Esperanto authors, a psychologist and U.N. interpreter who is an outstanding linguist. I urge all NER readers to watch it in spite of Mary's apparent belief that it supports her arguments that trivialize and mock Esperanto and that readers should try to avoid giggling or falling asleep. I confidently leave it to all those who have not made up their minds about the issue on a-priori grounds to learn something valuable they were not aware of (at the risk of giggling or falling asleep). It takes about 5 minutes.
Mary claims that no one has answered her arguments that Esperanto is an artificial language that cannot change as normal living languages do.
To those who still persist in labeling Esperanto an "artificial" language, please let me explain that although devised, it is a living language as much as modern Hebrew or Nynorsk (one of the two official languages in Norway). One hundred and thirty years ago there was not a single native, primary or habitual speaker of any of these languages. They were "devised" by devoted linguists and deeply dedicated men convinced that Yiddish or Dano-Norwegian (the languages most commonly spoken by East European Jews and educated urban Norwegians respectively) could NOT serve as "national languages" - the vehicle embodying the culture, future national development and historical literature of these two peoples.
Eliezer Ben-Yehuda (instrumental in the development of modern Hebrew) and Ivar Aasen (pioneer of Nynorsk), like Zamenhof , struggled to draw upon the legacy of the past to formulate a new modern literary and spoken language. Esperanto differs only in that it is not the speech of a distinct nation or ethnic group but a self-chosen diaspora of those who use it for practical utilitarian purposes and for a minority as their chosen vehicle for the expression of a cosmopolitan culture enduring and maturing for the past 120 years..
All three languages - Esperanto, Modern Hebrew and Nynorsk are LIVING languages changing as a result of the usage of those who speak and write them. Each has had an "Academy" but it has been the daily decisions of speakers in contact through correspondence, visits, tours, seminars, conferences and the production of a massive literature and cultural creativity,, not the Academy, that have changed and developed each language, its idiomatic expressions and slang.

Posted on 12/08/2007 7:22 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Thursday, 4 October 2007
Nazi-Arab Alliance in World War II

Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers’ Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das "Dritte Reich", die Araber und Palästina, (Crescent Moon and Swastika: The Third Reich, the Arabs, and Palestine) was published in September, 2006 and has yet to appear in English translation. It documents the Arab sympathies for Nazism, particularly in Palestine and German attempts to mobilize and encourage the Arabs with their ideology, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, and the forces around the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini,in Palestine.
Nazi radio broadcasts to the Arabs between 1939 and 1945 constantly proclaimed the natural German sympathy for the Arab cause against Zionism and the Jews. German Middle East experts stressed "the natural alliance" between National Socialism and Islam. And such experts as the former German Ambassador in Cairo, Eberhard von Stohrer, reported to Hitler in 1941 that "the Fuhrer already held an outstanding position among the Arabs because of his fight against the Jews."
Cüppers and Mallmann quote many original documents from the Nazi archives on this. From the late 1930s, the planning staffs dealing with the external affairs of the Reich in the Head Office of Reich Security (RSHA, Reichssecuritathauptamt: originally under the monstrous Gestapo-chief Reinhard Heydrich) sought to engulf the Arabian Peninsula and win control of the region‘s oil reserves. They dreamt of a pincer movement from the north via a defeated Soviet Union, and from the south via the Near East and Persia, in order to separate Great Britain from India.
Thanks to the counteroffensive of the Red Army before Moscow in 1941/1942 and at Stalingrad in 1942/1943, and the defeat of the German Africa Corps with El Alamein, the Germans never managed to actively intervene in the Middle East militarily although they helped spark a pro-Axis coup in Baghdad in 1941. At about the same time, Palestinian-Jewish volunteers, Free French Forces and the Australians helped rid Syria and Lebanon of the pro-Vichy Fascist regimes there.
The refusal to place the blame and ultimate responsibility for Arab flight from Palestine during 1947-48 squarely on the divided and corrupt Arab leadership itself should also be held up to scrutiny in the light of what the world has witnessed during the last five years of insurrection and guerilla war in Iraq, the fifteen year long civil war in Lebanon (1975-1990), atrocities against civilians by the Sudanese Muslim forces in Darfur, and the rival factions fighting for control in Algeria, Yemen, and Syria (“Black September“, The Muslim Brotherhood“),and similar conflicts between rival factions; mass atrocities, mutilations, indiscriminate killing, blackmail, arson, looting, and mass flight were and remain the norm in inter-Arab conflicts. The Arab civil population of Haifa and Jaffa realized long before April 1948 that their lives and property were in jeopardy from the poorly disciplined, irregular, and corrupt Arab forces as much as from the prospect of a Jewish military victory.
Dr. Herbert Pritzke was an escaped German prisoner of war who served as Chief Medical Officer for the Arab forces in Jaffa. His eyewitness account, Bedouin Doctor (Dutton, 1957) is the objective reporting of a foreign volunteer:
There was no discipline, no military police. no muster rolls, no list of personnel. No one ever knew who belonged to which unit or where the different units were. This incurable disorder was shamelessly exploited. Things happened as they were bound to happen under such leader-ship. By the end of April, the Jaffa front was completely disintegrated. The town was almost deserted. Less than a tenth of the 80,000 inhabitants remained in their homes, and even this remnant was trying by all means possible to get out of the town. Fear of their own bullying and cruel compatriots spurred them to leave home and property, not less than the imminent occupation of the town by the Jewish besiegers. Moreover, bandits, more dangerous than the occupying force, were roaming through the town singly and in groups robbing and murdering. It was clear that the depopulated and demoralized town must soon be overrun by the Jews.
We Germans, who met almost daily in my room in the hospital, found ourselves in a very precarious situation. As representatives of law and order, we could to some extent check the depredations of the bandits and looters, which did not make us popular with them. At the same time, we felt that we were hated by the embittered citizens because we could not save their town. If we managed to survive the final chaos, we could look forward to no prospect of future but captivity. The Arabs themselves no longer showed any keenness to fight for their country.
Dr. Pritzke makes no mention whatsover regarding Deir Yassin but bears out that from the beginning that it was a dirty, nasty little war fought at close quarters by intertwined populations and that at the outset of the war the Arab side possessed a clear superiority in fire power.

Posted on 10/04/2007 4:56 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Wednesday, 15 August 2007
Still waiting...
Anyone waiting with bated breath for a BBC retraction or correction of announcer Lyse Ducett's horrendous hundredfold magnification of Lebanese dead in last summer's conflcit between Hizbollah and Israel ("100,000 , mostly civilians" as she astutely emphasized) in yesterday's (Aug. 14) 8:00 EST transmission of BBC-America would be dead by now. No retraction, No correction, No apology from the news gathering agency that continues to boast it is the most accurate in the world.
Anyone who still has a warm glowing positive recollection of the BBC from World War II's memories of the blitz and the noble RAF should remain locked in their time machine with the dial permanently set at 1939-45.
Posted on 08/15/2007 1:04 PM by Norman Berdichevsky
Wednesday, 15 August 2007
Re: Nearer my Quetzalcoatl to thee
"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him? It is our problem." --from the article linked by Robert here and commented on by Hugh here
Yes, this is a brilliant solution. After all, what's in a name? Didn't Shakespeare already say a rose any any other name would smell as sweet? True, but the corollary doesn't work.
A pile of sh-t called a rose would not smell as sweet. Calling the Eastern European Communist puppet states of the USSR "People's democracies" didn't make them that. Bishop Muskens will no doubt go down in Dutch history as how not to solve problems and face the real world as much as another Dutch - pseudo-hero, - "The Hero of Haarlem", the legendary Hans Brinker, the boy who supposedly put his finger in the dyke to prevent a flood.
Posted on 08/15/2007 1:42 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

Tuesday, 14 August 2007
Bias at the BBC

The BBC continues to be a mindless apologist for Islamic outrage and often the severest critic of American and Israeli efforts to protect themselves from such outrages but this morning (Aug. 14, 2007) they outdid themselves by a an error of 100 x the real magnitude. You might like to look at this morning's 8:00 Am EST telecast of the news from the BBC-America where the news announcer without the slightest look of puzzlement or query.......
mentioned today as the first anniversary of last summer's cease-fire in Lebanon and that Hizbollah leader Nasrallah would deliver a major speech in Beirut today. She then reminded viewers that in... "that conflict, 100,000 Lebanese*, mostly civilians (sic ! and sick !), were killed;. Israel lost 187."
What this addition of two extra zeroes shows is not only the inherent bias of an institution that but that the so called "prestigious" announcers or commentators who work for the BBC have absolutely NO intrinsic knowledge of world events, but only read or misread the lines put in front of them.
* instead of 1,000

Posted on 08/14/2007 1:07 PM by Norman Berdichevsky

|
|
|
|
|
|
Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
RSS Site Feed
|
|