I was involved in the organisation of the 50th anniversary commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz, while First Secretary at the British Embassy in Warsaw. The 50th did not receive anything like the media coverage given to the 70th, of which more later.
Senior British visitors to Poland invariably included a concentration camp on their itinerary, and from escorting people around I visited camps a great deal more often than I would have wished. I found the experience appalling and desolate. The first I ever saw was Majdanek and I recall that I just had to sit helpless and shivering for some time. One thing the experience left me with – including meeting survivors and both Polish and German eye-witnesses, and seeing the architects’ plans for camps – was a contempt for those who claim the whole thing did not happen, or was an accident, or was small scale.
It in no way diminishes the genocidal attack on the Jews to remember that a vast number of Poles also died in the camps, as well as gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled and disparate political prisoners. I tried sometimes to diminish the horror I felt at involvement with the camps, with attempts at humour. I was present at a meeting listing the guests of honour; the President of Lithuania was included. I whispered that he was coming to represent the camp guards. That was offensive, and I apologise. But there is a real problem that to this day Eastern Europe – including Poland itself – has not come to terms with historical truth about collaboration with anti-Jewish genocide and other attacks on minorities. I recommend this website, which tackles these issues very honestly and is well worth a lengthy browse.
It requires bigotry not to be able to understand why nationalist resistance movements against Russian occupation became allied with Germany during World War II. That would be reprehensible only in the same sense that allied collaboration with Stalin might be reprehensible, but for the added factor of enthusiastic collaboration with genocidal and master race programmes and fascist ideology. That is what makes the glorification of Eastern European nationalist figures from this period generally inappropriate.
I fear however that the real reason that the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz received so much more coverage than the 50th is a media desire to reinforce the narrative of the War on Terror and Western policy in the Middle East by invoking the spectre of massive anti-Semitism. There have been isolated but deplorable, apparently anti-Semitic attacks of a small-scale terrorist nature in France and Belgium in recent years. But to conflate this into stories of a wave of popular anti-Semitism in Europe is a nonsense. Maureen Lipman’s claim that she may have to leave the UK is not just silly but disingenuous. I do not believe she feels in personal danger of attack – there is absolutely no reason why she should – she is rather making a political point.
There are two factors which could exacerbate anti-Semitism at present. One is the appalling behaviour of Israel and its indefensible action in continually seizing Palestinian land and using its military superiority to dominate and occasionally massacre Palestinians. Regrettably, there are a very small minority of people who wrongly blame Jews in general for the actions of Israel.
The second factor is of course the terrible economic hardship wrought across the whole world by irresponsible banking practices, and the fact that the bankers luxury lifestyles were maintained at the cost of everybody else. There are still a tiny minority of people stuck in the medieval mindset associating banking with the Jewish community. There is in fact a very plausible argument that if any “race” has a disproportionate influence on the development and character of international banking since the mid eighteenth century, it is the Scots! But those who see banking as a racial issue are nutters.
You could construct an argument from these factors, and you could identify that anti-Semitic people do exist. They certainly do. They dominate the very small category of people who get banned even from this free speech blog. But are their opinions intellectually respectable, promoted in the mainstream or able to be expressed openly without fear of either social or legal consequences? No, no and no. Anti-semites are fortunately a tiny and strange minority. I might add that in my numerous and frequent social contacts in the British Muslim community, I have never encountered anti-Semitism (unlike, say, Poland and Russia where I encountered casual anti-Semitism quite frequently).
The final point, is of course, the conflation of anti-zionism with anti-Semitism. That seems to me the fundamental design of the media campaign exaggerating the scale of anti-Semitism at the moment. Yes, we must always remember the terrible warnings from history and it is right to remember those who died in the concentration camps, Jewish, Polish, Romany, Gay, Communist or any other category. But we should be aware of those who wish to manipulate the powerful emotions of horror thus evoked, for present objectives of the powerful.
@Clark: “That’s not quite fair. He had half an hour to read it before he posted the reply.”
Oh come on. If the MMR scandal was of genuine interest, that piece i referenced on Goldacre’s site was the place to start. It contained irrefutable fact, and was logically presented, with plenty more references for anyone to do some research. I added a little to it, but JSD’s only reply was to provide a link to a hit-piece against Goldacre personally from some dubious organisation, together with the boast that he – JSD – had taken but 30 seconds to find said hit-piece.
And that was his only reply. This is from someone who pretended to be genuinely interested and concerned about MMR. Follow-up came there none, so if he had actually read the piece he referenced (which you kindly supposed on his behalf), JSD found nothing of actual substance worth highlighting. My own interpretation is that he didn’t bother reading it at all, but just wanted a cheap come-back to support his original prejudice. And that he is lying in pretending to be a concerned bystander to this whole business.
Britain will have a new National Memorial and world-class Learning Centre using the latest digital technology to commemorate and educate about the Holocaust Prime Minister David Cameron has announced at an event to mark the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
The National Memorial and Learning Centre are 2 of the recommendations made today by the cross-party Holocaust Commission set up by the Prime Minister which has spent the last year investigating how the country should ensure that the memory of the Holocaust is preserved and that the lessons it teaches are never forgotten.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-pledges-prominent-holocaust-memorial-for-britain
…………………………………
Just at a time when austerity in the UK is peaking, and children are sometimes going hungry, David Cameron and the UK government have pledged to spend £50 million quid of taxpayers hard earned cash on a Holocaust Memorial centre so we never forget.
What a complete and utter waste of taxpayers cash, it should make you angry the way the UK government are frittering our taxes away.
Republicofscotland, 10:20 pm:
That’s why I said it was good parody.
Why did you go along with Spivey? You reckon these judges are better than you?
The UK system is still better than many (no, really, Craig was in Uzbekistan), but it’s degrading fast; that’s what we mean by “loss of civil liberties and protections”. The point is to spot what’s wrong and draw attention to it, try to get it fixed. The MSM don’t care; we have to push them. Just like Herman Hesse complained in Steppenwolf (one of Craig’s favourite books), they’re too busy banging the drums for war, but this time we’ve got the Internet.
Glenn, maybe he’s just thinking it over.
“A file that big?
It could have been very useful.
Sorry, 404”
Republicofscotland’ I don’t mind the government spending cash building things and employing people. I’d like them to do more of that. And I don’t mind a 70th anniversary information centre either – this event is just about to pass out of living memory – my adoptive parents only died a few years ago, they both did their bit in WWII, neither had anything directly to do with Auschwitz, but they all knew what they were fighting.
I’ll agree the government seems to favour policy that pleases Israel, and that this is an example of that. But yes, if the government is so keen to give money away, like they have been to the banks, I’d rather see it injected into the economy through the people, working and building. Better than spending it on yet more war.
So I suppose I’d like to see other stuff being commemorated too. How about reopening loads of the little coastal stations as visitor centres, cups of tea and spirit of the ’40s?
CanSpeccy 28/01/2015 11:50 pm (part two)
[JSD 1]: My understanding is that for hundreds of years this particular passage has been cited as a justification for the murder and persecution of Jewish people, as bearing hereditary responsibility for the execution of the Saviour throughout history.
[CanSpeccy 1]: That may be,
[JSD 2]: Regrettably, there’s no “may” about it. It seems that the passage has been recorded as being used in this manner since the second century AD.
[CanSpeccy 1]: but it has little to do with the Christian faith
[JSD 2]: You are making a distinction between the Christian faith and the behaviour of people calling themselves Christians. Actually, I never said that the Christian faith was responsible. However, what is the practical difference? If people recite the Apostolic Creed in church, and then go and sack synagogues or enact discriminatory laws against Jewish people, what does it matter what they say they believe?
[CanSpeccy 1]: which, for all the great Christian churches, Catholic or Orthodox, is based on the Apostolic Creed, which has nothing whatever to say about the murder of Jesus by the Jews.
[JSD 2]: Agreed. However, the Christian faith is quite clearly based upon more than the Apostolic Creed. The Apostolic Creed says nothing about original, inherited sin, for example. It says nothing about Adam and Eve. It says nothing about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. (As an aside, it does speak of Christ descending into hell, which does not seem to be made explicit in the New Testament). So, are these things part of the Christian faith, or not? If they are, how do we know that they are? Because they are based on Scripture. So, too, is the acceptance by the Jewish crowd on behalf of themselves and their children of the responsibility for the execution of Jesus. If we don’t happen to like that particular passage of Scripture, that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Plenty of Christians seem to have liked it just fine.
CanSpeccy 30/01/2015 1:21 am
[CanSpeccy 2]: I find it curious, John, that you consider Matthew’s gospel anti-Semitic
[JSD 3]: I consider this particular passage anti-Semitic. It’s not my fault, I did not put the passage there. Matthew did.
[CanSpeccy 2]: since Matthew makes it clear that Jesus was a Jew preaching to the Jews, as in Matthew 5: 17:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
From that we can infer that the author of Matthew was himself a strictly observant Jew. It is quite illogical, therefore, to suppose that he contrived a false anti-Semitic account of Jesus’s death?
[JSD 3]: No, I do not agree. Whether Matthew was a strictly observant Jew, or not, he was more than that. He was a Christian. He may have regarded himself as ceasing to be a Jew, therefore, in the way he would have understood non-Christian Jews to be, on becoming a member of the new faith.
CanSpeccy 30/01/2015 1:36 am
[CanSpeccy 2]: But, John, let me reiterate that the Christian faith is not based on the gospels,
[JSD 3]: The Christian faith is not based on the Gospels?
[CanSpeccy 2]: which are hearsay accounts written a generation after the death of Jesus.
[JSD 3]: Modified and knocked about to suit the particular theological bent of the writer. If not, how comes it that the passage we are discussing occurs in only one Gospel?
[CanSpeccy 2]: All major Christian faiths are based on the Apostolic Creed
[JSD 3]: What is the Apostolic Creed based on?
[CanSpeccy 2]: that says nothing about Jews killing Jesus. Insofar as there has been anti-Semitism in Europe it has been anti-Semitism of mostly Christians,
[JSD 3]: Using what as theological justification?
[CanSpeccy 2]: but that does not make Christianity an anti-Semitic religion, it just means that the beliefs and actions of Christians do not necessarily follow from the religious doctrine to which they supposedly subscribe.
[JSD 3]: That actually seems to me to be a perfect example of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
Mr A: No Christian persecutes Jews based upon his faith.
Mr B: How about this man? He persecutes Jews and he says it’s based upon his faith.
Mr A: Ah, but no true Christian persecutes Jews based upon his faith.
I understand what you are getting at, though, I hope. Of course, there have been an enormous number of Christians who have abhorred the very idea of persecution and prejudice, against Jews or anybody else, and very often under cultural conditions within Christendom that have required enormous bravery to oppose. And the reason that they have done so, they fully believe, is their Christian faith. Everybody should recognize them as the finest humanity has had to offer, and honour them fully.
Kind regards,
John
Glenn, I haven’t read either article; Goldacre has always seemed to write well referenced good sense articles.
We know how it goes with Scouse Billy; he’ll use a piece of science or reports thereof if it suits him, and then pick some fringe stuff or pseudoscience at other times. But I’ve never seen him present a whole, consistent science. If he’s going to pursue this, I think he really needs to lay out which important theories he disagrees with. He needs to lay out the boundaries, because science isn’t just a load of disjointed theories that don’t affect each other; it’s an intricate structure of mutual support. Mainstream science broadly already works. If Scouse Billy says it’s broken, he has to account for why it gets so many answers right. Science has already made a good name for itself so far as I can see. Just ask your parents, or think back to childhood.
John Spencer-Davis, that’s a very detailed argument followed by a very rousing conclusion for specific types of Christians. Do you consider yourself Christian? Are there any particular sects that you support?
What’s the Apostolic Creed?
“. Science has already made a good name for itself so far as I can see. Just ask your parents, or think back to childhood.”
There was a kid in my class at school had to wear iron leg braces because of polio.
Ah Fred, if only you’d support independence! How could anything go wrong with the likes of you to turn to? They’d all love you, call you the Old English Wizard who lives up by the Hill o’ Many Stanes. May your curry and hacking be famous.
Clark :
“The corporate media lead audience attention in the direction they want it to go, which is to themselves, and hence their adverts. They are very keen on war because – you’ve guessed it – circulation is higher when there’s a war.
The audience is the product. It is sold to advertisers. The bigger the audience the more money it is worth. So the MSM legitimise war, and encourage other sensational events. Does the MSM want more or less terrorism?”
Clark, are you really saying that newspapers support war to raise their circulation? I’d be interested to see any statistics to support this claim. Newspaper readership is so low these days that a few percentage points increase would hardly cover the extra expense of reporting from a war zone.
But anyway, its clear that making a profit is not the primary reason for owning a newspaper. The Independent newspaper has never made a profit since it was founded in 1986, yet it has a queue of prospective buyers every time it comes up for sale.
Profit is a bonus, the primary motive is influence.
Fred, how about refurbishing this place – this was what popped into my mind when answering RoS at 10:58 pm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brora_Y_Station
Can’t you update Wikipedia with some photos?
…and Clark …. remind Squonk it’s the 1st of the month!
Node, the readership is still on-line, trading off the old reputations, and that still gets eyes onto adverts. And yes, there’s buying influence, too, but the audiences for the more serious outlets those are lower. But the narrative has to be mutually supportive to some extent – the heavyweights justify what the tabloids crow about.
I think if you check, war and sensational events do still draw audience. No, not so many reporters go to war ones, and those that do mostly get “embedded” into the military. But there’s “churnalism” which compensates – few reporters output processed into multiple reports. Plus there’s “avertorial” content, adverts disguised as editorial content, supplied by corporations, pre-made, easy to eat all you can, and benefiting the commercial concerns that supply it.
Oh and there are the spooks and spin doctors. So much to think about, so many influences to account for. But it’s like chipboard – it’s reconstructed under pressure and moulding out of bits that are still recognisable as little chunks of fact, mostly. But they were in a state of greater order before they went through processing.
@Clark “Glenn, maybe he’s just thinking it over.”
Maybe. But for someone so keen to rubbish an article based on the author, so keen to examine the source rather than the word, it’s surprising that JSD didn’t bother looking at the source he himself relied upon.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Age_of_Autism
“Age of Autism” is clearly an anti-vaccine site run by cranks who don’t understand or believe in science. They prefer anecdote, quackery, mubo-jumbo, scares and downright BS instead. Maybe SB himself works there. This is the site hosting a long, rambling article full of slurs against Goldacre, that JSD just happened to chance upon within 30 seconds, as he did his due diligence as a dispassionate, honest observer.
@ John Spenser-Davies
No, I do not agree. Whether Matthew was a strictly observant Jew, or not, he was more than that. He was a Christian. He may have regarded himself as ceasing to be a Jew, therefore, in the way he would have understood non-Christian Jews to be, on becoming a member of the new faith.
You’re wrong and seemingly willfully so.
Read the passage from Matthew again:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Jesus, the Jew, was preaching as a Jew to Jews urging upon them strict adherence to the Jewish law. So how could the author of the Gospel of Matthew have “regarded himself as ceasing to be a Jew.”
That the author of the Gospel of Matthew was a Christian in no way refutes that conclusion.
A Messiah was a Jewish leader. Jesus was a Jewish spiritual leader and therefore regarded as a Messiah. He was considered a leader anointed by God and was thus the Christ. This is all perfectly Jewish. So the fact that Jesus’s followers may have called themselves Christians did not make them any the less Jewish. According to Matthew’s account, the Christians were Jews urged by Jesus to show the strictest adherence to the Jewish law.
I’m sorry, I’m not going to deal with your other wiffle waffle. If you want to debate theology, you’ll have to learn the basic facts, rather than just making stuff up.
Glenn, I’ve looked at the Age-of-Autism link and your RationalWiki link; to me this looks like the commercialisation of drugs and treatment, from both sides. Age-of-Autism is a US site. There’s money to be made on this in both directions. Claims and large pay-outs were mentioned earlier.
Goldacre has exposed all sorts of distortion in drugs testing etc, but it’s certainly the corporate media that have promoted him, and no one is perfect. But loads of US children are diagnosed with all sorts of mental problems, not just autism. Companies pressure GPs to prescribe outside the recommended age range for drugs. Loads of kids are diagnosed with attention deficit disorders. I suspect polarisation and hardening of attitudes all round. But in the US, treatment, lawyers, insurance, drug companies – they all want their slice of the pie.
Glenn, but yes, John Spenser-Davies did seem to pick up on that response really quickly; it does look like he already held a position on this.
Canspeccy, what is John Spenser-Davies’ rousing appreciation of non-anti-Semitic Christians likely to indicate?
I never knew you were into theology. Are you religious?
Thank you for this piece Craig – your recollections were moving. There isn’t anything you have said here that I would disagree with. I recently watched an old You Tube talk by the Holocaust survivor Hajo Meyer from ‘Never Again – For Anyone’ and the comments were very sad. Perhaps 2 in 10 praised him. Half of the remainder condemned him as a self hating jew and would-be collaborator and the other half of the remainder called his whole story and stance a fabrication because there was no Holocaust.
I wonder why Andrew Wakefield and others have persisted with these allegations to the point where their careers have been destroyed. What’s their motive? Certainly not financial.
Indeed, Node – integrity can’t be bought:
On a lighter note (geddit), this is my favourite jazz treatment of Chopin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTarYsYfuX4&list=PL00D0FE2E3AFF5ADD
Node, I’ve only glanced at the MMR thing. I know that the discoverers of H. pylori’s role in stomach ulcers faced fierce, drug-company funded opposition against any recognition; one of them eventually infected himself to prove his point. I think that story is probably ongoingly and expensively sanitised, so others may well be, too. It’s a dirty game when there’s money involved; maybe those two have integrity, maybe they do but they lost for other reasons, I’d have to dig deep and there is only so much time.
Do those two say the principle of vaccination doesn’t work and the whole theory of it is protected by corrupt so-called scientists?
Ah, Scouse Billy. Can you lay out some boundaries please?
It’s late, Clark but here’s a little ensemble – can you spot the “alien” in their midst?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwo6NzL-R5U
🙂
I dunno, am I supposed to recognise the man adjusting the mic? Where was it recorded? They’re very good.
Look, if you start declaring big chunks of science fraudulent, I think you should say where you think it starts. I know I can check out optics, electronics, mechanics, chemistry, all sorts of stuff with simple equipment. I haven’t done much biology, but people do, and there’s cross-over with the other sciences, people would notice if it was fraudulent. Where do you want me to break away? What sort of scientists should I suspect to this degree?
Well I’d best go to bed. It can’t be said I haven’t tried, and I feel that I’ve asked quite a few reasonable questions that got no satisfactory answers. Republicofscotland and Node seemed inquisitive and fair, Fred practical, and Glenn’s scepticism a bit too hard, maybe, but it’s the safer choice, generally. Habbabkuk left the chamber early, and perhaps Scouse Billy would prefer to stick to music videos for now. Good to see Fiona again.
No that’s not fair on Scouse Billy who may have flagged up a problem, but seems to have done so by collecting everything opposing mainstream science that he can find, in order to dismiss the whole enterprise – but only when it suits him to do so. He has failed to discuss the wider and deeper problem of the limits of the validity of science.
Just as a BTW, Clark – that isn’t “my” rationalwiki site – it was just something that (with 30 seconds’ research!) indicated that the Autism site from “Honest” John Spencer-Davis was not exactly on the up-and-up.
Do you really think my cynicism of these posters is a bit harsh? The credulous “honest” John S-D, the useful idiot Soused Billy, or even the slightly worryingly open minded RoS?
But heh – what does it matter anyway. The 0.1% will outlast us, life will be insufferable here well within 50 years, apart from those isolated resorts where the 0.001% can bask around their swimming pools and be pampered. They will get maybe another couple score years, if they move around plenty and keep on their toes, but such victories will be of no use to the likes of you and me, Clark.
We get no pleasure out of warning about clear dangers. Strange creatures like SB delight in denying it. Why do you suppose we even bother doing this? The outcome is already abundantly clear.