Credit to Inquisition-art.

Peter Kerstein defends academic free inquiry from intellectual auto-da-fe:

“Nation-states denying entry to controversial, independent-thinking scholars is increasingly common. The United States has fallen prey to such retrogressive actions as the revocation of a visa for the renowned University of Notre Dame visiting Islamic scholar, Tariq Ramadan. The politics of historical revisionism in the case of David Irving has similar baleful consequences for the unrestricted dissemination of nonconformist ideas. Mr. Irving is banned from Germany, Australia, Canada, Italy and New Zealand due to criticism of his scholarship and public utterances concerning World War II. The New Zealand decision, while literally applying its immigration law barring the entry of persons previously deported from third countries, has generated a nationwide debate whether Mr. Irving should be prohibited from lecturing on the historiography of World War II before the National Press Club. David Zwartz, president of the New Zealand Jewish Council and honorary Israeli consul in New Zealand, has led the campaign for exclusion. He described Mr. Irving as an “organism—even a two-legged one—that attacks our people.” (New Zealand Herald, July 26, 2004) Mr. Zwartz also claimed that denying entry to Mr. Irving had nothing to do “with suppressing his ideas” because his oeuvre is “available to anyone who wishes to access them.” (e-mail to author, August 3, 2004) The New Zealand Herald courageously demurred and editorialized in favor of freedom for historians. ( July 22, 2004)

Mr. Irving’s lot is that of all historians—to constantly re-appraise the events of the past. No event should be out of bounds. If, as in this case, the conclusions are palpably wrong, that is no reason for preventing their presentation—and their challenging by more profound scholarship. The only counter to flawed views is informed debate. Opinions that during this process are shown to be devoid of worth, wisdom or accuracy will quickly be discarded.

If one becomes a public figure due to widespread opposition to one’s speech—whether written or verbal—there are two choices: Fight or flight. If one determines upon reflection to maintain one’s commitment to principled beliefs, then one must avoid flight. Indeed if faced with an ideologically inspired auto-da-fé that threatens one’s occupation and livelihood, bending to the forces of conformity with their armamentarium of suspensions, reprimands, press releases, censorship and aroused public indignation, merely encourages additional coercion. One of the ironies in confronting the consensus orthodoxy of the Vital Center is when the offending rhetoric transmogrifies into protective armor and bestows a fierce commitment to stay the course and resist the firestorm. There emerges a heightened sense of self-worth and renewed dedication to one’s basic values. Recantation is not an option. Surrendering one’s ethics and core beliefs is not an option. Evolving and articulating different viewpoints are possible, and perhaps laudable, but not while under assault by Inquisitions in modern dress that substitute the Internet or economic intimidation for stake burnings.

Father Arthur Terminiello had a reputation for racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Communist epithets. The Birmingham, Alabama priest, who ministered to tenant farmers in Alabama and Florida, was known as the Father Coughlin of the South. Father Terminiello was arrested in Chicago in 1946 for haranguing against a threatening and disorderly mob that sought to disrupt his speech before Gerald L. K. Smith’s Christian Veterans of America. His detention granted his protagonists a Heckler’s veto, whereby a speaker is silenced merely due to protest against the event. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed an Illinois judge’s jury instructions that Chicago’s breach of the peace ordinance proscribed any utterance that “stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance. ” Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), affirmed free speech is essential for a free people:

Free speech…may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger…That is why freedom of speech though not absolute…is nevertheless protected against censorship and punishment…For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas by…dominant political or community groups. [Emphasis added.]

Hopefully Justice Douglas’s stirring reaffirmation of the importance of free speech for a democratic society will dissuade those who wish to abridge it and embolden those who wish to exercise it.“

Steve Sailer writes a brave analysis (like me, he realizes that deconstructing the gay lobby is rather important to deflecting war with Russia and other countries);

“Today, under the pro-Semitic Putin, Jews make up what’s approaching a fifth of Russia’s billionaires, but that’s less than in the 1990s, so it seems to the American media as if the Cossacks must be riding in like at the end of the first act of Fiddler on the Roof.

In America, where Jews make up one-third of the billionaires, it’s hard to argue that anti-Semitism is much of a problem anymore. Hence, one outlet for anti-anti-Semitic energies has been the gay movement.

Richard Grenier, the longtime movie reviewer for Commentary, was one of the first to call attention to this connection. After going to see Tony Kushner’s Angels in America and other AIDS plays in 1993, Grenier wrote:

… in a recent week of diligent theatergoing in New York, at the more commercially successful homosexual works, I got the impression that the audiences were something like 10 per cent homosexuals and 90 per cent heterosexual Jews—to all appearances well-to-do, liberal, husband-and-wife couples. We had some heterosexual Gentiles in the audiences, no doubt, but they appeared to be a distinct minority. During a preview of Angels in America, when one of the characters uttered an expletive in Yiddish, the house positively roared with laughter …

Grenier noted:

Many liberal Jews… have fully accepted the parallel between discrimination based on race or religion and discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” This parallel is reflected in the AIDS plays—indeed, it is more than reflected. To put it plainly, these plays are about Jews and Jewishness almost as much as they are about homosexuality.… The characters talk endlessly about Jews and homosexuality, homosexuality and Jews. The playwrights themselves find a correlation.

Am I not to notice this?

Not noticing is usually the most prudent policy in modern America. Then again, is it worth heedlessly bear-baiting our way into a war with Russia because we’re not supposed to notice?

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/but_is_it_good_for_the_gays_steve_sailer/print#ixzz2yPvlE4wE

Christopher Cantwell, being brutalist:

“At the end of this discussion, it really doesn’t matter who’s right or who’s wrong, the person with the superior numbers is going to force their bad ideas on everybody else at gun point. Just imagine doing this in reverse, where you start with a threat instead of ending with it. Nobody would try to be polite about their disagreement under those circumstances.

Since we know we have inferior numbers, and the minority always gets screwed and threatened by democracy, this is exactly what this discussion looks like to us. It begins and ends with the threat of violence, so the fact that we don’t shoot you in the face really speaks volumes to our civility.”

Comment:

Cantwell, a righteous atheist, is pretty good on his ten reasons why libertarians don’t need to be nice.

Note: I don’t consider myself a libertarian of the anarcho-capitalist variety.

I’m a classical liberal.

I come down on the same side as LRC on a lot – if not a majority – of issues for practical reasons.  At some point, I will have the time to stop following the news and read more theory and then I will resolve the theoretical arguments for myself.

Jerusalem Post:

Russian lawmakers approved a bill that would make Holocaust denial illegal.

The lower house of the Russian Parliament, or Duma, passed the measure Friday on its first reading, the Voice of Russia reported Monday, making it illegal to deny the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal and punishing the “rehabilitation of Nazism.”

Those found guilty of the crime could be fined up to $8,300 or imprisoned up to three years. Public officials or media personalities would be fined nearly double or face up to five years in prison.

The bill also needs the approval of the Federation Council, or upper house. It was authored five years ago and resubmitted in February.”

Holocaust denial is illegal in only 17 countries, most of which are in Europe, where the majority of  crimes against Jews, as a people/religion, have been committed.

However, there is a substantial body of research and evidence that argues that those crimes were reactions to previous offenses or provocations.

Here is where the problem lies.

In order to credibly make their case, the revisionists have to enter fields of inquiry that on their face appear anti-Semitic.  But since the future of Europe is very much a captive of how her history is written,  the research becomes politically vital.

So, although the actual number of countries that have criminalized revisionist history isn’t overwhelming by any means, the importance of the outlawing is. Because of it, history is still held hostage to power.

This long and important piece by Glenn Greenwald describes a variety of tactics used by government operatives to infiltrate, trick, and generally game internet discourse. I’ve mentioned many of the tactics I’ve spotted on the net, but there’s nothing like seeing the actual operational plan. The only problem with the piece is that Greenwald himself is likely a limited hang-out/damage-control guy. Others have said as much about the way he’s been dribbling out the Snowden material.

Also, in this piece he references Anonymous.

Well, a lot of people think Anonymous itself is an operation run by some spy agency. So, while Greenwald’s information is good, I’m sure what he reveals is only a portion of what’s going on. The real action is probably several steps ahead of us.

CORRECTION 2 I don’t endorse private property hooliganism. I fully support acts of disruption against public property.

CORRECTION:

I changed the heading of this post from “WW2 facts” to WW2 history” because my support for Irving is not a claim that I endorse his views.

Again, I need to clarify, that I do not endorse David Irving’s views as to the accuracy of the numbers of deaths in the Holocaust. However, I do agree with his belief that the Holocaust is heavily politicized, as is the history of WW2.

The politicization plays a prominent role in speech-control in the West today, with dozens of people jailed for it.

Irving himself denies being a “holocaust denier” and agrees that millions of Jews did die in the holocaust. The label anti-Semite and “hater” has been applied to him because he disputes certain facts about WW2 history. I am in no position to judge how accurate or not his beliefs are, but they are evidently sincerely held and Irving is evidently a writer with impressive accomplishments and credentials.  Thus, he is by definition a political dissident.

The very essence of free speech is the protection of unpopular opinion, especially political and religious opinion.

After, having destroyed Irving’s career and reputation by labeling him a “hater,” “Nazi,” and “anti-Semite,” the state media (BBC, in this case), then lifted his work whole-sale for their own purposes, a tactic that is endlessly used.

ORIGINAL POST

Land-destroyer blog (Tony Cartalucci, whom I’ve linked before but whose credibility has been questioned by some people) has a great list of  state oppressions that the champions of the oppressed among the humanitarian libertarians never seem to talk about:

“The US State Department-backed so-called “punk band” going by the name of “Pussy Riot,” stormed into a Moscow church, defaming the Russian government while mocking the beliefs of churchgoers with vulgarity and disruptive behavior. Marketed as an act of “freedom of expression” by the Western media and the West’s collection of foreign ministries, it was in reality what would be called both a hate-crime and disorderly conduct in the West. Furthermore, in the West, such an act would come with it steep fines and lengthy jail sentences.

In fact, similar cases have played out in the West – minus the feigned indignation over the perceived violation of free speech of alleged bigots, racists, and hooligans that have preceded “Pussy Riot.” In many cases, the West has actively pursued not only people harassing others and creating public disturbances, but also those distributing material to like minded people who’s beliefs are simply perceived as “socially harmful.”

The West Has Jailed Many For Similar or Lesser Offenses

[Lila: Actually, Cartalucci is wrong on this. Irving is a genuine political dissident, performing a vital task – elucidating history. Pussy Riot was violating publi private

[I accidentally wrote public, when I meant private property.  Activism in the public sphere or on public property is fine. Tax-payers own the place anyway.  But I was referring to Pussy-Riot’s actions disrupting church services, which are conducted on private property.]

property, not making any kind of rational statement that I could make out.

They are agents provocateurs, not political dissidents.  My own experience has proved to me that in the US  there are heavy social and economic costs for even factual, even-handed and credible alternative opinions. Everywhere, the snitches and sheep-herders of the money-power are busy, along with government operatives. If you figure them out, watch out.]

Cartalucci::

• 3 Years in Jail for Revising History: In 2006, the BBC reported, “British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison.” The BBC also reported, “the judge in his 2000 libel trial declared him “an active Holocaust denier… anti-Semitic and racist.”” Irving’s beliefs, as unpopular as they may be, were expressed in his writings and speeches, not in the middle of a synagogue he had burst into.

• 4 Years and 2 Years in Jail for Operating “Racist” Website: For the crime of operating a US-based “racist” website and possessing with intent to distribute “racist material,” two British men, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle were sentenced to 4 years and 2 years respectively in the UK in 2009. The presiding judge, according to the BBC, “told the men their material was “abusive and insulting” and had the potential to cause “grave social harm.”” Unlike Pussy Riot, however, these 2 men only crammed their leaflets into the door of a synagogue – instead of bursting in. Still they received 3-4 years in prison.
• 3 Years in Jail for Harassing a Jewish Man and Public Hate Speech: In 2011, an Australian man posted an “anti-Semitic” video on YouTube earning him a 3 year jail sentence. The video apparently showed the convicted man insulting a Jewish man before going on a tirade “in front of the Perth Bell Tower,” reported ABC of Australia. Clearly insulting someone in Australia and creating a public disturbance is a punishable crime, yet somehow the Australian government sees insulting churchgoers in Russia as “freedom of expression.” Equally as clear, is that hypocrisy and selective principles are being liberally exercised.

[Lila: Again, I disagree with this case. The man has no right to an offensive tirade on private property and certainly not to propagandize children, who are not at the age of consent.]

• 5 Years in Jail for Disagreeing With Mainstream History: Also in 2009, a man was jailed for 5 years for “propagating Nazi ideas and Holocaust denial” in Austria, Reuters reported. Gerd Honsik apparently wrote books and magazines which he attempted to distribute in schools, though it was the content of the material, not the manner in which he tried to distribute it that earned him his lengthy jail sentence. Unpopular though his ideas may be, according to the latest tirade by the West, he not only should’ve been allowed to proclaim them publicly, but do so in a place of worship amongst those he despised.
  

• Detainment for “Hateful” Public Disturbance: This year, the British Daily Mail reported in their article, “Elmo in cuffs: Man dressed as Sesame Street character is carried away in Central Park after anti-Semitic rant in front of kids,” that “the appearance of a hate-spewing man dressed up as Elmo was a jarring one for many New Yorkers who visited Central Park on Sunday afternoon.” The article elaborated by saying that though the man was put in handcuffs and taken away, he was not arrested. While no arrest or sentence was handed down, the story clearly indicates that there is a line drawn as to what is “freedom of speech” and what is “disturbing the peace” in the United States.

• Arrested for Aggravating “religious and racial” Facebook Comments:  For the crime of posting “anti-Semitic” remarks on Facebook, the BBC reported that “five men and a 15-year-old youth” were arrested in May, 2012. The BBC would elaborate by reporting, “the six people arrested were charged with a breach of the peace with religious and racial aggravations.”

Credit for the image to cartoonstock.

To militant humanitarians everywhere:

The Angry Man

by Phyllis McGinley

The other day I chanced to meet
An angry man upon the street —
A man of wrath, a man of war,
A man who truculently bore
Over his shoulder, like a lance,
A banner labeled “Tolerance.”

And when I asked him why he strode
Thus scowling down the human road,
Scowling, he answered, “I am he
Who champions total liberty —
Intolerance being, ma’am, a state
No tolerant man can tolerate.

“When I meet rogues,” he cried, “who choose
To cherish oppositional views,
Lady, like this, and in this manner,
I lay about me with my banner
Till they cry mercy, ma’am.” His blows
Rained proudly on prospective foes.

Fearful, I turned and left him there
Still muttering, as he thrashed the air,
“Let the Intolerant beware!”

A Catholic peeks behind homophile revisionist history….. and finds bunkum:

Anti-Catholic polemicist Steve Hays recently wrote:

“Given that Michelangelo was a notorious homosexual whose art reflects his homoerotic fixation, Dave’s illustration is a queer choice to prove his point.

(comment of 1-8-07)
So was he or wasn’t he? Particularly, Catholics want to know if he was a practicing homosexual (which is where the bulk of the sinfulness lies). I don’t know one way or another, myself, but I highly suspect that his case might be one of many that radical homosexual activists (who notoriously butcher biblical texts also) have chosen to distort historical evidence and fact. Basically, they conclude that anyone who was single may have been a homosexual. Cardinal Newman is one oft-cited example that comes to mind right away. Does anyone argue that Michelangelo was not a homosexual, with solid reasoning?

I found a review by Loren Partridge (Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 2, Summer, 1984, pp. 269-271), of Robert S. Liebert’s book, Michelangelo: A Psychoanalytic Study of His Life and Images (New Haven-London: Yale University Press, 1983). Unfortunately, access is limited, but the Google blurb which led me to it cited Partridge as follows: “Liebert argues persuasively that Michelangelo was probably not an active homosexual. This is a refreshing corrective . . .”

James H. Beck is the author of Three Worlds of Michelangelo (Norton: 1999). A review in Axiom News, 25th February, 1999, page 9 states:

Artist and gay icon Michelangelo may not have been gay according to a controversial new study into his life and works. James Beck, author of the study and specialist in Renaissance art at Columbia University, claims that his lack of sexual activity was more to do with a fear of sexually transmitted diseases, a dislike of sex in general and devotion to his family, rather than any homosexual tendency.

His study, Three Worlds of Michelangelo states: “Michelangelo may have never married out of distaste for the sexual act.”

Professor Beck said: “The fact that he admired and rendered marvellous images of young men cannot be used as evidence of real or latent homosexuality. As female models were very rare, Michelangelo based his rendering on males, usually his studio boys, as was customary.”Patricia Fortini Brown, in her review of the same book in The New York Times, wrote:

“And what about his much discussed sexual orientation? While allowing that his celebration of the male nude extended to a masculinization of his female subjects, Beck denies that Michelangelo was a homosexual, ”closet or otherwise.” Nor was he particularly attracted to women. According to the author, the sparse evidence suggests that the artist ”had few, if any, sexual experiences.” Passion he had, but it was directed toward his art.An article in the evangelical magazine, Christian History & Biography, “Larger Than Life,” by Laurel Gasque (8-17-06), denies the common assertion of Michelangelo’s homosexuality:

“Around the time he was painting The Last Judgment, Michelangelo, now nearly 60, met two people who would have a profound personal impact on his life and faith: Tommaso de’ Cavalieri (1516–1574) and Vittoria Colonna (1492-1547).

By all accounts, both Cavalieri and Colonna were of outstanding character and intelligence. Both came from ancient families. Tommaso was beautiful in appearance. Vittoria, widow of the Marchese of Pescara, radiated the inner beauty of a devout heart. Both inspired adoration in Michelangelo. In his own words, “Whenever I see someone who is good for something, who shows some power of the mind, who can do or say something better than the others, I am compelled to fall in love with him, and give myself to him as booty, so that I am no longer my own, but all his.”

Words like these taken at face value (with little consideration for the ambiguity in the use of pronouns in Italian), along with his friendship with Cavalieri, have caused many people in recent times to argue that Michelangelo was a homosexual. Some of his own contemporaries suspected him of this, and he denied the charge.

His poetry attests to the fact that he was no stranger to lust and guilt, whether from acts or thoughts alone. The conflict between his deep admiration for earthly beauty and his yearning for a love that transcended physical desires – “the tension between nature passionately loved and grace passionately longed for,” as Dixon puts it – was a source of tortuous inner struggles. However, as Michelangelo scholars John W. Dixon [possibly referring to the book, The Christ of Michelangelo] and James Beck have argued, there is no historical evidence that he ever had sexual relations with anyone, man or woman. He claimed he was married only to his art.

Loving others, for Michelangelo, was a way of loving God. Cavalieri and Colonna brought him nearer to Christ. In a madrigal addressed to Colonna, he wrote, “In your face I aspire to what I am pledged from heaven.”Is the above information all nonsense? Is it believable and credible? Can Steve Hays produce solid research for the contrary assertion? Or is his statement drawn mostly or solely from “certain knowledge” gleaned from only a fleeting acquaintance with the subject matter? Perhaps because all the so-called “gay” activists claim Michelangelo as their own, Steve accepts this without doing any research himself (as a way to run down the Catholic Church – and its art -: one of his favorite pastimes)?

You be the judge. It seems to me that this is likely yet another of the innumerable commonly-accepted myths and fairy-tales that non-Christian secularists with an agenda wish to see promulgated and assumed without argument. I don’t know enough to render a definite, strongly-held opinion, but it looks that way, based on similar myths and propaganda that I have observed time and again.”

Marcus Aurelius:

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

Enterprising villagers in drought-struck, electricity-bereft Tamil Nadu have come up with a simple, low-cast way not just to survive, but thrive, under the harshest of conditions:

“”Farmers of Tamil Nadu’s Tirunelveli district have turned away from using chemical fertilizers to get good yield despite acute water shortage, monsoon failure and power cuts prevailing in the State.

Though Tirunelveli is known for its temples and halwa, about 45 km south of this bustling town is a clutch of villages, predominantly agriculture-based depending on monsoon, quietly carrying on farming activities, growing chillies, paddy, small onions and vegetables.

There are no government bus services, schools or health centres in many of these villages. For any medical emergency the villagers need to travel nearly 20 km to the neighbouring Thisayanvilai town.

Until a few years ago, many farmers in this drought-prone region sold off their lands or left them barren. Today, however, many villages here are successfully using their own inputs — Panchagavya, an organic manure — and reaping good yield.

“This year many areas in the State dependant on reservoirs for irrigation could not grow crops due to acute water shortage. Areas irrigated by wells face two problems. Many of these wells depend on rain for re-charging and several of them have dried up due to poor rainfall. Adding to this woe is the power cut. Due to power shortage even if there is water in the wells farmers cannot pump the water out. Despite these problems, our farmers have been able to raise good crops of groundnut, vegetables and paddy,” says J.H.S. Ponnaya, the 80-year-old head of the NGO Sands (Suviseshapuram and Neighbouring Development Organisation) at Suvaseshapuram in Tirunelveli.

“The reason is that all of them are consistently using Panchagavya for their crops. Panchagavya can be easily prepared by the farmer. Cow dung and urine are the main inputs required for this. We have trained hundreds of farmers in this area over the last several years in making it for their own use,” he said.

Mariapitchai, a small farmer in Vijayaachambadu village, says that he has been able to harvest his paddy crop 10-15 days ahead of the usual time of 5 months. The paddy is healthy and there are no symptoms of drying or scotched appearance due to high heat. He harvested nearly 3,000 kg from his 2.5 acres.