Helen Dale’s first novel ‘The Hand That Signed The Paper’ won critical acclaim and a variety of prestigious prizes like the Miles Franklin Award. Yet, what followed her heightened visibility in the public eye was not a privileged pathway to more success, but a decades-long cancel-culture witchhunt. In her book she described the pressures on and the weaknesses of Ukrainians during WWII. Stalin committed a genocide against them only a few years earlier. The Nazis, at the time, looked like an opportunity to break free from Russian control. It is this historical dilemma Vladimir Putin weaponizes against Ukraine today. In those dark years a disproportionate number of Holocaust enablers emerged from this brutalised country. Cultures change. Ukrainians have made huge strides in the past. One very visible, and thus often repeated, example is that they voted for a president who is the descendent of survivors of both major genocides the country had seen, the Holocaust and the Holodomor.
Berlin is preparing a new anti-discrimination law that threatens the effectiveness of the police. As it is written it invites activist groups to take legal actions. Court cases against the police could become profitable and fulfill the prophecy that every good cause begins as a well-meaning intention, develops into a business and eventually ends as a racket. The busybodies are, of course, surfing the wake of the George Floyd case.
The story of the African American, who served five years in prison for armed robbery, is a bit hyped. The noise is still deafening across the ocean. Nevertheless racism does exist. There are sensible ways to deal with it and there are people with bad intentions trying to exploit it for different reasons. Evil will always be with man. We must face the banality of it so that the cure won’t be worse than the disease.
Giovanni di Lorenzo is a co-publisher of the newspaper Tagesspiegel, editor-in-chief of ZEIT and host of the talkshow “3nach9” (aired by the public broadcasting agency ARD). In this position he issued a little strategy paper masquerading as an op-ed. What he suggests and why power does talk publicly and not behind the scenes is discussed in the video.
I just read an article on the elitist, left-wing news blog ZEIT online and I’m mad again.
It describes a court verdict that allowed Kuwait Airways to deny the transportation of an Israeli passenger. There is a law in Kuwait that forbids making contracts with Israelis and upon realization of the passenger’s citizenship the airline offered to rebook the flight with another airline on their own expenses.
The Israeli was outraged and went to court out of spite. As frustrating as the experience was for the man, I still support both Kuwait Airways and the German court for the decisions they made.
What riles me up, though, is that the article does not expand on the issue itself, maybe by comparing Trump’s temporary travel ban to Kuwait’s permanent contract ban and the double standard of our outrage culture. Instead they chose to spend half of the article with the reaction of the Central Council of The Jews in Germany, the equivalent of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
I don’t have much love for the Central Council lobby group. Because of the sheer lack of Jews in general and in the public space in particular they hold an undue influence and are misunderstood by many as the vox populi of the Jews.
Anyway, the inclusion of their stupid quotes made the whole article about ‘the Jews’ and thus colored the comment section thereunder. One should know that ZEIT online has the best censored comment section outside North Korea and it sheds a light on ZEIT online which comments they delete and which are there to stay.
So here a summary of the comments:
User 4er opines that the Central Council should not interfere with politics, just as politics should not interfere with religion. The Central Council, like the ADL, is not even a religious organisation. And the interference is Putinesque: They voice their opinion.
User Thasma says he/she does not mind if Kuwait does not allow Israelis into the country. I bet Thasma would mind if the shoe was on the other foot.
Various users understand Kuwait’s position because no country can be forced to recognize Israel. The German double standard reeks. Germany does not only recognize but also has diplomatic ties to North Korea.
Some users start a discussion about circumcision. Why? Because Jews. Others start an off-topic discussion about the word anti-Semitism. For all who think it matters: It’s Jew hatred and never meant anything else.
Users trollinchen and Eugen0 declare that Arabs can’t set a foot into Israel in the same way that Israelis can’t travel to Kuwait. That lie is so obvious. If some lies or even truths are posted that reflect negatively on Arabs, ZEIT online habitually deletes them immediately. Not here. Why? Jews.
The gist of the comments is that Israel is evil and the man had it coming for his group identity. The PC crowd emphasizes that “not all Jews are Israelis” and so on. Fine. My problem is that the left has nothing, I emphasize NOTHING, against generalisation and group hatred. Their only contention with it is that THEY want to decide who must be hated. Eastern Europeans, the French, English-speakers, and Israelis must be hated. Muslims, blacks, homosexuals must be protected from hate. What about being just fair and reasonable? Why does the left need all the hate? And how do they always get away with their ‘catch the thief’ finger-pointing on hoax hate incidences? Doesn’t the entire power structure of the left now rest on the management of hate these days?
In France, any public mention of Muslim anti-Semitism can lead you to court. In February 2017, the scholar Georges Bensoussan was sued for “incitement to racial hatred” because he mentioned in a radio debate how vastly widespread anti-Semitism is among French Muslim families.
Now, however, two types of Muslim anti-Semitism are being highlighted by the media. These two types could be called “hard anti-Semitism” and “soft anti-Semitism”.
Hard Muslim anti-Semitism is the anti-Semitism of murderers. Soft Muslim anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism of “anti-Zionists” and harrassers of various stripes.
more on Gatestone Institute
The way WDR broadcast it, however, was unique: at the beginning of the film and in brief intervals throughout, warning signs were inserted again and again, indirectly urging viewers not to believe what they saw in the film. The film is not about