University student unions then and now make hatred of Jews respectable. Hitlers sentiments anti-Jewish.

Ten "blogs" were published simultaneously on Saturday 15 June 2013, regardless of what date Google "Blogger" gives them.  Google indiscriminately changed dates on some, but not others, when they were edited for minor corrections. And, as I required all of these blogs to appear in a certain order I "re-edited" all of them so that they would appear in the order I wanted… though Blogger re-dated some, but not others.

German student unions instigated the infamous book-burnings, not the Nazis. In much the same way Australia's university student unions express their hatred of Jews in 2013.

Universities in Germany made the hatred of Jews respectable before Hitler or the Nazis came to power.

Australian academics and universities are organising and orchestrating the same hatreds that their German counterparts orchestrated in the early 20th century. 

Adolf Hitler expressed these sentiments of the hatred of Jews made respectable in Mein Kampf.

These sentiments HItler expressed in Mein Kampf are expressed by the political Left today.

The racism of German academics of early 20th century Germany led directly to Adolf Hitler. 

Antisemitism was already respectable in Germany before the Nazis became the government of Germany. Now, as then, academics are articulating a racism that is presented as "rational" and "reasonable". This racism presented by persons with scholarly bona fides is, like that of pre-Nazi Germany, "respectable". 

"Antisemitism in Germany grew increasingly respectable after the first world war and was most prevalent in the universities. By 1921, the German student union, the Deutschen Hochschulring, barred Jews from membership."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_boycott_of_Jewish_businesses 

Students were already partaking in anti-Jewish actions well before Hitler wrote Mein Kampf (which he wrote while he was serving a jail sentence for his role in the Beer Hall Putsch).  Mein Kampf was published in 1925.

Antisemitism was not a Nazi creation. What came to be "Nazi" antisemitism was a product of the academics and university students. 

Australia's antisemitism is a product of the academics and university students of this country.

In both Pre-Nazi Germany and in Australia today the rationalisation for racism is "Zionism". Each according to their times, portray "Zionism" (or "International Jewry" as Hitler called it) as having MANIFESTED itself in the form of Bolshevism in Germany or, the state of Israel in the case of contemporary Australia. And the Germans then and the Australians now claim to be reacting to what they say are Jewish phenomena. 

Adolf Hitler expressed his sentiments in Mein Kampf. And, these sentiments were of his and his compatriots' hatred of Jews, against whom he claimed his kampf (struggle) was. 

Adolf Hitler's sentiments were the sentiments of Germany and of the German people (which of course includes the Austrians who are Germans living in the "East-Realm"; Österreich).

It was because Hitler expressed, in Mein Kampf, the same hatreds of Jews held and expressed by the Germans, such as the university student unions, that he secured for himself and his political party his election to government; that is, Hitler would have failed if he was a racist who forcibly foisted his own sentiments (being his hatred of Jews) onto a German population that did not already possess such sentiments.

The sentiments Hitler expressed in what he claimed was his kampf against Jews were not an expression of anti-Semitism that was the creation of Hitler, a "creation ex nihilo" by Hitler, but the expression of the sentiments of the (German Christian) people; of his society. Today's left (in Australia) express the sentiments expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf; or conversely, the antisemitism of the Australian left intelligentsia was the sentiment expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf!

Well before the Nazis, led by Hitler, became the government of Germany, hatred of Jews ("anti-Semitism") had already been made respectable, and had been made respectable by the intelligentsia. It was "Rational Antisemitism"; there was no need for Nazis or for Hitler to introduce hatred. It was already there and Hitler expressed these sentiments in Mein Kampf. 

"In Mein Kampf, … the main thesis [is] of "the Jewish peril"..." (quoted from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf, 28/5/2013. However, one only need read Mein Kampf to understand what it is about.)

"RATIONAL ANTISEMITISM"

Antisemitism was a product of the intelligentsia. It was the product of the universities. It was the product of academics; sincere and “knowledgable” scholars and students of the universities. Antisemitism became "rational" solely on the AUTHORITY of the academic qualifications of the academics propounding it. Hatred was made respectable by the universities, as it is today in Australia. The concept of "rational antisemitism" propounded by universities, academics and students and which HItler appealed to is not something that has only recently been noted. It is not a "controversial" or new revisionist idea. It is noted in, for example, "Approaches to Auschwitz: The Holocaust and Its Legacy" (ISBN 0664223532), below:

Above, p. 123 from Approaches to Auschwitz" regarding "Rational Antisemitism". The antisemitism of Hitler expressed in Mein Kampf was a product of German university student unions and academics; it was not "antisemitism" that was specifically Hitler's. 

Published in 1987, it is available at the University of Melbourne library (see below)

In contemporary Australia, the academics, and the universities, emulate German institutions of the early 20th century, expressing the same sentiments that were taken up by the Nazis and Adolf Hitler. 

In Germany once the universities adopted anti-Semitism they created a "rational anti-Semitism” that was respectable because it was the intelligentsia who articulated it and not the common-volk. 

In Germany, the Nazis took over the antisemitism that the academics, and student unions had already started, see below:

It was the German student unions helped by academics who instigated the infamous book-burnings, when the Nazis took over government in Germany. They did so not on the urgings of Nazis, but on account of their hatred of Jews.

Below, German student unions instigated the infamous book-burnings, not the Nazis. This is not something that is unknown.

University academics who today agitate against Jews claim that they do so based on dispassionate grounds, and are motivated by altruism, vis-a-vis “Palestine”. The corollary then becomes that those who contradict them are their opposite; irrational and by lacking altruism, evil. If one, in dismantling their reasoning, were to point out that the problems regarding “Palestine” are demanded by Islamic doctrine, doctrine that Palestinian bodies openly proclaim in their statements, in their covenants and in their charters, and point out that the Palestinians they support are actually inciting the conflict that they condemn, then the person pointing this out is labelled “racist” for doing so.

“Racism” has become the charge levelled against any critic of Islam. "Racism" serves, as it becomes evident, to make the Palestine issue an issue caused by Jews (since you cannot critique the "Palestinians"), so that such groups can openly hate Jews. Thus, blame is apportioned to the Jews vis-a-vis their doctrine (the Bible), in the same way that Hitler blamed Jews on account of their OT vengeance, while the Koran and hadith cited by the Arab Muslims which urge the genocide of Jews, is made taboo, simply to maintain a hatred of Jews. There is no difference between these people’s hatred of Jews and the hatred of their German counterparts of around a century earlier.

As the academics and universities are respectable members of the country's intelligentsia their charge of racism is accepted and consequently their accusation of racism levelled against the critic of Islam discredits the critic.

When fables are passed off as history and those who write history ignore historical facts, then the resulting "history" merely constitutes propaganda.

Hitler expressed his sentiments ("anti-Semitism") in Mein Kampf; the contemporary left have adopted the sentiments expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf; that is, the left have adopted the sentiments, hatred of Jews, that Hitler himself adopted, and which Hitler expressed in Mein Kampf. Hitler expressed the sentiments of his people and of his time in Mein Kampf, and the left today are expressing those same sentiments of early pre-Nazi 20th century Germany that Hitler expressed in Mein Kampf. 

Hatred of Jews continues today. It is now, as it was in pre-Nazi Germany fomented, organised and pursued by student unions and the university intelligentsia.

In pre-WW2 Europe it was drawn from the political right, "defending" Christian values, today it is drawn from the political left who "defend" Muslims against "racism".

It is student unions who today call for anti-Jewish measures, and because such calls are made by university students, university graduates, persons with degrees, university lecturers, their calls are "respectable" today, just like they were respectable in both pre-Nazi, and Nazi Germany.

Notes

In Australia, university student union bodies such as Students for Palestine organise anti-Jewish protests in which, for the purpose of blaming Jews for conflict, they equate criticism of Islam to be support for Israel, and call anyone who disagrees with them “racist”. These university student union bodies are Australia’s equivalent to those of the early 20th century Germany which gave rise to “rational antisemitism”.

Students in Australian universities organise protests for the purpose of inciting hatred against Jews. Students for Palestine is organised by students from a number of Australian Universities, these include Swinburne University (Melbourne), University of Melbourne (Melbourne), Monash University (Melbourne), RMIT University (Melbourne), La Trobe University (Melbourne), University of Western Sydney (Sydney).

In keeping with the universities’ traditions of hatred of Jews, the universities of the early 21st century are following the path set by the universities of a century earlier that led to Adolf Hitler (see below). Australian universities have a special place in this hatred:

email author ophion at internode.on.net

No comments allowed? If you are passionate and want to comment, there is nothing that prevents you from writing your own blog. I have a disdain for the kind of commentary made by those who hide behind an avatar. 

The case against Soutphommasane - who is really tolerant?

Ten "blogs" were published simultaneously on Saturday 15 June 2013, regardless of what date Google "Blogger" gives them.  Google indiscriminately changed dates on some, but not others, when they were edited for minor corrections. And, as I required all of these blogs to appear in a certain order I "re-edited" all of them so that they would appear in the order I wanted… though Blogger re-dated some, but not others.


Soutphommasane, pictured below, is an academic and journalist who writes as an apologist for Islam in the Melbourne tabloid newspaper "the Age". 

In his recent article ostensibly criticising Geert Wilders, Soutphommasane:

1) by way of his condemning critics of Islam who differentiate between an idea and an individual holding an idea, defames judges by calling their reasoning racist;

2) supports Female Genital Mutilation, which is banned by the UN, and which is actively campaigned against by the World Health Organisation, and on which Geert Wilders spoke out against; 

3) praises the violent actions of objectors to Geert Wilders who pushed to the ground prospective attendees to his lecture in which Soutphommasane deems such actions to be a demonstration of "tolerance".

The Soutphommasane article appeared in Melbourne's Age newspaper 25/2/2013, and, in part, reads:

"

… the virtue of toleration [is to] put it plainly [that] we have to put up with things we may find repugnant. We have to tolerate the intolerable.

For the vast majority of us, Wilders' views belong to this category. He believes Islam is ''a dangerous totalitarian ideology'' that is incompatible with liberal freedom. The prophet Muhammad was, he argues, ''a warlord, terrorist and paedophile''.
According to Wilders…[a]ny accommodation of Islam will ultimately deprive us of ''our freedom, our identity, our democracy, our rule of law, and all our liberties''.
Not nearly enough has been said about our liberal toleration of Wilders.
For all of their talk about liberal freedoms, Wilders and his ilk are profoundly illiberal. They endorse free speech, but fail to accept this means those who disagree with them have the freedom to denounce them too. They speak highly of a free society, yet forget that a liberal state must not dictate its citizens' religious convictions.
Let's not mince words. Wilders and his... supporters are proponents of a thinly veiled form of racism. It's the sort you hear from the sly bigot who says he hates Asians or Jews or Muslims - but only in the abstract.

"

The article, screenshot above with comments.

The Age describes their author as a "philosopher", despite his hopelessly flawed "logic". I begin with "tolerance".


ON TOLERANCE

Toleration of the intolerable is to be intolerant; that is, only an intolerant person will tolerate intolerance.

Example: to have tolerated Nazi intolerance would have meant to tolerate the Nazis extermination of non-German "races".  To not tolerate the Nazis cannot be defined as being intolerant.

Karl Popper, unlike Soutphommasane, is a genuine philosopher.

Popper on tolerance:

"the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

ON ISLAM
Soutphommasane is condemning as "Wilder's view" a description of Islam and Mohammed that is in no way divergent from any accepted description, including that found on the government supported Islamic websites. 

Soutphommasane declares Wilders "vile" for describing Mohammed as a "warlord". According to the Wikipedia (cited because it is readily available to anyone): "Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎), was a religious, political, and military leader...". It is not Wilder's view to describe Mohammed as a "warlord"; it is what Mohammed actually was, and it is undisputed. 

Soutphommasane declares Wilders "vile" for describing Islam as a "total system" ("totalitarian"). Again from the Wikipedia: 

"Sharia (Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], 'legislation'; sp. shariah, sharīʿah; also قانون إسلامي qānūn ʾIslāmī) is the ... religious law of Islam. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. [and] is considered the infallible law of God—as opposed to the human interpretation of the laws (fiqh). There are two primary sources of sharia law: the precepts set forth in the Quran, and the example set by the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah."


It is not Wilder's view that Islam is a TOTAL system; it is known to be total and this is not in dispute.

Soutphommasane declares Wilders "vile" for describing Mohammed as a "pedophile" (which I do not think Wilders did on this occasion). As for Mohammed being a "pedophile", again from the Wikipedia:

"According to traditional sources, Aisha [one of Mohammed's wives] was six or seven years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated..."

Mohammed's marriage to a prepubescent girl and consummation of his marriage to her is a recurring element in the hadith (see below). 

And Soutphommasane should have no difficulty in accessing the hadith in printed form;  they are studied at Monash University, the university he is associated with, see below

According to the DSM the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Mohammed would qualify as a pedophile, see below.

According to Soutphommasane Wilders, by simply saying nothing more than what is already known, which is not in dispute, and which is repeated in, for instance sources such as the the Wikipedia, is "hateful" and "illiberal" and "vile"! If Wilders can be declared vile, then so too should that epithet be used to describe the Wikipedia.


As Soutphommasane intends to prevent commentary on what  he does not want to be known or want to be discussed, his article is intended to suppress liberal freedoms he claims to be celebrating by defaming any prospective critic.

ON TOLERANCE OF CRITICISM AND "LIBERALISM"

This really makes no sense. Soutphommasane states: "Wilders and his ilk are profoundly illiberal...but fail to  accept this means those who disagree with them have the freedom to denounce them too." 

No supporter of Wilders has demanded the right to spare Wilders from criticisim. Soutphommasane fails to provide substance to this bizarre statement. Those who attended the Wilders convention were prevented from entering, were grabbed and wrestled to the ground, were pushed, physically assailed, had their tickets taken from them, in order to intimidate them and prevent them from exercising their right to the freedom to hold an opinion or to impart and receive information.  

It was those who disagreed with Wilders who are illiberal. And it was those who disagreed with Wilders who were violent, see below

IT WAS THE ANTI-WILDERS PROTESTERS WHO WERE VIOLENT

it was they who physically obstructed entry and pushed people attempting entry to the ground

iT WAS THE ANTI-WILDERS PROTESTERS WHO WERE PLACED IN A HEADLOCK BY POLICE 

because of their pushing people to the ground

Those of the ilk of Soutphommasane consider that it is acceptable that violence is done against those whose views they do not agree with; however, those of the ilk of  Soutphommasane would consider such acts to be actions of  intolerance if they were undertaken against them. Soutphommasane demonstrates a failure in logic actuated by an obvious malice. (That is: the facts - evidence - is so incontrovertible, that the only way anyone could write what Soutphommasane does would be if they were actuated by malice or if they were stupid.)

ON VEILED "RACISM" BY CRITICISING IDEAS


In 2006 the Supreme Court of Victoria established that the criticism of an idea held by an individual cannot be said to vilify the person holding that idea as it would create an impossible burden to any right to criticise any ideas at all and would therefore limit free speech. 

The case in question:
Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 284 (14 December 2006).

Justice Geoffrey Nettle asked:
"There must be intellectually a distinction between the ideas and those who hold them...Are you saying it's impossible to incite hatred against a religion without also inciting hatred against people who hold it?" (The Age, 22/8/2006)

In the judgement given, the judges decided on the question thus:
 "33 ... It is essential to keep the distinction between the hatred of beliefs and the hatred of their adherents steadily in view." (Judgement available on Austlii)
Meaning that criticism of Islam, is a separate issue.

Tim Soutphommasane's illogical premise is that we should not criticise ideas as a matter of "tolerance" and supports a restriction of the rights to criticise ideas. On the absence of a complaint being made to the state Human Rights commission he then claims that it is a demonstration of "our tolerant society" that allows for the criticism of ideas. The problem with Soutphommasane's bizarre assertion here is that there is no legal basis for any complaint to have been made at all because of the 2006 ruling; no complaint could have been made!

And it is with reference to the 2006 ruling, that it was found that  there must be a distinction between the ideas held by an individual and the individual holding them. Criticism of Islam, its doctrines, is legitimate, and it does not equate to a veiled hatred of Muslims.

Soutphommasane is imputing that Justices NETTLE, ASHLEY and NEAVE, JJ.A, are racists who propounded their judgement as a thinly veiled form of racism by making the same "veiled" racist distinction! 

Notes

Soutphommasane is a "political philosopher" from Monash University (below).

As is pointed out by Melbourne journalist, Andrew Bolt,  Monash University has a history of supporting racists who hate Jews (below). Perversely, those whose religious doctrine is nothing but hatred, and who propound and incite the hatred demanded by their religious doctrine are beyond criticism. However, those who criticise the hatred of the religious are denounced as hateful for doing so.  

Undercover Mosque, recorded secretly in UK  mosques. Muslims supported hatred of non-Muslims and that violence should be undertaken against non-Muslims, and championed as a Muslim's right to wed a pre-pubescent and consummate such a marriage as that is what "the prophet did".

Wilders did nothing more than confirm what was presented in the UK documentary Undercover Mosque. In this documentary recorded secretly in UK  mosques, Muslims supported the ideas that Wilders identified and was criticised and over which he was called “racist”. In the UK the documentary producers were charged with defamation. The Crown Prosecutors who took the documentary makers to court on behalf of the "aggrieved" Muslims were forced to retract their claim and apologise to the documentary makers.

(Note: for whatever reason, "Blogger" has taken over some font sizes! and I have no control over them!)

email author ophion at internode.on.net

No comments allowed? If you are passionate and want to comment, there is nothing that prevents you from writing your own blog. I have a disdain for the kind of commentary made by those who hide behind an avatar.