Demjanjuk Files | 03June2009 | Will Zuzak
http://zuzak.fortunecity.com/2001/rosenthal20090527Pimp.html
John
Rosenthal: Agent for the Holocaust Industry and Ukrainophobe
We have noted that many so-called defenders of John Demjanjuk have no
real interest in defending John Demjanjuk at all. Rather, they are
interested in promoting the agenda of the Holocaust Industry. They
allege that there are still thousands of Nazi war criminals living in
Germany, in Eastern Europe and elsewhere and attack Germany (and other
countries) for not prosecuting more of these aged survivors of WWII.
Of course, they never call for the
prosecution of Soviet war criminals and genocide perpetrators,
who perpetrated their dastardly deeds before, during and after World
War II. Nor do they call for the prosecution of American, British and
Jewish war criminals from that era or from more recent conflicts in
Palestine, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and countless
other trouble spots.
Two recent articles on 21May2009
and 27May2009 (reproduced below) by John Rosenthal are a perfect
example of this hypocrisy. Going back to the time of the Orange
Revolution in Ukraine circa December 2004, one finds that Mr. Rosenthal
considers the President of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, to be a fascist
anti-semite and that in "Viktor Yushchenko's "orange" coalition, orange
is
just a lighter shade of brown".
His antipathy to Ukrainian patriots
who try to defend Ukraine and Ukrainians against calumny is illustrated
by three of his postings (appended below) from the time of the Orange
Revolution, which refer expressly to Dr. Lubomyr Prytulak and his
Ukrainian Archive (ukar.org, now defunct). Not being able to
counter Dr. Prytulak's reasonable argumentation on the topic of
"Anti-Semitism", he simply labels Lubomyr Prytulak as an antisemite.
Other issues which arouse the ire of
Mr. Rosenthal are references to ethnic nationalism (but not
Israeli-Jewish nationalism), Vladimir Putin link to Viktor Yanukovyvh,
Yuri Shapoval and Silski Visti, Bolshevik Jews in the Soviet apparatus,
John Laughland and his BHHRG (British Helsinki Human Rights Group).
Pleasant reading!
Will Zuzak; 2009.06.03
(0)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
newmajority.com | 27May2009 | John Rosenthal
http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=42cd060f-b42f-4b26-9f03-3e083fdf11b7
Germany prosecutes
Demjanjuk to conceal its own guilt
In his recent book Unser
Kampf: 1968 -- “Our Struggle: 1968” -- German historian
Götz Aly discusses an emblematic and still widely-debated episode in
the history of post-War Germany: the fatal shooting of student
protestor Benno Ohnesorg by a police officer in West Berlin in June
1967. As flagged by the heavily ironic title, Aly’s book suggests that
there are important ideological similarities between Germany’s
left-wing radicals of the “1968” generation and the earlier generation
of German radicals known as National Socialists. The book and its
thesis are eminently worth discussing in their own right. But I want to
cite it here just for some details that Aly provides about the
biographies of two leading Berlin police officials at the time of the
Ohnesorg shooting and for the instructive light that these details cast
on Germany’s arrest and pending prosecution of John
Demjanjuk. (For background, see my earlier NM post on
Demjanjuk and "The Amazing Hypocrisy of German Justice" here).
Aly writes (p. 28):
The chief of the West Berlin riot police, who headed the
deployment on 2 June 1967, was named Hans-Ulrich Werner. He joined the
SS in 1939, received a mark of “very good” in his course on the
National Socialist “world view,” and in 1943-44 won accolades for his
role as a unit commander of the Ordnungspolizei
in Ukraine during punitive actions against partisans, which as a rule
involved massacres of innocent civilians….
The Chief of Police of West Berlin in 1967 was the Social
Democrat Erich Duensing. From 1936 to 1945, he was a career officer in
the Wehrmacht. He had been in charge of the West
Berlin police since 1962 and systematically handed out appointments to
old comrades from the Wehrmacht and SS -- including such as had worked
in the Reich Security Main Office -- as well as to former chiefs of
Gestapo branch offices.
The Ordnungspolizei were German police
units that were dispatched to the occupied territories and that were
largely implicated in German war crimes. The role of one Ordnungspolizei
unit in implementing the “final solution” in Poland is, for instance,
the subject of Christopher Browning’s study Ordinary Men.
Specifically in Ukraine, Ordnungspolizei
units are known, for instance, to have participated in the infamous
Babi Yar massacre in which tens of thousands of local Ukrainian Jews
were murdered. (For a novelistic account, see Anatoly
Kuznetsov’s Babi Yar.)
[W.Z.
On reading the book of recent-immigrant Anatoly Kuznetsov, Malcolm
Muggeridge (the English journalist, who witnessed the Holodomor in
March 1933) expressed doubt as to the impartiality of the author and of
the veracity of his descriptions.]
If the Reich Security Main Office sounds familiar, that is
because it is the SS agency where Adolf Eichmann worked. The Reich
Security Main Office -- or RSHA, according to its German
initials -- was responsible for the planning of the
Holocaust. If the lowly foreign “volunteer” John Demjanjuk was in fact
involved in any Nazi crimes, then those crimes will have been devised
by the SS bureaucrats in the RSHA. (On Demjanjuk’s lowly status and the
highly equivocal character of his designation as a “volunteer,” see here.)
There is no special reason why Götz Aly should have happened
upon the likes of Werner and Duesing in conducting his research. The
section of his book in question is not about former Nazis in the German
police. It is simply about the Benno Ohnesorg incident and the
government’s response to it. On the latter level as well, incidentally,
one quickly encounters former Nazis in prominent positions. The chief
bureaucratic official in the Ministry of the Interior at the time was
one Werner Ernst. Ernst wrote a “discussion paper” for his colleagues
on the student unrest. Aly notes that “he began his career in the Reich
Ministry of Labor in 1936 and thereupon joined the NSDAP….” (NSDAP are
the German initials of the Nazi party: or, more fully, the “National
Socialist German Workers Party.”) Indeed, the then German Chancellor,
Kurt Georg Kiesinger, was himself a former Nazi. As Aly parenthetically
reminds us, Kiesinger already joined the Nazi party in 1933.
What the examples reflect is quite simply the pervasive
presence of former Nazis in West German institutions and not only of
former Nazis, but indeed of former Nazis who by virtue of their
positions were virtually surely involved in crimes and atrocities:
persons such as Ordnungspolizei unit commander
Hans-Ulrich Werner or the RSHA officials and “former Gestapo branch
office chiefs” appointed by Duesing. This is the German reality. This
was the German normality, which only changed by slow attrition as the
generation of the perpetrators passed into comfortable retirement. But,
of course, Germany’s pursuit of John Demjanjuk suggests precisely the
contrary: in effect, that Germany must have made a clean break with its
Nazi past. Otherwise, how could it have the moral authority (to say
nothing of the jurisdiction) to try an alleged low level foreign
auxiliary to Nazi crimes like Demjanjuk?
It is possible that younger Germans do not know the truth. But
virtually all Germans of a certain age know it perfectly well: Germans
like, for instance, Kurt Schrimm, the 59-year-old prosecutor who has
spearheaded the efforts to put Demjanjuk on trial in Germany. Germany’s
pursuit of Demjanjuk is a sort of a lie to the rest of the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[L.P.
John Rosenthal publishes another commendable article
on the theme "Germany prosecutes Demjanjuk to conceal its own guilt".
He seems disinclined, however, to touch on other objections to
the Demjanjuk persecution, such as the mendacity of Demjanuk's
accusers, the unreliability of the Trawniki ID card, the implausibility
of the alleged crimes ever having taken place, or the creation of the
myth of "Ivan the Terrible" only in the 1970s -- objections that
Rosenthal might be expected to have become acquainted with during his
scrutiny of ukar.org, scrutiny that is evidenced in the three links
below.]
(1)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transatlantic Intelligencer | 05Dec2004 | John Rosenthal
http://trans-int.blogspot.com:80/2004/12/follow-up-ii-viktor-yushchenko.html
Follow-Up II (Viktor
Yushchenko,
Democrat and Anti-Semite?)
- Nicholas Kristof and a "Ukrainian
Democrat"
Niko in the comments section to the
first follow-up to "Viktor Yushchenko, Democrat and Anti-Semite?"
notes that NYTimes columnist Nicholas Kristof has gone to Ukraine to
join the "Orange Revolution".
"Since my father grew up in what is now southwestern
Ukraine," Kristof writes, "I decided to come here to join my people -
and I found that waging revolution has rarely been such fun." I did not
know that belonging to a "people" was inheritable in this way, though I
do know that according to a certain ideology of nationhood - namely, ethnic
nationalism - it is indeed and that this ideology, which provided the
ideological foundation of National Socialism and affiliated movements
in the 1930s, is having a certain renaissance in Europe today. (I have
written on this renaissance of ethnic nationalism and its connection to
the contemporaneous resurgence of European anti-Semitism in my "Anti-Semitism
and Ethnicity in Europe".) Always at the forefront of
importing all things that its editors and authors imagine to be
properly "European" - and thereby good and just - into the US, ethnic
nationalism is apparently now also finding its way into the pages of
the NYTimes.
If, however, Nicholas Kristof had bothered to read some of the
Ukrainian "democrats" whose "revolution" he has gone to Ukraine to
join, he may have found that - however much they are no doubt delighted
to have the support of an eminent columnist from the NYTimes - the mere
fact of his father having "grown up" in Ukraine might not have been
sufficient for them to count their eminent visitor part of "the
Ukrainian people". It would not be, for instance, if his father was,
say, Russian...or Jewish, for instance. In the ethnic-national
ideology, the quality of "belonging to a people" - or, in other words,
"nationhood" in the ethnic-national sense - is purely
heritable, purely genetic, and thus unrelated to place of residence.
The question of which territory "belongs to" which "people" is an
important but secondary matter, with the criterion of so-called
"autochthoneity" supposed to be decisive in this connection, i.e. a
territory should "belong to" that "people" that "originally" inhabited
it - whatever that is supposed to mean. [W.Z.
Is Mr. Rosenthal referring to the state of Israel?] Thus,
for the
ethnic-nationalist, a Jew - even if born on the national territory and
no matter how many generations of his or her ancestors also were born
and/or "grew up" on it - remains, in effect, a resident alien: or, as
according to the organicist metaphors dear to ethnic-nationalist
ideologues, a "foreign element in the body of the people". (For the use
of this metaphorics by history's most famous ethnic-nationalist
ideologue, Adolf Hitler, see Chapter
11 on "Nation and Race" of his Mein Kampf.)
One Lubomyr Prytulak, writing on the English-language
site Ukrainian Archive, has greeted Friday's court decision
annulling the results of the 21 November 2004 Ukrainian election in
terms reminiscent of Nicholas Kristof's NYTimes column. "The historic
decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to void the fraudulent runoff
election of 21-Nov-2004 marks the decisive defeat of the
Kuchma-Putin-Yanukovych conspiracy to suppress Ukrainian democracy,"
Lubomyr Prytulak
writes. Prytulak is also in tune with Kristof on the relevance
of Yanukovich's Soviet-era prison convictions and on the fact
that, in the last analysis, it is Vladimir Putin
who is the villain of the piece playing itself out in Ukraine
today. "President Bush and other Western leaders need to make it clear
to Mr. Putin that he has no right to extend his quasi dictatorship to
other peoples," Kristof writes. Of Yanukovich, he observes that the
latter's "criminal history (he served almost four years for robbery and
assault as a young man) would make him a fine Putin stooge." Lubomyr
Prytulak's titles his piece on the Putin-Yanukovich relation "Vladimir
Putin: Dictator wanted - only degenerates need apply".
As anyone who takes just a bit of time to browse its content will
quickly discover, Lubomyr Prytulak's Ukrainian Archive site also
contains quite a lot of material on "the Jews". One contribution from
1998, for instance, is titled "Jewish Conquest of the Slavs" and
summarizes in tabular form the findings of a study by one Yuri Shapoval
supposed to demonstrate the over-representation of Jews in the
Soviet-era secret services. Prytulak concludes his reflections on what
he calls the "Shapoval volume" by posing the question "Is anti-Semitism
gratuitous?", to which he responds as follows:
Anti-Semitism is a topic that not only arises often in the
Western media, but one may say is pressed incessantly into our
consciousness, and one of the conclusions concerning anti-Semitism that
is repeatedly proposed, particularly by Jewish sources, is that it is
and always has been gratuitous, that from the Jewish point of view it
is an antagonism based not on "what we have done" but on "who we are."
What the Western media inculcates us to believe is that anti-Semitism
is a variety of mental illness, and not a natural and understandable
reaction to demonstrable provocation. The closest that this view comes
to identifying a cause is to point to Jewish success, particularly
Jewish economic success, and to portray anti-Semitism as grounded in an
envy of such success.
However, a more thoughtful examination of the phenomenon of
anti-Semitism reveals many reasons for viewing it - at least in some of
its manifestations - not as an irrational and unexplainable and
gratuitous hatred, but as a natural and understandable antipathy
arising from an acquaintance with Jewish misbehavior. The Shapoval
volume, then, provides us with one such reason why some Ukrainian
anti-Semitism might exist. The reason is that Ukrainians have been
aware of the Jewish domination of the experiment in government through
mass murder which went under the name of "Communism," and in which
experiment Ukrainians more than any other peoples have been conscripted
into playing the role of guinea pigs.
Prytulak does, however, offer a "truce" with Jews. "Were I authorized
to represent the Ukrainian position in negotiating with Jews a
cessation of verbal hostilities," he writes, "I might open with 'If you
stop fabricating lies about us, we will stop disclosing the truth about
you.' "
The over-representation of Jews among Bolshevik and Soviet cadres - and
hence supposed "Jewish responsibility" for Soviet Communism - is, of
course, a standard argument of modern European anti-Semitism. Just last
year, the German MP Martin Hohmann was expelled from the Christian
Democratic party for employing it in order to show that Jews could well
be qualified a "nation of perpetrators" [Tätervolk].
It is thus curious to find German politicians associated with the
ruling "red-green" coalition unequivocally celebrating a Yushchenko-led
"orange revolution" that clearly federates anti-Semitic forces of
exactly the same stripe. Thus SPD Foreign Policy expert Gernot
Erler has spoken lyrically of "the orange fire of the
youthful rebellion associated with the name of Yushchenko" and affirmed
that "orange Ukraine deserves our curiosity, our friendship and our
support" (Hat tip German-Foreign-Policy.com).
Of course, Lubomyr Prytulak (whose writings, incidentally, are
favorably cited by noted Holocaust-revisionists like Ernst
Zundel and David
Irving) is only one supporter of Viktor Yushchenko. But the
Silski Visti affair shows that Prytulak's anti-Semitism is by
no means out of place within what is at least a broad current of
opinion in the "orange" camp. Indeed, according to
citations given on the Ukraine Now website, the 2003 insert
at the center of the case against Silski Visti went so far as to accuse
Jews of being responsible for the 1933 Ukrainian famine.
NYTimes columnists may be excused for knowing little about history -
or, at any rate, it is as a rule only to be expected of them. But
German politicians at least ought to be able to recognize that for
significant parts of Viktor Yushchenko's "orange" coalition, orange is
just a lighter shade of brown.
posted by John Rosenthal
at 11:49 PM
(2) -----------------------------------------------------------
Transatlantic Intellegencer | 29Dec2004 | John Rosenthal
http://trans-int.blogspot.com:80/2004/12/follow-up-bhhrg-effect-with-update.html
Follow-Up: The BHHRG
Effect (with Update)
In "How
Did the Blogosphere Get Fooled on Ukraine?", I failed to
address one important factor influencing the stubborn refusal of the
greater part of the blogosphere to recognize the complexities of the
Ukraine situation: namely, the role played by John Laughland and the
British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG), of which Laughland is a
trustee, in first raising the alarm about both certain
tactics of the "Orange" coalition in Ukraine and certain
ideological currents in its ranks: most notably, anti-Semitic
and fascistoid currents. Given Laughland’s record of opposition to the
Iraq war and his tendency to see American geo-political machinations at
work in every regional crisis, he was quickly identified by the more
conservative, more pro-American – or, as I put it, anti-anti-American –
sectors of the blogosphere as part of the loony “left”. These sectors
of the blogosphere – including some of the most influential addresses
on the web – were thus immunized from having to examine any of
Laughland’s or BHHRG’s factual claims.
Laughland has in fact been known to spin some rather outlandish yarns
on the ubiquity and perfidy of American power: yarns that have that
hermetic quality that is so characteristic of anti-Americanism as an
ideology or indeed of ideology in general. Arthur
Chrenkoff has discussed a particularly egregious example of
Laughland’s lack of lucidity, to say the least, when it comes to
American matters. Nonetheless, if one is to judge by Laughland’s
earlier scholarly efforts – notably, his books The Death of
Politics, on France under Mitterrand, and The
Tainted Source, on what the book's sub-title provocatively
labels “the undemocratic origins of the European idea” – Laughland is
decidedly not a “leftist” or at least he was not one when he wrote
them. His scholarly writings reflect more what one could call a broadly
“liberal” inspiration, i.e. in the classical sense of the term,
comprising commitments to, among other things, economic liberalism and
free trade, the balance of power in international relations and,
perhaps most importantly for Laughland’s itinerary, the nation-state as
the framework for democratic politics. These are, namely, commitments
that ought, if anything, to mark Laughland as a “conservative”. Indeed,
as this
article from the Guardian illustrates, in “leftist” circles
it is precisely Laughland’s and BHHRG’s direct or indirect, substantial
or circumstantial, links to conservative figures and institutions –
Mrs. Thatcher, Bill Cash, the Spectator, the Wall Street Journal and so
on – that is supposed to discredit their factual claims about the
Ukraine election crisis. The ideological diversity of the attacks on
Laughland and BHHRG in connection with the Ukraine crisis lends
support, incidentally, to my hypothesis that what is at stake in the
latter escapes the traditional “left”/”right” divide as inherited from
the Cold War.
Whereas, moreover, Laughland seems nowadays to be particularly animated
by the anti-American Zeitgeist, in geo-political terms he seems at one
time or another to have been against just about everything. The
Tainted Source is or ought to be a standard text of
Euroscepticism and, if memory serves (I am afraid I do not have the
text to hand at the moment in order to verify), it ends with a
decidedly Russophobe warning of a possible rapprochement between a
German-dominated Europe and a renewed Russian empire. So, I suspect
that those who have wanted to dismiss Laughland as a shill for Putin
would find some cause for pause if they actually examined his writings
more carefully.
Unfortunately, Laughland has given free reign to his current idées
fixes on American “empire” also in his reporting on the Ukraine
elections. Thus, for instance, in an
editorial that he has published in various outlets, he says
that the “Orange” youth organization PORA was “created and financed by
Washington”. No evidence is given in support of this claim. If
Laughland has some supporting evidence, I would be curious to see it.
Other sources have identified George Soros and the Democratic Party’s
National Democratic Institute (NDI) as possible sources of PORA
funding. Considering the fervency of their opposition to the current
inhabitant of the White House, it would hardly seem reasonable to
identify either the Democratic Party or Soros with “Washington”.
Moreover, as
I have noted here, the NDI itself receives funding not only
from the American government, but also from European ones and
international institutions. In a similar vein, BHHRG’s
report on anti-Semitism in the “Orange” coalition states that
Viktor Yushchenko “enjoys the open support of the Bush administration”
and implies that George W. Bush in person has “endorsed” Viktor
Yushchenko. Again, no evidence is provided to support these claims, and
in light of Viktor Yushchenko’s and the “Orange” coalition’s open
opposition to the Bush administration’s foreign policy – notably, as
concerns Iraq – it is extremely far-fetched to imagine Yushchenko
enjoying any such “endorsement” from President Bush. (The outgoing
Secretary State Colin Powell is, of course, another matter.)
I say that it is unfortunate that Laughland and BHHRG have indulged
such phantasms in their reporting on Ukraine, since their doing so has
provided a large part of the blogosphere and the public more generally
all the excuse it needed to ignore the massive evidence supporting many
of the core claims in their reports on the Ukraine election crisis. All
that Laughland’s and BHHRG’s detractors would have needed to do to
verify the claims of the latter regarding anti-Semitic and fascistoid
currents in the “Orange” coalition, for instance, would have been to
click through to the sources provided in the BHHRG report. These
include numerous direct citations from both members and key backers of
the “Orange” coalition. That this evidence has by and large gone
unexamined provides an object lesson in the efficacy of ad hominem
argument. Despite its efficacy, however, ad hominem argument is, of
course, fallacious, and the common inference made in much of the
blogosphere to the effect that the Laughland and BHHRG claims must be
false since it was, after all, Laughland and BHHRG that were making
them, provides a text book illustration of this fallacy.
What might be called the "BHHRG effect" has also, incidentally, been
observed here on Trans-Int. For instance, when
I first called attention to the BHHRG report on anti-Semitism and the
"Orange", one DavidP. saw fit to leave a comment to the
effect that "nobody takes BHHRG seriously". I wrote in reponse: "Well,
if BHHRG cites the editor of a major 'pro-opposition' Ukrainian
newspaper saying 'I personally have nothing against common Jews, but
rather against a small group of Jewish oligarchs who control Ukraine
both economically and politically. I believe the point of Zionism today
is Jewish control of the world, and we see this process at work in
Ukraine today' - then maybe it is about time for somebody to take BHHRG
seriously."
I believe my point still stands....
UPDATE: By the way, the
"Discoshaman" on the Postmodern Clog also uses the ad hominem
approach to evading the specific charges of the BHHRG, "informing" his
readers in a
28 November post that "[t]hey're an extremely biased group with
no ties [link in the original] to the International Helsinki
Federation for Human Rights." Since BHHRG does not claim to have any
connection to the International Helsinki Federation, the inclusion of
the latter point is itself something of a dodge. (The word "Helsinki"
in the title of both groups refers to the 1975 "Helsinki Accord", the
implementation of which by state parties is officially supposed to be
monitored by the OSCE. The BHHRG - which is also known as the "OSCE
Watch" - makes no secret of its disdain for the OSCE.) Apart from this
single sentence impugning the character of the BHHRG, the "Discoshaman"
merely offers a link to another site that is supposed to reveal the
group's "actual nature". The linked page offers no more detailed
information on the subject than the Discoshaman himself, but includes a
link in turn to the Guardian article mentioned above.
In the comments section, however, one of the Discoshaman's readers by
the name of Christopher Price contributes to the cause by linking to a
detailed exposé on John Laughland and the BHHRG titled "Can a Lobbyist
for Dictators Work as a Journalist?" (The title, incidentally, is quite
similar to that of the Guardian piece, which calls Laughland a "PR Man"
for "Europe's nastiest regimes".) Lest anyone miss the point of his
contribution, Christopher Price helpfully adds: "They [the members of
the BHHRG] are not nice". The link
leads to the Ukrainian Archive website of the anti-Semite and Ukrainian
patriot Lubomyr Prytulak, who is also a favorite reference of
Holocaust deniers or "revisionists" such as David Irving and Ernst
Zundel. The esteem enjoyed by Prytulak in such circles is hardly
surprising. His own site, as another reader of the Postmodern Clog
points out in reponse to Christopher Price, contains passages such as
the following:
Jews have an overpowering motive to gather the evidence. The
story of the Jewish Holocaust has been widely disseminated, and yet the
argument that the story is in part a fabrication is gaining ground.
Thus, Jews have a powerful motive to discover physical evidence of
Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, and Babyn Yar — the motive of demonstrating
to the world that they are people of integrity, that they have an
abiding committment to truth, that they are not corruptors of history,
and that the reparations and sympathy that they have won for themselves
have been deserved.
Jews have the means to gather the evidence. The Jewish
Holocaust has become possibly a multi-billion dollar industry, such
that the funding needed to substantiate the story on which the industry
depends can easily be gathered.
As readers will be able to confirm in consulting the text from which
the passage is taken, Lubomyr Prytulak's clever implication
in this passage is that the required evidence of Treblinka, Sobibor,
Belzec, and Babyn Yar is not to be found - and hence that some of the
key episodes of the Holocaust are "myths".
I discuss Lubomyr Prytulak's "Ukrainian Archives" at greater length here
in "Nicholas Kristof and a 'Ukrainian Democrat'". In light of
Discoshaman's seeming non-sequitur concerning the lack of ties between
the BHHRG and the International Helsinki Federation, it is interesting
to note that much of Lubomyr Prytulak's exposé on Laughland and the
BHHRG is devoted to demonstrating the "bogus" character of the BHHRG
and its unconnectedness to a "genuine" BHHRG (which, however, does not
in fact use this acronym) that is a member of the International
Helsinki Federation. Prytulak's exposé, furthermore, links the same
document from the International Helsinki Federation dissociating itself
from the BHHRG as is linked by Discoshaman. The BHHRG is apparently
supposed to be an ideologically suspect source for the Discoshaman and
his admirers: "extremely biased", as the Discoshaman says. Perhaps it
is. But is Lubomyr Prytulak's Ukrainian Archives supposed to be a
reliable source, by contrast?
posted by John Rosenthal
at 5:17 PM
(3) -----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Moos | 02Jan2005 | O. Marian
http://bluemoos.blogspot.com/2005/01/song-of-anti-semite-by-vladimir.html
Song of an Anti-Semite by
Vladimir Vysotsky
John Rosenthal's writings on international politics
have appeared in English, French and German in such publications as
Policy Review, Newsday, The Opinion Journal, Les Temps Modernes and Le
Figaro, as well as numerous scholarly journals and collective volumes.
He has taught Political Philosophy and History of European Philosophy
at, among other institutions, New York University, Rutgers University
and the École Normale Superieure of Lyon.John Rosenthal is also a
devoted Libra Radio listener. He runs a blog called Transatlantic
Intelligencer where he publishes his articles. This his from
his last post.
"In honor of Lubomyr Prytulak, Silski Visti, and all
anti-Semites around the world, and with the kind permission of
translator Boris Gendelev, here is a complete English translation of
Vladimir Vysotsky's
"Song of an Anti-Semite".
Just being a hoodlum appears so trite
I ought to convert to an anti-Semite
This cause might not yet have the law on its side
But millions of zealots support it worldwide
One would get a thrashing if I so decide
But I need to know who is a Semite
What if they are held in the highest regard
What if for the trouble I get myself barred...
"BTW, I discovered Vysotsky's song by listening to Libra Radio. If you
are interested in hearing the music and you ask nicely, Marian at Libra
might play it for you".
posted by O. Marian at 20:29