Nazi SS officer gets monument in Ukraine


This tweet is by Eduard Dolinsky, the Ukrainian Jewish Committee Director. Mr Dolinsky has denounced neonazism in today’s Ukraine with Ukrainian government complicity before.

While this Hauptsturmführer officer in Adolf Hitler’s murderous SS gets a monument, also in Ukraine monuments to, eg, Poles massacred by nazis during World War II are destroyed.

Murdoch empire bans anti-nazi film


This 14 February 2019 video from the USA saays about itself:

Oscar-Nominated Film Shows Nazi Rally at Madison Square Garden

It’s an unlikely Oscar contender. Marshall Curry‘s “A Night at the Garden” has been nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Short. The film, entirely comprised of archival footage, shows a 1939 rally of American Nazis at New York City’s Madison Square Garden. The rally drew 20,000 people on the eve of World War II. “The lesson of the film,” Curry told InsideEdition.com, is that “we are vulnerable to leaders who will stir us up against each other.”

By Ari Feldman in Jewish daily Forward in the USA, 14 February 2019:

Fox News Rejects Ad For Oscar-Nominated Short About American Nazism

Fox News will not air an ad for an Oscar-nominated documentary about American Nazism, the Hollywood Reporter reported.

The 30-second ad, called “It Can Happen Here”, is for “A Night At The Garden”, a documentary short about a 1939 meeting of the German American Bund, a pro-Nazi organization. That infamous meeting, which gathered 20,000 people in New York’s Madison Square Garden, was a dramatic show of American support for Hitler — and of American anti-Semitism. Banners hung up in the Garden read “Stop Jewish Domination of Christian Americans”, and “Wake Up America. Smash Jewish Communism”. The crowd yelled “Seig Heil!”

Click here to read the New York Times’ account of the rally.

“A Night At The Garden” is pieced together from archival footage of the event, recalls the shocking level of determination and organization achieved by American Nazis and their supporters.

But Fox News rejected the ad for the short, which is meant to warn that Nazism and fascism can happen in American. The ad, which Fox News’ leadership deemed “not appropriate,” was meant to be aired for [extreme right Murdoch-Fox employee] Sean Hannity’s show, historically the most-watched cable news broadcast.

“It’s amazing to me that the CEO of Fox News would personally inject herself into a small ad buy just to make sure that Hannity viewers weren’t exposed to this chapter of American history,” said Marshall Curry, the director of the short.

Holocaust survivors, new film


This 2016 video from the USA says about itself:

Surviving the Holocaust

“You don’t ever expect to be hauled out of your house, marched into a gas chamber, and be choked to death,” says Irene Fogel Weiss. Yet, that is exactly what happened to most of her family in the summer of 1944. Irene was thirteen at the time, and by several twists of fate, she survived. “There is a life force in all of us that you just want to live another day,” she says. “Let’s survive this. We have to survive this.”

Irene shares her story of survival with hundreds of high school students every year. In this program, we listen in on her presentation to Woodson High School students as she shares a personal account of the events that lead to the Holocaust. She discusses her life as a child in Hungary, the changes she witnessed as the Nazis took power, and all manner of degradations imposed on the Jewish people.

Irene describes how her family was ostracized from society and how the Jewish “ghettos” were created. She discusses what her family did and did not know about Nazi practices across Europe and how the deportation of Jews worked. She recounts her arrival at the worst of all Nazi death camps – Auschwitz-Birkenau – and shares historic photos, taken by the Nazis, which capture the very day that her family arrived.

She talks about the painful separation from her family and what it was like to be a prisoner at Auschwitz.

After sharing the story of her liberation and rebuilding her life in America, Irene examines the questions of propaganda and humanity that surround the Holocaust. She helps students understand the importance of critical examination of information and comparing sources. She discusses how a basic lack of empathy and humanity toward each other can lead to cruel, and ultimately horrific, behaviors. Irene uses her experience in the Holocaust as a lesson for us all.

By Margot Miller in Britain:

A documentary film by Arthur Cary, first shown on BBC Two

15 February 2019

The fascist right is once again rearing its ugly head, aided by a concerted attempt to falsify history and rehabilitate Nazism by minimising its crimes.

There will soon be no living survivors who can testify to the horrors of the Holocaust in which six million Jews were murdered. Director Arthur Cary has captured the testimony of some of the last generation who were children in the camps, most of whom saw the genocide of their parents, siblings, relatives and friends. Cary spent a year with the survivors making this unique documentary. His other credits include TV series American Justice.

When the camps were liberated at the end of the war, thousands made their way to Britain. But most remained silent for decades, unable or unwilling to speak about their experiences. The viewer is introduced to the octogenarians, some older, who are about to tell their stories. In 1945, Ivor Perl was a 13-year-old in Dachau, where he lost his parents and brother. “For 50 years I couldn’t talk [about it, but] you can’t reject the past, it has various ways of guiding your life,” he says.

All the participants in the film evidence a terrible level of trauma.

Ivor, now 86, shares the memories of his 13-year-old self in Auschwitz. It was time for his bar mitzvah. Looking through the barbed wire fence and seeing the birds fly by, he remembers thinking, “Please god, let me out of this hell hole.”

Grenfell Tower made a tremendous impression” on Ivor. “When I saw the flames, I could see my family burned in the camp.”

After more than 60 years, he returns to Auschwitz for the first time, accompanied by his daughter and grand-daughter. It is at his daughter’s instigation—an attempt at a deeper understanding. He clearly does not want to be there but is shown speaking to other visitors of his experience before making clear he has had enough. Talking doesn’t help.

Manfred Goldberg holds a picture of his brother, who was murdered by the Nazis (Credit: Richard Ansett Minnow Films BBC)

Ivor’s daughter explains how she felt she could not approach her father when she was upset, because of his childhood.

Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, 93, only escaped the gas chamber because she was a cellist and was enlisted to play in the camp orchestra. She is hardened by her experiences in the camps, uncommonly strong. But this has impacted on her relationship with her child, Maya, who she named “after my beloved elder sister. I wanted to recreate a family.”

Anita admitted she did not understand how to make her child happy, could not relate to the trauma felt by Maya and other children of survivors. Maya had parents and a roof over her head, so she “should be grateful.” She too found it problematic talking about what had happened in those dark days. When do you tell children why they have no grandparents, she wondered?

Maya felt “there was something wrong with me.”

We see Anita at the Memorial for the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin. For the “neo-Nazis this is a complete eyesore”, she says. We see her addressing the Bundestag (German parliament) in Berlin at the annual Holocaust memorial Commemoration. The fascist Alternative for Germany (AfD) now sits in the Bundestag as the official opposition. Last month, an AfD deputy denounced the Holocaust Commemoration in parliament—the third attempt this year to besmirch the memory of the victims of the Holocaust.

Manfred Goldberg, 87, struggled all his life to come to terms with the death of his little brother, Hermann, in the camps. He has a painting of Hermann—he paid an artist in English cigarettes to capture his likeness from a photograph. He gave it to his mother on her first birthday after they were liberated.

Finally, after 72 years, he is able to return to his hometown Kassel to place a memorial plaque to his family. Deeply moved, he says his loss has “now been publicly and officially, incontrovertibly and indisputably confirmed,” but questions how many people will stop and truly look.

Lydia Tischler recounts how she used to fantasise that her mother had survived. She was not unique in this. She wrote a short poem when “at a low point”:

Mummy, who held your hand when you were dying? Who closed your eyes when you were dead?

Frank Bright, who now lives in leafy Martlesham Heath, Suffolk, was a child inmate in Belsen. He has an old class photograph, and on each pupil is placed either a red or blue sticker. “It’s red for dead,” he tells the camera.

Frank Bright 1942 Prague school photo - those marked red died

We follow his finger on a spreadsheet where he has recorded the fate of all his classmates who died in the camps—“otherwise like all the rest they disappear into oblivion.”

Frank describes his world after liberation. “There was no home, no class mates, all was gone. I was completely on my own.”

Frank Bright

At 79, Maurice Blick attends the launch of an exhibition of his sculptures. His wife tells us that the models’ faces all portray his father, who died in Auschwitz. He has peopled his spacious garden with these larger than life statues, rough-hewn yet with grace and beauty. He says he “feels the need to bring his father back to life,” to give life to the mountain of corpses his young eyes bore witness to.

Maurice says creating does not come easily, describing his first effort—the little model he made for his sister for her first birthday in the camp. “I’d found a carrot, a bit bent. I made it into a boat, I put sticks in for masts. I was 5 and a half. I couldn’t give her this.” One morning, before her birthday, she was found dead. His older sister just placed her outside on the heap of other corpses who had passed away in the night. His work has “always been a struggle, never a lovely experience, always a torment.”

Painter Sam Dresner, who lives in Harrow, London, says he realised a year or two ago that his “hang-ups from the days in the camp seem to be getting stronger.” His mother and sister were sent to the extermination camp Treblinka, in occupied Poland, where they were gassed.

We see a beautiful acrylic sketch from memory of his mother. She looks very sad. But he cannot picture his sister and he has no photograph of her. This frustrates him. He has made an abstract collage in memory of her.

Another “obsession” he has is with forests, which he recreates on canvass. “The bigger, the darker the forest the better, for smaller exterminations like 500,” he recalls. The sick were disposed of there—“some were still alive when buried.”

Sam is consumed with anger, he has “dreams of revenge.”

Despite experiencing unimaginable horrors, every one of the survivors featured in the film are remarkable. The sorrow that they carry with them still has not given way to despair. They are, however, as bewildered today as they were so many years ago as children as to why this happened to them.

Manfred considers “those events we went through, which we cannot comprehend.”

Zigi Shipper worries about the future. “Europe, America, the Middle East, things are brewing everywhere. We could live in peace and we don’t even attempt to.”

Anita asks herself, “Who can make sense of it? There is no sense in anything that happened. We’re really talking about a 1,000-year-old virus called anti-Semitism.”

The heart-rending testimony of the last survivors underscores the monumental scale of the crimes committed by the Nazis and the fact that there is still much confusion about fascism and its rise to power. A powerful milestone in understanding these critical events from the 20th century was the publication last October by Mehring-Verlag (Mehring Books) of an examination of the current day resurgence of fascism in Germany. Why Are They Back? Historical Falsification, Political Conspiracy and the Return Of Fascism in Germany is authored by Christoph Vandreier, the deputy-chairperson of the Socialist Equality Party (Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei–SGP).

The English edition of the volume will be launched on March 17 at Foyle’s bookshop in London. Vandreier and David North, the national chairperson of the Socialist Equality Party in the US and chair of the International Editorial Board of the World Socialist Web Site, will speak at the event.

This vital publication will provide an important weapon in arming the working class against the return of fascism and war, so that future generations do not have to go through the agonies related by the survivors in Arthur Cary’s remarkable film.

The Last Survivors can be accessed on BBC iPlayer until February 26.

Rupert Murdoch empire’s whitewash of nazi dictatorship


This 3 April 2015 video from the USA says about itself:

What’s Left in Schmitt? Critique of an Academic Fashion

Matthew Specter is Associate Professor of History at Central Connecticut State University.

In the past quarter of a century, the academy has witnessed an explosion of interest in the political theory of Carl Schmitt (1900-1985). For some of the [postmodernist] Left, Schmitt offers resources for a critique of U.S. imperialism, the narrow spectrum of liberal democracies, and the idealism of deliberative democracy. This lecture uses Schmitt’s biography and political theory to highlight and criticize recent Schmitt appropriations on the political Left. It argues that Schmitt, or Schmittianism, as a leftist project is historically incoherent. The theorist of fascism and the ideologist of Nazi Lebensraum is simply not worth the tendentious stretching and pulling necessary to turn him into a progressive and emancipatory egalitarian thinker. Schmitt offers no new vision for the contemporary Left.

Presented by the Council on European Studies.

By Richard Hoffman in Australia:

Murdoch newspaper approves chief Nazi lawyer’s legal defence of dictatorship

8 February 2019

In an extraordinary commentary in Rupert Murdoch’s Australian newspaper on 18 January 2019, long-serving political commentator Henry Ergas wrote approvingly of the politico-legal conceptions of Carl Schmitt, the Nazi crown jurist who prepared legal doctrines justifying the destruction of the Weimar Constitution and the establishment of the Hitler dictatorship.

According to his online profile at the Australian, Ergas “is an economist who spent many years at the OECD in Paris” and has “taught at a number of universities, including Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, the University of Auckland and the École Nationale de la Statisque et de l’Administration Économique in Paris.” Mr Ergas is currently an adjunct professor at Monash University.

In an article entitled “Are we headed towards high noon for democracy? Emergency powers may be the only way out of crises”, Ergas referred to the political crisis in the US arising from the shutdown, and the Brexit crisis in the UK. He opined that, notwithstanding the potential dangers to liberal democracy of such a course, the adoption of emergency powers in the circumstances, being a “State of Exception” according to Schmitt’s legal conceptions, offered Donald Trump and possibly Theresa May a way out. Moreover, given the “dire straits” politically, both in the US and the UK, Ergas suggested that “Schmitt’s time may finally have arrived.”

Given the openness of the appeal to Nazi legal doctrine in Murdoch’s journal of record in Australia (Murdoch also owns the Wall Street Journal), it is worth extracting parts of Ergas’ commentary in some detail. He writes:

In 1923, as the Weimar Republic struggled with chaos, the German polymath Carl Schmitt wrote a short but enormously influential book, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. Schmitt later destroyed his reputation through his collaboration with the Hitler regime. But if his work is increasingly cited, it is because its contemporary resonance is undeniable.

To say that, is not to suggest that todayʼs circumstances resemble those that drove Europe into the horrors of totalitarianism. Yet, with the US government plunged into a shutdown that only a presidential declaration of a state of emergency is likely to end, and Britain in a crisis that seems insoluble, Schmittʼs warnings cannot simply be dismissed.

The notion of “liberal democracy”, he argued, was fundamentally ill-conceived. Liberalism and democracy had certainly been allies in the battle to rein in the power of monarchs. But that accomplished, the tensions between them had burst to the surface and would inevitably worsen as societies developed.

Liberal institutions—parliamentarianism, the rule of law, the separation of powers—existed to temper the democratic impulse, channelling it into an “endless conversation” that readily led to dead-ends. However, whenever they gathered explosive force, the pressures of democracy—the brute, often inchoate, expression of the popular will—were not so easily corralled.

As liberalism collided with the popular will, one had to overwhelm the other, hurtling the system towards “the state of exception”—that is, the suspension of business-as-usual. And, as Schmitt put it in another famous work, Political Theology, when the chips are down, “sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”

In other words, the ultimate ruler in any political system is the actor who, once consensus has worn so thin as to make the system unworkable, can impose an outcome by invoking emergency powers.

With the conflict between liberalism and democracy growing ever starker, Schmitt argued, we would enter an age of states of emergency, eroding liberalism’s foundations.

Ergas continues the commentary, with a discussion considering the risks to liberal democracy involved in the invoking of emergency measures in exceptional circumstances. He reflects that reliance on a “constitutional dictatorship” would not necessarily be fatal to the political system, and refers to the historical experience of the Greek city states being ruled in a “temporary absolute rulership” to overcome factional strife when the city was being torn apart. Ultimately, Ergas comes down in favour of the declaration of emergency, that is, the exercise of absolute executive power. He writes:

Yet for all those limitations, it is clear that declaring an emergency offers Trump a way out. There is, however, a fundamental question as to whether Theresa May has any such options.

Despite isolated precedents, the answer is probably not. Rather, recent weeks have seen a permanent erosion in the British Prime Minister’s power, not least through the loss of the control the government so painstakingly acquired, nearly two centuries ago, over parliament’s order of business…

Schmitt thought May’s predicament would become increasingly common. And the only outcome that could follow, he argued, was for the state of emergency to become the norm: one way or the other, the exception had to become the rule, permitting government to continue functioning. With liberal constitutionalismʼs twin ancestral homes both in dire straits, Schmittʼs time may finally have arrived.

Carl Schmitt: Nazi crown jurist and the “State of Exception”

The invocation by the Murdoch press of extraordinary circumstances, created by the crisis of bourgeois rule in the US and UK justifying a “constitutional dictatorship”, follows identically the political and class dynamics of the 1930s and the legal-constitutional justifications that were advanced by Schmitt and other leading Nazi lawyers for the destruction of constitutional rule under the Weimar Republic, and the establishment of dictatorship, following the Reichstag fire of February 28, 1933.

On March 23, the Nazi-controlled Reichstag passed “enabling” legislation declaring that the executive had the power to make laws. The Act, referred to as “The Act to Relieve the Distress of the People and the Reich” cemented dictatorial power in Germany under Hitler. It essentially transformed into legislation legal opinions previously prepared by Schmitt. These authorised executive rule because of the “state of exception” in Germany, namely its economic and political crisis and the alleged threat of revolution. Schmitt set out a “legal defence” of the enabling legislation in the Deutsche Juristen Zeitung on March 25, 1933, in which he opined that the executive prerogative was unlimited at a time of national crisis (cited in F. Neumann, Behemoth; The Structure and Practice of National Socialism, London 1942).

Schmitt was a reactionary with a deep-felt hostility to the participation of the masses in the Weimar democracy after World War I. Like many right-wing intellectuals of his generation, he despaired at the liberalism, and instability, of the modern world, which he felt to be, with his strong Catholic middle class background, devoid of order and meaning. Schmitt loathed the cosmopolitan melding of liberalism, Protestantism and assimilated Jewish culture in Germany in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His witnessing of the communist revolution in Bavaria in 1919 intensified his authoritarian support of the violent use of state power against socialist revolution.

Against the backdrop of the instability of the Weimar years, Schmitt developed increasingly dictatorial conceptions of state rule, based on “exceptions” and “emergencies” that justified deviations from the political “norm”. In his work published in 1922, entitled Political Theology, Schmitt expounded the idea of the “state of exception” (Ausnahmezustand). This theory was developed through a right-wing jurisprudential critique of “normativism” in positivist legal thought, which held that law was the expression of general abstract norms applicable in all circumstances. In particular, Schmitt developed the idea of the “state of exception” in a critique of the positivist legal theories of the Austrian legal scholar Hans Kelsen (who had Social Democratic sympathies and was an intellectual opponent of Schmitt).

Schmitt rejected the idea that abstract norms formed the basis of law. He maintained that “like every other order the legal order rests on a decision and not a norm.” Sovereignty, according to Schmitt, was based on decision and not legality. Most significantly, Schmitt argued, the state confronted situations outside the norm that were exceptional. The Sovereign, he declared, in his most notorious phrase, “is he who decides on the state of exception.” The exception could not be mediated by legal concepts, and therefore all order was based on decision alone. There could be no “normative” regulation of exceptional situations. The authority that brought order to the exceptional state was the sine qua non of the legal order. In sum, Schmitt declared, auctoritas non veritas facit legem—authority not truth makes the laws. He was consciously preparing a radical theoretical framework for the violent Nazi destruction of liberal parliamentarism and the socialist movement.

As the Nazis consolidated power, Schmitt propounded theories in support of the “Führerprinzip”—the leader principle. He claimed the führer was the highest judge in the nation, from whom there lay no appeal. The leader was the embodiment of the people’s will and therefore, Schmitt claimed, “law is the plan and the will of the leader” (“Führer Schutzt das Recht” in Positionen und Begriffe, Berlin 1934).

Twenty years of attacks on constitutionalism

For the past two decades, the constitutional foundations of liberal democracy have been under attack. This political legal process has been driven by a deepening economic crisis and intensifying class conflict. Most significantly, it is the product of social inequality of a historically unprecedented magnitude. Bourgeois democracy and traditional parliamentary rule are totally incompatible with vast concentrations of wealth.

In the epoch of imperialism, the dynamics of class society give rise to similar general political and legal phenomena in all capitalist countries. Under the immense pressures of class conflict, economic crisis and inter-imperial rivalry, the ruling class attacks democratic structures as it seeks to impose its will by means of force. At the same time, partisan lawyers develop “legal theories” to justify the radical transformation of the legal-constitutional system.

In the United States, commencing with the stolen election of 2000, successive administrations have attacked the Constitution’s constraints on executive power and its protection of democratic rights. Utilising the pretext of the “War on Terror”, the executive invoked a “state of exception” to aggrandise executive power and foster arbitrary rule. Legal justifications and theories were developed by lawyers in the White House and Department of Justice, which drew heavily on Germanic legal traditions of StaatsRecht, which had absolutely no place in the history of American political or legal doctrine. An examination of those legal opinions and theories clearly reveals that their authors drew heavily from Schmittian legal conceptions, without expressly disclosing their provenance. Since that time, the ruling elites of the United States, culminating in the Trump administration, have continued the systematic, conscious destruction of the constitutional foundations of American representative government. This has, in fact, been a worldwide process, which can properly be described, historically, as the “Constitutional Reordering of Bourgeois Rule”. Most significantly, this process has been intellectually and politically abetted by the entire liberal elite, which has been corrupted by wealth generated out of a booming stock market.

The decay and degeneration which have beset political and legal culture among the ruling elites and the liberal intelligentsia, throughout the US, UK, Europe and Australia, is extraordinary, and clearly has deep roots in the historic crisis of world capitalism. The capitulation of liberal elites to the authority of the state, and the renunciation of any allegiance to democratic rights and constitutional norms, reflects the very sharp class issues involved in this question.

Following the attack on democratic rights unleashed by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11 and in the name of the “War on Terror”, many erstwhile liberals proclaimed their support for the exceptional measures taken by the regime. They proclaimed that “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” and that national security took primacy over the Constitutional protection of rights. They said that suspension of those rights was warranted because of the terrorist threat, which was, of course, a completely bogus premise.

One prominent liberal intellectual, Michael Ignatieff, justified the suspension of Constitutional rights on the basis that it represented “the lesser evil” as compared to the terrorist threat and declared that it was necessary in the circumstances to “fight evil with evil.” This really amounted to a descent into a Dark Ages conception of “legal” relations. Just to illustrate the political trajectory of this social layer, Ignatieff later headed off to become the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. This was someone who had previously been a professor in government at Harvard, had written a prize-winning biography of Isaiah Berlin, and extolled the virtues of the liberal system of Constitutional rule.

The spectre of revolution

The capitalist class internationally and its agents in the liberal elites, traditional parties and bureaucracies, are driven by a deep fear of working-class revolt and the spectre of socialist revolution. They know, or sense, that the settled order has completely lost its legitimacy and it faces an historic existential crisis of rule. Fear of socialism and revolution, particularly in the context of the Bolshevik success in Russia in 1917, was a central animating force that led the elites of Europe to embrace fascism in the 1930s. The elites leveraged Hitler into power in 1933 in order to destroy the socialist movement and atomise the working class. Then, as now, they felt that this was necessary to defend property and privilege. Fundamentally, fascistic movements are a product of a deep existential crisis of capitalism in the imperialist epoch—to which the bourgeoisie turns in order to resolve the crisis in its class interests—and the failure of the working class, through the betrayals of its leadership, to take state power into its own hands.

As in the 1930s, the ruling elites of all countries are increasingly building up their respective military and police state apparatuses, while, at the same time, stoking extreme nationalism and xenophobia to divide the masses and divert social tensions to protect their rule.

In the sphere of constitutionalism and democratic rights, the bourgeoisie, through its parliamentary and political agents, is rapidly and urgently dismantling constitutional rule and stripping away fundamental legal protections.

Extreme right-wing groupings are being welcomed into the “liberal-democratic” forms of government and they are exerting a dominant influence in parliamentary life. In Germany, the fascistic AfD is in charge of the Committee for Legal Affairs in the Bundestag, the federal parliament. The AfD is now the respected official Opposition party, although it is despised by the vast majority of the population.

In 2018, the Australian parliament, according to a recent legal report, stripped away fundamental legal rights in 34 new pieces of legislation. In total, the Liberal-National Coalition government has enacted 354 provisions in statutes that abrogate four key legal rights: the presumption of innocence; the right to natural justice; the right to silence; and the right against self-incrimination.

The most extensive attack on these rights has taken place in the areas of national security, taxation, and the foreign influence legislation. These measures, designed to alter the Constitutional framework of rule, are all directed at augmenting central state power, shoring up the fiscal strength of the state and expanding the state security apparatus.

The Australian commentary has now simply expressed in the open, the view of the ruling elites, which they have harboured for two decades: in order to deal with the emerging political crisis produced by the collapse of world capitalism, and especially the coming rebellion of the working class, dictatorship should be instituted to defend the existing order.

This open call to emergency rule and dictatorship must come as a sharp warning to the working class. Only a few days ago, plans to impose martial law in Britain were revealed, to deal with anticipated social unrest arising from a no-deal Brexit. Curfews, bans on travel, confiscation of property, suspension of laws, and the deployment of the army are all contemplated under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Capitalising on a crisis of its own making, the British ruling class will have no hesitation in establishing a “parliamentary dictatorship.” The international working class should act accordingly, and urgently build up its own independent mass political organisations in order to defend its class interests; economic, political, and legal.

Fox News rejected a 30-second ad for an anti-Nazi short film.

German neofascist politician attacks Holocaust commemoration


This September 2017 video says about itself:

German Holocaust survivor gives view on the rise of AfD | DW English

Nonagenarian holocaust survivor Horst Selbiger recalls his childhood in Nazi Germany. He sees the rise of the AfD as a continuation of the Nazi tradition.

By Christoph Vandreier in Germany:

AfD deputy denounces a Holocaust commemoration in German parliament

7 February 2019

Seventy-four years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the crimes of the Nazi regime are being downplayed in the German Bundestag (parliament) without triggering any significant protest.

On the morning of January 31, the Bundestag honored the victims of German National Socialism (Nazism) at an annual ceremony. Immediately afterwards, far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) parliamentarian Marc Jongen delivered a fascistic speech in which he downplayed the crimes of the Nazis and derided their victims. This did not evoke any noteworthy opposition, underscoring how far to the right the entire political establishment has moved and the degree to which the right-wing extremists of the AfD now dominate official politics.

Jongen, who gained a doctorate in philosophy under Peter Sloterdijk and is considered the “chief ideologue” of the AfD, spoke against a motion tabled by the Left Party to establish a central “memorial for the victims of the Nazi war of annihilation in Eastern Europe.” In addition to millions of soldiers who died, 6 million civilians were killed in Poland alone, 14 million were killed in the Soviet Union, and 3.3 million prisoners of war perished.

Jongen opposed the project on the grounds that it was aimed at “artificially inducing the re-traumatisation of every new generation in Germany” and that it ignored “the German and Eastern European victims of the Stalinist war of extermination”, who, he said, were the victims of a “no less terrible crime.”

Jongen equated the victims of the Nazi war of extermination with the losses that resulted from the Soviet Red Army’s offensive, which liberated Europe from Nazi rule. He also depicted the Nazis’ minutely planned war of annihilation as a response to Stalinist acts of violence, and, in the old tradition of the Nazis, justified it as a “preventive war”.

Jonger relied explicitly on the right-wing Humboldt University historian Jörg Baberowski, whom he quoted word for word. In 2011, Professor Baberowski wrote, “…without [taking into account] the excesses of the Stalinist dictatorship, it is not at all understandable what National Socialism [Nazism] was an answer to.”

Jonger followed this blatant historical falsification with a fascistic tirade. The commemoration of Nazi crimes was used to “anchor a deep sense of guilt in Germany for all time,” said the AfD speaker. “Germany should disappear as a nation, as a country, as a people. It should become a more or less open settlement area for migrants from all over the world,” Jongen railed, adopting the formulas of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

This marked the third time since the beginning of the year that right-wing extremists and neo-Nazis have besmirched the memory of the victims of Nazism, without provoking any outcry in establishment political or media circles. AfD members disrupted a commemoration in the Bavarian state parliament on January 23, and on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, Polish right-wing extremists demonstrated on the grounds of the concentration camp, shouting anti-Semitic slogans. Jongen has now transported this ideological filth into the Bundestag.

The political conditions for these fascistic and anti-Semitic displays by right-wing extremists were created by the more traditional bourgeois parties, which tolerate the AfD and adopt its policies. Not a single member of parliament spoke substantively against Jongen’s apologia for the Nazis and not a single newspaper deemed it necessary to report on, let alone denounce, his hate speech.

This toleration of fascist agitation in the Bundestag is the result of a process that has made right-wing extremist positions politically acceptable. Baberowski has played a central role in the project to rehabilitate the Nazis.

In 2007, Baberowski wrote: “Stalin and his generals forced a new type of war on the Wehrmacht [Hitler’s army], which no longer spared the civilian population.” In February 2014, in an interview published in Der Spiegel, Baberowski defended the Nazi apologist Ernst Nolte, who had triggered the Historians’ Dispute [Historikerstreit] in the 1980s with his exculpation of the Nazis.

“Nolte was wronged,” Baberowski said. “Historically, he was right.” He continued: “Hitler was not a psychopath, he was not cruel. He didn’t want people talking about the extermination of the Jews at his table.”

He also likened shootings in Russia in 1918 to the Holocaust, saying, “Basically, it was the same thing: industrial homicide.”

In response to Baberowski’s justification of Nazi crimes, the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (SGP—Socialist Equality Party) and its youth organisation, the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE), issued an open letter to the Humboldt University administration and protested against the falsification of history. In the letter, they pointed out that the rehabilitation of Hitler serves to justify German militarism today:

The attempts to establish a historically false narrative come at a critical point in German history. Such efforts should be seen in the context of recent statements by President Joachim Gauck and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier that it is now time to end decades of military restraint in Germany. The revival of German militarism requires a new interpretation of history that downplays the crimes of the Nazi era.

In 1987, Nolte’s positions triggered the Historikerstreit, in which many historians opposed Nolte. But in 2014, not a single professor and not a single mainstream newspaper opposed the statement that Hitler was not vicious.

Instead, the SGP and the IYSSE were attacked for criticising Baberowski in Der Spiegel, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Süddeutsche Zeitung and many other newspapers.

Rejecting an action brought by Baberowski against his critics, the Cologne Higher Regional Court ruled that Baberowski could legitimately be described as a “right-wing extremist”, a “racist” and someone who engages in “glorifying violence”. The professor’s lawyers then advanced the argument that while Baberowski’s speech might be radically right-wing, his research was sound. This frauduent separation of Baberowski’s aggressive political agenda and writings from his public declarations was promoted by the political establishment and the Humboldt University administration.

“The scholarly statements of Jörg Baberowski are not radically right-wing,” said the Social Democratic politician and president of Humboldt University Sabine Kunst in an official statement following Baberowski’s defeat in the Cologne Higher Regional Court. At the same time, she threatened critics with criminal proceedings and declared “media attacks” on Baberowski to be “unacceptable.”

Jongen’s speech confirms the critical importance of the struggle that the SGP and the IYSSE have carried out at Humboldt University. It leaves no doubt as to the thrust of Baberowski’s falsification of history and, at the same time, demonstrates once again that the right wing can act so brazenly only because nobody in the political establishment or in the academic community opposes it.

This silence extends beyond Germany. There is not a single prominent academic in either Britain or the United States who has publicly attacked Baberowski. It is not that they agree with Baberowski. In fact, this writer can testify to the fact that a number of respected historians have expressed in private conversations their distaste for the work of the Humboldt University professor. But they are not prepared to “go on the record” and denounce his pro-Nazi apologetics.

The refusal to forcefully oppose Baberowski has—as the rise of the AfD demonstrates—political consequences. In his valuable study The Anatomy of Fascism, published in 2004, historian Robert O. Paxton called attention to the insidious complicity of a significant stratum of intellectuals with the rise of fascism in Germany and Italy. The hostility of intellectuals to Enlightenment ideals “helped create a space for fascist values” and “made it possible to imagine fascism”, he wrote. The present-day silence of academics on pro-Nazi apologetics and refusal to counter historical falsifications has “helped create a space” for a dangerous fascist revival.

In the book Why Are They Back?, which deals extensively with the disputes at Humboldt University, I have written that the AfD, in contrast to the Nazis, “has neither a mass base of support nor combat-ready units like Hitler’s SA (Storm Troopers), which recruited its members among uprooted war veterans, socially ruined members of the petty-bourgeoisie, and despairing unemployed workers. The AfD’s strength arises exclusively from the support it receives from the political parties, the media, the government and the state apparatus.”

The SGP was and remains the only party that opposes this right-wing conspiracy. For this reason, it was referred to as “left-wing extremist” and listed as an “object for surveillance” in last year’s Secret Service annual report, which was prepared in close consultation with the AfD.