February, 2001

Ashcroft Nomination

The longer one lives the more one appreciates the old Greek's statement that "there is nothing new under the sun."
     During the confirmation hearings of Senator Ashcroft for Attorney General the Salt Lake Tribune carried an article about the Senator with the headline: "Democrats Zero In on Ashcroft Speech Referring to Jesus as King of the U.S."
     This is a typical example which demonstrates how public opinion is manipulated, because a fair number of readers just glance at headlines and then go on to the sports pages unless they have already read those first. Politics is not their bag and that is why they don't bother to vote. The article, authored by Libby Quaid, and carried by the Associated Press, deals with Ashcroft's "six paragraph address" before the students and faculty of Bob Jones University which is a Fundamentalist Christian institution. The article quoted Ashcroft as saying "Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different. We have no king but Jesus." The article did admit that Ashcroft had said earlier that the "American colonists routinely told emissaries from the king of England, 'We have no king but Jesus' when they were asked to pay taxes." The fact that the audience was profoundly Christian does put the comment into a different context which tends to be missed when one only reads the headline.
     For Christians Jesus is indeed their king and this got Cardinal Innitzer of Vienna in October of 1938 into deep trouble when he had the audacity to tell this to Catholic university students who had gathered for the annual mass at the beginning of the school year. From the pulpit of St. Stephen's cathedral he told his audience:” we will especially at this time [5 months after the Nazis had taken over Austria] assert strongly and resolutely our faith; to testify for Jesus our Fuehrer and master, our king and his church." Predictably the Nazis did not take kindly to this affront because there was only one Fuehrer of Greater Germany and his name was Adolf Hitler. What the Nazis did, thereafter, can be found in War and Mayhem.
     Have some of our Democrats now stepped into the shoes of the Nazis? Are they also determined to stamp out this "mischievous superstition" as Tacitus had called Christianity?





March 2001

Whither Zionism?

     Whither Zionism? is now at the publisher and ought to be available within a month or so. It presents the historical basis of the current Middle East conflict from the Greco-Roman era until today. But don't worry, it is written in simple language that even our politicians and "public opinion makers" can understand. Furthermore the information is condensed into only a little over one hundred pages. This was done on purpose so that the people in charge of our lives have no excuse of being too busy for reading the material. The Arab-Israeli conflict is nothing else but a replay of ancient history with America having assumed the role formerly played by Rome. Since our tax dollars are used for arms and ammunitions in that part of the world, and since the oil spigot can be turned off at a moment's notice, the history of that region is not an idle academic exercise but vitally important to all of us. One of my goals in life has always been to deprive myself of excuses and now is the time to do this to our policy makers. Ignorance is not bliss, it leads to disasters.





April 2001

Arab-Israeli Conflict

Whither Zionism? is now available through www.trafford.com/robots/01-0067.html. The site also provides the Introduction and the Conclusion of the book. Additional excerpts are available here. In view of the deteriorating situation in the Middle East the book is exceedingly topical and not only provides the reasons for the conflict but also makes some concrete suggestions. If these were followed further escalation of the fighting could be prevented and some degree of stability might be achieved.



Since neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will be able to disengage themselves from the current level of violence the suggestion is made that the United States agree that a fact-finding commission, appointed by the United Nations, be dispatched to the Middle East. This commission ought to consist of members from countries who are truly neutral in the conflict. A White Paper should then be published which presents the world with the facts as they currently exist but without casting blame. The commission's recommendations should then be publicly discussed and a reasonable compromise between the wishes of the opposing parties may become possible.



The Israeli government may oppose such a commission as outside interference into what are regarded as internal concerns. Nevertheless the precedent for such "interference" has been set in the recent "non-war" with Yugoslavia. Kosovo was and is part of the national territory of Yugoslavia but NATO under U.S. leadership felt obligated to bomb the country in defense of human rights. The "West Bank" is not part of Israel proper but represents occupied territory. The American people do not have full information on what transpires in the area because Israeli military censorship prevents it. Complete disclosure is, therefore, essential so that a solution which provides justice for both sides can be arrived at.



The American Jewish community will have a vital role to play now. If the leaders of major Jewish organizations support a commission as suggested above and bring their influence to bear on the Knesset towards a just and peaceful resolution of this tragedy, they will have provided great benefits to America, Israel, and the world at large. They will have shown that Jews really mean it when they say that the task of Judaism is to be "a blessing to the world!" If the American Jewish community simply abstains from making comments this will be taken as tacit support for current policies by the powers in Jerusalem, and the slaughter will continue. If the American Jewish community were to openly oppose the suggested commission and force the United States to veto a resolution in the Security Council for sending an unarmed fact-finding, rather than peace- keeping, commission to the area they would lend active assistance to chauvinistic circles in the Israeli government. Under those circumstances a major war in the area with disastrous economic world-wide consequences may well be impossible to avert.

Official American Jewish circles are very concerned about a re-emergence of anti-Semitism in this country and are actively soliciting funds to combat it. Money cannot solve the problem; only honesty and good will can do so! This means, however, that first of all one has to listen to the other side and reason has to take precedence over passion. If Jewish passions (understandable as they might be) were allowed to overrule reason, anti-Semitism would erupt in full bloom.





May 2001

Today's Vienna

This was a rather busy month taken up by attempts to promote Whither Zionism?, a trip to Vienna with a side-tour to Munich, and the dispatch of a manuscript entitled Satan to First Things.

The results of the efforts in regard to Whither Zionism? will be discussed in the June segment and the trip to Vienna had a dual purpose. The timing had been dictated by testimony in a court case but there was also the intent to use the occasion to get some publicity for War and Mayhem in my native city. The side-trip to Munich was made in order to meet a colleague and his wife for scientific purposes and subsequently another physician couple who had expressed interest in translating War and Mayhem into the German language.

Apart from this official program I had also looked forward to the trip in order to visit with old friends, enjoy the Viennese cuisine and one of the highlights was supposed to have been a visit to the Burgtheater. Anyone who has read War and Mayhem will recall my fondness for this institution of classic theater performances. It is Vienna's answer to the Comédie Francaise in Paris. The building has been restored from the war ravages to its former glory and Weh dem der luegt by Grillparzer (Austria's most famous poet and dramatist) was on the program.

Grillparzer has always intrigued me, not only out of local patriotism but also on account of some of the verses which stayed in memory. For instance in Der Traum ein Leben (The Dream a Life) Rustan, a simple boy, dreamt that he was king; but in achieving this exalted station and in the execution of his office he had to commit several outrages. Upon awakening in the morning Rustan was exceedingly grateful for his lowly stature in life and prayed on his knees: Eines nur ist Glueck hienieden. Eins: des Innern stiller Frieden und die schuldbefreite Brust! Und die Groesze ist gefaehrlich. Und der Ruhm ein leeres Spiel; Was er gibt sind nicht'ge Schatten, Was er nimmt es ist so viel! (The only happiness here below is inner peace and the heart which is freed of guilt. Greatness is dangerous, glory a pointless game, what it gives are merely shadows, what it takes away is oh so much). In 1849 Grillparzer expressed his feelings about the previous year's revolution in the guise of Emperor Rudolf's II words during the 30 years war. In the drama the dregs of society had risen up and demanded equality, to which Rudolf answered: bis alles gleich, weil alles niedrig (till everything is equal because everything is base)! Our current society is also doing its best to erase distinctions of any kind bis alles gleich, weil alles niedrig!

The timelessness of classic literature was also driven home to me during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. I had a vague feeling of having been aware of a similar situation but didn't realize the close parallel until I re-read Grillparzer's Die Juedin von Toledo (the Jewess of Toledo). It's all there except that our friend Bill did not require much seduction and the ending was different. Rahel-Monica gets killed by infuriated friends of the Queen, rather than ending up with book contracts, and the King goes off to fight the Moors, instead of traveling around the world making money by giving speeches to one and all. Those were some of my associations with the Burgtheater and the reason why I looked forward to the evening.

Unfortunately past memories where the classic plays were performed in appropriate period decor and where, even during war time, people were dressed in their Sunday best when they went to the theater, had to remain locked in the brain and could not be revitalized by what was going on in the audience and on the stage. I had never seen nor read Weh dem der luegt (Woe to him who lies) previously, and as author of "thinkruth.com" was ready for an interesting morality play. Unfortunately post-modern deconstructionism has also hit Europe and what was offered on the stage was a disaster. All one could say was: poor Grillparzer; he really didn't deserve that.

The stage setting ranged from primitive to absent e.g. the entire first and fifth act had only the huge empty stage with the three walls adorned by flowery wallpaper. I found out subsequently that the scene was to have taken place in a garden. Apparently the wallpaper was supposed to lead one to that conclusion! In the other acts the setting was equally primitive and gave no hint to the uninitiated as to what the author's intent had been. As far as the rest of the performance was concerned, there was open display of nudity, the purpose of which eluded one and rock noises emanated intermittently from loudspeakers which drowned out what the poor actors were trying to say. In the final act where the play calls for Christian forgiveness of the enemy and secure passage for those who had surrendered we were treated to an attempted rape and a gruesome killing where the perpetrator seems to tear open the adversary's innards and then smears himself with the blood of the victim. All this on the stage of a theater which prides itself as the epitome of German language culture. At the end I had no idea what the play was really intended to be all about. I vowed then and there that I would no longer visit the Burgtheater unless they present classic material in timeless form.

In addition, not only were the actors dressed shabbily so was the audience. Sweaters, T- shirts and Levis were in and the dark suit I wore was out. Grillparzer was right: bis alles gleich weil alles niedrig! Unless you can play to, and for, the lowest instincts and you profane whatever has been held holy you no longer belong to the world of art and culture. You are simply "not with it."

I thought that this particular performance may have been a temporary aberration and an isolated event but as my friends and colleagues assured me this is in fact what is regarded as art even in Vienna, which used to be a beacon of culture. The Opera has also been infected by this "modernity," as I was told. In Beethoven's Fidelio the helpers of the evil Pizarro wore SS uniforms! Why were they not presented as GPU commissars or even more modern as Castro's henchmen? Is evil from now on limited to Nazis? These are cheap propaganda tricks which detract from the performances rather than enhance them. I had, and still have, no use for the Nazis but the current so called art scene does smack of "entartete Kunst" (degenerate art).

Even in Austria the intellectual elite is thoroughly leftist, sees itself as the vanguard of the future and from all the newspapers there is only the Kronenzeitung which gives vent to the real feelings of the common people and, therefore, has the largest circulation. This is also the explanation of the Haider phenomenon. It has nothing to do with Nazism and everything with a revulsion against the incessant Marxist "avant-garde" drumbeat. Society has to be reformed in their image. The common folks don't like it, but they are intimidated similar to Nazi times, and the children are indoctrinated. The color has changed from brown to red and there are no concentration camps but genuine free speech and open investigations of the Nazi era, specifically of the Holocaust, are not permitted. There are laws against it and one can be jailed The book is closed and must remain so.

Having come from the U.S., a still relatively open society (the reason for the qualification will become apparent in the June update), I expected that opinions on history which do not engage in the good vs. evil polemic could be openly presented in democratic Austria. Free speech is, or at least should be, the hallmark of a democracy. That this is not so I found out when I thought it might be a good idea to organize a public discussion of War and Mayhem as part of a book promotion. I was, however, advised by well meaning friends against it because anything that presents both sides of the coin and which might possibly be construed as not rendering sufficient emphasis on specifically Jewish suffering during WWII would risk an outcry by Jewish organizations.

As a result of the coalition government between the People's Party and the Freedom Party with the exclusion of the Socialists, Austria is currently on probation and foreign observers watch every move. A few weeks prior to my arrival there was a mini uproar in the country over a demand by the Chief Rabbi of the Kultusgemeinde for Austria to admit 10.000 Jews in order to revitalize Jewish life in Vienna. In addition he wanted Austria to assume the debts of the Kultusgemeinde which apparently are considerable. Schuessel - the chancellor- said in so many words he would take about 500 people but the country could not be held responsible for debts which it did not incur. Since this answer was regarded as inadequate and Haider could not resist the temptation to add his two cents of populist rhetoric by making a pun on the Chief Rabbi's name, the feelings between official Jewry and the population are somewhat tense at the moment.

Since I did not want to feed ill-feelings I abstained from the planned book promotion but regard it as terribly unfortunate that the people in charge of official Jewish organizations don't seem to realize that incessant demands will not be met with heartfelt endorsement and that they thereby tend to encourage anti-Jewish sentiments. These are, of course, not allowed to be voiced in public and one hears about them only privately.

Jewish feelings were, however, only one part of the aborted book promotion. The wind blows from the left, as has repeatedly been mentioned and, contrary to what happens in sailboat regattas, port tack has right of way over starboard tack. Protest against the right is currently de rigeur and Widerstand (resistance) is the key word for youngsters and elitists. On buildings one could see banners Kultur ist Widerstand or Kunst ist Widerstand. That this cheapens the genuine sacrifices the Austrian resistance movement made during the war, where Widerstand resulted in KZ and/or death, these new generations (we are after all grandparents for some of them already) cannot or do not want to comprehend. I was told that every Thursday afternoon youngsters march for a while along the Ringstrasse shouting such edifying slogans like "Widerstand, Widerstand, Schuessel, Haider an die Wand" (resistance, resistance, Schuessel, Haider against the wall). That one is to be shot when lined up against a wall goes without saying. Thus the mob hasn't changed, neither have the slogans, and the only difference is the perceived enemy. For the Nazis it was Juden und Pfaffen (Jews and clergy) who were to be hanged. I had intended to watch one of these processions but illness in the family required a premature departure from Vienna and return to the States.

That youngsters are getting a dose of indoctrination in favor of the left became apparent when I was invited by the authorities of my former Mittelschule, from which I had been thrown out by the Nazis as "an abscess on the body of the German people" in 1941, to hold a discussion with the students of the fourth as well as subsequently the seventh and eighth grade. In Austria one attends Mittelschule from age ten to age eighteen and there are, therefore, eight grades. I was warmly welcomed by teachers and students and the discussions, in form of questions by the pupils, went well. In contrast to my time there, the school is now co-ed and it was the girls who participated more actively than the boys. One key question stuck in mind: "How can we prevent right wing extremism in the future?" It was appropriate in the context because we were talking about Nazis but I felt it important to explain that left wing extremism is just as dangerous and has to be exposed with equal vigor. This is where the danger lies today The students were receptive but it seemed to be a new concept because they tend to get mainly one-sided information. Nazi crimes get the exclusive attention but other outrages which had occurred during and in the aftermath of WWII are never mentioned. This is not meant to excuse the behavior of the Nazis, which is inexcusable, but history should be presented from all sides and not just one.

There were two other surprises. Learning by rote and reciting the classics has become a lost art. This is unfortunate for two reasons. One is that memory is no longer challenged and trained; the other is that one builds thereby a reservoir of information into one's brain which, just like songs, can be tapped in hours of boredom or crisis to banish unwanted idle or frustrating thoughts. The other surprise was the non-existent dress code; sloppiness of attire by the students is just as marked as it is on our schools. Whether or not they still stand up when the teacher enters I don't know. These may be regarded as minor points but lack of attention to attire does imply lack of respect for others. Yet, from lack of respect a good many of the other unwanted consequences, including poor study habits, flow. On the other hand there have to date been no shootings or knifings in Viennese schools which is a plus.

Now to other positive aspects. For Americans a trip to Austria and Vienna can be heartily recommended. Unless one wants to go to the Burgtheater, which is at this time not advisable anyway, no language skills are necessary because practically everybody speaks English and the people have retained their friendliness. In Jewish circles there may be some concern about the proverbial anti-Semitism of the Viennese but this is not warranted because it does not apply to individuals. Anybody, regardless of ethnic or religious background is being treated politely unless the person claims special privileges or throws his weight around. Under those circumstances one can expect either sullenness or a flash flood of verbal insults, but at no time is there any physical aggression.

The public buildings have been sandblasted, look practically new, and even the private apartment houses are steadily cleaned from the soot of bygone ages. The city looks impressive, the abundant parks are well kept, flowers are in bloom, and the public transportation system is excellent. Do not attempt to drive a car in Vienna, except for getting into or out of town. Even if you have been there before you are bound to get lost in the maze of one-way streets. The city simply wasn't built for today's traffic. But you really don't need a car because, as mentioned, public transportation with trolleys, subways and buses is excellent and there are also numerous taxis. The cabbies may be from Africa, Turkey, Bosnia or other assorted places but most of the time they do find their way around. Some, especially the Viennese ones, may ask you if you have a preferred route to your destination but even if you do, decline the offer because he/she knows better and will not take advantage of you.

Here is a typical experience. I am not only handicapped on account of gait problems but also by my Viennese accent. Everybody in Vienna automatically assumes that I have been living there all along and when I have to ask for directions or if I make suggestions to a cabbie which may not be appropriate due to changed circumstances I get peculiar looks or even "the lip." Two years ago I had to go to mother's lawyer on account of the estate settlement and his office was on the Mariahilferstrasse, which is a rather broad and busy thoroughfare. The lady took me from the Ringstrasse up the Mariahilferstrasse but the problem was that the lawyer's office was on the other side of the street. Since I wanted to minimize my walking because of serious hip pain where every step felt like hitting a sore tooth (the hip joint has been replaced in the meantime with excellent results) I suggested that she go up the Gumpendorferstrasse instead and then come down on the proper side of the Mariahilferstrasse. This elicited a totally unexpected flood of anger and it was apparent that she had what's referred to here as "a bad hair day." I realized what was going on and instead of biting back I patiently explained my dual handicaps. The result was totally surprising. She did stop on the wrong side of the street, subsequently insisted that I take her arm (although I wasn't that crippled), led me across the busy street, gave me a hug on the other side, kissed me on both cheeks, and wished me well. Now that is what is known as the goldene Wienerherz (the golden Viennese heart). If you treat people right they will do so also and a possible flash of sudden anger, caused by whatever, disappears right away.

It is also advisable to take a more leisurely approach during your stay then let us say in New York. Rather than just rushing around from one of the cultural sites to the next and taking one's leave within a day or so, visit the Vienna Woods with their numerous small restaurants and hotels. The Tulbingerkogel, for instance, is only half an hour from town and you find yourself in pristine nature with an unimpeded view over the countryside, while you can indulge in your favorite cocktail and subsequently enjoy a perfectly prepared dinner from a large menu. If you do not have friends with a car a taxi will take you and the prices are reasonable. Rax, Schneeberg and Semmering can also be reached by car within an hour and one gets there an idea of the real Austria unaffected by foreign influences. In sum and substance visit Vienna and her environs whenever you have a chance to do so, you will enjoy it.





June 2001

Metaphysical Guilt

As mentioned previously April and the early part of May were also devoted to get Whither Zionism? into the hands of people who control our fate. I am a scientist and have few illusions about the behavior of my fellow human beings, especially of those who are in power. But scientists love experiments, even when they think they know the outcome. Whither Zionism? was such an experiment. Everyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear must know that the current Middle East policies are doomed to failure and bound to lead to disaster.

In the February update I mentioned that there is nothing new under the sun, when it comes to human behavior as exemplified by the allegations against Senator Ashcroft during his confirmation hearings. On p.36 of Whither Zionism? there is a quote from Josephus in regard to events just prior to the onset of the Jewish war against Rome which had the result that: "many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the city [Jerusalem], as from a ship when it was going to sink [II 20:1]." The June 5, 2001 issue of the Salt Lake Tribune carried an article headlined "Moderates Fleeing Middle East" The article starts with: "Worn down by eight months of violence that shows no sign of easing, many Israelis and Palestinians are packing their bags for the United States or Canada...." Two millennia have made no difference in that part of the world.

The question arises, therefore, what is the responsibility of the individual citizen both here and in Israel in order to bring about a degree of sanity in that troubled land. We Americans will be held responsible, whether we like it or not, because it is no secret that Israel is our client state. Why does this bother me personally? Because, as a former citizen of Austria and subsequently the Greater German Reich, I am told that I bear personal guilt for Hitler's atrocities! This is no exaggeration. Karl Jaspers, the renowned German existentialist philosopher wrote a booklet in 1946 during the Nuremberg trials Die Schuldfrage. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Frage.(The question of guilt. A contribution to the German Question). In it he explained that there are four types of guilt. 1. Legal guilt for criminal behavior, 2. Political guilt for allowing a repressive regime to come to power or when in power to tolerate it, 3. Moral guilt for personal misconduct, even when under orders, and 4. Metaphysical guilt which flows from the demand that every human being is co-responsible for all the wrongs and injustices which are being perpetrated in the world when one knows about them and simply stands by without taking action. Ergo in relation to the Nazis I am absolved from criminal or moral guilt because I didn't do anything bad but I am supposed to have political guilt because I had to live under them and did not volunteer for an act punishable by death or concentration camp. I am also supposed to be co-responsible for their criminal acts on the metaphysical plane. Jaspers writes of himself : "Dasz ich noch lebe, wenn solches geschehen ist, legt sich als untilgbare Schuld auf mich" (the fact that I am still alive I carry with me as inexpungeable guilt). Please note the term untilgbar - inexpungeable. Whatever one does after the fact is irrelevant for this particular form of guilt and one Jewish author has proclaimed that the German people have been stamped with the mark of Cain on their foreheads for eternity. This has, of course, practical uses because German as well as Austrian citizens can now be collared for financial retributions in perpetuity. Inexpungeable guilt!

There is obviously some hyperbole in Jaspers' exposition. If one were to follow his thoughts to their logical conclusion one would have to say that all the citizens of the former Soviet Union had political guilt for allowing Lenin to come to power and for submitting to Stalin's crimes. All the millions of Cambodians whom Pol Pot drove into the rice paddies and who didn't die were guilty for having survived. The more than a billion Chinese are guilty of still tolerating the communist regime, not to speak of the North Koreans, Vietnamese, or the Cubans who have to make do with Castro on their island. These are just a few examples for the difference between philosophic ideas and the harsh realities of this world.

Nevertheless, Jaspers is correct that when one sees a catastrophe in the making, shrugs ones shoulders and says I can't do anything about it anyway, one may incur a degree of metaphysical guilt. In a closed society the individual is severely limited in his options, but what possibilities exist in the so-called free world? To explore these Whither Zionism? was written and distributed to all the members of the Bush administration, as well as all the members of the House and Senate: International Relations Committee, Armed Services Committee and Appropriations Committee.

In addition, review copies were sent to all the major daily newspapers in the country and the major TV pundits. The Wiesenthal Center, the Holocaust Memorial in Washington and the Anti-defamation League also got copies. Furthermore, Steven Spielberg is known for his interest in the fate of the Jewish people and I thought that the reasons for the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple when depicted accurately, rather than from a propaganda point of view, could provide an excellent lesson for chauvinistic hotheads.

The result was, of course, predictable. DreamWorks returned the book with the comment that they have a policy to reject all unsolicited material and, therefore, the book is being returned unread. I can't even use it any more for anybody else because it carries an autograph to Spielberg. There were no replies from any of the magazines, newspapers or TV personalities. As far as politicians are concerned there was also mostly silence apart from eight notable exceptions where I received polite form letters or cards, including one from Dick Cheney's office who thanked me and wished me well On the other hand our National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice was too busy to even ask her staff to reply, although she was contacted on repeated occasions.

During the Easter recess I tried to get in personal touch with my senators but got no further than their secretaries. They are just too busy to bother seeing constituents. In olden days you could get an audience even with the emperor or give Caesar a personal petition, but no more when "the people" rule! The irony is that the senators I did vote for didn't give me time of day but my Congressman, Jim Matheson, for whom I did not vote, was willing to lend me his ears and I could put the book personally into his hands. He is new on the job, not yet infected with the disdain for the constituents who pay his salary and obviously wants to get re-elected. The senators have nothing to fear, their secretaries who shield them know it, so why bother?

Thus, we have a very effective censorship in this country for ideas which do not emanate from well known public figures. In the first instance a "reputable publisher" will not take your manuscript because a) the editor may not agree with the contents and possibly more importantly b) it won't bring in huge quantities of money. In our free country one can then take the self-publishing route which gets the book in print but that's the end. Papers will not review it and even if you want to give it to your local library one lady told me in regard to War and Mayhem after leafing through it in a cursory fashion: "We only take books from reputable publishers." Therefore, unless one has the good fortune to be a member of the old boys, or gals for that matter, network your chances of getting heard or read are astronomically small.

The same applies, of course to this website. Who in, literally, all the world is going to find it, even when it is submitted to all the search engines. There is just too much stuff on this "information superhighway" and its bumper to bumper traffic.

So, what has been accomplished? I have shared my "metaphysical guilt" with the movers and shakers of this world and deprived them of excuses. To read a hundred pages is no chore but to disregard them is a mistake. The Middle East continues to drift into chaos and the Mitchell Commission recommendations - although well meant - have predictably been rejected by both sides. Youngsters who aspire to heaven via martyrdom cannot be restrained by anybody and to make their disappearance the precondition for negotiations is a lame excuse. So is the necessity for continuing to expand the settlements. Since the relations between the U.S. and the UN have soured considerably in the past few month a UN commission as suggested in Whither Zionism? may at this time not have much chance of coming into being but some unimpeachable third force seems to be the only hope for letting intellect overcome passion.

In conclusion I might mention some thoughts of a revered icon of the twentieth century on the topic of Palestine which can be found in Churchill and the Jews by Michael J. Cohen. Although Churchill had been early on an outspoken supporter of Zionism he had begun to develop second thoughts later on. There may also have been personal reasons involved for his change of mind. His close friend Lord Moyne, Minister of State Resident in the Middle East, was murdered in November 1944 by a Jewish terrorist organization led by Menachem Begin, who later became Prime Minister. At the end of WWII during his last weeks in office Churchill said:

"I do not think we should take the responsibility upon ourselves of managing this very difficult place while the Americans sit back and criticise...I am not aware of the slightest advantage which has ever accrued to Great Britain from this painful and thankless task. Somebody else should have their turn now..."(p.260).

America has assumed Britain's burden and is now saddled with "managing this very difficult place" but the prospects for bringing stability to the area by the U.S. are no better than they were for the Brits, or the Romans for that matter.

In 1946 Churchill said in the House of Commons:

" The idea that the Jewish Problem could be solved or even helped by a vast dumping of the Jews of Europe into Palestine is really too silly to consume our time in the House of Commons this afternoon" (p.327).

Well it did happen, the migration was unavoidable, the state of Israel came into being and people of good will are now forced to spend considerably more time than just an afternoon to deal with the consequences of this "silly idea."





July 2001

Palestinians. Homosexuality

To start out on a positive note it is a pleasure to acknowledge Alan Caruba's kind review of Whither Zionism? In the May installment of his bookviews.com Caruba wrote that "Rodin asks and brilliantly answers the title question in a way that will prove astonishing and insightful to any reader, particularly in light of the present problems in the Middle East." I am mentioning Caruba's comments here because they are especially relevant for what follows.

The syndicated columnist Cal Thomas usually writes sensible reports but on June 5 there appeared an article of his in the Salt Lake Tribune headlined: Peace Solution: Israel must rid itself of the Palestinians Once and for All. Thomas is clearly sufficiently intelligent to realize that this plan cannot be executed; nevertheless he concludes the article by saying "The current model of 'land for peace' is not working, nor can it work given the objectives of Arafat and Israel's other enemies. Eviction is a better avenue of stability. Will it happen? Probably not. Should it ? Yes."

There are two aspects to this article which require comment. One is that expulsion of the Palestinian population from the occupied territories was advocated as "The Only Solution" by rabbi Meir Kahane in the 1980's. He lost his seat in the Knesset, his political party was forbidden and Kahane was murdered soon thereafter by a Muslim fanatic. The other aspect is that the headline could have come with slight modification from any issue of the Voelkische Beobachter during the late 1930's as "Germany must rid itself of the Jews once and for all." When one knows the history of those years one is aware that the Kristallnacht in November of 1938, which was universally deplored and removed the last vestige of doubt about Nazism's malignancy, was preceded by the deportation of Polish Jews from Germany in October of that year. The Poles did not want this influx of her former citizens either and, among others, young Herschel Grynszpan's family was caught in no man's land. When Herschel received word from his sister about their unhappy circumstances he vowed revenge. Since he was in Paris at the time he wanted to make a statement by shooting the German ambassador but when this wasn't possible he made do with Counselor Ernst vom Rath. The latter was mortally wounded and when he died soon thereafter Goebbels unleashed the pogrom in Germany as "the just revenge of the German people." Further details of the affair are in War and Mayhem. Since Mr. Thomas seemed inadequately informed about the history and complexity of the Middle East problem I sent him a copy of Whither Zionism? but as expected didn't hear back.

Another long article which appeared in a Sunday edition of the Tribune was also of considerable interest. It was written by a Professor of Educational Psychology and carried the headline: There is no evidence that homosexuals can change, only evidence of deception. In the article the professor took issue with some church leaders, as well as other psychologists, that some homosexual individuals can stop this "lifestyle" and adopt instead a heterosexual one. In spite of his academic credentials the professor, who shall remain nameless, is likewise inadequately informed on this subject. The fallacy in his argument is that he accepts an either-or stance and lumps all people who engage in homosexual activity into one group. This is biologically unsound and serves only political purposes. Homosexual activists need large numbers to exert political pressure and, therefore, anyone who may have had one or two homosexual contacts in their lives is counted among their flock.

The evidence that homosexual individuals comprise a spectrum with the more or less effeminate "born homosexual" person on the one hand and others who adopt this lifestyle for a variety of reasons comes, strangely enough, from the Nazis' concentration camps. Let me emphasize that I harbor absolutely no fondness for the days I had to spend under Hitler's rule but the experiences gathered during that era should not be disregarded either. While I do not advocate the methods which demonstrated that some homosexual persons can indeed change their behavior, the fact should not be denied.

The data are presented in the autobiography of Rudolf Höss who became infamous as commandant of Auschwitz, and his notes were penned while in a Polish prison awaiting execution for war crimes. Some "revisionist" historians take issue with a number of the statements he made because they were supposedly extracted under torture but this is irrelevant for the current topic because Höss had nothing to gain from making the points listed here. The book is published in German under the title Kommandant in Auschwitz. Autobiographische Aufzeichnungen des Rudolf Höss An English version is available under Death Dealer.The Memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz at amazon.com.

Höss had led a rather interesting life. At age 16 he managed to enlist as a volunteer in the German army during WW I and served in Syria and Palestine, of all places. He rose to the rank of sergeant and after the collapse in 1918 he led his cavalry platoon on a highly adventuresome trip back home. He managed to arrive with his people three months later in Germany without having been taken prisoner of war, although they had to traverse enemy territory. Subsequently Höss became involved in right wing paramilitary activities and, for participation in a political murder, was sentenced in 1924 to a Zuchthaus term, which was at that time the most severe form of jail. He remained there for four years and this stay taught him two things. One was that the worst you can do to a prisoner is to leave him totally unoccupied, without any benefit of books, writing materials or whatever. Work, any kind of work, but especially something which had a constructive purpose was welcomed, because it relieved the mind of useless ruminations about one's fate. When he was finally given some work to do he breathed a sigh of relief and the slogan "Arbeit macht frei" (work liberates) was born in his mind. Later on it "graced" the entrance of the concentration camp in Auschwitz. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that before the war the concentration camps were indeed labor camps for "reeducation" as they exist, for instance, today in China, and good behavior could earn you a discharge. Even Nazis preferred tax payers over tax burdens. The second lesson was in regard to homosexuality which tends to become rampant when young males are cooped up together.

After the Nazis took over in Germany, Höss volunteered for the SS in 1933. From 1934-1938 he was deputized first as Block- and subsequently Rapportfuehrer to Dachau; from 1938-1940 he served as Adjutant and Commandant of the KZ Sachsenhausen, and from 1940-1943 he was in charge of Auschwitz. When Höss arrived at Dachau the homosexual prisoners were already a problem, although initially they didn't matter numerically. According to Höss the camp commandant of Dachau had thought it a good idea to distribute the homosexual prisoners throughout the camp in all barracks. Prior to the Olympic Games of 1936 the Nazis wanted to put their best foot forward and cleansed the streets not only of beggars and vagrants, who were sent for "education" to work houses and concentration camps, but the cities and spas were also cleared of the multitude of prostitutes and homosexuals. They were also to be educated for useful work in the concentration camps. By the way, it seems likely that the Chinese will follow the example if they are awarded the Olympic Games for 2008. Let us now read what Höss had to say about the situation Dachau.

"It didn't last long until reports came in from all quarters about homosexual relations. Punishment didn't change anything, the Seuche (contagion) increased. On my suggestion all the homosexuals were now concentrated in one block and they received a supervisor who knew how to deal with them. They were also segregated from the other prisoners during their work details. Thus they pulled for a long time a Straszenwalze (steamroller but pulled manually).

All of a sudden the plague was eradicated. Even when on occasion these unnatural relations persisted, they were isolated events. In the barracks the homosexuals were supervised so that there was no opportunity....In Sachsenhausen they were immediately segregated in a special block."

After further descriptions of the type of hard labor the prisoners had to perform, regardless of weather in winter and summer, Höss wrote the following informative passages

"The result of hard labor which was to make 'normal' individuals out of them depended upon the difference among homosexuals. It was most effective and immediately apparent in the Strichjungen (male prostitute youngsters)...they were not truly homosexual it was merely their profession...several of them could be discharged without relapsing into their former behavior. This particular lesson was sufficient. There was also a group who had become homosexual - bored by sexual relations with too many women, who wanted new thrills in their parasitic existence - who could likewise be educated in this manner, and made to give up their vice. This did not hold, however, for those who had by inclination been too deeply imbued with this depravity. They were the same as the genuine homosexuals (aus Veranlagung) but those were few and far between.

For those individuals there was no help regardless of hard work or strict supervision. Wherever there was an opportunity they were in each others arms. Even when they were already in poor physical shape they continued to pursue their vice. They were also easily recognizable. With a soft girlish affectedness (Zimperlichkeit) and mannerisms...they were immediately distinguishable from those who had rid themselves of the vice and those who were in the process of doing so, whose step by step progress could be readily observed.

While those who were willing to change endured the hardest labor, the others succumbed. Inasmuch as they could not or would not desist from their vice they knew that they would never see freedom again...this accelerated the physical deterioration. When in addition there was the loss of the "friend" through illness or death one could foresee the end. Many committed suicide. The "friend" meant for these individuals everything in this situation. It happened several times that two friends committed suicide together."

Höss also said that Himmler had devised a method in Ravensbrueck to find out which of the homosexual prisoners had really been "cured" by bringing them together in an informal setting with prostitutes. Those who had been "reeducated" readily succumbed to the charms of the ladies while the


"Incurables didn't pay attention to these women at all. If they made advances they turned away with disgust ....The ones who were to be discharged were once more given the possibility for homosexual relations but they refused the advances of the genuine homosexuals. There were, however, borderline cases who used both opportunities. Whether or not one can call them bisexual I can't judge. To be able to observe the life and habits of the homosexuals of all varieties, in connection with their incarceration, was highly informative for me."


While I, obviously, do not approve of the methods used by the Nazis to effect this change in sexual behavior it is nevertheless clear that some homosexual individuals can be motivated to abandon this "lifestyle." I sent the Höss information in a letter to the professor but he was apparently to busy to respond and seemed to follow the rule: My mind is made up, don't bother me with facts.

As mentioned earlier, like most everything else which involves human behavior there are gradations in the expression of a given trait and to deny those can only serve political purposes rather than lead to an understanding of the underlying condition. Numbers translate into votes and this is all that counts, never mind the facts. This attitude has also led to the medical absurdity that HIV-AIDS which is for all practical purposes, in this country, a preventable disease by simply abstaining from unhealthy practices, is actually the only politically protected infectious disease for which a cure must be found immediately. Since research money is limited this stance comes at the cost of removing valuable financial resources from other truly unavoidable and more common illnesses. Currently the AIDS epidemic in Africa is receiving a great deal of attention and the solution is also to be billions of dollars for research. But even in Africa the epidemic is caused by promiscuous sexual behavior. The plague could be eradicated worldwide by abstention from homosexual practices, by engaging in heterosexual intercourse with one partner only, and avoidance of intravenous illicit drug use. In contrast to nearly all other diseases AIDS (with few exceptions e.g. children of infected mothers, or recipients of tainted blood transfusions) is self-inflicted and preventable by adhering to a healthy life-style.

These verities are, of course, highly unpopular. Therefore, an attitude is fostered by the political and media establishments where even the use of the term homosexual is frowned upon and the word "gay" has been substituted. This is truly a perversion of language. Hardly any one of us, regardless of sexual orientation, is gay in the true meaning of the word for any length of time. Life has too many vicissitudes to allow us "gaiety" for more than short periods. To dignify sexual practices, which involve acts that are distasteful to the majority of people in our culture, with this euphemism is unconscionable. Homosexual activists may call themselves whatever they want but the much larger non-homosexual community should not be swayed by this misuse of language and call the behavior by its proper name.

Nevertheless even here a caveat is in order. To label somebody " a homosexual" as if this were the "be all and end all "of the individual's life, is just as uncalled for as using other potentially pejorative terms without some qualification. For instance, when I started my professional neurologic career it was common practice to talk about "the epileptic" or "the schizophrenic." I abolished these terms from my personal vocabulary because they are adjectives and should not be used as nouns. Instead I talked and wrote about patients (by the way, even this term has lost its meaning, because nowadays physicians, just like lawyers, tend to have "clients") with epilepsy or schizophrenia, or whatever the condition was. This retains the personhood of the individual and allows for a change in the condition, which can and does occur at times. I had to disagree with one of my professors early on whose favorite dictum was "once an epileptic always an epileptic." The statement was not only pejorative but simply factually wrong. I am glad indeed that my terminology, which was news in the fifties and sixties, has now been generally adopted by my colleagues.

This brings me to one of the major pitfalls in the thought processes of the human race and is clearly illustrated by the two mentioned newspaper articles. It is the inappropriate use of the "all or nothing," principle as it is called in neurophysiology. The law refers to the propagation of the electrical activity in a nerve. Once an impulse is strong enough to be propagated, the size of the response, and the speed of its conduction will be independent of the intensity of the original stimulus. Once fired up the nerve gives its all. This is how the peripheral nervous system works. But we also have a central nervous system which allows us to give graded responses before we put our nerves into action. In the present context for Mr. Thomas there are apparently only monolithic Palestinians who have to be expelled and for the professor of educational psychology there are only homosexuals who are incapable of changing. This is the same type of thinking which declared "the Jews" enemies of the German people, and which condemned "the Germans" as "the Nazis" when in fact only a small subgroup in these categories had engaged in undesirable or even outright criminal activities. Unless we stop thinking in terms of classes of people and hold only individuals responsible for their actions there will be no end to hatred in this world with concomitant injustices.





August 2001

Stem Cells

Apart from the continuing violence in the Middle East, which was reported occasionally, there were three items the American media obsessed over during the past month. One was "The Case of the Missing Intern," another was Global Warming, and the third Stem Cell research.

As far as the first item is concerned the fate of Ms. Chandra Levy and that of her paramour Representative Gary Condit has become a boon to cable news channels, because there is too much air time to fill and the genuine news are not sufficiently sensational. The entire story can be summarized in a few sentences. Ms. Levy has been missing for about three months. Nobody knows her or her body's whereabouts and it becomes increasingly likely that her case will end up like that of Jimmy Hoffa's, who also vanished without a trace. Mr. Condit on the other hand failed to obey the Prime Directive which ought to govern human behavior. Simply put it states: Whenever you find yourself in trouble tell the truth immediately and fully, without making excuses. Qui s'excuse, s'accuse (whoever excuses himself, accuses himself) the French say and they are right. This is the sum and substance of the story over which TV newscasters, hosts and guests drool endlessly for hours day in and day out.

The discussion of Global Warming will be postponed for another update. At any rate it is supposed to stay with us for at least another hundred years, so what's the hurry? I am currently in the process of gathering my own data in regard to temperature forecasts and these will be published in due time.

The third item on the agenda, stem cell research, does merit discussion today because President Bush is being pressured by the media to immediately release federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. The media bolster their argument by promising the general public the blue from the sky about the benefits the human race will reap from this type of research. The moral and religious pro and con arguments are endlessly hashed out but the legitimate medical issues which can be raised for or against embryonic stem cell research have, to the best of my knowledge, never been aired by the public media to the extent that they should have been. We are only being told that this research might lead to cures for Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and a host of other chronic degenerative illnesses. With other words we are finally on the way to realize Ponce de Leon's dream. The fountain of youth is around the corner and embryonic stem cells will relieve us from all the burdens associated with aging. The key word in all of this, which by the way this type of propaganda shares with Global Warming, is the word "might." It is not being taken merely as some faint hope, which springs eternal, but is regarded as "will" and action must be taken now, immediately, and by the federal government or an irretrievable chance will be lost.

In order to find out what the implantation of embryonic stem cells really does in the human being I searched the medical literature on the Internet and came up empty handed. There are no data! As a neurologist I was, of course, most interested in Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease but even the animal data are so far exceedingly sparse and inconclusive. It just so happened that the July issue of Neurology Reviews had a lead article entitled: "Shooting for the Moon. Bolstered by a New Research Agenda, Parkinson's Researchers Aim High." In this article, which will also available on the web in due time under www. neurologyreviews.com, the several techniques which are currently under investigation are discussed. These are: transplantation of a) neural tissue, b) embryonic stem cells, c) adult stem cells, and d) xenotransplantion. Before explaining these terms further in everyday language some fundamental facts about Parkinson's disease must first be presented.

The condition results from a loss of nerve cells (neurons) in certain regions of the brain which produce a critical chemical called dopamine. This discovery, in the early sixties of the past century, led to a Nobel Prize because dopamine could be produced in the laboratory and patients could take the drug in pill form. The early results were exceedingly exciting but, as everything else in life, first love wears off, and the "fine print" becomes noticeable only after some time. Although improvements in the compound in form of levodopa (L-dopa) were made, which is the current preferred form of treatment; there are still a great many problems. Not only does the effect of the medication wear off after some time but some patients also develop uncontrollable writhing movements especially of the head and limbs (dyskinesias or dystonia) which make their lives miserable. For this reason the search for "the cure" continues.

Hippocrates, "the father of medicine" who plied his art on the island of Cos in the Aegean around 400 B.C. wrote in his aphorisms: "What medicine [drugs] cannot cure, the knife [surgery] will cure, what the knife cannot cure fire [radiation] will cure, and what fire cannot cure is wholly incurable." Genetic modification of the organism could not be imagined at that time but on the whole the dictum still holds. Since L-dopa failed to live up to its promise neurosurgeons began to practice their art by destroying certain structures or pathways in the brain with their knives, or by targeted radiation. This led to some good and some bad results. At any rate the disease remained for the most part progressive and only long term follow-up of ten years or more would allow one to speak of an arrest or even cure of the disease. This brings us to the article in Neurology Reviews and stem cells. The whole purpose of the exercise is to create neurons which produce dopamine in the patient's brain not only in the right amount but also nothing else. This statement alone should give one pause, because the problem is obviously far from trivial. The solution will not only require funding but equally or even more importantly time, measured not in years but decades! Let us now look at the upside and downside of the mentioned research programs.

Neurontransplantation. The good news according to Dr. Dunnett of the Brain Repair Group at Cardiff University in Wales is that "There is convincing evidence that fetal tissue grafts can have a functional effect in animal models of Parkinson's disease" and "When such cells are implanted they survive, grow, connect with denervated [have lost their functional connections] areas, and alleviate some of the simpler motor deficits associated with Parkinson's disease. This provides proof of the principle that dopamine deficiency can be restored by transplanted dopaminergic [dopamine producing] cells."

So far so good. Now comes the fine print. The study involved an "animal model" rather than the human disease and in contrast to the human illness Dr. Dunnett's model produced acute rather than chronic effects. Furthermore, he stated that "Fetal cell transplants can work with dramatic efficacy in some cases but can also seriously go wrong." Even when the method worked it should be noted that the beneficial effect on the symptoms of the animal, rather than on the brain slices at autopsy, improved "some of the simpler motor deficits." This leads one to assume that some of the more complex motor functions on which we depend, were not alleviated.

As far as human results are concerned there is only one relatively long term scientifically controlled study mentioned in the article. This involves the work of Dr. Curt Freed at the University of Colorado. Dr. Freed's team transplanted precursors of dopaminergic cells from 6-10 week old human fetuses into the brains of 19 patients with severe Parkinson's disease. These patients were compared with others who had been sham operated where only burr holes were placed in the skull. The study was "double blind" which means that neither the patient nor the team of examining physicians knew whether or not the patient had received a transplant. The result of the follow-up of "up to three years," which means that this was the maximum and most patients had shorter observation times, was that a "statistically significant 28% improvement over baseline" was observed. This held true for the total group, when the patients were not taking their morning dose of medications. When the group was subdivided between older and younger patients it became apparent that a 38% improvement (highly significant statistically) had occurred in the younger individuals while it was only 14% in the older group, and as such not statistically significant. Furthermore, even in those patients who had benefited the total effect was only comparable to about half the effect of their usual morning dose of levodopa. Now comes the bad news. Fifteen percent of transplant patients had a recurrence of disabling dystonias and dyskinesias in the second or third year after the operation. All of these patients were 60 years or younger and had experienced these symptoms when on levodopa but now had the problem even when the medication was discontinued.

Inasmuch as review articles might be slanted I obtained subsequently Dr. Free's and colleagues' original paper which was published in the March 6, 2001 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. While the review as cited above was in essence correct, the full article did provide additional information. Embryonic tissue was obtained with the consent from the mother during elective abortions seven to eight weeks after conception. There were initially two groups of 20 patients each in the transplant and in the sham operation (placebo) group. One transplant patient died in a car accident when a tree fell across the road during a storm and the outcome of the operation could, therefore, not be evaluated at the one year final comparison point. Although some patients were followed for up to three years, the figures cited above refer to the one year outcome after the code was broken. At that point the sham operated patients were given the option to have transplants and 14 patients of the placebo group consented. Thus, the figure of up to three years follow-up covers 33 rather than 19 patients. Apart from the development of dyskinesias, which occurred later than the first year, and in some younger patients, there were also during the 12 months of follow-up 9 serious adverse events. Although these were in all probability unrelated to the transplants it is noteworthy that eight of these occurred in the transplant group and only one in the placebo group. Percentage wise this would give a difference of 40 percent vs. 5 percent. The investigators realized that inasmuch as the operation benefited only patients under 60 years of age and that younger patients tended to develop intractable dyskinesias, they did not suggest the operation to the last 6 individuals of the remaining placebo group.

We are, therefore, confronted with these facts: Embryonic neuronal tissue containing dopaminergic neurons can be transplanted into key regions of a recipient's brain. They grow, multiply, and establish connections with surrounding tissue, regardless of the age of the patient. The growth of these cells is, however, not directly reflected in improvement of the patient’s symptoms because only younger patients benefited, and the maximum effect tends to be essentially only half of what would have been accomplished with a full dose of levodopa. The late occurrence of uncontrollable dyskinesias, even when levodopa is no longer given, represents a serious and disabling complication. The amount of tissue to be transplanted and the best brain region for the transplants to be inserted will be the task for the future.

Embryonic stem cells. In contrast to embryonic tissue containing dopaminergic neurons, the embryonic stem cells have been called "omnipotent." This means that these cells, taken from the earliest stages of human development, can develop into any type of tissue. With other words they can become liver, brain, bone, heart or whatever. It should be noted that embryonic stem cell studies have so far been performed only in rodents. There are no data on higher animals or, of course, humans. While these cells can develop into neurons, there is no guarantee that they will do so, especially dopaminergic ones. In Petri dishes they have so far produced other types of neurons as well as glia cells which are the other main cellular structure of the nervous system. Dr. Mc Kay of the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke whose work is quoted in the article stated that "we are trying to improve the efficiency of differentiating to dopaminergic neurons ...in animal studies... [but] we need to demonstrate that the cells we make will actually work in animal studies." This is indeed all that is known about the effectiveness of embryonic stem cells to cure diseases. Thus, the entire media circus is about a gleam in the eye of some researchers based on hope and faith. Are our promoters of public information, who urge immediate action for embryonic stem cell research, aware of this paucity of facts? Do they also know that these omnipotent cells, when implanted into a brain, might just continue to grow and produce tumors? Once implanted they will do whatever they like and neither Federal Money nor Federal Regulations will be able to control them. Quite apart from moral and ethical considerations this is another Pandora's Box which we are about to open.

Adult stem cells. Neural adult stem cells have been harvested from nasal passages of cadavers up to 18 hours after death as Dr. Roisen's group from the University of Louisville has demonstrated. The disadvantage of using adult stem cells is that they get old after some time and lose their potency, although they did live longer when taken from an 11 month old infant. Whether or not any of these Petri dish neurons could be coaxed to become dopaminergic is not yet known. The other argument against the use of adult stem cells is that the supply is not as plentiful as for embryonic stem cells. But as long as we are dreaming, and this is really what all of stem cell research is about at this time, one could readily foresee a scenario where we donate in our youth some of our nasal neural stem cells and keep them in a freezer until the time comes when we might need them.

Xenotransplants (use of adult animal tissue) have become commonplace to repair human heart valves and dopaminergic pig cells have already been transplanted into human Parkinson patients. Studies about their effectiveness are currently under way in Tampa, Atlanta and Boston. This might bring up an interesting religious question. Since orthodox Jews as well as Muslims refrain from putting pork into their mouths and stomachs would they be willing to have pieces of pig brain inserted into their own?

Additional work is being carried out on Neuroprotective agents which are supposed to stop the progression of Parkinson's disease and thereby obviate the need for implants of any kind. It is, therefore, obvious that Parkinson research is alive and well. It will continue to prosper around the world, without federal tax dollars and federal regulations. Not only is there another Nobel Prize in the offing but drug companies are likely to reap a financial bonanza. There is still the question whether government should control the research or private industry? The answer is obvious from past history. All major advances in medicine were achieved through private initiatives and personal ingenuity which can only flourish in a free society. Those of our citizens who believe that government is the answer to all of mankind's woes should really take a good look at the "achievements" of the defunct Soviet Union, even in the medical field, and compare them with what the Free World has accomplished. Furthermore, money is not unlimited. If tax dollars go to stem cell research other investigations will inevitably have to be curtailed, although they may actually have more immediate prospects of success. The argument is also made that only government can enforce ethical rules. This is another fallacy. Universities and drug companies, the only places where work of this type can proceed, are already tightly regulated and in case of serious untoward outcomes there are armies of malpractice lawyers chomping at the bit to get a piece of the action.

So what is really at work here with this entire stem cell hullabaloo? The overriding goal seems to be politics and expansion of government. President Bush is to be maneuvered into a position where he can be attacked regardless of whatever decision he takes. He has to be tarred and feathered; his administration has to be turned into a failure because, according to some of our Democrats, he didn't deserve the presidency anyway. The current interregnum which the Left reluctantly has to put up with needs to be crippled by a democratic congressional landslide next year. Subsequently George W. can be returned to Texas in 2004 and we are all assured of a socialist government for the subsequent eight years. This will then finally usher in the real millennium and bring us in line with those European socialist governments who currently hate our guts and call us names. The reason for their dislike of America is simply that at least some of us still regard ourselves as free citizens who want to live and work under our own initiative and thereafter enjoy the fruit of our labors, with minimal government interference. Unfortunately the Bush administration seems to be singularly inept in explaining the rationale for its actions and is thereby leaving the field to its adversaries. As far as stem cell research is concerned the facts are really quite simple and if the President's spokespersons were to present them to the media, in a manner similar to what is outlined above, even the most hostile critics might have to concede that it would be useful not to rush in where angels fear to tread.





September, 2001

What is Truth?

President Bush has made his decision on embryonic stem cell research and has tried to find some middle ground. His directive that federal funds can be used only for those research projects which utilize existing cell lines, rather than newly created ones, has found some praise by his partisans but unhappiness continues to exist on both ends of the political spectrum. Nevertheless the entire argument is rapidly becoming obsolete because, as expected, private industry is jumping into the breach. There is big money to be made from selling embryonic tissue, which is readily available at the abortion mills around the country, and its subsequent cloning. It is probably only a matter of time until new stem cell lines will be auctioned off on the Internet. The Left will have to find another line of attack but the shrinking estimated budget surplus, the faltering economy and the prospective "raiding of the Social Security Trust Fund" will give them ample ammunition.

The main item for this month's agenda was occasioned by a comment from one of my sailing buddies. He is computer savvy and surfs the net. I therefore encouraged him to visit thinktruth.com but he didn't quite know what to do with the title. So I explained "think truth, that's what you're supposed to do anyway all the time!" Whereupon he replied "ok, but there may not be any." Thus we are back at Pilate's question: What is truth?

When I chose this particular URL for the website I had obviously underestimated the relativism which has invaded our culture. For me the situation was quite simple. The truth which is discussed on these pages is not absolute or ultimate truth in the philosophical sense but simply that aspect of our daily lives which is objectively verifiable by independent observers. It is the opposite of the lie where the individual deliberately misrepresents facts as known to the person. Right now lying is, of course, making headlines on account of Gary Condit's behavior. The majority of Americans who have seen his interview with Connie Chung on TV don't believe that his account has been truthful. Even if the Congressman were to sincerely believe that his answers were forthcoming and complete, a simple check with the Levy family or the Washington DC police can establish what the facts were. It may be argued that this amounts to a "he says, she says" situation but this is not the case. Police records of his interviews exist, they are potentially available for public scrutiny and objective data can be established.

President Clinton wagged his finger at us a few years ago and told us emphatically: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Well, we had to take him at his word until the famous blue dress appeared, which had not gone to the cleaners in the meantime, and provided objective evidence for his activities. Clinton subsequently amended his statement by trying to imply that Miss Lewinsky had sex with him but not he with her or that oral sex does not constitute a sexual relationship. But anybody who is not blindly partisan or devoid of all common sense is likely to see this as excuses rather than the truth of the matter. The ex-President even lied under oath because an oath demands: to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is good reason for this because the most vicious and most common lie is the deliberate withholding of relevant information. The fact that Mr. Clinton was impeached but not convicted sent a signal that even an oath need not to be taken seriously provided you are sufficiently powerful and can afford superb lawyers.

Mr. Condit seems to have drawn an inappropriate lesson from the Clinton affair. Stonewalling worked for Mr. Clinton, in my opinion, because the Democrats did not want to lose the Presidency and the Republicans were afraid to face an incumbent Al Gore in the upcoming 2000 elections. It was assumed that a seriously damaged Clinton would be so much easier to defeat than an untarnished Gore. That the election turned into such a cliffhanger anyway they would not have predicted even in their worst nightmares. Thus all the phraseology of "popularity" of the President and not having committed perjury anyway was pure politics. The Senate trial was a sham as Schippers has documented in Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment.

But as far as Mr. Condit is concerned this situation does not apply. He is neither rich nor does he have sufficiently powerful friends who will defend him regardless of morals or ethics. Furthermore the Democrats can afford to lose a congressional seat, if worst were come to the worst and he had to resign; it is not the Presidency after all. On top of it we have the missing Chandra Levy and her parents are not going to give up their search as well as their efforts to have the Congressman come up with the full story and thereby the truth about his relationship.

Telling the truth is, therefore, not just some intellectual exercise for philosophers but has very practical consequences for our daily lives. In my personal opinion Mr. Condit did have, in all probability, a sexual relationship with Miss Levy but I sincerely doubt that he had contracted for her disappearance. Had he immediately informed the parents and the police voluntarily and completely of everything he knew he would not be in such dire straits today and the case might have been solved. Adultery is, unfortunately, a "so what" situation today, so is casual sex to which we are treated every night on TV. Nobody would have been particularly upset apart, perhaps, from Mr. Condit's wife. But she, like Hillary Clinton might also have become inured over the years to her husband's constant philandering and not lost any sleep over it.

There is a reason why I have become so concerned about truthfulness in our daily lives. As is apparent from War and Mayhem I had been an expert liar during my childhood and had frequently suffered the consequences. When lying was literally beaten out of me by my stepfather I not only learned that telling the truth is morally right but it can save you not only grief but even your very life, as is also documented in that book. Currently our society is steadily being weaned from the truth. We are lied to by politicians, the media, advertisers and other assorted folks to such an extent that it has practically become the norm. The truth as an intellectual concept seems to have vanished. Truth has become personal and is what I believe regardless of what you think.

There is an ancient precedent for this which was quite unknown to me until a few days ago. My next book The Moses Legacy, which deals with the problem why Jews have been persecuted since biblical times, has not yet found a publisher. But while Moses keeps wandering through the offices of various publishing houses I am using the time to polish a few paragraphs here and there. In so doing I was puzzled that in Heschel's book A Passion for Truth he described an Abraham who bears hardly any relationship to the person we know from the Bible. For instance Heschel stated that "This is what Abraham did. He forsook community and deception to live with Truth in solitude." This was news to me because the Bible tells us that he moved with his whole clan from Haran to Canaan, subsequently to Egypt and back, had a vigorous sex life, was engaged in wars and commerce etc. This is hardly what one would expect from an individual who lived "with Truth in solitude." The problem is that the relatively recently deceased Abraham Joshua Heschel was, and still is, highly respected as one of the most eminent orthodox Jewish scholars.

The question arose, therefore, how to resolve this discrepancy. The key word, obviously, is Truth. For this reason I looked up the definition of Truth in McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible because we are, after all, dealing with biblical information. The result was highly surprising. Mc Kenzie states "The difference between Hb [Hebrew] and Gk [Greek] speech is clearly exhibited in the idea of truth; Hb has no distinct word for true and truth. These ideas are expressed by 'emet and cognate words which are treated under FAITH." The entire subsequent passages are too long to be reproduced here but will show up in The Moses Legacy. In essence McKenzie points out that the real, or truth, was personal for Hebrew-speaking people while truth and faith were clearly differentiated by the Greeks. We used to follow in the footsteps of the Greeks where truth is objectively verifiable while faith is subjective and personal. It was this difference which made scientific progress possible.

It seems that we are now turning our backs on this fundamental distinction. Inasmuch as a theory of relativity exists which pertains to cosmic phenomena everything else can also be regarded as relative. This sort of thinking undermines society at all levels. Law is no longer based on long established practices but represents an opinion by a judge, or groups of judges, at a given time rather than as what it has been understood for centuries. These opinions, although binding for a while can, however, readily be overruled by other judges because they are, after all, only personal opinions, regardless of how precedents have to be massaged in order to make them appear to be reasonable. As explained in The Moses Legacy this type of thinking is directly derived from the Talmud, where Moses' laws were not only questioned but underwent personal interpretations. When "Talmudic thinking" (the term is not my invention) moves from religious to civil and criminal law, as has happened in our country during the past few decades, problems are bound to arise. When all the established customary landmarks for decent behavior are being removed chaos must inevitably result. Is this really the direction we want to go, in this new century and millennium? Or should we not return to some reasonable and firm rules of conduct the majority can agree on, and which can be adequately enforced? Inasmuch as thinking precedes language we have to scrutinize first our thought processes so that we can then express our ideas in clear and unmistakable language.

What prevents us from thinking truthfully and speaking the truth? Fear! What are we afraid of? The myriad of untoward events which might befall us and which imagination magnifies out of all proportions! "Du fürchtest alles was nicht trifft" (you are afraid of everything which doesn't come to pass anyway) said Goethe, and he was right. But even if society removes "the ancient landmarks," to use biblical language, the individual does not have to do so. The Lord has given us strength and the ability to adapt to adverse circumstances, if and when they arrive. Instead of being fearful of what might or might not happen in the future let us be grateful for whatever we have in the present. With this attitude towards life, and its vicissitudes, lying becomes superfluous.





October, 2001

September 11th





On September 11 the world changed for all of us in an instant. There is hardly anyone who was not affected to some extent by the catastrophe which unfolded within the space of a couple of hours. The stunning simplicity of the idea to turn our own jetliners into lethal bombs which destroyed the World Trade Center totally, and the Pentagon partially, has brought home to us how fragile our lives are. Only the heroic acts of passengers on another doomed jetliner prevented a further disaster of untold proportions.

Osama bin Laden - if it was indeed his network - has brought our country literally to its knees and the country turned to God in prayer. The bitter, and in part irrational, fight waged by some for separation of Church and State had become irrelevant. The leaders of our country bowed their heads in prayers led by Christian, Jewish and Muslim clergymen. The much vaunted multiculturalism which pitted our citizens of various ethnic and religious backgrounds against each other was shown up as a charade as all of us became simply Americans rather than hyphenated ones. The problems discussed in the August and September updates: Congressman Condit's affair, federal funding of stem cells research, the disappearance of the budget surplus, raiding of the social security trust fund have all passed, at least temporarily, from our TV screens as we were shown over and over again the pictures of the jets crashing into our symbols of superpower status.

Nevertheless the current unity of our people and the high approval rating of the President's handling the disaster may evaporate when media pundits will begin to clamor for drastic actions with immediately visible results. This is the danger because the enemy is not only outside but inside our borders and we simply cannot "nuke 'em," as has been proposed. There are some "journalists" who appear daily on our TV screens who seem to be unable to grasp the simple concept that you have to investigate the causes of terrorism in order to achieve a permanent cure. It is tragic that when some well-meaning relatively prominent people advance this idea they are being insulted as "peaceniks," "incompetents" or worse. It is these journalists who need to be educated in the fundamentals of life before they fuel the flames of hate and revenge.

The tragedy, apart from loss of life and property, is that some of our "public opinion molders” actually help the terrorists to achieve their objective by spreading fear among our citizenry. Life is a precious gift but we are doomed to die the moment we are born. This is an incontrovertible fact. The only question is what we do with the span of years which is allotted to us. We can fritter them away in the "pursuit of happiness" or we can endow our lives with meaning. Unfortunately the type of meaning which we give to our lives differs considerably depending upon our life experiences and upbringing. But let there be no doubt: the people who hijacked the planes and those who organized this crime firmly believed that they were doing God's will.

All three major religions involved in this tragedy profess to believe in the One God of the universe Who is just, loving and merciful, Yet in actual practice individuals tend to believe in their tribal deity who will aid or avenge them as the case may be. Even Hitler believed he was doing God's work when he persecuted the Jews. In Mein Kampf he wrote "So glaube ich heute im Sinne des allmaechtigen Schoepfers zu handeln: Indem ich mich des Juden erwehre, kaempfe ich fuer das Werk des Herrn" (I, therefore, believe today that I am acting in accordance with the intention of the Almighty Creator: By defending myself against the Jew I am fighting for the work of the Lord). The Second World War was portrayed as a battle between good and evil on both sides. This seems incredible in retrospect but the German soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front were convinced that they were saving Western civilization from Bolshevism, and on the Western front they hoped to defeat Jewish-Capitalist interests which would enslave the fatherland. At the same time the Americans and British were saving that same Western civilization from Nazism. At Placentia Bay, before the signing of the Atlantic Charter in August of 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill sang "Onward Christian Soldiers" while the Wehrmacht was fighting the atheistic Soviet Union. To portray a struggle in apocalyptic terms makes good propaganda on both sides because it fires the emotions but it fosters hate rather than reason. We clamor for justice but most of our pundits fail to see that justice is, or at least should be, indivisible. By aligning ourselves unequivocally with the policies of the state of Israel we have turned a blind eye to the injustices which are being perpetrated against the native Palestinians in the territories conquered during the 1967 war.

Samuel Johnson wrote in regard to the American War of Independence, which he thoroughly disapproved of, that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. The winner writes history. Had George Washington lost he and his most prominent followers would probably have been hanged. So it is with terrorism. Yesterday's terrorists can become Prime Ministers if the struggle succeeds but remain condemned if they fail. Terrorism is the ultimate weapon of the dispossessed and I am sure nobody wants to be reminded that Prime Minister Begin as well as Prime Minister Shamir started their political lives as terrorists against British rule (see Terror out of Zion. The Fight for Israeli Independence by J. Bowyer Bell). The axiom that the end justifies the means is still adhered to, by both sides, although one doesn't want to put it that crudely.



During the past two months I read, among others, three books which are highly á propos. One was Barbara Tuchman's March of Folly, Gloria Whelan's Angel on the Square and Die Rache Gottes. Radikale Moslems, Christen und Juden auf dem Vormarsch by Gilles Kepel. Tuchman eloquently described how nations have acted against their best self-interest by simply persevering on a given course when it had become obvious that it would lead to disaster. She closed her book with the example of the Vietnam War but had she lived longer she might have added a chapter on the policies of the state of Israel since the 1967 war. Whelan's book is aimed at adolescents to teach them the rudiments of the causes for the Russian revolutions of 1917 and shows exquisitely how the leading upper crusts of Imperial Russia utterly failed to recognize the intensity of the storm which was beginning to brew in their midst. The relevance to today's events is that we are likewise blinding ourselves to the anger of the dispossessed masses in the Muslim world which finds its outlet in religious fury.

Kepel's book was originally published in French under the title La Revanche de Dieu Chretiens, juifs et musulmans a la reconquete du monde and it is now available in English as The Revenge of God: The resurgence of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the Modern World. It is perhaps noteworthy that the French word reconquet would best be translated into German as Wiedereroberung, rather than Vormarsch, which means advance, and in English as re-conquest rather than resurgence. More important is, however, the fact that the book was originally published in 1991. I had bought it in Vienna in the early nineties but did not take it very seriously at the time. September 11 immediately brought the chilling contents back to memory and I re-read key sections. In short the author documents the return to biblical or Koranic Fundamentalism as a protest movement against the secular society the United States is regarded as promoting world wide. Yet all three groups have different goals. Evangelical Christians, steeped in the Revelation of St. John the Divine, want to help the Jewish state to build its Third Temple which in turn would herald the arrival of the Antichrist and subsequently Jesus' second coming. Fundamentalist Jews want the Temple built on the original site which would bring the Jewish Messiah who, obviously, would have no use for the return of an "avenging Jesus." Fundamentalist Muslims despise the presence of Christians as well as Jews in the Middle East which they regard as their patrimony. Thus the battle lines are drawn among Fundamentalists of any of the three versions. There cannot be any compromise because all of them are acting in the name of God. The last sentences of the book when translated from the German version read: "In the short run the parallel development of these religious movements, all of which want to re-conquer the world, has to lead to confrontation. As such the conflict between the 'believers’, who make the resurgence of their religious identity a yardstick for their exclusive as well as limited truths, is preprogrammed."

It is obvious that a war of ideas of this type cannot be won by bombs, rockets or invasions but only by another idea which unites rather than divides humanity. The Sharon government insists on meeting terror with terror and wants to enlist us into this spiral of ever escalating violence. Seductive as the idea is it should be resisted because Israel has tried this strategy for the past thirty years at least and is nowhere nearer to a degree of peace. While Arafat is far from blameless for the impasse to place the entire burden on his shoulders, as is currently popular here and in Israel, is not necessarily justified. We are told over and over again that not only did he walk away at Camp David from the most wide ranging concessions ever offered by an Israeli Prime Minister but in addition answered them with Intifada II showing thereby that he does not want to coexist with a Jewish state. This opinion was most recently emphasized again by Norman Podhoretz in the October issue of Commentary.

Yet, let us be honest with each other, Podhoretz concedes that no minutes of the Camp David sessions have ever been published and we have, therefore, no idea what Arafat rejected and why. Was the Palestinian state as envisaged by Israel and the U.S. viable or was it an assortment of Palestinian and Israeli enclaves in what was supposed to have been the state? We simply don't know but we should insist on seeing the documents because there does not seem to be any reason for secrecy in regard to a failed meeting in our free society. The policy of creating settlements, in the occupied territories which has been pursued by all Israelis governments since 1967 has led to a such a patchwork quilt that it is extremely difficult to see how national sovereignty could be established in that area. One glance at the map published on page 104 in Whither Zionism? clearly shows the tremendous difficulty of establishing a viable truly independent state in the area even if the partners in the peace process were to proceed with the best of intentions. Podhoretz does not address the problem and seems to believe that Israel can just continue with its past policies and in the long run the Palestinians will see the errors of their way. September 11 changed the outlook irrevocably. The entire world has been affected economically and the genie is literally out of the bottle. If Prime Minister Sharon wants to "go it alone," as he has promised, he can do so but under these circumstances America should not be held hostage to failed and failing policies.



What is to be done now? In order to formulate a correct strategy we must first of all understand what each side to the conflict really wants. But In order to do so we must see ourselves through the eyes of the adversary. We will disagree with his perception but that does not make it less real for the perceiver. Osama bin Ladin, as the symbol of radical Islam, sees the United States as a decadent country bent on the pursuit of material happiness in disregard of the moral laws of God, and controlled by Jewish interests. America supports and props up the state of Israel as a colonial outpost in an area of the world which, apart from the Crusades' era, has always been Islamic. Jewish secular culture perverts established morals and customs while political Zionism strives for an enlargement of their state. In order to rid the land of Palestine from Infidels the power of the United States must be broken. This is best achieved by involving America in a drawn out war especially in Afghanistan where other superpowers of the past (Imperial Great Britain and the Soviet Union) have ground out their eye teeth. In addition the Muslim masses who hate their non-elected secular regimes, as stooges of the Great Satan, must be mobilized, especially, if and when an Islamic country is invaded by foreigners. The disenfranchised young people in the Muslim countries are sufficiently restless to yearn for change and Islamic revolutions on the model of Iran are to be brought about. Therefore, major military action by the United States is a requirement to bring this plan to fruition and continued provocation through a variety of terror attacks is the only way to accomplish this objective.

What does Israel want? Here the answer is less clear because there are too many factions in the country. The majority of the people just want to live in peace with their neighbors but this is at present difficult to achieve. We, therefore, have to ask what the leadership wants. Obviously it also wants peace but there are considerable differences of opinion as to how this can be accomplished. The governing Sharon faction believes that only a hard line military approach will succeed while the Peres group has not yet given up on a negotiated settlement. In addition the country is quite divided as to what kind of state it is supposed to be. Is it to be a secular democracy with majority rule or a Jewish state governed by ancient Jewish law? Ever since the creation of the state there were two major factions which co-existed uneasily. These may be called political Zionism and religious Zionism. Political Zionism, which founded the country, was secular in nature and as such opposed by religious Zionists who felt that the state was illegitimate because only the Messiah can bring about the ingathering of the dispersed and the erection of the Third and Final Temple. Over the years political and religious aspirations were fused by some visionaries in the attempt to create a Greater Israel beyond the UN established 1948 borders. For them it is not Israel which is the intruder onto Muslim lands but Israelis are simply reclaiming their inheritance, promised by God, which they had lost temporarily. This goal has not yet been abandoned as the settlement policies of the various Israeli governments prove. Although the settlements have considerable popular approval, the problem what to do with a relatively large and probably hostile minority Arab population within the Jewish state tends to be ignored. There are, however, some fanatics who envision a Final Solution (to use a well known phrase) which in their eyes will ensure a permanent peace. The autocratic governments of neighboring Arab states such as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and may be Jordan have to be toppled and regimes favorable to Jewish values installed. This can only be accomplished by war with the help, or at least the tacit approval, of the United States. To achieve this end terrorism against the United States can be silently welcomed because it is expected to lead to an intensification of hatred against Arabs in the U.S. and thereby a further identification of America's goals with those of Israel. America's current war on terrorism is to be not only fully supported in its present stage but needs to be expanded to other Muslim "rogue" states. With America fully occupied and radicalized by subsequent further acts of Islamic terrorism Israel can then finally achieve its borders promised to Abraham.

Let me make it unequivocally clear that the overwhelming majority of Israelis do not harbor such Machiavellian fantasies and are genuinely distressed about the loss of innocent lives on September 11; but it is also dangerous to ignore the latent streak of fanaticism in a small minority which pursues only its goals regardless of the costs to others.



What does America want? There is absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of the population just wants to be left in peace to pursue its own personal goals in freedom. This why most of us came here in the first place. Even our leadership does not want war but to get the economy moving and to work for global prosperity. Nevertheless in spite of the current unity the country's opinion makers are split on how to set things right in the world. On account of the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition (a term which, by the way, is rejected by observant Jews), there are strong emotional ties to Judaism and the state of Israel. Powerful military action is urged by the majority of journalists. Currently in the minority is another group which regards war as folly but has as yet no strong support from the media. This is bound to change if and when body bags were to arrive in larger numbers.

For these reasons a major war against Islamic states is not in the best interest of the United States but serves only the purposes of Radical Muslims and proponents of a Greater Israel. The Eye for an Eye policy which has been tried by Israel for decades is inappropriate for the United States and a paradigm shift has to take place. Our country is made up not only of evangelical Christians and Jews but of a wide variety of individuals with other belief systems which our political leadership needs to take into account. While simply turning the other cheek is not an option, judicious pursuit of policies which do not pour fuel on the flames is called for and our leadership has indeed resisted to be stampeded into precipitous action.

We can be very grateful that the September 11 attack fell into the first year of the Bush presidency rather than the last year of Clinton's tenure. Politics would have dictated a war, Al Gore would, in all probability, have won the election and the country would have had a Jewish vice-President. This is not to impugn Senator Lieberman's patriotism but some further tilt to the Israeli side would have been unavoidable. President Bush is in the fortunate position of not having to worry about re-election at this time and even if there were to be no second term it would not be a personal disaster for him. He truly serves the country rather than political ambition and the same goes for his wife Laura, which is welcome contrast to our previous leadership. Thus Mr. Bush and his cabinet can act in a statesman-like manner rather than in a purely political one. Let me re-emphasize, therefore, in my opinion America has nothing to gain by major military actions but only a great deal to lose. We will not only lose lives and property but most of all our soul as a free and peace loving people. We will foster further hate which in turn begets hate and events are likely to spin totally out of control.



What is required of us now in these most difficult circumstances is steadfastness of purpose with the goal of bringing a degree of peace as well as hope for a better future to the impoverished Muslim masses. It is obvious that the perpetrators of the crime should be found, through international efforts, and brought to justice, but this is only one step. We have to convince the minds of the people in the region that we are indeed determined to bring justice to all the people in the area and not just some. America is still the world's best hope and if we combine our economic resources with those of the other developed nations we can change the current image of the Great Satan. The road is difficult indeed but what we need to do as individual citizens is to keep our heads, don't give way to irrational fears and pray that our leadership will continue to show forbearance and wisdom.



10-7-2001



The update as it appears above was written between October 5 and 6. Today the world has changed again and as may be apparent, from my point of view, not for the better. Nevertheless, the sentiments expressed above are, to my mind, still true and this is why I am not changing the contents. The bombing campaign against Afghanistan which began today will have consequences which are as yet unforeseeable and we can only pray that eventually reason will prevail over passion.





November 1, 2008

Hawaii; Afghanistan war; Judeo-Christian tradition; Ariel Sharon



Since the purpose of these entries is to provide contemporary documentation of American life or Zeitgeschichte, as it would be called in German, you are being treated in this installment not only to opinions on current events but also to some personal information.

In order to escape from the incessant war- and scare-mongering of the national media my wife Martha and I decided to heed the President's advice, go on with our lives and stimulate the economy. Since flying and cruising is somewhat cheaper right now we thought it a good idea to take a long postponed cruise through the Hawaiian Islands on the good ship Independence of American Hawaiian Cruises.

We booked our flight tickets separately (to get the cheapest fares) and paid for the ship with my credit card. One week before going came the call from the travel agency that the company had fallen victim to bin-Ladin's efficiency and declared bankruptcy. An immediate call to Merrill Lynch brought the good news that the $2435 had not yet been cashed and the transaction was red-flagged so that no money would be paid out. This left us, however, with the discounted airline tickets which were, of course, non-refundable. Instead of writing off the six hundred dollars we thought we might as well spend the money, Osama had saved us, on a hotel in Maui, where we could enjoy nature and converse with the birds and fish. The Kaanapali Beach Hotel fit the budget with $1200 for the two of us for one week, which left the other $1200 for food, drink and excursions. When all was said and done we actually came out ahead by about $300.

The hallmark of airline travel was that, although Delta provided us with excellent steaks coming and going across the Pacific, the safety considerations demanded that we had to eat with plastic knives and forks. Trying to cut a steak with a terrorist-prove small knife which bends in all directions is a feat which Martha was unable to accomplish with finger joints ravaged by age, so she had to return to the ways of our ancestors; simply wrap up the thing and eat it from her hand. About 500+ years of civilization was gone for reasons of "security." To enhance our security even further we had, obviously, to be at the airport two hours earlier but fortunately Salt Lake City and Maui as well as Honolulu still had curbside check-in, which avoided interminable lines. Contrary to our media pundits’ opinions people are still fond of flying and the planes were full.

On the return trip we would have to have left the hotel at 4 30 in the morning to make a 7 55 flight from Maui to Honolulu in order to catch the 10 a.m. flight to LAX. Since this did not correspond to my idea of a vacation we opted to take a noon flight from Maui to Honolulu one day earlier (I wanted to see Waikiki beach and Diamond Head anyway) and leaving the hotel at 7 30 am would have given us ample time for catching our plane to LA. This was not to be. The hotel to the airport shuttle people insisted that we have to leave at 7 a.m. in spite of the fact that the trip takes only 25 minutes. We had to submit to the rules and when we got to the airport 20 minutes later we found people patiently and uncomplainingly waiting in line to go through inspection for plant and animal material one might have wanted to bring along as souvenirs. Surprisingly enough there was no movement of that line and inquiry revealed that they don't open this inspection counter until 8 a.m. Such are the joys of today's travel. The civilized ways of former days are gone for good in our "Do it yourself" society which is strictly geared to the young and vigorous.

Mind you I am not complaining, I am simply stating a fact that we are going backwards in our civilization rather than forwards. On the other hand Maui was charming and one of my colleagues who had told me before going "you won't want to come back" was absolutely correct. Sitting on the beach looking out on the Lahaina Roads (stretch of water between Maui and the island of Lanai) watching the surf come in, visiting with the tropical fish and turtles on Black Rock beach, and eventually seeing the sun set behind Lanai more than made up for the follies we are currently being subjected to by the people who control our fate.

The contrast between the beauties of nature and human behavior was magnified when we turned on CNN after dinner and were treated to a daily dose of bombing Kabul, Taliban positions and anthrax scares. One asks oneself where is Homo sapiens - man the wise - when one sees conduct which is strictly contrary to all good sense. In September when President Bush was quoted as having said that he wouldn't send a million dollar cruise missile to hit a mud hut and kick a camel in the butt, I applauded him for his foresight. Media and other pressures made passion prevail over reason and we are now doing what he said we wouldn't.

Our Media hounds - and I really have no other word for them - constantly tell us what the "American people" want. Well, I am one of the American people and I don't want to bomb mud huts and camels. I also don't want our commandoes to go on ill defined missions with no adequate information on where the supposed targets, be they Osama or Mullah Omar, are really hiding. Our boys are sent into potential death traps and they deserve better. Some media commentators were surprised that the Taliban are fighting well. What's the surprise? It's their country and they have been doing nothing else but fight for decades, if not centuries. The arrogance, as well as ignorance, of some of these pundits is staggering. The British fought two wars in Afghanistan during the nineteenth century and left both times with a bloody nose, the Russians tried it recently and got out after ten years with the Soviet Union in shambles. For that I am grateful because I had no use for their system of government. But why in all the world should we be more successful? Because we are a high-tech superpower? Have we forgotten that the ridiculed black pajama-clad boys with a minimum amount of equipment, no air power but an indomitable will to succeed, kicked us out of Viet Nam? Does anybody really believe that Afghans will be any easier to defeat when we come to introduce our ideas of how the country should be run?

The American people I talk to are not particularly keen on this war either, but nobody asks them. I haven't found anybody who has been subjected to one of the famous public opinion polls. I miss especially a poll which would ask all of the 5000 or so families who have lost one or more of their members in the tragic events of September 11 whether or not they want a war with Afghanistan. They are the ones who have suffered and they should be heard. Fragmentary and anecdotal information seems to suggest that they don't want an eye for an eye. Gandhi has been credited for saying that the policy of "an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind" and that is also the truth.

What are we dropping bombs for? Ostensibly to get rid of the Taliban and with their demise Osama would have no place to hide, except possibly Iraq, Libya and other assorted "rogue states" whom we would bomb thereafter. The world would then be safe from terrorism and in the words of the fairy tales "everybody would live happily forever after." This is so naive that I cannot believe anybody in government really believes this. I was born a European, have lived under Goebbels, and became American by choice. I am, therefore, sufficiently skeptical of propaganda and even a cursory knowledge of history shows that most wars and revolutions had ulterior motives. This gets me back to Hawaii. The revolution in 1893 was fomented by American sugarcane growers who saw their profits disappear unless the islands were annexed by America. The official reason was, of course, the undemocratic behavior of the Queen who threatened the lives of the American settlers. The Spanish-American war in 1898 was ostensibly to rid Cuba of cruel Spanish dictatorship; to extract revenge for the sinking of the Maine and to bring Christianity to the forsaken natives in the Philippines. The fact that the Filipinos had been Christians for centuries was disregarded. Also disregarded was the fact that the Spanish had absolutely no interest in fighting America and, in all probability, had nothing to do with the Maine disaster. The Spanish had to be driven out, not only from the Western Hemisphere but also the Pacific, because after Hawaii had been digested it was America's Manifest Destiny to bring good government to most everybody in the Pacific. In 1917 along came President Wilson who believed, with religious fervor, that the world must be made safe for democracy which could only be achieved by entering the war on the Allied side. The fact that the Allies were deeply in debt to America for all the arms they had to buy and that this debt could never be collected if the Central Powers had won the war, was obviously irrelevant. That the world did not become safe for democracy, as Wilson had so devoutly hoped and prayed for, and that instead another war, even more horrible than the first one, resulted from it, is ignored. So is the fact that the current Arab-Israeli turmoil also goes back to WWI and the subsequent division of the spoils among the victorious Allies. That the British promised, at that time, the same piece of real estate to the Arabs as well as the Jews nobody wants to be reminded of either.

When Arabs resist the values of Western culture and are feeling left out from the benefits which globalism is supposed to bring, when they see that the poor get poorer and the rich richer they cannot be expected to become enchanted forever with the carrot which is being dangled before their noses. If they try to assert themselves they get the stick in form of bombs or rockets as Saddam Hussein has found out. Increasing social unhappiness by the masses is bound to lead to unrest and there will always be educated people to provide leaders. Let us not forget that the leadership of the proletarian revolutions during the nineteenth and twentieth century was never in the hands of the working class but in those of intellectuals (Marx, Engels, Lassale, Liebknecht, Lenin, Trotsky, Adler to name just a few) who took pity on the downtrodden and promised them the blue from the sky in form of a socialist utopia. After the demise of the Soviet Union, socialist dreams have temporarily lost some steam and in its breach stepped religion which has always been useful to mask imperial aspirations.

Deny it as we might the current war against "terrorism" is indeed a religious war of ideas and, as mentioned repeatedly, it cannot be won by bombs or even ground troops in Afghanistan, Iraq or other places around the world. Even if the Taliban were to be defeated and a pro-Western government installed in Kabul, fundamentalist-nationalists would simply melt into the mountains and guerilla warfare, accompanied by terrorist tactics, would continue ad infinitum. It pains me to say so but Osama bin-Ladin has so far succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. A $200.000 investment in martyrs (which was recouped anyway by selling assets on the stock market before its expected crash) has produced, and continues to produce, billions of dollars of losses to the American economy, fear is being spread by the media and if we are to believe our politicians we are engaged in an Afghan war with a projected duration of several years. Even if we kill bin-Ladin now he will be a martyr (which is what he wants anyway) who goes to paradise and his image will spur on other fanatics to continue with his work of creating hatred for America in the Islamic world.

Even we in America are apparently fighting for religious principles because we have been told that this is a war of good against evil. Jesus' words: "Whoever is not against us is with us" have been turned into: "Who is not with us is against us!" There can be no neutrals now we are told; the world has to be strictly polarized. This is what the "Judeo-Christian tradition" apparently means. That Christianity and Judaism are supposed to operate on different premises can no longer be openly acknowledged. Jesus was a Jew we are told and, therefore, adhered to the Jewish religion to the bitter end. The fact that he changed Judaism fundamentally the moment he told the parable of the Good Samaritan in answer to the question: "who is my neighbor?" is not taken into account. This question of the scribe, as reported by Luke, was not rhetorical because Jews did distinguish very carefully between themselves and others. Jews were to help each other but they were to shun contact with foreigners. When Jesus told the scribe that your neighbor is anyone in need of help, even a despised Samaritan, he violated one of the most sacred taboos. In addition he had the audacity to tell the Jewish religious leaders that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath; to eat with "sinners," thereby abrogating the sanctity of the dietary laws; and ultimately going after temple money by overthrowing the tables of the money changers. This clearly put him beyond the pale of Jewish religious authorities and required a death sentence. We are now told by some that Jesus was a fanatical zealot and that is why the Romans crucified him. But this is only an attempt to exonerate the Jewish ruling circles of Jerusalem at that time and to foster harmony between Christians and Jews. But a harmony which is based on a wrong premise can never be lasting.

We must openly admit to the differences between the Jewish and Christian religion before we can agree on common principles. Judaism was and for true believers still is, essentially tribal in its nature. This may sound harsh but the disapproval of intermarriage, the insistence by rabbinical authorities on separateness and fear of assimilation are facts of life which cannot be denied. Careful reading of the sayings by the prophets makes it also undeniably clear that they were nationalists. The redemption of this world was to be brought about by Jews and the Law, to which all nations will have to subscribe, will come from Zion. The famous beating of swords into plowshares in Is. 2:4 is preceded by "people going up to the mountains of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law; and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge the nations and shall rebuke many people." While Christians may read this symbolically, fundamentalist Jews tend to think in terms of the here and now. It is the earthly, rather than the heavenly Jerusalem, to which all nations will have to flow and it will be the God of Jacob rather than the Heavenly Father of Jesus who will lay down the law! These statements may come as a surprise to those who believe that "Jews are just a quirky Protestant sect" as Stephen Feldman has put it in Please, Don't wish me a Merry Christmas. But while that book is clearly polemical, the one by Rabbi Neusner Jews and Christians. The Myth of a Common Tradition is scholarly, well reasoned and ought to be required reading for evan