A Plea for Racism: Let it Mean Something

Kim Gandy, the president of NOW, in her recent Below the Belt column, responded to the charge of reverse racism against Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. According to Gandy: “Reverse racism -- an oxymoron, since the systems that oppress cannot be simply reversed, and certainly not by a single individual …” This is a common response by many liberals when conservatives throw around charges of racism of their own. The meaning of the word “racism” is redefined to mean the acts of oppression of the dominant culture, i.e. people who are white, Christian and male. The idea here is that not only is a given member of a minority group, whether they are Hispanic or Black, not guilty of racism, but that by definition they are incapable of being racist. I speak here not as a conservative trying to score points but as a liberal. As a follower of the liberal tradition, this willingness to narrowly tailor the meaning of racism concerns me as it should concern anyone for whom racism is a real issue to be fought and not just a charge to be thrown around as part of some power game.

Let us consider some of the implications of this definition of racism as something that only applies to people outside of power. Gandy does not seem to appreciate that racism often arises from a perception of powerlessness and a desire to strike out against a perceived racial oppressor. Take the rise of the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstructionist America, a definitive example of racism if there ever was one in American history. From the perspective of Southern apologetics (Watch Birth of a Nation if you want to see a good example of this), it was white Southerners who were being oppressed by an alliance of Northerners and blacks. Now, one has to admit that these Southerners had a point; the South lost the Civil War, was devastated and was at the mercy of the North. Northern abolitionists wished to help former slaves and saw them as useful allies in ruling over the former members of the Confederacy. This does not justify the actions of the Klan. Personally, I think the South deserved what happened to them and actually got off too lightly. That being said, the Klan was coming from a position of lacking power. They may have struck against those who had even less power, but that still does not make their actions that of the powerful. At the end of the day, as horrible as their actions were, these were actions that came out of a lack of power. If we apply the liberal definition of racism honestly then we must accept that, however we wish to describe the horrors of the Southern response to Reconstruction, we cannot call it racism.

What about Nazi Germany? The Nazis arose after the defeat of Germany in World War I and the crushing peace treaty of Versailles. I am not suggesting that the Allies were not within their rights to put forth such a treaty nor am I blaming Versailles for Hitler. What we have to realize is that Nazism came out of Germany’s loss of power. So the Nazis might have preached about the inferiority of Jews and other racial minorities and murdered them out of a sense that these groups were subhuman, but the Nazis cannot be labeled as racists since their actions came from their lack of power. It should even be noted here that the bulk of the killing of Jews happened during the second half of the war when Germany was clearly heading toward defeat so even these actions were those of a lack of power.

On a more serious note, how should a person like me respond to Jewish “racism?” Many Haredim and even people who are supposedly Modern Orthodox like to claim that non-Jews, in some sense do not have souls or do not have souls equal to that of Jews. (I admit that there are legitimate Jewish sources for such opinions, but such opinions must be rejected. I would wish for Jews to do something similar to what the Lutheran Church did in regard to Martin Luther’s statements on Jews and officially declare such views to be outside of what a Jew is allowed to believe today.) Jews, particularly Orthodox Jews, do not dominate Western culture and these statements are meant specifically to target people of the European Christian tradition. As such, it fits perfectly into the model of an oppressed group striking out against the dominant culture and therefore, by definition, can never be racist. If I am going to follow this liberal model I, therefore, cannot call such statements racist. What does a supposed liberal like Gandy want me to do? Does she want me to simply keep my mouth shut, wink, and smile at such statements? There are many things that one can call such a course of action, but liberal is not one of them.

The liberal definition of racism would, if followed consistently, rob the term of any meaning. For me, that is a problem. As a follower of the liberal tradition, I believe that ultimately human beings are one group and should work together for the good of the human race as a whole. As such any form of tribalism, the idea that one should prefer one’s group over another is a problem. I am a realist and recognize that there is a little tribalism in us all. I am therefore willing to put up with a moderate level of tribalism as long as it is kept to the sensibility of “our men are the strongest, our women the fairest, and our land the most beautiful” and that even this is recognized as something absurd to be laughed at. The moment this tribalism turns to racism, that some groups are above having ethical obligations and that others are below deserving them, we have something truly dangerous on our hands. Racism is the end of all humanism and will destroy the free society. Why should members of the “master race” bother to follow the rules of a free society and why should members of “inferior races” be allowed to benefit?

I have not formed any strong opinions on Judge Sotomayor and I have no idea if she is a racist or not. For now, I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. That being said I believe that this is an important question to be asked. As a white Jewish male, raised with the best of liberal values, I grew up knowing that I had responsibilities beyond simply white Jewish men and needed to look out for human beings as a whole. I do not claim to be perfect and I have my tribalist biases. I still know, though, to be ashamed of them and seek to limit them through regular doses of self-examination, exposure to people who are not white, Jewish, or male, and, most important of all, to laugh at myself. I, therefore, have every right to ask if Sotomayor has this same sense of working on behalf of everyone and not just Hispanic women. I deserve an answer to that question and not just to be told my question is meaningless.

History 112: Final

Here is the final I gave my students. It consisted of two sections, identifies, where they had to give the proper context for a given person or term, and a pair of short essays for them to write. With the exception of a few disasters pretty much everyone did well on this final. The average for this final was about an 84. My philosophy is that I demand more than most from my students, but I am a fairly generous grader.

Identifies – 70 pts (Pick 7)
1. Friedrich Engels
2. John Calvin
3. Thomas Hobbes
4. Spanish Armada
5. Versailles
6. Immanuel Kant
7. Schlieffen Plan
8. Ribbentrop-Molotov Treaty
9. Six Day War
10. Maximilian Robespierre

Bonus: Deborah Lipstadt


Essays – 130 (Pick 2)
1. What is the Whig narrative? Give specific examples from the material we covered in class such as the Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. How would a Whig view these events? Is the Whig narrative particularly useful? What might some alternatives?
2. What are primary and secondary sources? How does each of these things contribute to an understanding of history? Give specific examples from the reading and your non-fiction book.
3. What were some of the major implications of the Scientific Revolution? Did the Scientific Revolution mean an end to faith? Discuss the religious beliefs of at least three major figures from the Scientific Revolution (e.g. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Bruno, Newton)
4. Describe some of the methods used by the Nazi and Soviet Regimes to promote their views. Can brilliant art be put into the service of totalitarian regimes? What is the moral responsibility of the artist for the uses of their work? Can one separate art from the historical context in which it was created?

My Problem with Terry Eagleton

One of the newest entries into the debate over the New Atheism of Richard Dawkins is Terry Eagleton’s Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate. Eagleton is on the “God” side of this debate and his book is an attack on Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, dubbed by Eagleton as Ditchkins, in particular. Considering the highly polemical nature of this debate Eagleton has certainly received many supportive and hostile reviews. Two very useful examples of this are Stanley Fish in support and PZ Myers in opposition. Fish's glowing review of Eagleton is particularly interesting as Eagleton takes a swipe at him twice in this very book. I find the book to be well written and at times, when defending the beauty of faith, Eagleton comes almost to the level of C. S. Lewis. I must, in the end though, side with Myers in opposing this book, even if it is for very different reasons.

While most of the attention regarding Eagleton has been about the reason and faith parts of the book, Eagleton’s real focus is on revolution. For Eagleton, as unapologetic Marxist, revolution here means the defeat of global Capitalism. Dawkins and the New Atheist movement like the religious fundamentalists, they love to mock, are products of late Capitalism and its failure of values. The solution for Eagleton lies in abandoning the simple economic calculus of Capitalism and embracing Marxism. It is Marxism that offers the necessary grounding in values to stand against economic inequality and imperialism.

Despite my opposition to Communism, I actually enjoyed this part of the book as well. I see no problem in reconciling religion in general and Christianity in particular with Marxism. Any person of faith who can reconcile his faith with evolution should have little difficulty making his peace with Marxism. I can even admire Eagleton for his subversiveness in wrapping a Marxist polemic between the cover of a theist book. Ordinary passive believers looking for confirmation in their faith are going to be in for a rude surprise. I find his case for Marxism remarkably eloquent and persuasive after a fashion. One of the beauties of being a free-marketer is that I am able absorb the strong points of every other economic ideology. For example, yes I have a problem with CEOs making millions while ordinary workers struggle to get by. I think companies would, in general, be far better off being run by their workers and for their workers. The free-market offers the opportunity for such a proletarian takeover without a drop of blood being shed. (The fact that our government has stepped in to bail out corporate America from a financial mess of their own creation offends me as much as the most ardent Marxist.)

My problem with Eagleton is that his hostility toward Capitalism leads him into an anti-West rant where he blames the United States in particular for pretty much all of the problems in the Third World. Eagleton dances around the issue but in the end, for all intents and purposes, he blames September 11 on the United States since, from his perspective, the United States created the problem of Islamic terrorism. Eagleton may be a bit more subtle than Ward Churchill but that just makes him all the more dangerous. Eagleton is smart enough to know that his case cannot stand critical scrutiny yet continues to try implying it on the sly.

As with many on the radical left, Eagleton’s anti-West sentiments quickly lead him to attacking Israel as the fist of the West’s oppression. Eagleton waxes nostalgically about President Nasser of Egypt. According to Eagleton:

Nasserism, once the dominant secular-nationalist, authoritarian-socialist current in the Arab world, was effectively destroyed by the Western-backed 1967 Israeli victory over Egypt. The Islamism that arouse in the wake of that defeat arraigned Nasser for his failure to lead the Arab forces to victory over Israel. The political balance within the Arab would shifted accordingly, away from a discredited Nasserism to the monarchical, pro-Western Wahhabi fundamentalists of Saudi Arabia. What a secular politics could apparently not accomplish, a fanatically religious one could achieve instead (pg. 106).

So great tragic turning point in history was when the Mein Kampf loving dictator of Egypt failed to destroy its democratic neighbor and massacre its Jewish population.

Considering that Eagleton has no problem with apologizing for Nasser’s atrocities, one might hope he would show Israel the same courtesy. Israel is blamed for perpetuating a massacre on the Jordanians in 1971. Eagleton point blank argues that “without the vast concentration camp known as the Gaza Strip, it is not at all out of the question that the Twin Towers would still be standing" (pg. 107). While the first concentration camps were created by the British during the Boar War, in modern parlance a concentration camp means something very specific. So by using this word, Eagleton can mean only one of three things. He could be a Holocaust denier, who believes that the camps were about as bad as the Palestinian situation. He could be an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, who believes, without evidence, that Israel has murdered millions of Palestinians. Or he could just be a plain liar, seeking to malign Israel and Jews for his own ideological gain.

Eagleton is a textbook example of Dennis Prager’s observation that hatred of the United States and anti-Semitism seem to follow similar lines of reasoning and have common origins. In the end one must view Faith, Reason and Revolution as an attempt to pass off anti-Israel propaganda and plain anti-Semitism under the guise of a bestselling book on religion. The fact that this is only a passing issue in the book makes it all the more dangerous. If Eagleton had been forthright about his agenda this book would never have sold. He is not really interesting in defending Christianity or any form of theism. His real interest is to push for Marxism, an ideology grounded in hatred of the West and of Israel.

The Good Deed That Did Come Back to Me

Often times we do things, whether for good or evil, that move on beyond us. These are usually actions that we do casually without much thought. We will usually never learn the results of these actions. This about something that happened to me today, an incident I did come to find out the surprising results of my actions.

This past quarter I assigned my students Deborah Lipstadt’s History on Trial for the last class to act as a summation of everything that I was trying to teach them. (I also ask them to identify Deborah Lipstadt as bonus question on the final.) I had an old copy of the book, a discarded library copy which I had picked up at a used book store. Since we, as teachers, can ask for free desk copies of any book we assign, I asked for an extra copy of the book with the intention that I would have a copy to lend out to any student that really needed it. As a professor of mine once told us: “I would whether you ate then bought books.” The publishing company was nice enough to send me not one but two brand new copies. With three copies of the book in my possession, I decided, several weeks ago, to leave my old copy at the giveaway table on the ground floor of my building. I did this and soon enough the book disappeared. (I guess I probably should have offered it to one of my students, but this was something that I casually did simply to clear space in my room, without putting any thought to it.)

Today one of the building maintenance workers came over to me. This is man whom I talked to on occasion and was somewhat friendly with. I am not sure if he has Asperger syndrome. He certainly fits the stereotype for it; he is clearly a well read individual doing manual labor for a living. He told me that he just read a book that he found on the table. He assumed, based on the topic of the book, that it must have been something of mine and he wanted to thank me and tell me what an impression that book had made on him. That book, of course, was History on Trial. Considering the shooting at the Holocaust Museum yesterday, I believe that Dr. Lipstadt’s message certainly needs to be heard by as many people as possible.

Mental Capacity and Autism Rights

I would like to clarify an issue from my earlier post on autism rights. I argued that the concept of rights, by definition would only apply to those on the higher end of the autism spectrum:

Any discussion of rights, by definition, only applies to people who have reached a certain base-line of intellectual self-sufficiency. So autism rights, by definition, only apply to autistics on the higher end of the spectrum. If you are capable of reading this piece and understand what I am saying then you can rest assure that you pass the threshold. A completely different discourse would be needed for those on the lower end of the spectrum, one based on care and charity.

This statement has caused offense to a number of people and I apologize for that. Part of the problem is that I am proceeding from a very different understanding of rights which causes me to use the word “right” in a different fashion from that of other people. Most people, coming from the perspective of modern liberalism, use rights in a very open-ended fashion. Rights are supposed to make someone human, they are meant to grant people meaning in their lives and solve their problems. For example, if homosexuals find themselves unable to marry their partners they are being robbed of some right. Or if blacks are unable to advance in the same proportion as other groups it must be because some right has been violated.

For me, rights are something more specific. When I think of rights I think of life, liberty, and property. An extension of these rights, and a necessary protection for them, is the ability to take part in government. By this I mean the right to engage in such actions as running for political office, voting in elections, taking part in the justice system by serving on a jury, and serving in the military. To safeguard all of these things we possess civil rights as weapons in our arsenal. There are two particularly important ones that should be mentioned. First, there is our freedom of speech, which protects us on a day-to-day basis. Second, of greater importance though more for extreme situations, there is the right to bear arms. Private citizens have the constitutional right to possess the sort of firearms necessary to wage, if need be, an armed insurrection against the government.

The right to life belongs to all human beings no matter their mental capability. This right, while important, is, for the most part, outside of our political discourse. I have not heard anyone suggest that people on the autism spectrum be put into cattle cars and shipped off to gas chambers. Furthermore, this right is passive; it does not allow you to engage in anything proactive. Other people are not allowed to murder autistics, but what can autistics do?

There is the issue of the long-term elimination of autistics in the event that a genetic test can be designed for fetuses. For those who view rights as something that belongs to groups, this becomes a right to life issue. I view rights as something that belongs to individuals and I believe that fetuses do not count as human beings, certainly for the purpose of having rights. Because of this, I recognize that we do not have any means, through the government, to stop mothers from aborting autistic fetuses. All we can do is wage a social campaign to convince people to not abort autistic fetuses. I have a friend who point-blank told me that she would abort a child that she knew was going to be autistic. She would not object to having an Asperger child like me, but she grew up with a traditionally autistic sister and she would not wish to go through that experience as a parent. I can challenge this friend whether she can say she really loves her sister; if she really loved her sister she would rather have gone through all the difficulties she had than not have had the sister at all. I suspect this will be a losing battle and we may, as tragic as it may be, see the elimination of autism. I support personal autonomy and I am willing to fall on my sword to protect this ideal; this is what it means to be an idealist.

Moving away from the right to life, we are left with the rights of liberty, property, participation in government, and civil rights. In a sense, liberty is passive; you are protected from being wrongfully imprisoned. That being said it also includes the active right to make decisions in one’s life, to pursue one’s own good in one’s own way as long as one does not interfere with the liberties of others. The moment you bring active rights into play you have to consider who has the mental capacity to pursue such rights. J. S. Mill said point-blank, at the beginning of On Liberty, that nothing he was about to say was meant to apply to children, the mentally handicapped, and, for argument's sake, savages living outside of civilization. 

When I was a child, as much as I thought it was unjust, my parents ran right over my “rights” to not bathe, stay home from school, stay up beyond their arbitrary bedtime and not eat my vegetables. They even spanked me and put me in time out without the benefit of a trial by my peers. (While this may sound childish, I was the sort of child with the political awareness to try for such a constitutional approach.) So should autistics have the liberty to make personal decisions in their lives like whether they should be institutionalized, allowed to live at home or by themselves? My answer is that it depends on the ability of the individual autistic. I am an adult and I have the mental ability to understand and make decisions regarding my liberty and others can understand what these decisions are. As such, I should have the right to exercise these liberties and my decisions about my personal liberties should be respected. If my parents wished to commit me to an institution or force me to come home and the government went along with this it would be a wrongful violation of my liberty. My parents would not be able to use the argument that I am an Asperger since that is a legitimate mode of thinking; nor could they argue that I do not eat enough vegetables, go to bed at an early enough hour or use language that they did not approve of as these would also be legitimate lifestyle choices. Now there are people on the autistic spectrum, even many adults, who are not capable of making such decisions. Such people cannot in any meaningful sense be said to possess liberty and should be left to the care of their legal guardians.

The same applies to the higher rights such as participation in government and civil liberties. All of these things, as active liberties, require that an individual has the mental capacity to make a meaningful decision. It is not even enough that a person says the words, there has to be some sort of intent behind them. Furthermore, those intentions must, by some means, be able to be communicated to society at large. A person who cannot do this is doomed to being a ward of society, without the ability to take on the role of full citizens.

A useful example is that of the deaf. Today it would sound completely ludicrous to say that a deaf person cannot be a CEO of a company, and serve in the military. (There may be restrictions about on the deaf serving though I doubt they would stand up against a determined lobbying effort particularly if resources were offered to get around the disability.) Who would object to a deaf person becoming the president of the United States? That being said, in the nineteenth century there were few resources available for deaf people and society lacked the ability to effectively educate them. For all intents and purposes, this doomed the deaf to a lifetime of being wards of society, of little use to anyone, and unable to take on the role of active citizens with all the rights that it entails. Now, because of advances in technology and in education, the deaf are capable, just like everyone else, of being active citizens and society has been blessed with this beautiful new deaf culture arising in its midst.

I see the same thing for the autistic community. Right now, there are many autistics, particularly at the "higher end of the spectrum," perfectly capable of being fully active citizens. It is important that such people be supported and that they are allowed to fully take advantage of their rights to make personal decisions, to handle property, to take an active role in government, and to use their civil liberties. That being said, there are many on the autism spectrum, particularly on the "lower end of the spectrum," who do not have this ability. For such people, it is meaningless to talk about them having rights. This is not to say that they should be thrown to the wolves or refused medical care. They are wards of society and must be cared for as such. I hope that with further improvements in technology and education we will find more and more people on the autism spectrum with the ability to take on the role of citizens and will no longer be wards of society. This will make for a stronger and more vibrant autistic community and will benefit society at large.

The Joys of Baiting a Neurotypical Bigot: My Conversation with John Best

This past week I have been wasting too much time and having too much fun debating John Best (Foresam) over on his blog, Hating Autism. Best is a parent of a severally autistic child and a radical opponent of neurodiversity. He is obsessed with Ari Ne’eman, the president of ASAN to the point of practically stalking him. According to Best, Ne’eman is a Nazi propagandist in the model of the teacher who started Third Wave. What I find so fascinating about Best is that he is a straight up, unapologetic bigot. Just hearing him speak about gays is almost enough to convince me that gays do require special legal protections. (How about a deal. Gays receive special protection from the John Bests of the world as long as autistics receive similar protections.) Best reminds me a lot of Jewish Philosopher in how he throws ad hominem attacks and implicit conspiracy theories in place of actual arguments. Anyone who fails to agree with him is either brain damaged or part of a pharmaceutical conspiracy. (Maybe I should make a shidduch and set the two of them up together. I am sure they would get along fabulously. It would be a victory for ecumenical bigotry.) I know I should not waste my time arguing with such a creep, but I have a hard time backing off from an argument. At least I hope this serves to elucidate certain concepts and put me on display in my satiric best.

Foresam,
This Third Wave case could be seen as a good example of why the world needs Aspergers. Since we are a lot more person centered (yes I admit that this often causes us to act in a fairly egotistical manner) we are less connected to the group as a whole and are less likely to simply follow the lead. I am not some mindless follower of Ari Ne’eman. I held the views that I hold long before I ever heard of him and even before I ever was aware of a neurodiversity movement.

Izgad,
In your delusional state, you must have missed the 1999 push to begin the misinformation campaign about autism. You follow it hook, line and sinker. Frank Klein brought the Neuroinsanity public in 2004 but the roots of it began with Sinclair, Donna Williams, Jasmine O'Neill and other sadists in the 90's.

Foresam,
If you had bothered to read the link I put up you would have noticed that I differ from the mainline of the neurodiversity movement. I am opposed to identity politics and instead support a more individualistic approach to rights. This is one of the reasons why I did not concern myself, until a few years ago, with spectrum issues. Neurodiversity was not on my radar screen in 1999. Even when I first heard of Asperger syndrome and assumed I had it, I refused to get tested for an official diagnosis. My argument then was that it would not make a difference in my life one way or another. Learning about Asperger syndrome and getting an official diagnoses has given me a language with which to explain how I am different from other people. It has also, for better or for worse, saddled me with a community filled with many talented and wonderful people with troubles. I am working on a Ph.D. in history and run a well-liked blog dealing mostly with issues unrelated to neurodiversity and yet you insist, without ever having met me that I am delusional (in addition to other names). I certainly am not about to trust you in any position of authority over people on the spectrum.

Izgad,
I just read the link. You hurt your case by mentioning queers. Nobody is opposed to you for your religion or your Asperger's. When you align that with queers, you include yourself with severely deranged people. No decent person wants their kids to have to listen to that acceptance crap for perverts. We don't accept it as an alternative lifestyle and we don't want our kids influenced by it. Keep it in the closet and nobody cares. You say you don't align yourself with Ne'eman but you call yourself autistic the same way he does. You aren't. You have Asperger's. Call yourself that and I don't give a damn what you do. Identify yourself as having the same condition as my kid while it looks like your AS is no big deal and I have a big problem with it. You're telling the world that "autism" is no big deal which is completely untrue. Autism is a nightmare for the person who has it and everyone who has to deal with it.I just spoke briefly with Ne'eman on a radio show. He dodged my concerns about his abuse of the word "autism" and ignored my contention that he misrepresented the truth with his anti-cure rhetoric. I was cutoff before I could respond to his nonsensical political crap. Yes, he speaks well when unopposed but he would not fare very well in any sort of debate with someone who sees through his bogus avoidance of the truth.Whether you want to trust me or not is immaterial. I know that autism can and should be cured and that's all that I'm about. As long as liars take an opposing position to that, I'll be around to expose those lies.

Foresam,
Just to clarify, I am a member of Ne’eman’s ASAN. We just started a new chapter here in Columbus OH. I do have my disagreements with Ne’eman but that is only natural where you have different people thinking for themselves and coming to their own conclusions. I am not sure how many people with Asperger syndrome you have actually met. My experience has been that most of us come to neurodiversity on our own and it is this that leads us to seek each other out. It is then becomes this mind opening surprise when we meet each other and realize that other people have had these same experiences and reached the same conclusions. Neurodiversity is not some sort of brainwashing movement. If you think so than you clearly have not met many of the people on the ground. I listened to a recording of the show. It was nice to hear the voice behind the writer. I guess we must have heard two very different exchanges. You came out and starting throwing accusations at Ne’eman, none of which have anything to do with reality. At the moment Asperger syndrome is listed as a type of autism. No one is conspiring here. We are simply running with the medical classification on the ground. No one is trying to deny anyone medical attention. I think Ne’eman did a very good job on this front outlining the sorts of help he is trying to get for everyone from across the spectrum, including your son. I think that any fair minded person listening to that exchange would have come away thinking that you were a brain damaged pig and that Ne’eman was a sterling gentleman. Now who stands in need of a cure?
I have no idea what you think about Judaism but you have already gone on the record as saying that Aspergers are mentally ill and need to be cured. That sounds like opposition to me.
Izgad,
Saying that Asperger's needs to be cured is simply pointing out that it can now be cured for the older crowd who grew up when it wasn't treatable. Of course, that information needs to be given to the caretakers of the Aspies so decisions regarding cures are left in the hands of people whose brains haven't been damaged.The fact I stated to Ne'eman was that he is not autistic. Pointing out that fraud on his part is just a statement of fact. Asperger's is not listed as a type of autism; it's listed as part of the spectrum. The only people that the word "autism" applies to specifically is the lowest functioning ones. Why would anyone with the highest functioning label on the spectrum want to identify themselves as the lowest functioning? That makes no sense...unless you are engaging in propaganda.Ne'eman went on GMA and said that being anti-cure does not mean anti-progress...very carefully chosen words meant to mislead...LFA's do not progress...ever...so saying he's for progress makes him look sane but he knows that the LFA's will never progress without the medical treatment that he calls "quackery". The fact is that chelation has been a standard for mercury poisoning for 70 years. It's taught in med schools. Autism experts refined it since 2000 and now kids are being cured. Ne'eman denies all of that and that makes him a liar.You're right. When I was cut off from responding, it didn't give me a chance to explain the devious rhetoric Ne'eman had used and it made him appear properly concerned about LFA's when the truth was that he was advocating for letting them rot by only advocating for "evidence based" medicine, a bullshit term that won't ever cure anyone. That's the chance you take when you call a show like that...WTF.

Foresam,
You cannot have it both ways, to say that Aspergers are not autistic and that you have nothing against them while at the same time saying that Aspergers are mentally ill and need to be cured. You wish to have decisions made by the caretakers of Asperger adults. Believe it or not many of us are completely self-sufficient. (Some of us even go on to earn advanced degrees and even Noble prizes.) By denying this you are taking away our personhood. This is the basic foundation of bigotry. Asperger syndrome is classified as an ASD. That stands for Autism Spectrum Disorder. Notice the first word there, autism. I would love to see Asperger syndrome taken off of the autism spectrum, we have nothing to gain by being compared to your son. It implies that we are in some way less then fully functional. Right now we have been stuck with the word so you cannot blame us making use of it. Right now both sides are stuck with an open ended term and forced to fashion the word to suit their situation. Your side has much more to gain by having us labeled as autistics than we do. If we are not autistic than you have no autism epidemic. Autism Speaks had no problem labeling me as autistic when they wanted to recruit me for their side.
You had the opening words of that conversation and you already sounding like an ass. You said your piece and he said his. The segment was about him, not you.

Izgad,
If Asperger's was not a mental illness, it would not be listed in a book of mental illnesses, the same place being queer used to be listed. I suppose your next ploy will be to follow the queers and ask that it be removed from the book.The problem with that though, stupid, is that people who actually suffer from Asperger's do need and want a cure so they can function better. I think a better option would be for people like you to just accept that you're a little screwy and undiagnose yourselves. Then you can just be considered your average, everyday type of screwball and you can go yelping about acceptance and respect for screwballs.It doesn't matter what term they use to describe people like my son. Vaccine induced brain damage is more descriptive than "autism", don't you think? The point is that that brain damage can be cured. So we don't need some lying, pseudointellectual, politician wannabe like Ne'eman telling the world that our brain damaged kids don't want to be cured. Got it? If I had said that on the radio, do you think they would have let me complete my thought before they shut me off?

Foresam,
Getting Asperger syndrome removed from the list of mental illnesses is a major goal of mine. And yes I do view the gay rights movement as a model and a reason for hope; it is not as if what we do violates any major religious tenants so there is no reason for society not to embrace us. So now not only are we not real autistics but we are also not real Aspergers. You have to stop contradicting yourself. You seem to take a lot on yourself in your willingness diagnose people you have never met.There are a lot of screwballs out there. Asperger syndrome is something more specific. It implies a particular way of viewing the world and processing information. I am not a scientist, but last I checked healing damage done to the brain, unlike other organs is a bit problematic. Brain cells, unlike other cells, do not regenerate. Your brain finishes developing when you are an infant and things go downhill from there. Every brain cell you lose from getting smashed is a brain cell that will not come back.

Izgad,
Any screwball can get himself dx'd with AS today. The key to knowing whether or not you actually have it is if you want a cure or not. If you don't think you need a cure, then you're just a nitwit who used AS as an excuse to explain goofiness. People who really have AS have real problems and all of them would like to be cured.

Foresam,
Asperger syndrome refers to a deficiency in terms of processing non analytical forms of information, particularly body language and other social cues. It is also often accompanied with above average abilities in terms of processing analytical forms of information such as written texts. There is the well known Simon Baron Cohen test that you can find online. Take a look at that test and you will see that there is nothing there about wanting to be cured. By the way, normal people score on average a sixteen on this test, Aspergers usually score over thirty. I scored a thirty two. I also got an official diagnosis so there are doctors who can testify that I have Asperger syndrome. I would be careful if I were you about throwing random accusations at people whom you do not know. You also have a habit of changing the meaning of terms whenever you are losing an argument. That is being intellectually dishonest. Notice how you have gone from saying that you have nothing against Aspergers to saying that it is a disease needing to be cured. That is called hypocrisy.

Izgad,
All conditions on the autism spectrum should be cured. That's the humane way to deal with diminished mental capacities.I don't care what Baron Cohen conjured up for a test. Curing illness is humane. Any other attitude is nuts. Foresam,So you admit that Asperger syndrome is part of the autism spectrum. So Ne’eman is no longer a liar when he claims to have autism. Again Asperger syndrome does not mean a diminished mental capacity, particularly since many people with Asperger syndrome have significantly above average skills in specific fields. Asperger syndrome even helped someone like Vernon Smith win a Noble prize for economics.

Izgad,
You claim to be a PhD student but you're having a lot of trouble with a very simple definition. Autism is a specific part of the autism spectrum. Asperger syndrome is a different specific category of that spectrum.Sorry Izgad but, when having AS keeps you from being mentally capable of enjoying a full and rewarding social life, that falls under diminished mental capacity. Nobody deserves to suffer in any aspect of their life to support the vaccine makers poisoning of people. They should all be cured based on the whole person concept.If Smith is such a genius with economics, you'd think he would use those skills to make himself a fortune at the racetrack.

Foresam,
When most people use the word autism they are referring to the autism spectrum. That is a perfectly legitimate use of the word. The idea here is that there is a spectrum of different autisms. I have lived my life among neurotypicals whose brains are so wired to pursuing their “full and rewarding social life” that they are incapable of pursuing advanced degrees studying things like early modern apocalypticism. To me that signifies a “diminished mental capacity.” I think that all such people should be “cured.” May I even suggest that we start with you? We could put you on a diet, try pumping you for toxins and even put you in an oxygen machine. Considering what a stuck up neurotypical bigot you are, we will probably have to resort to the tried and true measures of the period I study and put you on the rack and try balancing out your humors. If we kill you it will be in the cause of saving the world from their neurotypical selves. (This is a joke. Aspergers are capable of having a sense of humor.)

Izgad,
Only a propaganda wizard would call himself autistic when he really has Asperger's. It's funny how the only liars who do this are also opposed to a cure and defend the vaccine makers who caused all of the autism, isn't it? The rest of what you say is inane since normal people gain advanced degrees much more often than people with AS, have much higher IQ's and have a social life. Foresam, And only a bigot would assume that people were lying simply for an innocent use of the word autism and for simply following the established view in the field of medicine today. (Note that I am not taking a side one way or another as to the causes of autism.) Can you quote one study to support this claim besides for your own bigoted imagination? Curious, what sort of advanced degree do you have? It is a fact that Aspergers have IQs to match the general population and because of their focused interests have an advantage in their specific area of interest.

Izgad,
Are PhD students taught to use name calling when they're losing arguments? My statement that you are all propaganda wizards is true but you calling me a bigot is a blatant lie. How can one be a bigot who is trying to see all people with autism get the help they need?The word "autism" is not being used innocently by Aspies who oppose curing people with actual "autism." It is all part of a plan to misinform the public and influence public opinion. Besides bastardizing the meaning of the word, it also brings you some sympathy from uninformed people who believe that you have overcome a similar horror that befell all of the kids with true autism.I don't need a study to see that Aspies are far less intelligent than normal people. Normal people have sense enough to see a doctor and make themselves well when they have something wrong with them. They don't go running around celebrating having a mental illness. Of course, when you are not mentally ill to begin with, it's much easier to recognize a problem if your brain stops functioning properly. That's what you Aspies can't understand. You have no reference point for what normalcy is so you have been sucked in by the propaganda that allows you to believe you are "different" and not damaged. We who do not have brain damage know better and we would like to help you, not enable your delusions that keep you trapped in a mentally deficient state.

Foresam,
There is a word for someone who spews ad hominem attacks and calls people names and then complains when names get thrown back, hypocrite. (Keep in mind that this whole conversation started with you calling someone a Nazi.) I use the word bigot very carefully and you are a textbook example of one. You take your perspective and the perspective of your group as “natural,” assume that everyone else should be like that and that everyone who is not is somehow deficient. Let us take your previous statement and edit it to apply to another group:
I don't need a study to see that Jews are far less intelligent than normal Christian people. Normal Christian people have sense enough to see a priest and make themselves well when they have something unsaved about them. They don't go running around celebrating having the mental illness of not accepting Jesus as their personal savior. Of course, when you are not mentally ill to begin with, it's much easier to recognize a problem if your brain stops functioning properly. That's what you Jews can't understand. You have no reference point for what normal Christian life is so you have been sucked in by the rabbinic propaganda that allows you to believe you are "different" and not unsaved. We who do not suffer from not having Christ in our lives know better and we would like to help you by showing you the Light, not enable your delusions that keep you trapped in a mentally deficient Jewish state.

Izgad,
Exposing propaganda is not name calling. How the Hell did you get into a PhD program? I didn't think there was anyone stupid enough to equate brain damage to religion. Do you think there's someone on Earth dumb enough to buy your idiotic analogy? Foresam, You have a habit of simply going back to your original claim to support yourself even when you have done nothing to actually back up your original claim. In academic language that is called circular reasoning; you may have heard of the concept. As to the issue of religion, you seem to be unaware of the history of Jewish-Christian polemics. There is a long history, going back to the New Testament, of Christians arguing that Jews rejected Jesus because of some sort of theological blindness if not downright satanic control. I simply gave you an updated version of this argument, substituting brain damage for satanic possession. There is no meaningful difference between the claims. Keep in mind that the issue of brain damage is what is being contested here so you cannot simply retreat into declaring I have brain damage. (By the way I was just speaking to a student of mine and after being in my class for a full quarter and getting his fill of my antics he said that he does not think I have brain damage.)

Izgad,
Religion has nothing to do with autism. You are now engaged in an argument to absurdity.

Foresam,
You seem to fail to realize that, in the specific case I bring, the issue stops being religion and becomes one of questioning one’s mental capacity. We are faced with an issue of tolerance 101, to recognize, particularly in matters outside of empirical evidence and where the issue is not physical harm, that people are going to disagree and one going to have to live with that without simply passing people off as retarded or satanic. Your idea of the good life might be hanging out at a bar with friends; mine might be sitting by myself with a book. Your goal in life might be winning friends and influencing people; mine might be stroking my chin and contemplating the nature of the universe. There is no piece of empirical evidence you can bring to show that your life is better. My lifestyle choices do not cause anyone any physical harm. For that matter I am a productive member of society and ask for no special treatment as an Asperger. This entitles me to the same respect given to every functional adult. Izgad, When your BS rhetoric interferes with autistic kids being cured, you forfeit any right to respect you might think you have. Foresam, And when, I as a Jew, plot to take over the world and murder Christian children to use their blood for Passover I guess I have also forfeited my right to tolerance. Outside of the games Risk and Civilization, I have not tried to take over the world. Believe it or not I have murdered any Christian children. And would you believe it neither I nor Ari Ne’eman have ever tried to stop anyone from getting medical care. (Ari may be a member of the Elders of Zion; you will have to ask him.) Ari has been critical of certain methods of medical care. I have kept out of this issue as I in no way feel qualified to comment on it one way or another. Your fight is with the APA and they are not taking their orders from us. Operating under a system of tolerance you have to give opponents the benefit of the doubt and not simply put up conspiracy theories without evidence. Unless you can produce a paper trail to show Ari plotting with the pharmaceutical companies you have to accept that he believes what he believes. The moment one brings in conspiracy theories than one becomes justified in using illiberal means to enforce one’s views. In free societies we have an implicit deal; you do not take as your starting point that Ari and I are plotting to ally the Jewish banks with the pharmaceutical companies to take over the world and we do not accuse you of plotting to murder us high functioning members of the autism spectrum in our beds. This is in your interest because the moment I accept as my starting point that you are plotting to murder me there is no way you could ever prove that I am wrong and I become morally justified in killing you in self defense. I hope you see what a cliff jump into insanity this is.

Izgad,
Wrong, both of you have tried to prevent kids from getting the right medical treatment. Every time you claim to be autistic and don't need to be cured, you are leading uneducated parents to accept your hogwash and you both know it. Ne'eman talks about kids receiving treatment but it only includes the obsolete junk like speech, play and physical therapy that does zippo for low functioning kids. This is good propaganda since he phrases it vaguely and some people may believe that he advocates for addressing vaccine damage medically when we know that's not the case.I suppose you'll have me believe that you're as stupid as Phil Gluyas and actually believe what you're saying next.You admit to being my opponent which means you admit to being a liar about your motives. (Your red herring Jewish/Zionist convolution isn't going to work either.) Having an autistic son makes me your ally as far as tolerance goes. How could I be anything else? Every parent, child and adult on the "autism spectrum" is on the same wavelength there. But, this is not about tolerance at all. This is only about you and ASAN misrepresenting the true horror of "autism" by misusing the words to misidentify yourselves, thus ascribing a need for tolerance to a condition that is so horrible (autism) that there can be no tolerance for it. The people so afflicted won't ever even know the meaning of the word tolerance. Educated people like you and Ne'eman know that autism is a nightmare. I don't need a paper trail to prove that you're misrepresentations are intentional.

Foresam,
You are not my ally. You would force me to take all sorts of untested meds to try to be "cured." You even deny my ability and my right to make decisions about my own body. This is besides for the fact that you have given me no proof that you are not a eugenics supporting Nazi, coming to cut my throat.
I am not lying. When anyone asks what I mean when I say that I am autistic, I readily tell them that I am an Asperger, which is on the autism spectrum, and that this is different from traditional autism. If I were really trying to hide the horrors of autism, I would probably be a bit more devious.

Izgad,
If you are being honest, aside from your eugenics nonsense, you will call Ne'eman and tell him to change the name of ASAN to "Asperger's" SAN from "Autistic" SAN. If he won't agree to that, you should resign in protest and help me in exposing him for the fraud that he is.

Foresam,
That is actually something that I would be open to in theory. The problem is that the high end of the autism spectrum includes other groups besides for Aspergers and I would want to include them as well. At the end of the day I am okay with the current name because, by definition, any discussion about rights applies only to people of a certain level of functionality. (anyone who can follow a basic discussion about the nature of rights) When Jefferson said that all men had the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” he did not have your son in mind. Your son may have certain legal protections but it is meaningless to talk about him having proactive legal rights like voting, buying/selling property or serving on a jury or in the military. This does not apply in the reverse when you talk about eliminating the entire autism spectrum. You do mean eliminating people like me.

Izgad,
Jefferson would have included a cure under pursuit of happiness. He would have laughed at your (ASAN's)anti-cure position regarding LFA.
While nobody is trying to force a cure on you, it should be implied that by refusing one, you give up any benefits such as social security. You can pick whatever nits you like regarding distinctions between HFA and AS. It would not follow that you could then pick similar nits between HFA and PDD/NOS.
ASAN may get me off their ass by forgetting they ever heard the word "autism" but others who have kids with Asperger's will assuredly still take issue with you about being anti-cure when they watch their kids struggling. Since being opposed to a cure is crazy to begin with, it would be better for ASAN to say nothing at all about it and just go about the business of gaining tolerance and heightening awareness against bullying.
You don't see any pro cure people coming out in favor of bullying Aspies, do you?

I decided by this point that I should probably give this a rest and let him have the last word. He was simply restating his positions so I had little hope of baiting him into saying anything else of interest.

Minuets, Sonatas and Politics in the West Bank: Another Excuse for the New York Times to Show its Anti-Israel Bias

The New York Times has an article about the state of classical music in the Palestinian territories, “Minuets, Sonatas and Politics in the West Bank.” In the article we are put face to face with the struggles of Palestinian children and adults as they strive to transcend the struggles of the world around them through embracing music. For those of you under the impression that the Palestinians have done nothing but produce a generation of jihadists and suicide bombers, “a new generation of Palestinians who have been swept up in a rising tide of interest in Western classical music in the last several years.” Now you may ask who is to blame for the difficult situation these people are in. The New York Times’ evenly balanced response is that both the Israelis and the Palestinians are at fault through their mutual prejudices. The author, Daniel J. Wakin, notes that: “across the border in Israel, which has a mother lode of classical music talent, there is little awareness that Palestinians are pursuing the same artistic tradition. That is perhaps no surprise in a conflict where mutual ignorance is prodigious.”

I have no problem with writing stories about the real life struggles of Palestinians trying to make a better life for themselves. I actually sympathize with them. If I were writing this story it would be about my belief in the power of music to defeat tyranny and put a candle to darkness. This would lead me to asking questions like how much money is being sent by Arab countries to support music programs in the Palestinian territories or why have the Palestinians, or the Arab world for that matter, not produced a world class orchestra like the Israeli Philharmonic. Could it be that a society that values suicide bombers more than musicians has no interest in peace and should not be trusted to make peace?

Thomas Friedman famously observed that no two countries with McDonalds in them have gone to war with each other. The reason for this is that a McDonalds requires the existence of a well developed middle class, a group of people notorious for not wanting to fight wars. I would add a corollary to this principle: any country that does not have a McDonalds should not be trusted in a peace treaty. There are simply too many entrenched powers open to breaking it. Following this line of reasoning, I propose that we add a world class classical orchestra to this list. To build a world class orchestra requires a society that cultivates higher culture. In my mind this is a reason to take a leap of faith with them to make peace. So here is the Benzion Chinn doctrine for signing peace treaties. If you wish to make a treaty with me you better have a Starbucks in your country for me to sign the treaty in. (There are no kosher McDonalds outside of Israel and Starbucks represents the same middle class values to an even greater extreme.) You must also produce a homegrown world class classical orchestra to come to this Starbucks and play for us while we sign.

So here is to world peace over a venti latte to the accompaniment of Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy.”

Michael Oren, Thomas Friedman and Other Random Flashes of Sanity this Shavuot

On the subject of good news and sanity within the Orthodox community, I spent the holiday of Shavuot at the home of Rabbi Naphtali Weisz, the rabbi of Congregation Beth Jacob here in Columbus, and his lovely family. Also staying at the house was Rabbi Elliot Kaplowitz, who was here as a scholar in residence for the holiday. Rabbi Kaplowitz heads a branch of the Jewish Learning Initiative at Brandeis. Over the holiday Rabbi Kaplowitz spoke about the question of the centrality of halacha (Jewish law) in Jewish life. He is firmly on the side that Judaism needs to be a lot more than just halacha. He also spoke about Serach bas Ashur, a female figure who is just a name in the bible but is given great prominence in rabbinic literature.

In one of our conversations, Rabbi Weis referred to an article by Michael Oren, which he then used in one of the sermons over the holiday. Oren argues that Yitzchak Rabin was influenced to support negations with the PLO starting in 1992 upon being informed of the potential threat from the Iranian nuclear program. The lesson that Rabbi Weisz seems to have taken from this article is that there was a certain logic to the Oslo accords, one that the public was not aware of at the time, and that even allowing Israel to be put under siege by suicide bombers was a calculated short term risk in the face of the long term existential threat posed by an Iranian bomb. It is not often that one hears an Orthodox rabbi acknowledge that the Oslo accords were anything other than a suicidal disaster. Rabbi Weisz also showed me his heavily highlighted copy of Thomas Friedman’s Hot, Flat and Crowded. He has become interested in environmental issues and wants to speak out more on the topic.

I greatly admire Friedman despite the fact that he regularly veers too far into mainstream liberalism for my taste. If there is one book that can convince a conservative to go green it is Hot, Flat and Crowded. Its basic premise is that our lack of willingness to cut down on fossil fuels is enriching our enemies in the Islamic world and causing us to lose the War on Terror. Friedman also appeals to two basic bedrocks of, (or at least should be) conservative principles. One, that our challenge to solve the energy needs of the world is an opportunity for individual innovation; the sort of roll-up-your-sleeves pragmatism that is distinctly American. This book is nothing if not patriotic. For Friedman, it is America that can solve this problem and if America fails to lead the way then no one is going to be able to succeed. The second bedrock conservative principle is that sacrifices are going to be needed. We need to hold back on some of our short-term pleasures for the long term good. From my perspective (and I suspect that this is also Rabbi Weisz’s view) this is a call to action for every religious person. If we cannot get on board with the green thrift ethic than who will?

On the side of not so sane, I ate a meal at a member of the community kollel. He had a picture of Rabbi Avigdor Miller on his wall so that creeped me out from the get-go. I spent a large part of the meal flipping through a copy of Rabbi Mattisyahu Salomon’s With Hearts Full of Love. The title brought to my mind the song from the musical Les Miserables, “A Heart Full of Love.” I assume this is just a coincidence. Then again there might be one very sneaky and subversive Haredi editor out there. The book was essentially a guide to how to brainwash your children and protect them from all the dangerous things in the world, like the internet, competitive sports, computer games, secular books, and secular libraries. (To be fair, he does have some nice things to say about playing chess.) I confess to engaging in inordinate amounts of laughter as I imagined myself as Richard Dawkins checking off passages. I am told, that my host got annoyed at the fact that I was getting so much entertainment out of the book. Apparently, the book is not meant as a joke. This is Rabbi Mattisyahu Salomon, the mashgiach of Lakewood, after all. The same Rabbi Mattisyahu Salomon who stood up in the middle of the Yeshiva sex abuse scandal and blamed bloggers for much of the evil in the world. So please hold your smirking and giggling to a minimum.

History 112: World War II

1. The Soviet Union seems to be largely ignored and get away with all that they did during WWII in the end being one of the allies defeating Germany and keeping largely what they had won. Despite the fact that this led to the Cold War between the US and USSR, overall it seems as if the USSR got away with a lot because Germany was once again set as the major instigator of the conflicts. So, I guess the question is why that is?

Once the Soviet Union was attacked it became our good ally. Watch the Frank Capra films “Why We Fight World War II.” These were American propaganda films made for the army during the war. Soviet atrocities are completely ignored. Capra even ignores the existence of Ribbentrop-Molotov. You will hear nothing about how the Soviets were co-conspirators in this.


2. In the text it mentions a friendship pact between Hitler and Stalin. I was slightly confused by this section having never learned this throughout my schooling. So did USSR have concentration camps that they sent Polish people too? Did USSR invade countries also before the war started?

Yes the Soviet Union had concentration camps. They were called Gulags. Yes the Soviet Union engaged in genocidal activities to destroy the cultures of subjugated peoples like the Poles and the Ukrainians. The Soviet Union engaged in acts of aggression, just like the Nazis, against nations such as Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Romania. Unlike the Nazis, Soviet oppression did not end with 1945. It continued all the way up to the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. The fact that your teacher did not see fit to pass this information on to you means that either you were not paying attention or that your teacher was some liberal with an ideological interest in ignoring Communist crimes. This is different from Nazi crimes which have the implicit lesson on the inherent evils of Fascism. Some people have a problem with unapologetically saying that Communism is an inherent evil.


3. American children learn about the atrocities of the Holocaust at an early age. Yet some may never learn about the genocide in the Ukraine we discussed last week. I was wondering if in other places, this is reversed. Do we learn more about the Holocaust because it was more terrible or because we have a large and powerful Jewish population? I find it bothersome that so many other instances of genocide, both past and current, remain largely unknown among the general American population. I'd like to know how you feel about this subject, especially since you are Jewish and you are more closely tied to these events than me.

“The Jewish lobby” plays a major role in putting the Holocaust front and center in American culture. I do not see anything sinister in this. There are many Jews in positions of cultural influence and they use it to their advantage. It helps if you can have Steven Spielberg to make movies for you. I am sure the Armenians and the Ukrainians would love to have him. That being said there is something special about the Holocaust. This was not a case of millions of people dying due to extreme government negligence nor is this a case of a breakdown in government order with armed soldiers or mobs going out of control and massacring people. The Holocaust happened because some very smart people in suits, ties and with college degrees sat down and planned it. They wished to annihilate a specific group of people and, armed with the full resources of a modern state, they pursued that goal with remarkable efficiency.


4. Davies said "The Poles thought that their task was to hold off the German advance for fifteen days until the French crossed the German frontier in the West; in fact, they faced the impossible task of holding off both the Wehrmacht and the Red Army on their own. The French launched no offensive; the British limited their assistance to dropping leaflets over Berlin," (1000-1001). Davies doesn't really go into any further detail about this, but has any other historian explored this? Was it another instance of miscommunication--as was seen in WWI with the telegraph system? Or can the British and French be partially blamed for the devastation that engulfed Poland? It seems like perhaps England and France's disregard for their Polish ally has been buried underneath their eventual victory. Why didn't they help Poland as the Polish were expecting?

Neither the British nor the French were prepared for any serious military action. This was one of the reasons why Hitler decided to make his move against Poland in September of 1939 instead of waiting. There was a French “invasion” which I am familiar with from reading William Shirer. He was an American correspondent, who worked in Germany into the war. He reports how the French made a big deal about their actions. He then went and talked to some of his contacts in the German army and find out in great detail how little the French were doing. Shirer would later go on to write the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.


5. Wouldn't it have been obvious to the German's that turning against the Soviet Union was a bad idea? I mean, it caused them to be land locked between enemies on the East and West, plus the Soviet Union, from what we read, seemed to be a world power. Why didn't Germany try to formulate a peaceful position with the Soviet Union?

You have to keep in mind that Germany was at war with England and it was a reasonable assumption that the United States would eventually come into the war on the side of England. You have to admit that there is a certain logic to trying to take out the Soviet Union while the situation in the West was still relatively quiet. This plan almost succeeded; the Soviet army was almost completely annihilated in a matter of months. You would be hard pressed to find a country that ever suffered a military disaster like what the Soviet Union did. You are not going to find a country that ever managed to come back from such a disaster.


6. This questions isn't really about the reading but over the weekend I watched the movie "Valkyrie." I was just curious to know how historically accurate the movie is? Also I am curious to know if you think the plan to overthrow Hitler ever had a good chance of success?

I have not seen the movie so I will refrain from commenting on it. The case of Valkyrie is a good litmus test as to ones views on the power of individuals. Let us imagine that everything had gone according to plan and the bomb had eliminated Hitler. Now what? The German staff officers, who planned this, put a lot of thought into how to get Hitler and they planned that part well. It failed for reasons outside of their control. They made an utter mess out of trying to seize power in the hours after the bomb went off. That was the important part, not their ability to assassinate one man. I imagine that if Hitler had died in the blast then Goebbels, Himmler and Goering would have stepped in and the Third Reich would have continued.


7. Do you believe Germany planted spies within the French/British governments?

It is not a question if they did or did not. We know for a fact that the Nazis did. The British counter-intelligence services were quite effective, though, in capturing German spies and forcing them to pass on false intelligence.


8. How did Switzerland manage to maintain its neutrality during WW2?

The official reason, at the times, was that Switzerland possessed a well trained army and an advantageous defensive position. What we now know is that the Swiss government was actively cooperating with Hitler. They helped launder gold plundered by the Nazis, some of it even from the teeth of dead concentration camp inmates.

In Defense of a Traditional Understanding of Rights: A Response to Ari Ne’eman

This past April Ari Ne’eman spoke at the NFB Disability Law Symposium. His speech was a remarkable display of insight into not just autism and disability issues but basic political theory as well. It is certainly very rare to see someone who can cover the full range from theory to practice. It is, therefore, with the greatest respect, that I offer a few words of disagreement. Not in terms of neurodiversity but simply on the grounds of political theory in the hope of generating further dialogue on the nature of rights and their application to people on the autism spectrum. Like Ari, I strongly support the association of autism and the wider disability cause with that of the civil rights movement and see this as the basis of neurodiversity. In particular, I take the gay rights movement as a model for my autism advocacy. Up until a few decades ago, homosexuality was labeled as a mental illness. Today it is accepted by most of society, in some form or another, as an alternative lifestyle. I hope that one-day autism will gain similar acceptance.

Ari asks the question as to the nature of rights and where rights come from. He first raises the Enlightenment option in which rights come from a social contract. Ari objects to this for two reasons. The first objection is that a state of nature has never existed and no one has ever signed any contract to place themselves under a government. One could also suggest that a contract is signed with God, but that is also a problem in a society, such as ours, that recognizes atheism as a legitimate partner in our political discourse. His second objection is that this notion of rights is very narrow and only covers negative rights. You are protected from people doing things to you but you have no inherent right to pursue freedom in a positive sense. Following Alan Dershowitz, Ari argues that rights come from a historical recognition of wrongs having been committed to a specific group. For example, the gay rights movement has succeeded in making the case to society at large that homosexuals have been mistreated and that therefore it is necessary for society to actively recognize the gay community as a wronged group and actively grant them tolerance.

As a supporter of an “Enlightenment” understanding of rights, I would like to offer an alternative understanding of rights and some thoughts on the place of autism in this system of rights. Let me first respond to the issue of the social contract. For me, the social contract is not something signed in some mythical time in the past when man lived in a state of nature, but something that we sign every day with each other. There are people who would like to persecute homosexuals, ban them from the public sphere and even cause them physical harm. Why should I care, I am not gay? The reason is that many of the same people who want to harm homosexuals and stop them from living their alternative lifestyle also want to persecute me as a Jew and stop me from living my alternative, Jesus-free, lifestyle. This suggests an alliance simply on pragmatic Hobbesian grounds. I will agree to let homosexuals live their non-hetero lifestyle if they let me live my Jesus-free lifestyle. This is ultimately codified in a society-wide cease-fire agreement known as the Bill of Rights where we agree that everyone is going to be granted a list of rights and protections and we forgo the chance to stick it to our group of choice.

I think the real important difference between Ari and me is over the issue of how broadly to draw the boundaries of rights. I believe in a “right” (a deal that I am willing to make) to life, liberty, and property. Liberty, in this case, being the right to pursue one’s own good in one’s own way as long as one does not interfere with the liberties of others. As John Stuart Mill argued, this notion of liberty could only work if one limited it to direct physical harm. The moment you try to apply liberty to a wider notion of harm you are faced with the problem that, when living in civil society, every action affects other people and causes some form of harm. For example, it is of critical importance that we do not allow my Christian neighbors to kick me or my gay friends out of our homes despite the fact that our presence and our alternative lifestyles may be causing real psychological suffering. The moment my Christian neighbors can bring their psychological suffering into play then they get, in essence, a blank check to persecute us and the whole notion of rights, ceasing to have any meaning, collapses in on itself. As part of the liberal tradition, our response has to be that as long as my gay friends and I have not physically harmed anyone we are protected and we are free to live our alternative lifestyles to our heart’s content.

Ari, along with modern liberalism, fails to hold to this narrow understanding of rights and instead takes a broader more abstract understanding of rights. This leads to the ultimate betrayal of the liberal tradition when he places the source of rights within the context of a discourse between minority groups and society. As long as the issue of rights is only one of physical harm then, by definition, rights can only apply to individuals. The moment rights are something belonging to groups then they are no longer something belonging to individuals. Instead of a universal brotherhood of individuals comes the petty tribalism of different groups set against each other.

To bring this back to the realm of autism, we can agree that right now we on the autism spectrum are getting the worst of both worlds. We operate within a political discourse of group identity yet society does not recognize us as one of these groups. This leaves us in a situation where we are not being granted the sort of rights that other groups take for granted. For example, let us imagine I was the parent of a gay child. Now this child, being different from other children, may find himself in a difficult situation, unable to make friends and subjected to various forms of harassment. Our societal discourse would support my insistence on having the school protect my child, beyond even simple physical harm and allow him to be his own special person. Society will not tell me that the problem is my child and that my child needs to change to become more like other children. In our present discourse, the same does not apply to children on the autism spectrum; we are being told that the problem is us and the solution is for us to change to conform to society.

I see two possible roads ahead of us. The first, which I would prefer though I admit may not be practical within our present discourse on rights, is to embrace a traditional more limited notion of rights. This would take away certain rights from us, but these are not rights that we, in practice, ever had in the first place so it would not be any great loss. While we will not have these rights no other groups will have these rights either. This would be helpful, beyond simple Schadenfreude, in that this will allow us to turn around and make some deals with these same groups for our mutual benefit. Right now the gay community has no reason to help us as we have nothing that we can offer them. Now get rid of gay rights and open up gays to everything short of physical harm and we have a different story. I will agree to accept and support the gay child in exchange for support for my autistic child.

The second option, which is most likely the more practical option, is to throw our hat into the game of expansive rights along with every other group. While I do not personally support such a view of rights I can go along with this method of advocacy without hypocrisy. Just like a liberal, pocketing a Republican tax cut, I have no problem with playing the system to my own benefit. If other groups are going to benefit from this expansive notion of rights then I certainly want my group to be at the front of the line. This could even support the case for a narrow view of rights. I believe that the modern liberal expansive notion of rights is a Ponzi scheme that can only work as long as only a few groups try to cash in. Let every group come and hold society hostage to their every whim and the whole system will collapse and there will be no choice but to resort to the more restrictive understanding of rights.

I am perfectly willing to pursue either option. In truth, these two options can exist side by side. One can attack the modern liberal expansive notion of rights and make the case for a more restricted notion of rights. At the same time, while we wait for society to come around, I would encourage autistics to take full advantage of the current discourse on rights. I might even say abuse it to the fullness of our imagination.

As an addendum, I would like to briefly respond to two obvious objections to this piece. I readily admit that my method of thinking has a strongly “Asperger” flavor to it. I focus on individuals at the expense of society and I take a rather pragmatic attitude toward social relationships that does not leave much room for “empathy.” The most obvious objection to my argument is that I am “cold” and “heartless.” I do not see this as a problem. On the contrary, I see this as an example of the strength of “Asperger” thinking. Aspergers are in a unique position to appreciate the distinction between physical and non-physical harm. One of the weaknesses of neurotypical thinking is that it is so wrapped up in social relations that the two become hopelessly mixed together. I believe that being on the spectrum has helped me be a better liberal and supporter of the free society. I would also like to defend my use of the term autism considering that much of what I say would be problematic if applied to many on the spectrum. Any discussion of rights, by definition, only applies to people who have reached a certain baseline of intellectual self-sufficiency. So autism rights, by definition, only apply to autistics on the higher end of the spectrum. If you are capable of reading this piece and understand what I am saying then you can rest assured that you pass the threshold. A completely different discourse would be needed for those on the lower end of the spectrum, one based on care and charity.

History 112: The Rise of Nazi Germany (Q&A and Quiz)

1. In the reading it briefly mentions how the Nazis did not identify with mainstream religions. I watched a documentary on the Discovery Channel a while ago about the Nazi's "occult conspiracy," which talked about Hitler's dependence on astrological predictions, even leading him to have a person astrologer. How much truth is there in this? What's your opinion?

The interest by Hitler and many of the leading Nazis in the occult is quite real. For example it is believed that Hitler held back from counterattacking after the Normandy invasion on the advice of his astrologer who told him that the real allied attack would come at Calais. In what is probably the most bizarre incident of the war, Rudolph Hess grabbed a plane and crashed-landed in Scotland because his astrologer told him that he was destined to bring about a peace treaty between Germany and England. Himmler set up his own neo-pagan religion for the SS. This issue of Nazi beliefs has gained public interest, at least within the realms of internet polemics, in recent years because of the rise of the new atheism of Richard Dawkins, which argues that organized religion leads to mass murder. Opponents of Dawkins have been very quick to point to Hitler and Stalin and argue that the two most blood soaked regimes in history were militantly secular.


2. In the Davies text it mentions that Mussolini prided himself on being separate from Hitler until 1939, did the two men get along, or did they have plans to conquer each other?

The fact that Mussolini eventually joined with Hitler was never inevitable and in fact the two were quite hostile to each other into the late 1930s. It is important to keep in mind that Fascism is not a movement. It is simply a convenient label that we use in order to group certain movements together.


3. From what I gathered from the Davies reading, it seems that Hitler had the SS blackshirts and brownshirts as his "stormtroopers" or militia. What exactly were these entities and how were they different?

A major part of the early Nazi rise to power, from when they began until shortly after they took power, was their ability to use street gangs in order to beat up opponents, particularly Communists and Jews. Keep in mind that up until that later part of the 1930s there is still a meaningful distinction between Germany and the Nazi party. The Nazi party at this early stage did not have direct access to the police and military arms of the state so they needed some form of military power of their own to enforce their totalitarian agenda. One can see this with the use of the SA and SS. The SA was the armed force of the early Nazi period. These were common street thugs, not that different from our modern Crypts and Bloods. The SA are eliminated in 1934 in the “Night of the Long Knives.” The group that comes to replace the SA is the SS led by Himmler. The SS operates with the full power of the state. They are a lot more sophisticated and a whole lot more ruthless.

4. If Hitler would have died in WWI do you think there still would have been a second world war? Secondly, since I haven't asked questions for all the classes, why is it do you think that the Nazis were able to scare everyone into their party. What i have gathered about the situation was that most people were forced to be a part of the Nazi German Army.

This question is a classic example of the great man issue in history; to what extent do “great” individuals affect the course of history? Popular history tends to focus heavily on individuals because it makes a better narrative. Professional historians tend to be more weary of such a claim. Hitler was certainly a talented speaker and a forceful personality, but he was not the only person capable of doing the sorts of things that he did. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that Nazi history could have proceeded without Hitler, but with someone else at the helm. Earlier this year I had a discussion with Dr. Stephen Kern about this issue. He actually came out quite strongly on the side of no Hitler no Holocaust.

Personally I think this whole notion of saying that the German people were scared lets ordinary Germans off the hook. Hitler could not have waged World War II and the Holocaust without active willing cooperation of the vast majority of Germans. You want to know who to blame for World War II and the Holocaust? Forget about Hitler, he was just a man standing in front of a microphone. The real culprits were the millions of German citizens who went along with it. I would recommend Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem. It has often been criticized for humanizing Adolph Eichmann, one of the central figures behind the Holocaust, who was kidnapped by the State of Israel, put on trial and executed. For me humanizing Eichmann turns him into every ordinary German who went along with the flow and by extension turns every ordinary German into Eichmann. On share moral grounds I would have had no moral objection to, in 1945, lining up every German man and woman over the age of eighteen who could not prove that they actively worked against the Nazi regime and shooting them. On practical grounds this could never be carried through, but there is no doubt in my mind that every one of them deserved to die.

5. How does Hitler get enough political coverage to get 96% of the German vote? Did class differences play into the voter turnout, as I am sure that it would be common people who supported him, as he was, in some limited sense, a collectivist?

When a leader is a getting 90% of the vote you know that this is not a fair election. Think how difficult it is to get 60% of Americans to agree on something. In real societies people have dissenting opinions. If you are not seeing large amounts of dissent than what you are seeing is a mirage.

6. Was Hitler only racist against Jews? Or did he just dislike everyone else other than his own people?

Nazi ideology held numerous groups to be subhuman, Slavs, gypsies, blacks, homosexuals and Jehovah Witnesses are some of the groups that come to mind. In addition to the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust, the Nazis killed another four to six million people from other undesirable groups. Anti Semitism, though, clearly had a special place in Nazi ideology. For the Nazis, Jews were not just a group of undesirables; they were the undesirable group par excellence. Jews were the great enemy behind both Capitalism and Communism, which Germany would have to defeat.


For the quiz I asked the following questions:


1. What were the “Three Estates” in Old Regime France and how did their existence contribute to the breakout of the French Revolution? (2 pts)

2. What did “Liberalism” and “Conservatism” mean in the nineteenth century? How are these terms different from how we use them today? (3 pts)

3. According Karl Marx: “All hitherto history is the history of … (1 pt)

4. How did the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand lead to the start of World War I? (2 pts)

5. What were the two Russian revolutions of 1917? (2pts.)


Bonus: What peace treaty did Hitler blame Germany’s woes on? (1 pts)

The Humanities on Trial

In previous posts I discussed the situation of the humanities and the challenge faced by those in these fields to justify their value in face of their lack of any utilitarian benefits. The comic strip PhD (Piled Higher and Deeper) has taken this concept quite literally and for the past few strips has put their humanities student on trial to justify his continued presence in the strip in light of the economic downturn.

History 112: The Russian Revolution (Q&A)

In class today we did the Russian Revolution, going from Russia’s participation in World War I, the February and October revolutions, the Russian Civil War through the rise of Stalin. Like last quarter I assigned a section from John Scott’s Beyond the Urals. Scott was an American who worked in the Soviet Union during the 1930s.


1. In your opinion, do you think the revolution was brought about by Russia's involvement in WW1, or was it an inevitable occurrence?
2. Some of the readings suggested that the Russian government was already in anarchy before being overtaken by the Bolsheviks. What caused the anarchy other than the war?

The Czarist government had serious problems and World War I was a major crisis. All governments have their moments of crisis. Crises, though, have a way a bringing to light the depth or lack of which of any government. A more able government could have survived a crisis like World War I. As with the financial crisis in France which highlighted the failures of the Monarchy, World War I put the Czarist government in all of its disfunctionality on display and they did not survive.

3. For class today, I cannot help but remember how closed off I thought the Soviet Union was immediately after its revolution. How is it that this American worker was able to so easily get work and a visa into Russia at this time?
4. At which point did the Soviet Union become an enemy of the US?

The funny thing about the Soviet Union between the end of the Civil War and the start of World War II is the extent they remained in contact with the West. This is not the Cold War. At this point the Soviet Union still believed that it could win the ideological struggle with the West on economic grounds. Considering that the Great Depression was going on, this was not as implausible as it might seem. Post World War II America is an unchallengeable economic superpower. Also both sides are facing off with nuclear weapons. This makes for a far tenser situation. The post World War II Soviet Union is not a place where an American citizen would be very welcome.

5. Was this a common thing for young people to leave the US to find work in other countries?

I certainly would not view this as something common. It is a theme that shows up in a number of writers during this period. For example Ernest Hemmingway was this traveling American, doing different jobs in different countries. This formed the basis for many of his novels.

6. The whole Davies text is about the cruelties performed by Stalin. Why did the people of Russia and the politicians not over throw him if he was so crazy and killing millions of innocent people? Why was he ever allowed to get into that kind of power?

The question you have to ask yourself is who was supporting Stalin. Stalin by himself was just one man. He needed an entire bureaucratic apparatus to carry out his plans and kill millions of people for him. One of the things that I like so much about Scott is that he gives you a picture of Russian society where people are willing to go along with Stalinism because they believed that, despite the hardships, Stalin’s push to industrialism would benefit them.

7. Usually when learning about World War II you hear more about Hitler than you do Stalin, in terms of war crimes who was considered to be the worst?

I would respond by saying that it is not obvious to me that Hitler was worse. Stalin has benefited from a number of things. While most Americans see Nazi ideology as inherently evil, Communism manages to get away with at least having good intentions. People are therefore willing to “forgive” Communism for its crimes. Americans feel guilty over the persecution of Communists in this country. I guess you can say that Americans are lucky that they have never faced a homegrown Communist movement that posed a serious political threat. Jews have done an effective job at keeping the Holocaust in the public eye through Holocaust movies and school curriculums. I suspect that things would be different if you regularly had movies and lesson plans on the Ukrainian “Holocaust.”

8. I notice a lot of dictators in the past had good public speaking skills (Hitler for example). Was Stalin also one? Would you say his speeches were more about scaring people, or more about encouraging people to do what he wanted?

One of the interesting things about Stalin was that, unlike Lenin or Trotsky, he was that he was never much of an orator. He stayed isolated in the Kremlin and sent out orders from there. He was the hidden deity of the Soviet Union.