Brandeis Gives Honorary Degree to Critic of Judaism, Refuses to Give One to Critic of Islam

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


image.img

Brandeis University gave an honorary degree to leftist writer Amos Oz who described religious Jews as “Hezbollah in a skullcap”

In one speech, Oz described, “A small sect, a messianic sect, obtuse and cruel, emerged a few years ago from a dark corner of Judaism, and it is threatening to destroy all that is dear and sacred to us, to impose on us a wild and insane blood ritual… They are guilty of crimes against humanity.”

In one of his essays, Oz wrote, “Israel could have become an exemplary state… a small scale laboratory for democratic socialism.”

“Why didn’t Israel develop as the most egalitarian and creative social democratic society in the world? I would say that one of the major factors was the mass immigration of Holocaust survivors, Middle Eastern Jews and non-socialist and even anti-socialist Zionists.”

“Then there were the masses of Orthodox Jews… to whom socialism meant blasphemy and atheism.”

“As for the North African Jews,” Oz writes, they were “conservative, puritan, observant and family oriented and to some extent, chauvinistic, militaristic and xenophobic.”

It goes without saying that Amos Oz is a repugnant human being and a vile bigot. But that didn’t stop Brandeis University from honoring him anyway.

However Brandeis University gave in to pressure from terrorist-linked Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and the Muslim Students Association to withdraw an honor from a courageous critic of Islam.

Brandeis University — an institution named after Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis Brandeis, a famed defender of free speech — has canceled plans to award an honorary degree to scholar Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is known for her scathing criticisms of Islam and its treatment of women.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations sent a letter to Dr. Lawrence, referring to Ms. Hirsi Ali as a “notorious Islamophobe.”

A native of Somalia, Ali has written and spoken extensively of her experience as a Muslim girl in East Africa, including undergoing genital cutting, a practice she has vigorously opposed, and her family’s attempts to force her to marry a man against her wishes.

“She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world,” said the university’s statement. “That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.”

Hirsi Ali has called Islam “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death.”

In 2007, Ali helped establish the AHA Foundation, which works to protect and defend the rights of women in the West from oppression justified by religion and culture, according to its website. The foundation also strives to protect basic rights and freedoms of women and girls. This includes control of their own bodies, access to an education and the ability to work outside the home and control their own income, the website says.

Brandeis President Frederick Lawrence did not immediately respond to a request for comment as to whether obedience to Islamic teaching was a core value of the university. His statement did stress that “free expression” is central to Brandeis — except for expression that offends Muslims, it would seem, based on the rejection of Hirsi Ali.

Hirsi Ali grew up Muslim in Somalia, where she overcame genital mutilation and an arranged marriage. She emigrated to the Netherlands and eventually joined Dutch Parliament. She now lives in the United States and is a visiting fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. She considers herself a classical liberal and an atheist, and has worked to call attention to the plight of women under oppressive Islamic regimes.

“This is a real slap in the face to Muslim students,” senior Sarah Fahmy, a member of the Muslim Student Association who created the petition, said of the honor before the university withdrew it.

“This makes Muslim students feel very uneasy,” Joseph Lumbard, chairman of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, said in an earlier interview. “They feel unwelcome here.”

Back home, Hirsi Ali had her back to the restaurant when one of the students, apparently a Dutch convert to Islam, tapped her on the shoulder. ”I turned around,” she recalls in her elegant English, ”and saw this sweet, young Dutch guy, about 24 years old. With freckles! And he was like, ‘Madam, I hope the mujahedeen get you and kill you.’ ”

Hirsi Ali handed him her knife and told him, ”Why don’t you do it yourself?”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali fled the Netherlands after years of threats and came to America in 2006.

And so the double standard on Islam and every other religion continues. Critics of Judaism and Christianity can receive honorary degrees, critics of Islam cannot.

It’s time to end this special Muslim Privilege.

  • Habbgun

    To be fair this isn’t just an academic bias. Amos Oz opinion of every Jew with a cultural background outside of Europe mirrors what Jewish liberals and Israeli leftists have been saying and acting upon for years. Giving Ali an award might just alert liberals to the fact that the world is bigger than what people who went to the right colleges and live in the right neighborhoods think. They’ll never stand for that. Never have.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Very true.

  • glpage

    Apparently, Amos Oz doesn’t know that socialism meant death to 6 million Jews.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Or he thought it didn’t go far enough.

    • hiernonymous

      How could he know something that isn’t true?

      If you’re referring to the National Socialists, they were ‘socialists’ in the same sense that the German Democratic Republic was a democratic republic. Don’t get too caught up in titles.

      The ‘socialist’ wing of the National Socialist party was defunct by the Night of the Long Knives, long before the Final Solution was conceived, much less implemented. The hatred and insanity that went into the death camps was not rooted in an economic system.

      A better lesson from Hitler’s Germany is that frightened upright citizens (and some not so upright) seeking scapegoats and simplicity are capable of great evil.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Ah yes

        “We are the Nazis”

        The same old tedious liberal propaganda

        • hiernonymous

          “Tedious?” Maybe. I can’t speak to your attention span.

          If you thought I said something that’s not true, you’re welcome to dispute it.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            What you said was the same old liberal propaganda which shifts the burden from the ideology to the universalization of Nazism.

          • Chavi Beck

            Well put; I don’t remember seeing this put in these words. Can we have an article on this?

          • Daniel Greenfield
          • A Z

            Do you have anything to say about the issue of Brandeis not giving Hiris Ali an honorary degree?

            What do you think of Hirsi Ali?

          • truebearing

            I challenged him in a similar way. Maybe he is afraid to offer his true opinion.

          • hiernonymous

            That must be it.

          • A Z

            Just FYI.

            A funny thing happened, when I called an elderly relative this weekend. They brought up Islam. Specifically, they talked about Muslim immigrants. This is unusual as they are not the type to bring up politics much less such a topic. As they are the patriarch you can now expect everyone else in the extended family to be cognizant of the topic and speak about more often.

            What they said is “They do not trust them.” They do not read FPM or jihadi blog. This is all based on personal observation and mainstream news not the alternate news media.

            This has sunk in all the way into the interior. The polls are not going to be good no matter how pushy the push pollsters are.

          • hiernonymous

            Then you must be very satisfied. Are congratulations in order?

          • A Z

            Here is another person to argue with

            Brandeis Goes Dhimmi—A Proposal for Passover

            http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/04/10/brandeis-goes-dhimmi-a-proposal-for-passover/

            Is it DG or is it the world you are arguing with?

          • hiernonymous

            Does it matter?

            At any rate, I thought I’d made it pretty clear in my comment that I didn’t have strong feelings about the Brandeis cases. You pressed me for an opinion, and I offered one. I think it a bit of a tempest in a teapot, myself.

          • hiernonymous

            “Do you have anything to say about the issue of Brandeis not giving Hiris Ali an honorary degree?”

            Not really. It didn’t strike me as a remarkable story. The story reported that Hiris Ali made some pretty inflammatory remarks about Islam as a whole, rather than targeting a particular group; it doesn’t seem unreasonable that the university would not want to be seen as endorsing such comments, once its attention had been drawn to them.

            Oz’s comment, contrary to some of the opinions offered here, pretty clearly referred to a particular segment of Judaism, not Judaism writ large. As the cases were not fundamentally similar, Greenfield’s assumption that the different outcomes could only be rooted in preferential treatment or attitudes of one religion over the other seems his typical overreaction. None of this seemed – or really seems – to require comment, but you asked.

          • A Z

            Amos Oz’s biography reads like a JINO (Jewish in Name only) Leftist secular version of Bill Ayers.

            I would be upset if Bill Ayers got an honorary degree. I am no less upset that Amos.

            In regards to Hirsi Ali her comments are spot on. When was the last time you experienced FGM?

            You think that Daniel Greenfield is whipping people up. This could not be further from the truth. The readers here are already set in their opinions before they read any articles by DG. You might call it confirmation bias, which could be true. It would depend what other reading and research they do.
            If you assiduously collect new clippings, patterns emerge and no amount of jaw boning by a news anchor will change your opinion. You r also going to have to infiltrate wiki or shut it down. Even the FBI uniform crime stats will tell a story and confirm or dismiss the anecdotes..

            Believe me that the readers here go to other blogs. You might catch a person here by the sort hairs every now and then with your arguments. But at another
            they will find a counter argument at another site sooner or later.

            Arnold Ahlert and others are covering the same story and they are equally alarmed, disgusted and angry. So, it is something particular to DG or broader? You going to argue with Arnold the same way you do with DG?

            What about Bruce Bawer? He has been on the ground over in Europe longer and more recently than you have unless you do not live where you purport to live. Are his observations and studies mere anecdotes? They cover 3 countries he has lived I and at least as many different ethnic or national groups.

            Let’s put it this way. when gays in the greater NYC fear for their lives outside of Manhattan itself, no one in America will listen to you not on the LEFT not in the LGBT community.

            Why don’t you argue with every author who writes an essay on Hirsi Ali at FPM, PJMedia and everywhere else.See where it gets you.

          • hiernonymous

            Why would you be concerned with where else I post? You generally post better comments than that.

            “When was the last time you experienced FGM?”

            Not being female, the answer to that would be “never.” In my culture, we practice MGM, I suppose, and it’s been many a long year since that was done to me. What’s the relevance of your question?

      • ahad_ha_amoratsim

        As I recall, Jews did not fare so well under Marxism, either. Of course, there are those who will tell you that Marxism was also not true socialism. And Democratic socialist Sweden and Norway are not the friendliest places on earth today for Jews.
        In either case, the purity or impurity of the socialism made little difference to the victims.

        • hiernonymous

          I don’t recall that anyone fared so well under Marxism. It’s interesting that I frequently encounter those who insist that Marxism and the Soviet state were Jewish plots. There seems to be no end to the madness.

          In the case of the Germans, it’s not the “purity” that’s in question, it’s its meaningful existence – and its utter irrelevance.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I don’t recall that anyone fared so well under Marxism. It’s interesting that I frequently encounter those who insist that Marxism and the Soviet state were Jewish plots. There seems to be no end to the madness.”

            Marxism is partly about Jew hatred. Obviously that includes self-hatred, or hatred of one’s heritage if that’s true.

            Where do you suppose Marx’s paranoia came from?

          • ahad_ha_amoratsim

            ” It’s interesting that I frequently encounter those who insist that Marxism and the Soviet state were Jewish plots. ”
            People like Martel, for instance. Well, no one ever said that Jew-haters were possessed of an excess of rationality.
            No one except the Jew-haters themselves, of course.

        • NYgal

          Of cause, Oz should know all that, but, I think, behind Oz’s socialist views is a whole lot of bigotry, not only against religious Jews, but against traditional Jews of Levant. Mr. Oz and his ilk want nothing more than to be Europeans and don’t want to accept that to the average European the Jews from Europe are no more ‘ European’ then Jews from Morocco.
          Hertzel found it out in the late XIX century Europe, secular German Jews found it out in 1930s Germany and the secular Polish leftist Jews found it out in1968 socialist Poland, when they were unceremoniously kicked out with a stateless travel document and a one way ticket to Israel.

          • ahad_ha_amoratsim

            Exactly. I would add that Herzl found out when Captain Dreyfuss, who thought he was as French as any Frenchman, found out even harder.

          • A Z

            ” the secular Polish leftist Jews found it out in1968 socialist Poland, when they were unceremoniously kicked out with a stateless travel document and a one way ticket to Israel.”

            That is news. Did not know that

      • antioli

        Red China was a nationalist and a socialist state.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          It still is. It closely emulates fascism in many ways.

        • hiernonymous

          I wouldn’t disagree. Note that it didn’t call itself either, though; it is a “people’s republic.” See how tricky self-chosen titles can be?

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Actually, the genocide perpetrated by Hitler and his Nazis was/is a manifestation of Marxism, as was the genocides perpetrated by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot to name but a few of the more famous ones. As a matter of fact, Hitler had no choice but to go to war, which led to his atrocities, or face inevitable economic collapse due to National Socialism, i.e., a variation of Marxism. You can’t sanely deny that. Indeed, the only ideology that is on a par with Marxism when it comes to perpetrating massive genocides is Islam, as both ideologies are totalitarian to the core and exceedingly self-destructive as a result. Apparently, your hatred of capitalism has blurred your perception.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          There were other influences, but denying Marx was one of them is not something that helps us understand what happened.

        • hiernonymous

          As a matter of fact, Hitler had no choice but to go to war, which led to
          his atrocities, or face inevitable economic collapse due to National
          Socialism…

          Are you reading a unique economic history of the ’30s? The Germans suffered a complete economic collapse in the wake of the French invasion of the Ruhr in 1923; Stresemann eventually called an end to passive resistance and replaced the German currency, effectively wiping out the savings of all Germans who didn’t have foreign currency holdings. Just as Germany was recovering from that, it was leveled by the Great Depression. The National Socialists had the German economy in an enviable state by the time war came around, and if the attack on Poland was intended as a distraction, it wasn’t a distraction from the economy. Hitler’s economic successes went a long way to explaining his widespread popularity with the German population. During the war itself, the shortcomings of the National Socialist system became manifest; they had neither the truly centralized decision-making of a Communist state, nor the relatively unfettered market economy underlying the Western powers, so they ended up with the worst of all worlds, with Hitler playing the role of arbiter among competing feudal lords. This suggests that your long-term prognosis for the German economy is not wrong, but it hadn’t happened by September ’39.

          Apparently, your hatred of capitalism has blurred your perception.

          What a bizarre comment. I don’t hate capitalism. I think it’s the soundest basis for an economy going. I recognize its shortcomings, and believe that mixed economies are better than any ideologically pure economies, but capitalism is the most efficient foundation on which to build that I know of. I think that you sometimes assume that criticism of sloppy arguments is an endorsement of the opposing position; that’s simply a flaw in your thinking.

          • A Z

            Supposedly, Russia is nearing economic collapse. It remains to see where the trade deals with China, India & Iran leave it.

            The GDP is near flat. Which is not saying much since many of the G7 are not doing much better. There have been large outflows of capital as well.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        I don’t think you’re wrong but it’s more accurate and informative to look deeper. Socialism and the competing ideas of Nazism had many of the same ideological roots. And many of the ideas of socialism were not incompatible with Nawzism as some suggest.

        Calling them insane is just an excuse not to examine ideology. They were not insane. They simply had disgusting ideas that drove disgusting behaviors, and that led to disgusting consequences.

        Every heard of Stephen Hicks?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2C90l7YlT8

        And then consider that you can reject someone and or his ideas while at the same time being unaware of how they influenced your thinking. The Nawzees certainly rejected communism but not all of the ideas of Marx. They certainly believed as Marx did that “The Jews” were responsible for many centuries of fraud and corruption of society.

        Many social critics in the 19th century were looking to “solve” the “Jewish problem” but using various angles of approach and of course their lexicon was not the same as Hitler’s.

        The root idea was the question of how to lead humankind to its full potential. You must of course solve root problems. If you’ve got a complex set of ideas that all essentially point to the Jews as causing root problems…eventually you’ll be able to build some kind of consensus that will not be pro-Jew.

        It’s not about blaming socialism just to stigmatize it. It’s about understanding where it comes from so that people can accurately and effectively cull good from bad.

        • hiernonymous

          If you’re looking for the roots of anti-Semitism, you’re going to have to dig a few centuries deeper than Nietzsche or Marx. Similarly, if you contend that socialism and Notsism (oh, to have Daniel’s exemption from childish circumlocutions!) are rooted in a common source, then it makes no sense to attribute the deaths of 6 million Jews to the wrong descendant of that source, as OP did. If one wishes to identify that ancestral root cause and examine it, that’s fine.

          In looking at ideology, the National Socialists were essentially uniform in their nationalism and concomitant racism; pretty much everything else was a grab-bag of philosophical looting; look at the outsized effect Friedrich Ratzel ends up having on their foreign policy. (I wonder how many people realize that Ratzel’s concept of Lebensraum was derived from a study of American Manifest Destiny?)

          It’s not about blaming socialism just to stigmatize it. It’s about
          understanding where it comes from so that people can accurately and
          effectively cull good from bad.

          Sorry, can’t agree. In the context of the post to which I was responding, socialism was indicted in an inappropriate manner; indicating that socialism was behind the Holocaust is not about “understanding what it comes from.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you’re looking for the roots of anti-Semitism, you’re going to have to dig a few centuries deeper than Nietzsche or Marx.”

            We could do that, but we’d be zooming past the topic that people want to understand locally about socialism and the ugly implications.

            “Similarly, if you contend that socialism and Notsism (oh, to have Daniel’s exemption from childish circumlocutions!) are rooted in a common source, then it makes no sense to attribute the deaths of 6 million Jews to the wrong descendant of that source, as OP did. If one wishes to identify that ancestral root cause and examine it, that’s fine.”

            We agree. That’s what I’m trying to do.

            “In looking at ideology, the National Socialists were essentially uniform in their nationalism and concomitant racism; pretty much everything else was a grab-bag of philosophical looting; look at the outsized effect Friedrich Ratzel ends up having on their foreign policy. (I wonder how many people realize that Ratzel’s concept of Lebensraumwas derived from a study of American Manifest Destiny?)”

            That’s your conclusion till now. And yes we talked about Manifest Destiny before. I think the arguments were valid essentially because we could not rely on established “governors” to secure our borders. Anyone can make that same argument but then you need to test its validity under the real circumstances that it’s being proposed.

            But what makes people *feel* racist or nationalistic? How did Jews get targeted for some theory about racial distinctions when clearly on an aesthetic level they could have picked more logical targets.

            We have a lot of good explanations already…but since some of the themes seem to be appearing again it seems very useful to be to dig further and understand better. Are we to understand that nationalism is always bad because racism is always bad? Maybe nationalism is always bad when it’s based on racism or racial distinctions? But even then you have lessons unlearned when suddenly this mediocre paradigm is used to explain “Islamophobia” as some do.

            So it’s very useful to be to continue probing and coming up with better explanations. I for one hate hearing that the Germans were irrational or “insane” because it gives an invalid reason to stop looking further. Well maybe nationalists are always insane? And whites are intrinsically racist. American nationalists really are just like those crazy Germans.

            I know you’re not saying that. But we need to refute arguments like those. And your positions are easy to malign as supporting the idea that white (and others, because of “false consciousness”) Americans that resist the leftist agenda are essentially the same as their notorious German “predecessors.”

            There certainly are inappropriate levels of nationalism. Generally speaking I don’t see that as a major problem in America at the moment.

            “Sorry, can’t agree. In the context of the post to which I was responding, socialism was indicted in an inappropriate manner; indicating that socialism was behind the Holocaust is not about “understanding what it comes from.””

            You define socialism very narrowly. Others define socialism as an alternative economic system and the implications of the ideas that came from those original suggestions.

            I’m in agreement with you – because I understand your worldview and your lexicon – but at the same time I understand where they’re going. I also agree that they need – or I hope want to develop a better understanding.

            Looping back to antisemitism, you could tie it all together by going further back at least to 3rd century Rome, but I just don’t think many people are prepared for that kind of comprehensive world history. How long did it take Will Durant to produce his big series? I’m sure it could be condensed somewhat but then again if we really want to understand everything…how do we choose what to ignore?

            I usually focus on 19th century because so many changes occurred then. Going back further is more useful but the most significant unresolved schism in the West occurred in the 19th in my view. That’s when all of the pseudo-scientific attacks began on traditional Bible-believing culture. That is when organized angry secularism was born.

            The schisms are about – among other things – the differences between the objectives and ideals of socialism versus the implications and justifications of and for socialism.

            And I think in the end our time would be better spent educating socialists about what the implications are rather than trying to limit conservatives to talking only about socialist theory and the good intentions of people that are out to demonize all that disagree with them. I’m sure there are completely rational socialists but I’ve never once heard of any.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “(oh, to have Daniel’s exemption from childish circumlocutions!)”

            When in doubt, whine about unfairness and accuse your enemies of having special privileges.

            How liberal of you

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “A better lesson from Hitler’s Germany is that frightened upright citizens (and some not so upright) seeking scapegoats and simplicity are capable of great evil.”

        I think there’s more to it than that if we’re going to learn useful things.

        And their worldview was not simplistic at all. It’s very convenient to make them out that way though. Very convenient for some parties today.

        • hiernonymous

          “And their worldview was not simplistic at all.”

          I didn’t suggest that their worldview was simplistic, but that they sought to simplify. They willfully ignored many aspects of reality in order to promote various nationalist myths. For example, there was the Dolchstoss, in which the complex realities of the German military collapse were ignored in favor of the comforting lie that a Germany still capable of victory was betrayed from within, a doubly tragic simplification, given its consequences for both believers and scapegoats. Von Seeckt alluded to this in a letter penned while the Versailles negotiations were still in progress, noting that the Allies had committed a grievous error by dictating the terms in France and not in Germany.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Sure there was demagoguery and elitism in many forms. But what were the root causes? How did they choose which paths to follow and why did they think they would be successful or what made them feel they were “right?”

            Why didn’t Germany suggest the EU back then? What made them feel they were better off under their own particular scheme of organizing society? Of course self-interest is at the very root but how did they organize relationships and policies when deciding what their actual best interests were (in their minds)?

          • hiernonymous

            If you want to make an argument, I’ll read it with interest.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Are you familiar at all with Stephen Hicks and his lecture?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2C90l7YlT8

            It’s not a complete explanation. But philosophical influences are some of the missing elements from most discussions.

            Hicks goes back and looks at the philosophers that influenced some of the leading (I think he uses the term “thought leaders”) Germans of the era preceding and leading in to the NZ period.

            It’s food for thought. It’s 3 hours long and I used to have the text but I can’t get to my home files right now or any time soon. If you already understand his arguments then we can take it from there.

          • hiernonymous

            Yes and no. I’m familiar with Hicks as a Rand enthusiast; I’ve read reviews of this lecture, but was not intrigued enough to watch it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It doesn’t matter if you agree with him. The point is that it’s an illustration and example of how the process works if you want deconstruct philosophical influences.

            The best thing about this lecture is that it’s accessible and relatively professional. You should watch or listen at least once just as a point of reference or if you have a better example for people to use, that’s fine too.

            It’s a little flat but really not bad. People seem to feel he should show more deference to Nietzsche but I think that’s missing the point.

            It’s not meant to be great. It’s meant to be useful. I’ll look at it again and make some notes about useful sections. I think it has about a half dozen chapters and you might get a lot from listening to only two or three.

            I’ll try to skim through it today to see if I can come up with a suggestion.

          • hiernonymous

            “The point is that it’s an illustration and example of how the process works if you want deconstruct philosophical influences.”

            Nothing I’ve seen suggests that he’s a particularly good example of that, which is fine, because that’s not really what we need. However, while I’m obviously skeptical of an Objectivist-based interpretation of any ideology, I’m willing to read what you have to say; may I suggest starting with a short thesis statement?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Nothing I’ve seen suggests that he’s a particularly good example of that, which is fine, because that’s not really what we need.”

            It’s a useful starting point all things considered.

            “However, while I’m obviously skeptical of an Objectivist-based interpretation of any ideology, I’m willing to read what you have to say; may I suggest starting with a short thesis statement?”

            It’s an additional lens or analytical tool that is often overlooked by historians when looking at the larger arcs of history.

            You seem to think that Rand is an evil doppelganger for Marx or perhaps for Stalin?

            I’m not a fan of Rand but I understand her views. I’m skeptical when people are over the top in support of Rand but I don’t see Stephens that way. But then again I don’t elevate Stephens either. I merely think some of his publications are useful and easy to access.

            The reason I mention this approach is that I think your understanding of those demonized Germans is too shallow and that you miss some very important lessons. I think you should pursue this angle because I know you really don’t want to see that kind of thing repeated in the future and neither do I.

          • hiernonymous

            No, I don’t think Rand is evil. There are some superficial similarities to Marx, not the least of which is her articulation of a philosophy rooted in overly idealistic assumptions about human behavior.

            “I think your understanding of those demonized Germans is too shallow”

            Which demonized Germans? What do you suppose my understanding to be? My inclination is to regard those who try to impose an economic framework on Hitler’s ideology to be either shallow or dogmatic, redolent of Marx’s attempts to impose an economic filter on every event in history, but, as I said, I’m willing to listen to your case. I’ll wait for you to open that.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Which demonized Germans?”

            The New Zealanders.

            “What do you suppose my understanding to be?”

            In essence you attribute the atrocities to an irrational race-based national jingoism. And that’s fine for a lot of conversations. But when trying to “warn” people about future developments this overly-simple view is very misleading.

            “My inclination is to regard those who try to impose an economic framework on Hitler’s ideology to be either shallow or dogmatic, redolent of Marx’s attempts to impose an economic filter on every event in history, but, as I said, I’m willing to listen to your case. I’ll wait for you to open that.”

            Running pH tests is simply checking that property. When looking at various aspects of how governments or factions organize themselves it should be an attempt to find out useful and accurate information to be placed on proper context with other discoveries. Saying that the German New Zealanders were Marxists would be pretty stupid because it’s too simple and deceptive given all of the other beliefs about them. Saying that they were influenced by Marx, perhaps indirectly, is not stupid. Putting together a comprehensive fact-based analysis of how they organized themselves can only lead to illumination and understanding.

            Not everyone wants to illuminate. Not everyone trusts “the people” to think for themselves. Since I’m so much smarter, I’ll just get them on my side and I’ll lead them where they need to go.

          • hiernonymous

            “In essence you attribute the atrocities to an irrational race-based national jingoism.”

            That’s not complete, but it will serve if you replace “irrational” with “opportunistic.” The driving element is the nationalism. While I do find that sort of nationalism irrational, and genocide to be insanity, I don’t use those terms in an exculpatory or explanatory sense; it’s simply a judgment. Achieving power was his goal; extreme nationalism was his ideology; and he’d employ whatever economic program or programs that he thought would help him accomplish his goals. In Weimar Germany, socialism of some sort held enormous and broad appeal, given the massive levels of unemployment, the hyperinflation and collapse of the mark, and the subsequent depression. The lower-class elements of the party were very useful to Hitler in the early stages, particularly his brownshirts, in providing street muscle, and those were the elements who actively supported socialist elements. Ernst Roehm was a genuine socialist; he wanted to nationalize businesses, confiscate aristocratic holdings, etc. However, when Roehm, the Strassers, and other socialists pressed for implementation of the socialist planks of the party platform (as well as subordination of the Army to the SA), they were instead purged. By 1934, the Krupps were far more useful to Hitler as allies than the Roehms. All of this indicates that socialism was not a driving or formative element for Hitler; socialism didn’t shape his goals (and, by extension, his party’s goals), it was one tool, to be discarded as soon as other tools were more appropriate.

            All that is pretty straightforward German history. You’ve suggested that, rather than trying to equate the NSDAP with socialism, there’s a common antecedent. I’d be interested in you outlining this antecedent and tracing its descent.

            “Saying that they were influenced by Marx, perhaps indirectly, is not stupid.”

            Not as such. It’s more helpful to be specific. Men like Roehm and Strasser were very much influenced by Marx. The victorious faction of the party was a bit more problematic, and you’d have to be careful to be clear about what you mean by “influenced by.” It’s worth keeping in mind that this conversation was based on a comment that attributed the deaths of millions of Jews to “socialism,” which implies a far more direct relationship than that implied by suggesting that Marxism was one of many influences that eventually shaped the party’s ideology. That said, as I understand it, you’re not defending OP’s comment, but want to postulate a previous generation of thought whose influence you want to trace, and that’s also what I’m interested in hearing you talk about.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That said, as I understand it, you’re not defending OP’s comment, but want to postulate a previous generation of thought whose influence you want to trace, and that’s also what I’m interested in hearing you talk about.”

            It just depends on how far back you want to go. Should we start with Martin Luther and Machiavelli, or do we need to go back further?

            The era of the Christian Reformation was one where role models emerged for promoting ideas that contradicted “received wisdom” and I think encouraged others who had the mind to stand up and do the same kind of thing. Martin Luther proved that the pen can be mightier than the sword in ways that can be better than violent revolution.

            They did not immediate become concerned with the lower classes but eventually some thought leaders did. All of these ideas were competing while in some cases harmonizing with other leaders and in other cases clashing.

            The discourse concerning criticism of society included both spiritual issues and questions about how the current social order came about. Looking at the criticism coherently, the RCC was blamed for a lot of the problems. But just as with any other progress people can agree about a problems without agreeing on how to solve them.

            If you follow some of the thought leaders that emerged, some dominant competing ideas become clear. Some can be refuted yet still influence thinking today. Other ideas can be seen as valid in a limited context, yet those ideas too have wide currency and are used to criticize just about anything even remotely plausible. Lots of individual people and groups get demonized in these processes. Bogey men and “bogey people” that were once part of some earlier criticism of society are now modern scapegoats at times.

            This is not an attack on socialism at all. As I’ve said many times, socialism has some ideals that are good. But when you look at the larger discourse in the criticism of society you can easily see how those ideas and ideals got bundled with other ideas that demonized collectives of people. Separating justice from collectivism is crucial if you want to come up with solutions that are valid in the world that we live. Our founders understood that even if the lexicon has changed a bit since then. They did not fully complete the revolution, but they gave us a fairly reliable framework for doing that. I think some have lost their way in understanding that framework.

            The conversation at this point could go in any number of directions but we’re way past criticism of socialism. So I’ll leave it up to you.

            I don’t hate “socialism,” but I do hate liars and ideas that are destructive. Socialism has to be purified if you want to remove the destructive ideas that are almost always bundled with it today. At this point it’s probably a lot more useful to talk about the destructive ideas than about socialism itself. I’ll wait and see where you want to take it but I’ll give it some more thought as well.

          • hiernonymous

            I was under the impression from your earlier that you had a pretty specific ideological forebear in mind that more or less specifically resulted in socialism on the one hand, and Hitler’s ideology on the other. Identifying that specific forebear was what I had in mind for the next step.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I was under the impression from your earlier that you had a pretty specific ideological forebear in mind that more or less specifically resulted in socialism on the one hand, and Hitler’s ideology on the other.”

            No. Not in Germany. I think fascism overtly rejects Marx because he was calling for global remedies. But that doesn’t mean they were not influenced by some of the underlying ideas and the justifications used. Some of the ideas may have been coopted. But they also might have been influenced by some of the same thinking that led Marx to be a big myopic in his analysis. We can look carefully at what they said and see who was promoting those ideas beforehand but of course never really have a strictly scientific ideological DNA analysis.

            Deconstructing ideology can help to humanize people that on the surface seem to act like “aliens.” We’re trying to clearly understand the range of possible behaviors in humanity – which is the opposite of “dehumanization.” Demagogues can take this same process and do the opposite but running from the task is not the solution because they’re going to do that anyway.

            You might think that the end result is the same but it’s not. If ideas and ideology drive human behavior in good ways and bad ways, we can come up with remedies. If it’s genetic, the result of alleged racial distinctions or “sub human” characteristics innate to certain groups, we’re far more limited in what can be done.

            At this point we’re not really talking about socialism in Germany as a root cause but we’re looking at common causes and ideological influences between the ugly sides of fascism and the various attempts to implement Marx-derived socialism. Just calling everyone “extreme” as opposed to moderate is really not that helpful. Extreme justice is good. Extreme injustice is not. But how to we define justice?

            “Identifying that specific forebear was what I had in mind for the next step.”

            It’s more like an ecosystem of ideas and you have to identify dominant themes that were harvested by any particular group or leader.

            What makes Marx unique is that he put together comprehensive and coherent theories. And many of them became viral. He’s more like a carrier of a super-virus than an evil genius. I’m not out to dehumanize anyone. I’m trying to help deconstruct human behavior in rational and useful ways so that we can better understand risks that occur when ideologies and civilizations clash.

            And if I’m right, why approach is really the only one that can lead to international institutions that help lead the world to some kind of stable peace without huge wars. Not that I’m expecting such a result any time soon if ever, but it’s clear to me what the path should be.

          • hiernonymous

            While it’s an interesting approach and conversation, I’d first have to note that it pretty well disposes of the “fascists=socialists” assertion in the Goldberg sense, or in the sense used earlier to lay blame for the Holocaust at the foot of “socialism.” I’d fully agree that you’re going to see common threads and lines of thought that will cross many boundaries. “Right” and “left” were first defined in the context of support or opposition to the Bourbon monarchy, so narrowing down what is really meant by those terms might actually be more productive if the context of the conversation were trying to determine why modern conservatives are trying so hard to recast the fascists (I suppose it to be an attempt to avoid being associated with fascists themselves by pre-emptively associating them with “the left.”) If the context is simply trying to trace certain lines of thought through various ideologies, then “left-right” can be dispensed with. I find that filter confining and problematic, myself.

            It’s more like an ecosystem of ideas and you have to identify dominant themes

            Okay, why don’t you start there?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “While it’s an interesting approach and conversation, I’d first have to note that it pretty well disposes of the “fascists=socialists” assertion in the Goldberg sense, or in the sense used earlier to lay blame for the Holocaust at the foot of “socialism.””

            I’ve never conflated fascism with socialism. But one can use the ideas bundled with socialism to promote fascism. And incremental (coerced) socialism (in one state) is de facto fascism. It may not be a clear replica of fascism in Italy or Germany, but the underlying fundamentals are there: Increase state sovereignty over capital and human behavior in the name of the welfare of the people and or the state.

            No, socialism itself is not a root cause of the Holocaust. But when someone makes such a statement I won’t blow them off. It’s confusion worth clearing up.

            “I’d fully agree that you’re going to see common threads and lines of thought that will cross many boundaries. “Right” and “left” were first defined in the context of support or opposition to the Bourbon monarchy, so narrowing down what is really meant by those terms might actually be more productive if the context of the conversation were trying to determine why modern conservatives are trying so hard to recast the fascists.”

            I understand that. The question is whether they’re right to do so at least in an effort to point out that in American politics, the right has never been associated with anything fascistic unless you boil fascism down simply to having a strong loyalty to the US constitution. Because everything else about the American right has always been anti-statist. Fascism is statist.

            “(I suppose it to be an attempt to avoid being associated with fascists themselves by pre-emptively associating them with “the left.”)”

            I’d rather just point out that it’s not something that could come from the right in America, unless you’re strictly talking about nationalism.

            It’s also true that some fascist factions might try to coopt the right but I don’t see any clear examples of any successes. It’s always easier in a democracy to do things “in the name of the people” rather than explaining the finer points of the constitution to people that don’t fully understand it or our history in America and our relationship with European efforts at some kind of balance between rights of each human and rights of the rulers.

            “If the context is simply trying to trace certain lines of thought through various ideologies, then “left-right” can be dispensed with. I find that filter confining and problematic, myself.”

            It’s just not clear how to do that. I try to challenge myself to make sure I’m pushing towards illumination of understanding. If I’m confrontational and simplistic, it’s not an effort to end the conversation but to try to force a carefully nuanced one.

            At the beginning of conversations you have to meet people where they are and some times you have to challenge them to explain their definitions.

            “Okay, why don’t you start there?”

            I’d like to but I need to choose a logical place in the timeline. The Christian Reformation and the Industrial Revolution were both crucial events for driving ideology and in the case of the Christian Reformation, it proved that ideas and Ideology can drive history at times. We need to pay more attention to when that happens.

        • Shari Peterson

          Deep history doesn’t lie.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            But people lie about all forms of “history” all the time.

      • Habbgun

        Read Road to Serfdom. Hayek explained how the Nazis were true socialists through and through. Hayek has been ignored but never refuted. Oh and by the way he wrote the book to refute his contemporaries (he wrote it before WW II) who said that Nazism was not about socialism. Sorry but the idea that Nazis weren’t socialists isn’t true at all. They weren’t international socialists but they were definitely socialists.

      • truebearing

        You’re hijacking the thread, yet again, and instead of commenting on the rank hypocrisy and cowardice of Brandeis, you are quibbling over the definition of socialism. Certainly a situation such as the one framed by Greenfield isn’t too difficult for you to opine upon. Why the incessant need to drag the discussion away from the topic?

        • hiernonymous

          Why the incessant need to support the topic with untruths and inaccuracies?

          • truebearing

            Who said you have to “support the topic,” much less with “untruths and inaccuracies?” You can take any approach you want, but you seem to always take issue with a comment instead of responding to the topic.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It’s a cheap lawyer’s trick.

            Sideline the real issue and bog your opponents down in technicalities.

            As trolling goes, it’s old hat.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s interesting that you see respect for accuracy and sound logic to be “cheap lawyer’s tricks” and “technicalities.”

            Trying to deflect uncomfortable observations by attacking the critic is old hat, as well.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Redirect, sideline, nitpick.

            Avoid the real issue.

            “It’s interesting that you see respect for accuracy and sound logic to be “cheap lawyer’s tricks” and “technicalities.”

            Have you stopped beating your wife?

          • hiernonymous

            “Avoid the real issue.”

            So the “real issue” is Hiernonymous’s shortcomings as a poster? Or are you redirecting, sidelining, nitpicking, and avoiding the real issue? Just curious.

            “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

            I never started. Why do you ask?

  • Seek

    Is Amos Oz “vile” and a “bigot?” Pretty strong language for someone who simply notes a recognizable set of cultural folkways. I’ve known my share of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, and I happen to think he has a valid point.

    If you want to learn how Sephardim can carry on blood feuds for literally centuries, read the darkly comic book by Christopher Byron, “Skin Tight,” on the Guess vs. Jordache Jeans business war that made its way into court. The fight was, at bottom, a feud between North African-derived Israeli extended families. Ashkenazi rarely behave like that.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Sure.

      European families are not known for engaging in protracted court battles over money.

      Also there’s nothing vile about accusing Holocaust survivors of ruining socialism.

      • ahad_ha_amoratsim

        Or calling the Jewish religion, the oldest civilizing force in the world, “a messianic sect, obtuse and cruel,” that “emerged a few years ago from a dark corner of Judaism, and it is threatening to destroy all that is dear and sacred to us, to impose on us a wild and insane blood ritual… They are guilty of crimes against humanity”

    • NYgal

      I came across this ‘pearl of wisdom’: thank God for Russian Jews because Israel was beginning to look sooo Levantine. Right.
      Someone I know, who considers herself progressive and intelligent uttered that absurdity. Evidently, you subscribe to the same ‘enlighten, open-minded and liberal’ school of though.

      You ‘Liberals’ are such bigots, without realizing it.

    • Habbgun

      You are out of your mind. Amos Oz lives in a world where nations aren’t for their citizens but are laboratories for an economic theory. Then he describes people in the most vile manner for simply being themselves. That is pretty easy to do when you seem to hate them anyway. Oh and by the way if you want to hear a high Hebrew seek out the Sephardim. The Sephardim have preserved so much that is authentic Judaism.
      And let me guess, you think “those people who cling to guns and religion “are ruining America…..

    • ahad_ha_amoratsim

      “Ashkenazi rarely behave like that.”
      You’ve never heard Litvishers talk about Galitsianers.
      Or vice versa.

  • wileyvet

    We all know Muslims are such noted proponents of free expression. Death to apostates, Death to blasphemers, Death to proselytes. A contingent of Muslim Brotherhood, ( the MSA ) has cowed a minority of Brandeis faculty into shaming Ms. Ali, a woman who has experienced Islam first hand, for her criticism. These academics are a poor excuse for so called educated faculty. They have aligned themselves with the spawn of Satan, and will soon find out how intolerant their bedfellows are, when the Muslims no longer have a use for them. Fools, all of them.

    • Dan Borden

      You do have have to give the “religion of peace” credit for being consistent and non-discriminatory. If you follow the “islamic scholars” for about a month, they will call for the death of EVERYONE who does not agree with their rabid foaming.

  • Scooter Tramp

    The only nonsectarian Jewish-sponsored college or university in the United States. (their own description) gives a degree to an ANTI-JEWISH author????? That’s the end of their funding!!!!

    • ahad_ha_amoratsim

      It’s supposed to be okay, you see, because he’s Jewish too, and only rails against the ‘wrong kind’ of Jews. That makes him a force for progress, don’t you see.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Precisely. It’s all about the culture war to the left. That is all that matters. Communism will solve every problem.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I wish

      Brandeis has been rotten for a while

    • 1stworlder

      Not from George Soros.

  • laura r

    this is shocking but not surprising. looks like the jews are assisting in their own demise.

  • Joel Margolis

    Oz isn’t the only one Brandeis has given honorary degrees to. Here are a few others: George Ball, George Kennan, Lillian Hellman, Ramsey Clark, Desmond Tutu.
    Lawrence’s predecessor tried to turn the university into Pyongyang University of the West. Lawrence is trying to turn it into Mecca University of America.
    It was a much different university 50 years ago when I attended.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    However Brandeis University gave in to pressure from terrorist-linked Muslim Brotherhood front groups like CAIR and the Muslim Students Association to withdraw an honor from a courageous critic of Islam.

    What you mean terrorist-linked? The Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and the Muslim Students Association are all non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists. As a matter of fact, all Muslim immigrants to the infidel world are indeed non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists. Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates in which case they must be executed per the dictates of Islam. There are no moderate Muslims. Indeed, a moderate Muslim in the Islamic totalitarian world is a blasphemous apostate, i.e., in effect an infidel that must be executed. You are so obsessed with mislabeling both violent and non-violent Muslims as being terrorists, that you give the manifestation of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad short shrift.

    Nevertheless, the entire campaign to brand Hirsi Ali as a “notorious Islamophobe” is in itself non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad. Sort of like the entire campaign to brand the state of Israel as an illegitimate state is also non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, and it is exponentially far more detrimental relative to violent jihad, which like clockwork you always mislabel as being terrorism.

    • Larry Larkin

      The Muslim Brotherhood non-violent? Since when? From their inception back in 1928 they have engaged in a long running terrorist campaign against anybody who they dislike, and that’s a long list.
      Start with Hebron and Jerusalem in 1929, through the 1930s, to active support of Nazism during WWII, the assassination of 2 Egyptian Presidents, active participation in the creation of the PLO, establishing HAMAS as their armed wing when the PLO proved insufficiently vicious, the tourist murder campaign in Egypt in the 1980s, the list is pretty near endless.
      The Muslim Brotherhood have a record of violence going back 85 years that makes the IRA look like a bunch of mung bean chewing flower children.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        The Muslim Brotherhood non-violent?

        The Muslim Brotherhood does in fact have a violent wing, but nonetheless overall has acted via non-violence relative to violence astronomically far more, which is why it has its tentacles spread in the halls of governments throughout Europe and the USA. Are you somehow denying this, or like Daniel, ignoring this manifestation altogether since it isn’t violent? Again, Muslims wage jihad (holy war) both violently and non-violently, as jihad in stark contrast to terrorism, which is always and only violent, manifests by any means necessary including both violence and non-violence. Sorry, they are not one and the same things.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          “The Muslim Brotherhood does in fact have a violent wing”

          The Muslim Brotherhood does not have a non-violent wing.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            The Muslim Brotherhood does not have a non-violent wing.

            Okay, if what you say is correct, and it’s not, then how can you claim that they are terrorists? Are you saying that they are non-violent terrorists?

            We are teetering here on the borderline of absurdity.

      • hiernonymous

        The Egyptian MB renounced violence in the 1960s. Those in the MB who could not reconcile themselves to that formed their own violent organizations, such as the Islamic Group.

        The tourist campaign in the ’80s was not the MB. I’d challenge you to find a terrorist act in the last 44 years attributable to the MB.

        • A Z

          The Muslim Brotherhood people burning down churches in the last 2 years, those were not MB were they. they were someone else of course.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          It’s called “plausible deniability” as Morsi proved once he took power.

          The splinter “terror” groups were still the Muslim Brotherhood.

          • hiernonymous

            What exactly do you suppose Morsi “proved” when he took power?

            The MB never renounced its desire to win political power; it renounced terror. What did Morsi do as president that proved the MB was engaged in terror? More sloppiness.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That would be his work with Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya.

            Ah but I forget they also “renounced” violence. So clearly they can’t be terrorists.

          • hiernonymous

            Okay, let’s work with that. What was Morsi’s work “with” the Group that proves the terror groups were still acting under MB control?

            And, actually, yes, the Group renounced violence, but much, much later than the MB – in 2003, IIRC. The renunciation was convincing enough to lead Mubarak to release over 1000 Group prisoners from prison in 2006. But the sincerity of their renunciation is neither here nor there – you’ve asserted that Morsi’s “work” with the Group demonstrates ongoing terrorism by the MB, so please let us know what “work” you’re talking about. The only thing that comes to mind is his appointment of Adel al Khayat as Governor of Luxor; but that wouldn’t show that the MB was continuing to sponsor terror, so you must have something else in mind. What?

          • hiernonymous

            “The splinter “terror” groups were still the Muslim Brotherhood…”

            Evidence of this being…?

        • Larry Larkin

          “cough” HAMAS “cough”
          Take your taqiyya elsewhere

          • hiernonymous

            What about Hamas? Are you implying that Hamas is a wing of the Egyptian MB?

            Take your taqiyya elsewhere

            Why, Larry, you put an Arabic term in your post – how clever of you! Where did you study Arabic? Or Islam? Where did you learn what taqiyya entails?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Brandeis University — an institution named after Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis Brandeis, a famed defender of free speech — has canceled plans to award an honorary degree to scholar Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is known for her scathing criticisms of Islam and its treatment of women.

    Since when is exposing the truth about Islam known as “scathing criticisms of Islam” and “Islamophobia?” I mean all anyone has to do is look inside every Muslim country in the world to see that all females are cruelly discriminated against and harshly oppressed. Are we supposed to ignore this manifestation and pretend it is not happening? Is this the polite thing to do in the 21st century in order to not hurt feelings? What about the abused women? They don’t matter?

    Hirsi Ali has called Islam “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death.”

    It’s the truth! Is a so-called religion you can’t leave without being killed a religion or a cult? Apostasy in Islam is a capital offense. Is apostasy also a capital offense in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.? I don’t believe!

    This is a real slap in the face to Muslim students,” senior Sarah Fahmy, a member of the Muslim Student Association

    More non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad! Muslim stealth jihadists are very adept at exploiting the ignorance’s of clueless infidels, especially those on the Left. Indeed, the Left always makes a big deal out of celebrating diversity, which is really celebrating non-assimilation and integration into traditional American society, and as such they are always very quick to brand any and everyone calling for assimilation and integration a racist. Indeed, it’s like the Left’s religion.

    “This makes Muslim students feel very uneasy,” Joseph Lumbard, chairman of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, said in an earlier interview. “They feel unwelcome here.”

    What a gullible useful idiot! He’s putting Muslim immigrants, who are all non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists, up on a pedestal above reproach and above any criticism whatsoever. What is he smoking?

  • antioli

    Is it crawling cowardice or should we follow the money .

  • Chaz_Martel

    The disingenuous Muslim students at Brandeis university admit, on the one hand, that Ayaan Hirsi Ali raises many valid points about the terrible abuses that women and girls suffer in Islamic culture; but, on the otherhand, they refuse to allow to allow that there is any correlation between those abuses and the nature of Islam itself.

    Yet, that precisely is the nature of Islam, reinforced by fascist organizations like CAIR, that any criticism of Islam is not allowed, pending charges of Islamophobia (a fabricated hoax of a term) or even death.

    According to the disingenuous Muslim students at Brandeis, misogynist horrors in Muslim culture must be treated in isolation as if they have no primary cause. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and other sane critics know better. Islam is the cause and only a MAJOR overhaul of Islam will be the cure.

    Ms. Hirsi Ali, who is by all accounts a wonderful woman, has stated on innumerable occasions that her problem is with the totalitarian ideology of Islam, not Muslims per se. That is precisely, incidentally, my position as well.

    One despises totalitarian ideologies like Nazism, Fascism, Communism and the granddaddy of all totalitarian ideologies, Islamism. One does NOT despise Germans, Italians, Russians, Chinese or Muslims because they are merely people who have been the greatest victims of these horrific ideologies.

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is a cultural Muslim herself. She was born to a Muslim family, all her existing blood relatives are Muslim, so she does not hate Muslims. Furthermore, reinforcing her being the highly intelligent, sensitive, sophisticated woman she is, she is married to one of the great conservative thinkers of the English speaking world, Niall Ferguson. Ms Ali is well and above the knee-jerk reactionism that the simple-minded Muslim students of Brandeis are guilty of.

    Despite all the horrors that Muslims fanatics have subjected her too, forced female genital mutilation, forced marriage (that she rejected) years of death threats from Muslim terrorists/assassins, the murder of her friend and colleague, filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim fanatic, and still forced to live in hiding under police protection to this day; she is able to rise above personal recriminations to share her story and help her fellow, victimized Muslims, to throw off the shackles of bondage to the horror which is Islam and seek a better life.

    This woman is a saint and should have been honored at Brandeis with laurels, garlands and a marching band instead of demonized by a group of little Islamofascists in the making.

  • kasandra

    How about they just rename it “Cowardeis University”?

    • truebearing

      Well played.

  • laura r

    would not surprise me is SA is giving the jewish university millions. guess the jews can be bought off like anyone else.

  • Shari Peterson

    Has nobody researched the Hasidic cult? You should before you assume it’s much different than the most radical of Islam, the Wahhabist cult (interestingly a cult accepted by the US and Israel as Israel and the US stand with al Qaeda in Syria and turn the other way at their abominations in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain).

    Some of the women even wear burqas and never leave the house. They sexually abuse their children (see article on vice.com titled ‘The Child-Rape Assembly Line’). And on and on.

    I see little to find it appealing and any better than Islam but especially, LEAVE the children alone.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Using Vice as your source for news is a bad idea.

      You may dislike Hasidic Jews, but they’re not out to take over the world and the pedophile smear is routinely used against any conservative religious group.

      • Shari Peterson

        What might be an acceptable expose source for news that would share what’s going on and expose the dirty underbelly? Trashing a source without verifying if the material is valid exposes questionable journalist integrity don’t you think? But it definitely happens all the time and it silences critics and those who have something to say that you don’t wish to have exposed; that just hides what’s going on, again, just like the community’s doing.

        All others are free game for exposure – pedophile Catholic priests, Christian pastors who hire male prostitutes and do meth, fanatical Muslims that marry underage girls, why not pedophile Jews? Why is that topic verboten when everyone else can be torn to shreds over and over?

        Speaking of taking over the world, what’s Noahide law? Answer, it’s halacha law for Gentiles. What is its Gentile manifestation? Wahhabism. Who created Wahhabism? I’ll let you research that one (who was al-Wahabi?).

        There is definitely a plan but much obfuscation as who’s pushing it and under what wraps will it be presented. We see this plan unfold as the west, agitated by foreign powers, invades/attacks Muslim nation after Muslim nation, whether directly or subversively sending “advisers” and private armies in, or hiring third party columns to do their dirty work, then converting those nations into fanatical Islamic crap holes.

        Iraq is now Shari’a law. Libya is horrible and mass killings of blacks are happening now, Egypt is crap, they are trying real hard in Syria and Turkey. And on and on it goes. Getting rid of all secular Muslim nations and converting them to Wahhabist-style crap holes.

        We need to get rid of the dual standards, dual morality and dual ethics. All rules and laws for all people, no exceptions should be allowed.

        Here’s a link to a post I made a year or so ago that someone else reposted open forum online, that goes through the details as I found them.

        https://www.facebook.com/GeertruidaAnnekedenBreejen/posts/213527332131243

        • Daniel Greenfield

          The pedophile smear is targeting them for the same reason it’s targeting Catholics.

          Trying to claim that Wahhabi Islam is a Jewish conspiracy eliminates any further reason for this conversation.

  • truebearing

    That adherents to Marxian thought always fail to produce Marx’s delusional egalitarian utopia doesn’t disqualify the use of the term “socialist” to describe said failures. Hitler was a fan of Marx, as was Mussolini. Stalin, on the other hand, was a fascist, though he is called a communist. The reason that all communist/socialist dictators are actually fascists is because Marxism can’t progress past fascism in the real world. Hitler and Mussolini can at least be credited with instinctively understanding the limitations and lies of Marxist theory. I guess it is fair to say that socialism never existed, according to your narrow definition, but attempts to impose socialism are a matter of record, and Nazism did derive from Marxism.

    Many of those who ultimately became Nazis switched back and forth between the Communist Party and the Nazi Party. That is how close the two ideologies were, as actually practiced. As in all socialist regimes, the state was all powerful and the individual had no rights or importance, hence the almost inevitability of gulags and death camps. “Undesirables” have no rights or human dignity in the minds of statists. There is a clear historical connection between the communist/socialist state and mass extermination throughout the 20th Century, or was that just a coincidence?

    As usual, you quibble over terminology in a vain attempt at obscurantism.

    • hiernonymous

      “Hitler was a fan of Marx…”

      At what moment? Hitler variously denigrated economic considerations as insignificant to his party’s ideology and goals; proclaimed himself a socialist; proclaimed himself in favor of private property; proclaimed himelf a “non-Marxian” socialist; proclaimed himself a new sort of socialist dealing in humans rather than property. Hitler’s economic approaches were all over the map, variable, and opportunistic; they did not drive his actions, they did not motivate them, they supported them.

      “There is a clear historical connection between the communist/socialist
      state and mass extermination throughout the 20th Century, or was that
      just a coincidence?”

      The mass exterminations of the German death camps were qualitatively and quantitatively different from any communist programs. The communist goal was to eliminate resistance, not population. The German death camps, in contrast, were not established to convert anyone to compliance or support of the regime; they were not even intended as a deterrent. The communist goal was repression; the goal of the German death camps was simply to kill.

      “As usual, you quibble over terminology in a vain attempt at obscurantism.”

      If you think so, you don’t fully understand what you’re reading. No worries.

      • truebearing

        The fact that Hitler said contradictory things at various points doesn’t prove he wasn’t an admirer of Marx. Dictator types love Marxism. The lies are so thoroughly ingrained in the ideology that Marxism is the perfect DIY manual for totalitarianism. Hitler was a natural when it came to utilizing Marx’s utopian template. He just modified socialism into a nationalistic form, like Mussolini.

        “The mass exterminations of the German death camps were qualitatively and quantitatively different from any communist programs. The communist goal was to eliminate resistance, not population. The German death camps, in contrast, were not established to convert anyone to compliance or support of the regime; they were not even intended as a deterrent. The communist goal was repression; the goal of the German death camps was simply to kill.”

        The Nazis deluded themselves into thinking they were purifying their race. The Communists thought they were facilitating political purification. Both are evil and both derived from a system of thought that had a core belief that the ends justify the means. That is the core belief operant in adherents to socialism and it is fundamentally evil. The victims may be ethnic or political but there will be victims when collectivistists put power above conscience.

        • hiernonymous

          “Dictator types love Marxism.”

          That’s the sort of keen historical analysis that grabs one’s attention.

          “Both are evil and both derived from a system of thought that had a core
          belief that the ends justify the means. That is the core belief operant
          in adherents to socialism and it is fundamentally evil.”

          That’s your analysis, is it? The defining characteristic of socialism is “the end justifies the means,” and evidence of such an approach is evidence of socialism?

          • truebearing

            Keen or not, it is true. Marxism never remotely lived up to its intended purpose. It has always been an utter failure at everything except providing the ruthless with a system of lies that suckers the malcontents and the gullible. Under the various disastrous regimes that promised the utopia of Marxism, the workers suffered far worse conditions than under even the worst capitalistic society. The only ones who have benefitted from Marxism are those with a desire for unlimited power, or perhaps college professors who aren’t smart enough to see that Marxism is untenable even on a theoretical level.

            “The ends justifies the means” is the core anti-ethical principal that adherents to Marxism, and all of its variants, act in accordance with. They sure aren’t acting in accordance with Judeo-Christian morality. It is a fundamentally evil principle and the results are plain to see.
            When people have refused to accept the beliefs of the Left historically, they have been imprisoned or murdered by the ruling regime. When a population segment is problematic for leftist regimes, the solution has frequently been to eliminate that population. There certainly hasn’t been a track record of tolerance by the Left. And any honest definition of “the Left” includes Nazism. Your snotty dismissal of Goldberg’s argument on fascism being on the Left was hardly a refutation.

            You didn’t like my pointing out the underlying anti-ethic of socialism. It’s too simple. You like complex, nuanced, analysis, festooned with conspicuous evidence of your erudition. The problem is that complexity and nuance don’t necessarily serve the truth and more often than not, obscure it. That is what you always do.

          • hiernonymous

            You seem to be missing the point. For the sake of argument, let’s say that all Marxists act in a consequentialist manner. It would not, and does not, follow that consequentialism is the defining characteristic of Marxism, such that identifying an action as rooted in consequentialism would identify its actor as a Marxist. The most rabid laissez faire capitalist might be a firm consequentialist, and believe that the end justifies the means, without thus becoming a Marxist.

            “When a population segment is problematic for leftist regimes, the solution has frequently been to eliminate that population.”

            When a population segment has been problematic for regimes of nearly all political stripes throughout history, the solution has frequently been to eliminate that population. The Huguenots were not victims of “leftists” in any sense of the word. King William hunted down the Jacobites, not out of ‘leftist’ philosophy but out of a desire to secure his throne. In our own democratic republic, the Nez Perce were not hunted down out of any ‘leftist’ impulse.

            “Your snotty dismissal of Goldberg’s argument on fascism being on the Left was hardly a refutation.”

            No, it was an allusion to earlier refutations. I thought it was to you I had posted several analyses of his book, but it’s been some months, and perhaps it was someone else.

            “You didn’t like my pointing out the underlying anti-ethic of socialism.”

            It’s not a question of “liking.” Noting that socialism is consequentialist, even if accepted, does not imply what you seem to think it implies. It’s a bit like claiming that since all axe murderers are violent, being violent is indicative that one is an axe murderer.

  • Daniel Greenfield

    The death camps were a subset of an ideology. You could also equally well argue, and some do, that Stalin had purged authentic Communism, and so the USSR’s atrocities had nothing to do with its root ideology.

    “Edited to note that it seems I am laboring under a disadvantage from which you are exempted. Any attempt on my part to abbreviate the NSDAP gets my post shunted to moderation.”

    I can see why you’re a liberal. You have that sense of instant grievance and immediate resort to conspiracy theories.

    • hiernonymous

      “I can see why you’re a liberal. You have that sense of instant grievance and immediate resort to conspiracy theories.”

      Huh? I made an observation. When I use the “N-word,” my posts get shunted to moderation. Your post contained the same word and was posted quickly. There was no theory about why that happened. Was the observation inaccurate?

      • Daniel Greenfield

        That would be accusation, not observation.

        Posts don’t get posted quickly. They go up instantly unless they get automatically flagged.

        The system doesn’t favor me and there’s no conspiracy against you.

        The fact that you think that way however is very revealing.

        • hiernonymous

          I haven’t suggested that there is a “conspiracy against me.” I’ve observed that your posts containing a particular term don’t appear to be held in moderation; given your affiliation with the site, the natural conclusion is that you have a special exemption, not that I’ve been singled out for bad treatment.

          All that’s speculative, of course, which is why I invited you to let me know if I was wrong. If “the system doesn’t favor me” means that you are auto-flagged the same as everyone else, well and good.

          “The fact that you think that way however is very revealing.”

          In what way? That I find it frustrating that I can’t hold an adult conversation on the topic of the National Socialists without finding increasingly irritating circumlocutions for the subject of the discussion? Guilty, your honor.