Illustration by Manos Symeonakis

A rambunctious protest and widespread criticism of the BBC were just some of the consequences of the British broadcaster’s decision last week to allow Nick Griffin, the leader of the far-right British National Party (BNP) to take part in a televised debate.

Since Greece is a much more mature democracy, we do not experience such consternation. We put the leader and members of our own ultra-right wing nationalist party on TV almost on a daily basis, ask them soft questions, let them say what they like and nobody bats an eyelid. After all, that’s democracy.

Of course, the leader of the Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS), Giorgos Karatzaferis, would reject any accusation of extremism, racism or fascism, allegations that have been leveled against Griffin and BNP.

Over the years, Karatzaferis has diligently tried to erase his party’s uncomfortable past. He now presents himself as the nationalist with the friendly face, the caring populist. But all the airbrushing in the world will not cover up the skeletons in LAOS’s closet, such as the fact that one of the party’s most prominent MPs, Makis Voridis, had previously been the leader of the Hellenic Front (Elliniko Metopo), an ugly little anti-immigration, pro-death-penalty party that was officially affiliated with the BNP.

Voridis, one of several LAOS members with a dark past, also developed close ties with the leader of France’s far-right Front National (FN), Jean-Marie Le Pen. Shortly before the Hellenic Front was incorporated into LAOS, Voridis paraded Le Pen as a guest at his wedding.

Griffin and Karatzaferis can only dream of emulating the kind of success that saw Le Pen, the godfather of Europe’s far right, poll second in the French presidential elections of 2002. But Le Pen’s rise is absolutely relevant to the issue of how much coverage, if any, politicians like Griffin and Karatazferis should be given.

By Le Pen’s admission, “the hour that changed everything” for him was in 1984 when he took part in “L’heure de Verite,” a similar political program to “Question Time,” the show Griffin participated in last Thursday. The FN leader had been shunned by the media before then but following his appearance, the party increased its share of the vote in the subsequent European elections from 3.5 percent to 11 percent.

“Small fish become big so long as God gives them life,” said Le Pen. In 21^st-century politics, this god is television. That’s why there’s been so much soul searching in Britain about whether Griffin should have been allowed to take part in a discussion involving mainstream politicians.

“When you put the BNP into the mainstream like that, they drag people onto their agenda,” said the Labour MP and first black female deputy to appear on “Question Time,” Diane Abbott. “The program has given Griffin unnecessary exposure, unnecessary credibility, and giving more credibility to a fascist party in the middle of a recession is a very dangerous thing.”

Abbot’s argument is powerful. Television gives politicians and parties a legitimacy they cannot get by handing out leaflets outside train stations or speaking at small gatherings in rural backwaters. If you’re on political talk shows with representatives of other parties then, in the eye of the viewer, you must be their equal. If you’re on TV, you’re part of the establishment. If you’re part of the establishment, then you can attract financing that can help you grow.

So, if Griffin can draw all this from one appearance on the BBC, what kind of boost is Karatzaferis getting from being the darling of morning shows on Greek television? The LAOS leader worked out some time ago that TV can help him present his party as a legitimate voice in Greek politics. His regular appearances have made him a figure of fun for many but LAOS performances in this year’s European elections and general elections show that some viewers have been tuning in to his populist message.

Even the BNP claimed that more than 3,000 people joined the party immediately after Griffin’s appearance – although given that more than 8 million people watched the program, it’s not really a figure to boast about.

In fact, momentary popularity seems a small price to pay to uphold one of the principles that underpins our democracy: the freedom of speech. After all, the BNP won two seats in June’s European elections and not allowing an elected party fair representation would be dicing with accepted democratic principles. “The true gift to the extreme right is to give them the opportunity to claim that they are being gagged while allowing them to carry on operating and incubating in the shadows,” said Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer weekly.

“Ultimately, the BBC was right about all this,” writes AA Gill in The Sunday Times. “It was a question of free speech and free speech is non-negotiable. It doesn’t come with caveats or committees or right-minded souls. It isn’t open only to reasonable people who hold a clubbable set of values. It can’t be taken from the mouths of those want to steal it from the mouths of others.

“Look at the list of the maligned dictators and murderous nutters who get to speak at the United Nations: Everyone has a right to a microphone.”

However, there’s a key difference between what British viewers saw last week and the Karatzaferis experience in Greece. Griffin was challenged by his fellow panelists, whose aim, as Tom Sutcliffe of The Independent put it “was to pry this limpet of strategic blandness from the rock and expose the unsightly muscle beneath.” Most importantly, though, Griffin had to face questions from the audience.

This produced the most telling moment of the night, when Griffin was confronted about the BNP’s policy of repatriation by a man born in Britain to Asian parents. “This is my country, where do you want me to go?” he asked, before suggesting that members of the audience collect money to buy Griffin a one-way ticket to the South Pole. “That’s a colorless landscape, it would suit you fine,” he told the BNP leader.

Greek politicians do not face this type of confrontation. Debates on Greek TV are usually sanitized coffee-house discussions, where the same old faces gather to spout the same old gibberish at the prompting of a very accommodating host. The presence of an audience that can show irreverence toward these inflated egos remains a foreign concept.

It’s here though, that the crux of the issue lies – although free speech should be cherished and defended, so should the right to challenge what is said. Monologues have no place in democracies and only play into the hands of those who direct their words at a specific audience.

Any publicity that Griffin gained from his appearance on “Question Time” was undone by his inability to rise to the challenges of the audience and his fellow panelists. “I have not been convicted of Holocaust denial,” was his response to a question about past comments that suggested the Holocaust was a myth. When asked about his 2000 meeting with David Duke, a Ku Klux Klan leader, Griffin responded by claiming that the KKK is “an almost totally nonviolent” organization.

The BNP leader’s floundering confirmed one of free speech’s most edifying features – although it provides you with the oxygen of publicity, it also gives you enough rope to choke yourself.

Griffin’s appearance was a two-fold victory for democracy because the freedom of speech was upheld but mostly because the principle that everyone, especially politicians, should be held directly accountable for what they say was immeasurably strengthened. Now, that’s democracy.

This commentary was written by Nick Malkoutzis and first appeared in Athens Plus on October 30, 2009.

Illustration by Manos Symeonakis

“A celebration of democracy” – it’s a cliche, used to describe the voting process, that you’ll hear repeated on TV and radio throughout Sunday. But the truth is that voting has ceased to be a cause for celebration in this and many other countries for some time.

Too many voters enter polling booths not filled with the joy of someone about to pick the most suitable party but weighed down by the anxiety of choosing the one that’s least likely to disappoint. In an age when few politicians have convictions, let alone the courage of them, voters have become participants in democracy’s great game show – in the absence of talented candidates to vote in, they simply vote the failures out.

This rather subdued month-long campaign looks like it will culminate in exactly this manner. It has answered few of the questions the electorate had at the start and none of the parties has been able to present a convincing plan for rescuing and reviving the country’s economy, while a range of social issues have not featured at all.

The fewer the topics of discussion, the better for Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis and his party. He’s the game show contestant who’s finding life under the spotlight uncomfortable. Neither Karamanlis nor New Democracy is in the mood to answer difficult questions about their shortcomings over the last 5.5 years. But the government’s failure to engage with the electorate over the last month has strengthened the feeling that this administration’s time is up.

Karamanlis’s decision to call snap elections only made sense if it allowed New Democracy to get a head start on PASOK but the conservative party’s machinery creaked onto the campaign trail and was soon lagging behind the Socialists who set the agenda with their plan for their first 100 days in government. Karamanlis gambled on a snap election, hoping it would reinvigorate his party and renew people’s faith in his government but he forgot to give people some new ideas to believe in. “More of the same” is not a prize anyone wants to claim.

As a result, PASOK leader George Papandreou has limited himself to the role of the contestant who takes as few risks as possible and waits for his opponent to slip up. But this prompts the question: is he really limiting himself or are these actually his limits?

Doubt about Papandreou’s leadership is just one of the reasons that PASOK goes into Sunday’s voting sweating on whether it will get a clear parliamentary majority. Another is that although plenty of people are willing to believe the Socialists can do a better job in a number of areas, such as environmental and immigration policy, not so many have faith in their plans for the economy.

PASOK’s intention to increase public spending on wages and pensions still does not add up. Papandreou says he’ll find the money from uncollected taxes and tax dodgers. But these taxes have been uncollected for years and PASOK would have to conduct some serious restructuring of the tax collection system to gather them. This is a long-term project. Papandreou doesn’t have that sort of time. So, the question remains – where will he get the money?

If you ask Communist Party (KKE) leader Aleka Papariga, she’ll tell you the working classes will end up footing the bill. In the current economic climate, it’s a response that resonates with quite a few people and KKE is likely to increase it’s share of the vote, cementing it’s role as a strong voice in opposition but nothing more.

Papariga is the contestant who’s good with the questions about history but no so comfortable with the one involving numbers. The credibility gap in her and KKE’s positions means that the party will only ever attract true believers and those that want to poke ND and PASOK in the eye.

The Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA), however, has much more riding on this election. Its leader, Alexis Tsipras, has been the young challenger who too often blurted out the answers before engaging his brain. It has cost him and the leftist party points, so SYRIZA goes into Sunday hoping for enough support (more than 3 percent) to get into Parliament.

Provided it achieves this, it could even be a coalition partner for PASOK if the Socialists fail to get a parliamentary majority. Perhaps that’s why Tsipras has been more prudent in recent weeks, thinking things through before putting his hand on the buzzer.

One leader perfectly cut out for the game show format is the leader of the Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS) Giorgos Karatzaferis. But even this master of the camera seems to have lost his touch during this campaign. Lacking his usual car salesman slickness in the TV debates and not knowing whether to attack PASOK because it is likely to be the next government or New Democracy because that’s where most of his voters come from, Karatzaferis has become trapped in his own nationalist-populist rhetoric.

The Ecologist Greens leader, Nikos Chrysogelos, has put in a more convincing performance, prompting many to cheer him on from the sidelines. Whether this will transfer into votes on election day remains doubtful. In game show parlance, the Ecologist Greens are the appealing mystery prize that many people will avoid, fearing it will turn out to be a cheap toaster rather than a holiday for two in Barbados.

Although they still lack slickness, the Ecogreens have admirably tried to state their case during this campaign, often having to avoid being dragged down blind alleys where journalists wait to ambush them with questions about foreign policy and other issues that are clearly not their priority.

To get into Parliament, they’ll have to virtually triple their support from the 2007 general election. It would be a historic achievement that could lead to them being a coalition partner for either of the two big parties.

It would perhaps be the biggest prize available to a Greek electorate that has to wrestle with some testing choices on Sunday. There is little you can say to someone faced with such dilemmas other than what you’d say to anyone about to take part in a game show: Good luck.

This commentary was written by Nick Malkoutzis and first appeared in Athens Plus on October 1, 2009

Το Πρώτο μέρος εδώ.

Ολη αυτή η ιστορία είναι απίστευτη και μια φωτεινή στιγμή ανάμεσα στην ιστορία σφαγών του Ολοκαυτώματος. Ολα όμως ξεκίνησαν από την απόφαση ευφυών και έμπειρων ανθρώπων οτι τα Πρωτόκολλα των Σοφών της Σιών είναι αληθινά. Αυτοί οι άνθρωποι δεν υποκινούνταν από ένα προϋπάρχον φυλετικό μίσος, όπως οι Ευρωπαίοι Χριστιανοί οι οποίοι ήθελαν να πιστέψουν στα Πρωτόκολλα για να δικαιολογήσουν το μίσος τους. Ο αντισημιτισμός δεν ήταν η συλλογική ψύχωση όπως ήταν στον ευρωπαϊκό πολιτισμό και οι εβραίοι ανύπαρκτοι στην Ιαπωνία. Και όμως: οι Ιάπωνες πίστεψαν ακράδαντα στα Πρωτόκολλα και θεώρησαν όχι μόνο οτι οι εβραίοι επιθυμούν να κατακτήσουν τον κόσμο αλλά και οτι όντως έχουν την δυνατότητα. Ένα κείμενο, διάολε, εμφανώς κακογραμμένο και εμφανώς ανόητο, κατάφερε να πείσει οτι οι Εβραίοι είναι μολυσματικοί και θα άπλωναν τα πλοκάμια τους στην Ιαπωνία αν την πλησίαζαν!  Προφανέστατα δεν ήταν οι πρώτοι αλλά στα σίγουρα ήταν η μοναδική φορά που η Παγκόσμια Εβραϊκή Συνωμοσία πάρθηκε στα σοβαρά και θεωρήθηκε οτι οι εβραίοι είναι όντως τόσο πανίσχυροι, άρα ανίκητοι και άρα δεν συμφέρει να τους καταδιώκεις !

Φωτίζει με ιδιαίτερο τρόπο την πραγματική ουσία του ευρωπαϊκού αντισημιτισμού: οι εβραίοι μισούνται και πρέπει να εξολοθρευτούν για αυτό που είναι, το Απόλυτο Κακό – οι όποιες πράξεις τους είναι απλώς αφορμές. Αντίθετα οι Ιάπωνες αδυνατούν να πιστέψουν οτι το μίσος οδηγεί τους Ευρωπαίους να κατασκευάσουν προφάσεις όπως τα Πρωτόκολλα και θεωρούν τους εβραίους εχθρικούς αλλά όχι διαβολικούς, άρα δυνατή η συνύπαρξη μαζί τους ή ακόμα η συμμαχία ! Άλλωστε ακόμα και σήμερα στην Ιαπωνία οι προκαταλήψεις εναντίων των Εβραίων εξακολουθούν να υπάρχουν αλλά παίρνουν την μορφή σεμιναρίων ώστε να μπορέσουν οι Ιάπωνες να μπουν στο “Εβραικό Μυαλό” και να γίνουν το ίδιο διεθνώς επιτυχημένοι όπως οι Εβραίοι. (!)

Πριν κάτσουμε να απορρίψουμε τον όποιο κ.Πλεύρη, κ.Λιακόπουλο, κ.Βελόπουλο, τον Κ.Καρατζαφέρη ή τον Μ.Θεοδωράκη ως γραφικούς ας προβληματιστούμε: δεν πιστεύω οτι είναι ικανοί να πείσουν την πλειοψηφία του ελληνικού πληθυσμού. Ούτε είναι ενδεικτικοί εκπρόσωποι του ελληνικού υποσυνείδητου. Ομως “πουλάνε” και σιγά σιγά καταφέρνουν να γίνουν εισέλθουν στη δημόσια ζωή, αρχικά ως γραφικοί και μετά ως ισότιμοι συνομιλητές. Η απόσταση από τους Ελ και Νεφελίμ του Λιακόπουλου, στο εωσφοροσιωνιστικό Εβραϊκό Λόμπυ για τους γάμους των ομοφυλοφίλων όπως δηλωνει ο Πειραιώς Σεραφείμ, ως τον κ.Γιακουμάτο που χαρακτηρίζει Αρχιερέα του Ιουδαϊσμού τον κ.Σημίτη είναι μηδενική.

Προσωπικά πιστεύω οτι είναι δυνατόν, κάτω από συγκεκριμένες κοινωνικές συνθήκες, να επηρεάσουν ακόμα μεγαλύτερα τμήματα του πληθυσμού. Ας μην ξεχνάμε τις εξωφρενικές απόψεις που ακούστηκαν για τους εβραίους κατά την διάρκεια του θέματος των ταυτοτήτων και έφεραν την Ελλάδα ένα βήμα πριν την θεοκρατία. Αλλωστε στο άρθρο μου για το εβραϊκό Πασοκ έδειξα το πως μια φήμη επιπέδου ΛΑΟΣ και Χρυσής Αυγής, (η ανύπαρκτη εβραϊκή καταγωγή του κ.Σημίτη), έφτασαν να γίνουν μέρος του δημοσίου λόγου και επερώτηση στο Κοινοβούλιο χωρίς καμμία αντίσταση. Σου εγγυώμαι αγαπητέ αναγνώστη οτι αυτή υπήρξε η ανάρτηση μου με την μεγαλύτερη απήχηση στον χώρο των ελληνικών ιστολογίων που προβάλλουν το πως οι ίδιοι οι εβραίοι παραδέχονται οτι το ΠΑΣΟΚ είναι όργανο του Παγκόσμιου Εβραϊσμού !

Ακόμα και τώρα η χρησιμότητα των συνωμοσιολόγων αντισημιτών στην ακροδεξιά ρητορική είναι πολλαπλή αφού χρησιμεύουν για να μεταθέτουν προς τα δεξιά τον “μέσο όρο”. Οπου “μέσος όρος” είναι ο μέσος πολίτης που συνήθως τείνει να τοποθετείται στο μεσαίο χώρο του πολιτικού φάσματος. Ετσι απόψεις που πριν φάνταζαν ακραίες, πλέον γλιτώνουν τον χαρακτηρισμό αφού υπάρχουν άλλες που τις υπερσκελίζουν. Ταυτόχρονα αναγκάζει την υπόλοιπη πολιτική σκηνή να υιοθετήσει παρόμοια ρητορική για να μην χάσει πελατεία – ενδεικτικά τα πιο συνωμοσιόλαγνα κόμματα είναι το ΛΑΟΣ και το ΚΚΕ, με το τελευταίο να έχει κάνει εντυπωσιακή στροφή προς τον εθνικιστικό λόγο. Μέχρι και οι Οικολόγοι αλληλοκατηγορήθηκαν ως πράκτορες του Σόρος !

Ο Α.Ζ. στο ιστολόγιο Τεχνηέντως γράφει για τον Κ.Πλεύρη οτι “… [κανείς] όμως δεν μπορεί αυτή τη στιγμή να επικαλεστεί με πειστικότητα έναν σοβαρό κίνδυνο”. Επαναλαμβάνω οτι συμφωνώ μαζί του αλλά έχω την εντύπωση οτι πεποίθηση του είναι οτι παρανοϊκές απόψεις αδυνατούν διαχρονικά να λειτουργήσουν απειλητικά στην σημερινή κοινωνία – προσωπικά διαφωνώ τόσο με την δυνατότητα εξέλιξης, όσο και με τον κίνδυνο που σήμερα θέτουν. Μπορεί να είναι υπερβολικές αλλα η ευρεία απήχηση τους είναι ενδεικτική οτι βασίζονται σε πραγματικές ψυχώσεις που έχουμε και δεν είναι τόσο απόμακρες. Μόνο που σε αντίθεση με τους Ιάπωνες δεν είμαστε τοσο πρακτικοι ! :Ρ

Αυτή την φορά ασχολήθηκα με τις δυνατότητες που μπορεί να φέρει μια εναλλακτική αντίληψη της πραγματικότητας. Σε επόμενη ανάρτηση θα ασχοληθώ με τους δυνητικούς κινδύνους και πως αυτοί γίνονται πραγματικοί – ενδεικτικά θα ασχοληθούμε με την περίοδο Δεκεμβρίου/Ιανουαρίου αυτού του χρόνου. Ελπίζω να προσφέρει μια στιγμή περίσκεψης την επόμενη φορά που κάποιος θα θελήσει να απορρίψει τυφλά τις “αστείες” θέσεις των Νεφελιμ του Λιακόπουλου ή θεωρήσει τον Κ.Πλεύρη ακίνδυνο μέσα στο παρανοϊκό μίσος του.

Ελληνικά (english translation follows)

Κατά τύχη πριν αρκετό καιρό έπεσε στα χέρια μου μια συλλογή από ξένες εφημερίδες που αναφέρουν περιστατικά που αφορούν τους εβραίους στην Εγγύς Ανατολής στα τέλη του 19ου αιώνα και τις αρχές του 20ου.

Στην συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση διάλεξα ένα απόσπασμα από τους The New York Times από τις 26 Ιουλίου 1903 που μπορείτε να δείτε εδώ στην αυθεντική μορφή του. Το άρθρο μιλάει για την προετοιμασία ενός ουκάζε από τον Τσάρο της Ρωσικής Αυτοκρατορίας με σκοπό την προστασία από ρώσων εβραίων τις συνεχόμενες σφαγές των πογκρόμ, (η ειρωνεία βέβαια είναι ότι οι σφαγές συχνά ήταν σχεδιασμένες από την ίδια την κεντρική εξουσία).

Η ελπίδα ήταν ότι θα προσέφερε την ίδια προστασία που προσέφερε το φιρμάνι του Σουλτάνου στους εβραίους της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας και το οποίο εκδόθηκε μετά τους λίβελους του αίματος που προκάλεσαν τα διαβόητα πογκρόμ της Δαμασκού και της Ρόδου.

Ο αρθρογράφος αναφέρει οτι έκτοτε οι λίβελοι του αίματος ήταν λίγοι και θυμάται μόνο ένα περιστατικό πριν από 15 χρόνια, (δηλαδή περίπου το 1888), στην Θεσσαλονίκη. Τότε οι εβραίοι κατηγορήθηκαν από τον Μητροπολίτη ότι πήραν 2 μικρά χριστιανόπουλα για να πιούν το αίμα τους στις θρησκευτικές τελετές τους – ο αρθρογράφος ισχυρίζεται οτι χάρη στο φιρμάνι ο διοικητής της πόλης Γκαλίμπ Πασά κατάφερε να αποφύγει την επέκταση της αναταραχής  μέχρι που βρέθηκαν τα παιδιά στα χέρια μια καθολικής ιταλικής οικογένειας.

Προσωπικά στην συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση αμφιβάλλω για την πραγματική έκταση των επεισοδίων – ο εβραίοι της πόλης ήταν τόσοι πολλοί και τόσο δυναμικοί και οι χριστιανοί έλληνες τόσοι λίγοι που θα ήταν αδύνατη η δημιουργία εκτεταμένων ταραχών. Αντίθετα η μικρή ελληνική κοινότητα μπορούμε να πούμε οτι διακρίθηκε από την σχετική, για την εποχή βέβαια, μετριοπάθεια της χωρίς όμως όπως είδαμε να στερείται των απαραίτητων για την εποχή θρησκευτικών προκαταλήψεων – μια μετριοπάθεια που προβλημάτιζε τους κατοίκους του νεότευκτου Ελληνικού Βασιλείου.

Από την άλλη η περίπτωση του πογκρόμ στο Πορτ Σάϊντ της Αιγύπτου είναι πολύ διαφορετική. Το 1892 μέλη της ελληνικής παροικίας επιτίθενται σε ένα ή περισσότερους εβραίους και τους σκοτώνουν όταν διαδίδονται φήμες οτι ένα χριστιανόπουλο έχει απαχθεί και θυσιαστεί σε εβραικές τελετουργικές ανθρωποθυσίες. Παραθέτω το ίδιο το κομμάτι γιατί πιστεύω οτι έχει ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον, μπορείτε να το βρείτε στην αυθεντική μορφή εδώ.

AN   ANTI-JEWISH   OUTRAGE.
CONFLICTING   ACCOUNTS  OF   A   MURDER AT   PORT   SAID.
BERLIN, April 6.—The Kreuz-Zeitung and the TageBlatt publish conflicting reports about an anti-Jewish outrage at Port Said.

The former paper accuses the Jews there of kidnapping a Greek child for sacrificial purposes and says the Greeks attacked and killed two Jews.

The Tageblatt’s story, which is the more probable one, states that some loafing Greeks, seeing Greek and Jewish children playing together, took advantage of this fact to attack a Jewish house, in which they killed an aged Jew, smashing his skull and breaking his ribs and legs, and then heaped insult on the corpse.

Published: April 7, 1892 Copyright © The New York Times

Δυο πράγματα να παρατηρήσουμε:
1. Οι ταραχές εμφανίζονται λίγο μετά από το πογκρόμ της Κέρκυρας, (όπως γνωρίζουμε η δολοφονία μια μικρής εβραίας προκαλεί δολοφονικό παροξυσμό στον χριστιανικό λαό της Κέρκυρας και την διάδοση φήμων οτι στην πραγματικότητα ήταν χριστιανή και την είχαν δολοφονήσει οι εβραίοι για να χρησιμοποιήσουν το αίμα της σε θρησκευτικές τελετές – κατά την διάρκεια των επεισοδίων δεκάδες εβραίοι δολοφονούνται και μόνο η απειλούμενη στρατιωτική παρέμβαση ξένων δυνάμεων σταματάει την σφαγή).

2. Το δεύτερο είναι οτι η πρώτη γερμανική εφημερίδα, η Kreuz-Zeitung, δεν αναφέρει απλώς το γεγονός αλλά και αυτή με την σειρά της υιοθετεί τους ισχυρισμούς οτι οι εβραίοι όντως πίνουν το αίμα των χριστιανόπουλων !

Οσο χαζή και απαρχαιωμένη σας φαίνεται η ιδέα των εβραϊκών ανθρωποθυσιών και οτι εγώ, ως αμπραβανέλ, μπορώ να σας αρπάξω για να σας πιω το αίμα μην είστε σίγουροι οτι ανήκουν στον 19ο αιώνα και δεν αποτελούν μέρος της σημερινής ελληνικής πραγματικότητας. Αυτό μπορεί να αφορά τον πρόεδρο ενός αντισημιτικού ελληνικού κοινοβουλευτικού κόμματος που κατηγορεί τους εβραίους οτι μυρίζουν αίμα όπως ο Γιώργος Καρατζαφέρης όπως στον Μεσαίωνα, μπορεί να αφορά μια λαϊκίστικη δεξιά εφημερίδα όπως την Απογευματινή ή μπορεί να αφορά και μια “εναλλακτική” και “προοδευτική” ιστοσελίδα όπως το tvxs.gr του Στέλιου Κούλογλου που με το τελευταίο ρεπορτάζ του αποδεικνύεται οτι αποτελεί την αριστερή λαικίστικη απάντηση στην Απογευματινή.

English

By sheer chance I happened to run by a collection of clippings by old foreign newspapers that report incidents that regard Jews in the Near East at the end of the 19th century and the beginnings of the 20^th.

In this case I selected a piece by The New York Times published on July, 26th 1903 that can be found in its original form here. It talks about an ukaz being issued by the Czar of the Russian Empire aiming to protect the Russian Jews by the continuous slaughtering of the pogroms, (the irony being that these pogroms were often organized by the State itself).

The hope was that it would offer the same kind of protection that a firman issued by the Sultan in 1840 guaranteed to the Jews of the Ottoman Empire after the blood libels that caused the infamous pogroms of Damascus and Rhodes.

The journalist reports that since then the blood libels had decreased and he remembered only of an incident 15 years ago, (ie about 1888), in “Salonika”. The story was that the orthodox Bishop of accused Jews of taking 2 small christian children to drink their blood in their religious ceremonies – the journalist says that thanks to the firman the governor of the city Ghalib Pasha managed to keep incidents from spreading until the boys were found in a italian catholic family.

Personally I doubt over the effective proportions of the incident; the Jews of the city where so many and so dynamic and the christian greeks where so few that extensive disorders were impossible. On the contrary the small greek community was known for its relative moderation without this meaning that they lacked the necessary, for the times, religious prejudice, (on the other hand  exactly this moderation troubled the inhabitants of the young Greek Kingdom).

On the other hand the situation in Port Said in Egypt was quite different; the pogrom that took place there was organized by some Greeks of the local greek community which attacked and killed some Jew(s) because they believed that they had kidnapped a Greek child to use in ceremonial sacrifices. I would like to post here the whole NYT article because I find it itself rather revealing:

AN   ANTI-JEWISH   OUTRAGE.
CONFLICTING   ACCOUNTS  OF   A   MURDER AT   PORT   SAID.
BERLIN, April 6.—The Kreuz-Zeitung and the TageBlatt publish conflicting reports about an anti-Jewish outrage at Port Said.

The former paper accuses the Jews there of kidnapping a Greek child for sacrificial purposes and says the Greeks attacked and killed two Jews.

The Tageblatt’s story, which is the more probable one, states that some loafing Greeks, seeing Greek and Jewish children playing together, took advantage of this fact to attack a Jewish house, in which they killed an aged Jew, smashing his skull and breaking his ribs and legs, and then heaped insult on the corpse.

Published: April 7, 1892
Copyright © The New York Times

We can note two interesting aspects in this story:
1. The incidents happen just after the Corfu Pogrom, (as we know the murder of a young jewish girl causes  a murderous spree of the christian population of the island fueled by the rumor that the girl was a christian one and the Jews had murdered her in order to use her blood in religious ceremonies – tenths of Jews are murdered and only the threatened military intervention of Europeans puts an end to the pogrom).

2. The second is that the first german newspaper, the Kreuz-Zeitung, does not only report of the murders but in its turn adopts the claims that Jews drink the blood of young christian children !

As old and antiquated may seem the idea that Jews sacrifice young christian children and I, as abravanel, may snatch you to drink your blood do not be sure that these are not part of contemporary greek society. This rumors may regard the leader of an antisemitic parliamentary party like Yorgos Karatzaferis, MP who accuses Jews of reeking blood and Christ-Killers like the Middle Ages, or a yellow populistic newspaper like Apogevmatini, or an “alternative” and “liberal” news site like tvxs.gr of Stelios Kuloglou which proves to be the leftist populistic response to Apogevmatini with his latest reportage.

PS. Take a look in the first comment of this post.

(GREEK NEWS AGENDA)   Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis arrived in Larnaca today to attend the funeral of former president Cyprus President Tassos Papadopoulos, who died on Friday in the Cypriot capital.  The funeral will be also attended by Dora Bakoyannis, main opposition PASOK leader George Papandreou, Popular Orthodox Party (LA.OS) president George Karatzaferis and a delegation of the Greek parliament. President of the Hellenic Republic Karolos Papoulias sent his condolences stating that “Tassos Papadopoulos has faithfully served the Republic of Cyprus and during his term in office, Cyprus found the place it deserves as member state in the European Union. It is unfortunate that Papadopoulos did not live long enough to witness a just and viable solution to the Cyprus issue, for which we all struggle.”  Karamanlis expressed his sincere and profound grief for the loss “of an historic political figure.” The premier emphasised Papadopoulos meaningful contribution to the Cypriot Hellenism, to which Papadopoulos had always been passionately devoted. The Associated Press: Cypriot ex-president Papadopoulos dies of cancer

The last statements of mr.Karatzaferis trigerred in me the need to write another post on the sinister role of the Jew Simitis and why he wanted the Lisbon Treaty. Given the record of last time when I tried to be sarcastic, (and how the whole far-right greek blogosphere exploded by my revelations on PASOK being a jewish party), I decided to let go. So for this time I simply dedicate to you the latest piece of oratory of the president of LAOS mr.Karatzaferis who has faced criticism on his views often deemed antisemitic and extreme-right.

Mr.Karatzaferis makes his official speech in the Greek Parliament and comments on the new Treaty of Lisbon, governing the functioning of the European Union. His party, LAOS, refuses to ratify calling it “The greatest deceit against the peoples of Europe“. He ends his passionate speech by addressing the New Order, (this was the way LAOS Press Office entitled this part of his speech).

” Let me close with this one. In the Protocols of the Elders of Zion who, of course, I don’t know who wrote them. The Zionists deny that they have written them. I don’t care who he is, whoever he may be, should be a Nobel graduate. A century ago this man had predicted – whoever he is, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, I don’t care, Russian or American – these things that happen today. Whatever is being described in the Protocols of Zion is becoming reality today. One Goverment, one currency for all of Europe. And this for me is the coming of the New Order of things. “

Y.Karatzaferis in the Greek Parliament, 11/6/2008

For those of you who don’t know, the Protocols were written in Tsarist Russia in an effort to foment further hatred for the jewish russians and justify the pogroms. They are considered one of the biggest falses of all times and exemplification of a meta-truth.

For those interested what was the reaction of the greek media of the latest promotion of the para-philology and conspiracy of the Protocols please pay attention:

” “.

No, please I will not accept any comment stating that conspiracy theories have entered the mainstream public speech. Neither will I accept that the Bible of antisemitism around the world is accepted without any protests inside the Greek Parliament, (while protests were heard on mr.Alavanos controversial speech earlier). Nor of course will I accept this as a sign of indifference by the greek Mass Media. This is all slander to discredit Greece by antihellenes and I shall not tolerate it!

Sources

The full speech (in greek) by the mr.Karatzaferis admiring the author of the Protocols. (pdf)
Greek Helsinki Monitor who first located the speech.
An interesting discussion was held on the Protocols in Pondos and Aristera.
Protocols in Wikipedia (english) and an article of Ios and another brief blog post here (greek).

For the photos please hover over the images for urls. Also do take the time to read the description of the book in Perizitito online bookstore, treating them as a valid help to “understand the dogma of Israel” (sic).

Update (29/6/2008)—————–>

Take a look in the front page of AlfaEna in 14/6, the newspaper of LAOS which reproduces the claims on the Protocols, (thanks to mr.Dimitras for pointing this out).

As soon as I came across this shop yesterday, at the Fashion Center at Pentagon City, I begun to wonder, whether something like this would work in Greece. A shop offering promotion material (t-shirts, banners, flags, mugs, anything…) for the campaigns of all candidates from all parties. Frankly, I would be skeptical on that and not just because of the combined campaign offerings but on the fact that politicians promote themselves like cartoons, or artists, or singers, or (you name what). Next think you know is girls in Greece wearing tops with Tsipras’ face on , others have their morning coffee with Karamanlis‘ face on and some going to the gym with a Giorgakis work-out t-shirt. I wouldn’t dare to imagine how Papariga and Karatzaferis could be used, it’s up to your imagination . What a scenario? Frankly, nothing would cause my surprise, at least not anymore…