Quand ils sont venus chercher les communistes,
Je n’ai rien dit,
Je n’étais pas communiste.

Quand ils sont venus chercher les syndicalistes,
Je n’ai rien dit,
Je n’étais pas syndicaliste.

Quand ils sont venus chercher les juifs,
Je n’ai pas protesté,
Je n’étais pas juif.

Quand ils sont venus chercher les catholiques,
Je n’ai pas protesté,
Je n’étais pas catholique.

Puis ils sont venus me chercher,
Et il ne restait personne pour protester

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984), pasteur protestant arrêté en 1937 et envoyé au camp de concentration de Sachsenhausen. Il fut ensuite transféré en 1941 au camp de concentration de Dachau. Libéré du camp par la chute du régime nazi, en 1945.

[ eng. When the Nazis take the Communists ... ] [ esp.  Cuando los nazis se llevaron a los comunistas ] [ fr. Quand les nazis prennent les communistes... ] [ deu. Als die Nazis die Kommunisten nehmen ] [ it. Quando i nazisti prendono i comunisti ... ] [ ch. 当纳粹采取共产党人 ] [ rus. Бесполезно в политике? Да, но с нюансами. ] [ ar. عندما قام النازيون أخذ الشيوعيون ]

L’escriptor alemany Bertolt Brecht és conegut, sobretot entre el gran públic, per una frase que va fer fortuna. I lamentablement la frase no és seva.  És aquella que parla de la permisivitat amb la tirania. La frase forma part d’un poema escrit per Martin Niemöller, un pastor luterà alemany, la història del qual és interessant conèixer. Clicant a sobre del nom, podreu accedir a la informació que sobre ell consta a la Wiskipèdia. La poesia es titolava “Quan els nazis van venir a buscar els comunistes”

El gossot de la crosta té feina pendent: RAC-1

Com que l’escrit era un cant contra la tirania, he pretés fer-ne un de similar, basat en el seu, per denunciar com la tirania del nacional-socialisme tripartit va abatent tota la dissidència que li fa nosa. El que potser haurien de recordar, tots els qui col·laboren de grat en aquesta miserable guerra per eliminar el pensament nacional del nostre escadusser imaginari, és que aquells que volien durar 1000 anys, amb prou feines en van durar 12. Van fer mal, és clar. Tot el que van poder i més, però amb tot no van aconseguir perpetuar-se, ni físicament ni política.

Quan els “nazis” anti-crosta van treure’s de sobre la Mónica Terribas,
vaig guardar silenci,
perquè jo amb prou feines veia el seu programa,

Quan van silenciar l’Antoni Bassas,
vaig guardar silenci,
perquè al matí m’era impossible escoltar-lo,

Quan van forçar la retirada de Vicenç Sanchís,
no vaig protestar
perquè jo no sabia que era en Desclot,

Quan van eliminar la veu d’en Salvador Sostres,
no vaig protestar,
perquè el trobava massa de dretes,

Quan van venir a tancar-me el blog,
ja no hi havia ningú més que pogués protestar.

Permetrem que tota aquesta gossada de sociates i satèl·lits aconsegueixin deixar-nos sense cap veu crítica per denunciar aquest II Reich, també anomenat Tristpartit? Ja només sobreviu RAC-1. Haurem de dipositar les nostres darreres esperances en el Conde de Godó? Anem ben servits, doncs! Què tal, senyors d’Esquerra, seguim “Construint Estat”… Espanyol? Si Macià, Companys, Irla i Tarradellas aixequessin el cap…

Martin Niemöller was a war hero.  He had served on U-Boats during the First World War and commanded a U-Boat in 1918 sinking a number of ships.  After the war he resigned his commission in the Navy in opposition to the Weimar Republic and briefly was a commander in a local Freikorps unit. His book Vom U-Boot zur Kanzel (From U-boat to Pulpit) traced his journey from the Navy to the pastorate. He became a Pastor and as a Christian opposed what he believed to be the evils of Godless Communism and Socialism.  This placed him in the very conservative camp in the years of the Weimar Republic and he rose in the ranks of the United Evangelical Church of the Old Prussian Union.  Active in conservative politics, Niemöller initially support the appointment of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.  However, he quickly soured on Hitler due to his insistence on the state taking precedence over the Church.  Niemöller was typical of many Germans of his era and harbored ant-Semitic sentiments that he only completely abandoned his anti-Semitic views until after he was imprisoned.  He would spend 8 years as a prisoner of the Nazis a period hat he said changed him including his views about Jews, Communists and Socialists.  Niemöller was one of the founding members of the Pfarrernotbund (Pastor’s Emergency Federation) and later the Confessing Church. He was tried and imprisoned in concentration camps due to his now outspoken criticism of the Hitler regime.

Herman Maas was another Evangelical Pastor.  Unlike Niemöller, Maas was a active participant in the ecumenical movement, built bridges to the Jewish community and defended the rights of Jews as German citizens.  He received a fair amount of criticism for his attendance of Reichspräsident Friedrich Ebert’s funeral.  Ebert was both a Socialist and avowed atheist.  Maas too was active in the Pfarrernotbund and the Confessing church, and unlike Niemöller maintained his opposition to anti-Semitism and the Nazi policies against the Jews. He would help draft the Barmen declaration.  He too would be imprisoned and survive the war.  Maas was the first non-Jewish German to be officially invited to the newly formed state of Israel in 1950. In July 1964 Yad Vashem recognized the Maas as one of the Righteous Among the Nations.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer a young Pastor and theologian would also step up to oppose the Nazis and offer support for the Jews.  He helped draft the Bethel Confession which among other things rejected “every attempt to establish a visible theocracy on earth by the church as a infraction in the order of secular authority. This makes the gospel into a law. The church cannot protect or sustain life on earth. This remains the office of secular authority.”  He also helped draft the Barmen declaration which opposed and condemned Nazi Christianity.  Bonhoeffer would eventually along with members of his family take an active role in the anti-Nazi resistance as a double agent for Admiral Canaris’ Abwehr.  For this he would be executed after his final sermon in the concentration camp at Flossenburg just a month prior to the end of the war.  Another opponent of the Nazis in the Confessing Church was Swiss-German theologian Karl Barth.  Barth went into exile as a Swiss citizen but remained active in the criticism of the Nazi regime.

Bishop Galen of Münster and Father and others including Father Rupert Meyer in Munich who opposed Hitler in the early 1920s would also oppose the Nazi policies toward the Church and the Jews.  They would also end up in concentrations camps with some dying at the hands of the Nazis.

All these men took risks to defend the Jews who were religious minority group that had been traditionally discriminated against in Germany.  They opposed the Nazi policies which were widely supported by much of the German populace making them unpopular in their own churches as among the traditionally conservative supporters of the Evangelical and Catholic Churches.  The Jews were not simply discriminated against as a racial or religious group but also identified with the political left, especially the Social Democrats, Independent Socialists, Communists and the Spartacists. Since the Independent Socialists, Communists and Spartacists were all involved in attempts to create a Soviet state during the early tumultuous years of Weimar and been involved in many acts of violence against traditional German institutions and the state, they were viewed by Hitler and others as part of the Bolshevik-Jewish threat to Germany.  Karl Liebnicht and Rosa Luxembourg were among the high profile leaders of this movement in Germany and both were Jewish.  The fact that many in the leadership of the Bolshevik movement in the Soviet Union were Jewish added fuel to the fire that the Nazis stoked in Germany.  Hitler and the Nazis played on the historic, but muted prejudice against German Jews who in many cases were more secular and German than religious and had assimilated well in Germany.  Hitler’s rhetoric as well as that of other Nazis and Nazi publications helped identify the Jews as part of the “Stab in the back” myth that was commonly used by the German right to explain the defeat in the First World War.  Thus they were painted as a political and social threat to Germany.

When Hitler took power persecution of the Jews began in earnest.  Jews were along with Communists, Trade Unions and Socialists enemies of the state.  They were banned from the military, civil service and other government employment, professional associations and forced to wear a gold Star of David on their clothing.  Their property was seized, many were abused by SA men acting as deputized auxiliary police and many times their businesses, Synagogues and homes were vandalized, burned or seized by the state.  Many would be forced to flee in order not to be sent to ghettos and concentration camps.  Even those leaving only escaped with the minimum of their possessions as the Nazi regime extorted anything of value from them as they left Germany.  This was all done because Hitler and those like him portrayed the Jews as not only an inferior race, but enemies of the state and the German people.

Today we face a similar movement in conservative circles in the United States.  This time it is not the Jews, but Moslems who are the targets of xenophobic rage by many influential members of the “conservative” media, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and numerous others.  Their popularity in voicing support for “Christian morale values” such as being against abortion has ingratiated them with conservative Christians.  It is so bad that that many “conservative” Christians cannot differentiate between their vitriolic and un-Christian rage against Moslems, Democrats or anyone else portrayed by the big media talkers as the enemy that they have forgotten the Gospel and become simply an appendage to Republican or “conservative” politicians.  It is not uncommon to see Christians on the web or on the call in talk radio programs identify lock stock and barrel with Limbaugh and others identifying the crass materialism and social Darwinism of “pure” Capitalism and the anti-Christian policy of pre-emptive war.   That may seem harsh, but many of these people in the “Conservative Bible project” seek to re-translate the Bible into their own political, social and economic policies even seeking to change or minimize any Scripture that might be equated with the “Social Gospel.”  Unfortunately many Christians and others have jumped in on the anti-Moslem and anti-immigrant crusades launched by those on the far right.

These men and women have found new grist in the wake of the traitorous terrorism of the disaffected and possibly psychotic Major Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood where he killed 13 and wound 30 Soldiers and military civilians.  Why Hasan was allowed to continue to serve after numerous reports of his Anti-American and pro-Jihadist is the question that needs to be investigated.  However the reaction of some is to treat all Muslims as suspect in a collective manner.  This is troubling.  I have posted just a few of the comments by various “conservatives” some who are Christians to demonstrate the point.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is demanding that Moslems be removed from the military or other security related positions in government.  His position is that until we can prove which Moslems are not going to commit acts of terrorism that we should ban them from the military.  His comments are here:

“It it is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday’s massacre is living proof. And yesterday’s incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers. Of course, most U.S. Muslims don’t shoot up their fellow soldiers. Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we’ll go back to allowing them to serve. You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you’re right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it’s used, and we’ll welcome you back with open arms. This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism.”

Pat Robertson of the 700 Club and Regent University said:

“Islam is a violent–I was going to say religion–but it’s not a religion. It’s a political system. It’s a violent political system bent on the overthrow of governments of the world and world domination.”

“They talk about infidels and all this. But the truth is, that’s what the game is. You’re dealing with not a religion. You’re dealing with a political system. And I think you should treat it as such and treat it’s adherents as such. As we would members of the Communist party and members of some Fascist group.”

Dave Gaubatz, author of Muslim Mafia said:

“Politicians, Muslims, and law enforcement are concerned about a ‘backlash’ against Muslims. Now is the time for a professional and legal backlash against the Muslim community and their leaders.” The post was redacted later by the website that it was on to change “backlash against the Muslim community” to “backlash against the Muslim Brotherhood.”  I guess the website realized that the use of the term community went a bit far.

Brigitte Gabriel of the American Congress for Truth told students at the Joint Forces Staff College  in response to the question “Should we resist Muslims who want to seek political office in this nation?”

“Absolutely. If a Muslim who has — who is — a practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah, who abides by Islam, who goes to mosque and prays every Friday, who prays five times a day — this practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran, cannot be a loyal citizen to the United States of America.”

Tell that to the Moslem Soldiers and Marines who have given their lives for this country and their fellow warriors in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Some of those include: U. S. Army Corporal Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq, U.S. Army Specialist Rasheed Sahib who was accidently shot to death by a fellow soldier in Iraq, U.S. Army Major James Ahearn, killed by a bomb in Iraq, Army Captain Humayun Khan, who lured a suicide car bomb away from the men in his charge, saving their lives but giving up his own, Army Spc. Rasheed Sahib, an American Muslim from Guyana, Army Spc. Omead Razani, a son of Iranian immigrants or Marine Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Waters-Bey, who was killed in a helicopter crash, and sadly many more.

Popular Talk Radio host and Fox News commentator Glenn Beck made this comment back in December 2006:

“I’m telling you, with God as my witness… human beings are not strong enough, unfortunately, to restrain themselves from putting up razor wire and putting you on one side of it. When things—when people become hungry, when people see that their way of life is on the edge of being over, they will put razor wire up and just based on the way you look or just based on your religion, they will round you up. Is that wrong? Oh my gosh, it is Nazi, World War II wrong, but society has proved it time and time again: It will happen.”

Timothy Rollins of the American Partisan suggests in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings:

“While the dust is still settling and everything starts getting sorted out with the usual deflections away from the truth that this administration is notorious for doing, there is no better time than now to improve the safety of our military, and this can best be done by enacting the Great Muslim Purge from our military and other national security apparatuses. These people need to be removed from every security post, even to be completely removed from all levels of government employment, be it federal, state, county, city or other municipality. This applies especially to universities. To keep them employed in these positions places our food, water, and other essential services at unacceptable risk.”

Of course there is Doug Giles an unabashed “Christian” columnist for Townhall.com using scripture to justify torture making this delightfully Christian comment in one of his columns about the practice of water boarding:  “Please note: If Christ wasn’t cool with irrigating irate Islamicists for facts, I must admit, I would still have to green light our boys getting data from enemy combatants 007 style. Stick a fire hose up their tailpipe and turn it on full blast. I don’t care. I’m not as holy as most of you super saints or as evolved as some of you progressive atheists purport to be. Security beats spirituality in this scenario, as far as I’m concerned.”

This is so similar to the Nurnberg Laws and the Aryan Paragraph issued by the Nazis that it is scary.  Likewise the threats to American Moslems of placing them “behind razor wire” as we did to American Japanese citizens in World War II are chilling.  I wonder how Christians would react if an atheist or someone on the political left suggested all conservative Christians or members of pro-Life groups be imprisoned for the actions of Christians or pro-Life movement members like Scott Roeder or Eric Rudolph who killed to stop abortion or Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church?

This new found militancy has swept up the “Christian right” and others since 9-11 and has reached proportions that I could never have imagined. After my tour in Iraq I realized that much of what these people were saying was not Christian at all and when taken to their logical conclusion would be a police state in which anyone who opposed them would be persecuted. In Iraq I met many good Moslems fighting on our side against jihadists and terrorists many of whom have great respect and appreciation of the Christian faith and are more tolerant to Christians than many Christians are to Moslems.  These men put their families at risk to side with us to try to free Iraq from Al Qaida terror.  Almost all had lost family and friends to extremists.

As for the suggestions or demands that all Moslems be investigated and removed from the military these people insist that such action is necessary in the name of “security” and “protecting the Constitution.” All Moslems, even those who are loyal American citizens as well as those from Iraq and other nations who fight and die alongside Americans are placed on the same level as the fanatics and terrorists.  I question the motivations of the leaders of the movement but believe that most of the Christian conservatives have been caught up in the anger and the emotion of the times versus being true believers in what these men say.  That being said, you don’t have to be a true believer to be a willing accomplice in actions that first are not Christian and second trample on the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

I could keep citing examples but if someone can show me where this is condoned in the Gospels I would like to know.  The fact is that Christians are to place God first and defend the rights of others, even non-believers.  This is found not only in Scripture but runs through the Christian tradition across the denominational spectrum unfortunately there are Americans such as Marine Reservist Jasen Bruce have gone “terrorist hunting” and misidentifying a Greek Orthodox Priest as a Jihadist attacking him because of he didn’t speak English. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1050707.ece Admittedly people like Bruce are idiots, but it doesn’t take much to push some people over the edge.

The fact that so many people are suggesting such actions against American Moslems is troubling on a number of levels especially when those doing so claim to be Christians.  First is that it is the Church, or member’s thereof adopting a non-Christian worldview and attempting to use the state to enact legislation and laws against minority groups that they oppose, in this case the Moslems.  The fact that we live in a secular state, something that many of our Nation’s founding Fathers intended it to be, especially in regard to religion being mandated by the state is a point lost on many of these people.  Many Christians have completely embraced the mythology of the United States being a “Christian Nation.” With some even regarding the Constitution as a God inspired document.  For a more detailed critique of the Christian Nation mythology see Jared Holloway’s article on his Saepe Nihil Cogitamus website: http://jzholloway.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/did-the-founding-fathers-usa-found-the-nation-as-a-christian-nation/

Thankfully there are some, including the daughters of one of the men killed by Major Hasan who said on CBS The Early Show Kerry Cahill said:

“You can’t blanket a whole group of people. There’s extremists in every religion, and there’s extremists all over the world…when this man was obviously ill, I think.” Her sister Keely Vanacker said, “The death of our father or any of these victims shouldn’t be an excuse or a reason to begin to hate an entire group of people.”

There are also leaders of the Religious Right who have taken a stand against such action, Reverend Rob Schenck, President of the National Clergy Council, comments in regard to the Moslem prayer vigil in Washington D.C. earlier this year:  ”With over 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, it is important that Christians have an open dialogue with the Islamic community. The church must never be timid in reaching out to peoples and groups with differing beliefs and traditions. Too much is at stake for future generations not to begin this historic conversation. This is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss.”

And the Reverend Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition states:

“The heart of Christ is to reach out and build bridges to all peoples regardless of what their faith traditions or beliefs might be. Several years ago the Christian Defense Coalition began reaching out to the Muslim world which resulted in a prayer delegation going to Baghdad to pray for the nation of Iraq and Prime Minister Maliki. Since then we have had many conversations and discussions with Islamic leaders in Washington, D.C. and around the world. This news conference gives us another chance to dialogue and share with our Islamic neighbors. It also gives us the platform to celebrate the greatness of America where everyone is allowed to practice their faith tradition in the public square free from government interference of harassment. The prayer vigil on the lawn of the Capitol this Friday highlights that timeless truth. Since 9/11, the church should not run from Muslims in America but begin reaching out with God’s love.”

What the good people who suggesting these punitive actions against American Moslems do is dangerous, not just for Moslems and other minorities but for them.  American and English law is based on legal precedence.  Once something has been determined to be legal, or constitutional it is considered by the law to be settled law.  This is a point made by Chief Justice Roberts regarding Roe v. Wade at his confirmation hearings.  If Christians want to use the law against Moslems or for that matter any other minority be it religious or political they tread on very dangerous ground.  Not only do they make a mockery of the Gospel command to love our neighbors, care for the foreigners among us and to be a witness to non-Christians support policies or laws that if enacted could and very well would be used against them by their opponents.  Law is all about precedent and if such laws were enacted and upheld by the courts they would be settled law that could be used against anyone.   What these dear brothers and sisters fail to realize is that such laws can be turned against them if the state should ever decided based on the statements of actions of some that the Christian community is a threat to state security of the public welfare.  With the actions of some radical Christians who have committed murder and violence against political, social and religious opponents it would not be hard for the government to label whole churches as enemies of the state.  The law is a two edged sword and those who want to use it to have the state enforce their religious, social, ideological or political beliefs on others need to remember what comes around goes around.

The Confessing church understood this and many were imprisoned, exiled or killed for this belief.  The founding fathers of this country understood this too, that is why there is the Constitution protection of Religion in the First Amendment.  This was put in because Virginia Baptists who had been persecuted by Anglicans lobbied James Madison for the amendment in the Bill of Rights threatening to withdraw their support for his candidacy if he did not.  Niemöller would discover the depths of his earlier folly in prison telling one interviewer after the war:

“I find myself wondering about that too. I wonder about it as much as I regret it. Still, it is true that Hitler betrayed me. I had an audience with him, as a representative of the Protestant Church, shortly before he became Chancellor, in 1932. Hitler promised me on his word of honor, to protect the Church, and not to issue any anti-Church laws. He also agreed not to allow pogroms against the Jews, assuring me as follows: ‘There will be restrictions against the Jews, but there will be no ghettos, no pogroms, in Germany. I really believed given the widespread anti-Semitism in Germany, at that time—that Jews should avoid aspiring to Government positions or seats in the Reichstag. There were many Jews, especially among the Zionists, who took a similar stand. Hitler’s assurance satisfied me at the time. On the other hand, I hated the growing atheistic movement, which was fostered and promoted by the Social Democrats and the Communists. Their hostility toward the Church made me pin my hopes on Hitler for a while. I am paying for that mistake now; and not me alone, but thousands of other persons like me.”

It is easy for well meaning people Niemöller to be bought with promises of support by politicians and media types who speak the words they want to hear in difficult times.  So today I suggest the formation of an ecumenical Pastor’s Emergency League which will not be bought by the empty and godless promises of hate mongers on the right or the left.  Such a group of men and women spanning the breadth of the Christian tradition and others that see the danger of extremism of all types is becoming necessary.  Such a step is becoming necessary due to the militancy of the Christian right as well as the militancy of atheist groups who lobby against all public religious expression by any religion.  Such a League would respect the various creeds and statements of faith of each member’s denomination.  The movement o the right has set a dangerous course fraught with perils that they do not comprehend. Just allow those that they believe are oppressing or persecuting them now to be empowered with the precedent of laws discriminating against specific religious groups against the Christians that supported them in the first place.  It will be a bitter poison indeed when that happens to them later if American Moslems were to be targets by such laws.

We have entered a dangerous phase of American history.  These movements have the potential not only to oppress law-abiding and patriotic American Moslems and to crush the religious freedoms of all in this county. Suggesting that American citizens, including those who serve the county in the military or government of entire religious or ethnic groups be  targeted for punitive action on the basis of extremists and fanatics like Major Hasan sets a precedent that is chilling.

Niemöller would say it well in this poem:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Peace,

Padres Steve+

This poem has always been very powerful to me.  I hope you find some meaning and power in it as well.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak out for me.

A family member sent me this Washington Times article the other day. While a quick and concise read, Puden misses the ball on two important points. Puden’s words in italics:

• Mr. Obama and his White House can’t seem to get their brains around the fact that the election of ‘08 is over, and he won.

Puden is in line with Rush Limbaugh who months ago predicted that Emperor Giggles’ campaign for President would never be over. Giggles has been on a constant media blitz since taking office to force his thug political ideology down our throats, appearing calm, cool and collected to lull the imbeciliatory American electorate to sleep through monetary means.

But Emperor Giggles isn’t just in 24/7 campaign mode. As Joe the Plumber so easily flushed the words out of then-candidate Giggles, the ultimate aim of the Emperor is to distribute wealth through transforming our current understanding of ‘America’, a socio-economic system of relative freedom from government regulation and interference in the private sector to one of Socialist/Marxist slavery to government.  Ergo what Puden doesn’t seem to understand is that Giggles is not simply another politician transformed by the dark side of the Chicago political machine. Rather, Giggles is to America what Mao was to China, Castro was to Cuba, Kim Jong Il was to Korea…need I go on?

The whispers and sound bytes from Giggles’ own mouth continue to show the nudity of his dangerous, racist, Marxist ideology. If Giggles’ was just another corrupt politician, then we need not be as alarmed as the Conservative Right says we should be. Corruption can be countered much more easily than a man who infiltrates the political system with an ideology so foreign and so anti-American. Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, Bill Clinton, former NY Governor Elliot Spitzer, to name a few. And such is precisely what Giggles’ holds, a belief system which we can daily observe driving him to behave in ways more positive towards Muslim regimes and oppressive dictatorships than towards the country which gave him the freedom to believe and act as he so freely chooses.

• Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and Fox News are big enough to take care of themselves, but the implications of what the Obamanauts are trying to do are scary, indeed.

The best thing Limbaugh does is he is the most readily known epitome of the freedoms the Constitution guarantees. But here Limbaugh’s attributes end and his fault begins. He continues to sit on his now-thin laurels, smoking cigars and collecting a $400 million contract check as he rages against the sins of Washington. While he is right many times in what he says, he is unwilling to lead any kind of charge against government encroachment into the private sector. Of course he will admit why he chooses not to do so and his excuse seems plausible – it wouldn’t be a bonefide, grass-roots movement if he was responsible for calling people to action. That is smoke and mirrors. He is simply lazy. Imagine George Washington supporting the theory of Revolution but not leading the Continental Army for the same reason. Or James Madison refusing to write the Constitution. Or…need I go on?

The point is while Rush and his ilk are collecting paychecks from Conservatives who enjoy hearing smooth, Conservative talk, the government keeps itself busy, continuing to take away freedoms in small chunks, the very freedoms guaranteed us in the Bill of Rights; Did Martin Niemoller write his poem for us?

I could be labeled as a fear monger. That my words are overreaching and things aren’t as bad as they seem. Remember, though, the tides of  tyranny begin gently. They come on soft waves, hidden within the need to ‘protect freedoms’ and ‘ensure one faction doesn’t trample on the toes of another faction’. Soon enough, tyrants emerge because there are so many factions arguing amongst each other that they are unable to see corrupting power advancing.

Limbaugh, Hannity and others like to say Conservative talk radio is the only arena where the media is still free, that the liberal left has the universities, newspapers, etc. When, pray tell, is a Conservative going to stand up and begin to lead the fight against government’s abuse of its power? When will that faction begin marching on Washington? Suing Washington for its infringement on the Constitution? For overstepping on the lives of individuals? For creating and perpetuating every domestic and foreign mess?

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

- Thomas Jefferson

Abi Mowbray

More than half of Britain believes the BNP “have a point” with policies that speak out for the ‘indigenous white British’, a YouGov poll has revealed.

22% of those questioned said they would “seriously consider” voting for the BNP in the next election.

The Daily Telegraph poll suggests that public support for the right wing party has increased since Nick Griffin’s Question Time appearance.

With Friday’s announcement that Britain is currently experiencing the longest recession on record, the sudden increase in right wing support comes as no surprise.

Recession and racism

There is a definite historical correlation between recession and support for right wing policies that seek to scapegoat minorities.

Public money used to fund unpopular wars in the thirteenth century led to recession and the eventual expulsion of the British Jewish population.

Hitler and Mussolini both capitalised on economic decline to project their parties’ racial policies to desperate nations.

Today, history is simply repeating itself.

Insecurity is the greatest catalyst for racism.  People want an easy answer, a simple solution. A party who will facilitate voters’ desire to blame someone, anyone, will always do well in a recession.

Political consensus

The rise in support for the BNP has also been attributed to a consensus between the main political parties. A vote for the BNP is apparently a protest vote. But too many ‘protest votes’ will become a majority vote.

We must not return to a thirteenth century mentality.

The Jews arrived in Britain from France. It was Medieval society’s refusal to accept them as ‘British’, that allowed for their expulsion. Similarly, Griffin refers to black Britons as “racial foreigners”.

To misquote Martin Niemoller who at first supported Hitler’s rise to power but later realising the extent of his extremist policies opposed him, “First they came for the ‘racial foreigners’ and I did not speak out-because I was not a ‘racial foreigner’. Then they came for me.”

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me” – Martin Niemoller.

Martin Niemoller was a controversial figure, whose motives and actions are still debated by historians, theologians and political theorists to this day. But his words (above) ring as true today as they did in the 1940s. Like many Lutheran pastors (and other religious leaders) in 1930s Germany, Niemoller was an anti-communist who opposed the democratic experiment of the Weimar Republic and its associated ‘decadence’, welcoming the Nazi accession to power in 1933 even to the extent of apparently having official meetings with Adolf Hitler.

Some of Niemoller’s preaching also contained decidedly antisemitic sentiments, something he certainly was not alone among his contemporaries in utilising for theological and political ends. But Niemoller’s views gradually began to change as Nazi power grew in strength during the 1930s, and he objected in particular to Hitler’s attempts to exert powerful state control over the church and religion. The deeply embedded and influential position of the various Christian churches within German society meant that government control over them could act as a way of legitimizing and strengthening the Nazi regime via the ‘support’ of the Nazified church, a move which would radically politicize Christianity in a way that many within the church, including Niemoller, objected to as being in direct opposition to their Christian values.

Niemoller, and others within the Protestant community in particular, made their objections to this policy perfectly clear; he and many pastors who had previously supported National Socialism began to visibly move away from its tenets, although Niemoller himself continued to be publicly critical of the Jewish community – despite the broader-minded and more tolerant approach taken by many of his anti-Nazi colleagues within the church. However, by the late 1930s, the Nazi government had got heartily fed up of the often vocal and public opposition from these men of the cloth; men whose words still carried a great deal of weight within their communities and who thus, almost by default, were considered a threat to the regime.

As a result, and between 1938 and 1945, Niemoller was imprisoned in Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps for ‘activities against the state’, only being released at the very end of the war. In the immediate aftermath of the war, he was a signatory to the Stuttgart Declaration of Guilt, a document produced by the German church in which it admitted that it had been inadequate in its opposition to the Nazi regime.

Niemoller himself is also said to have admitted he had been wrong in his previous personal approach to Nazism and the Jewish community, and that his wartime imprisonment had changed his way of thinking for the better (although there is some evidence that this may not have entirely been the case). He later became a confirmed pacifist, and very publicly (and often controversially) campaigned for nuclear disarmament up until his death in 1984.

His famous words, quoted above, were written at some point during the immediate post war period, and exist in a number of different versions – many bastardised by others since, but many also written by Niemoller himself. Whatever his motives were, and whatever his true views were, these words echo down the decades and, sadly, remain relevant today.

The first victims of the Nazi regime in Germany were indeed its political opponents – socialists, communists, anarchists, trade unionists and anyone who politically opposed or conflicted with Hitler’s government, including religious leaders like Niemoller. Dachau, the first concentration camp in Germany, was opened just outside Munich soon after the Nazis came to power, and it initially functioned as a political prison for such groups.

Soon after that, the Nazis began to target other groups in German society, including the mentally and physically handicapped, and the mentally ill – all of whom were considered ‘useless mouths’ by the regime; a viewpoint used to justify mass sterilisations and appalling gassing experiments (the disturbing lessons learned from the latter were put to use on a much larger scale in the extermination camps later set up in eastern Europe).

Next to be targeted on a wider scale were the Jews, the Roma and Sinti, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the LGBT community and various other groups who didn’t fit into the twisted Nazi ideal of Aryan purity – all of whom also became victims of officially state sanctioned murder, having already been the victims of political harassment and persecution. And on and on it went as the Nazis moved across Europe, spreading their message of hate and destruction.

And on and on it still goes –  all of these are groups still, to some extent or another, considered threatening, considered ‘other’ (with all that entails) by the far-right today. All of these groups remain the targets of far-right hatred and distrust, even now, in the supposedly liberal, tolerant 21^st century.

Last month marked the seventieth anniversary of the outbreak of World War Two, and it saddens me deeply to see that the kind of discrimination and hatred that defined the Nazi regime in Germany still exists in Europe and across the world – despite the deaths of millions as a result of it, and despite the post-war hope (perhaps naive?) that such bigotry had been destroyed by the efforts and personal sacrifices of the millions who fought against it.

Niemoller’s dictum has been on my mind a lot of late. Mainly because every time I read or watch the news there is always at least one more sign of such hatred; always more stories that evoke a sense of impotent anger and sadness in me. Over the last year or so, Europe alone has seen such disturbing sights as the political legitimation of far-right parties such as the BNP via domestic and European election victories, attempts to legislate homophobia in parts of eastern Europe, the disturbing and sinister growth of the Islamophobic and racist English Defence League, the use of Islamophobia by the media and far-right groups in a similar negative and fear-mongering way to the use of antisemitism in 1930s Europe, violent official collaboration with neo-fascists against left-wing and anti-capitalist opposition protesters in Greece, Roma refugees being hounded out of Northern Ireland by racist bigots, peaceful protesters being attacked by the police on the streets of London during the G20 summit, the shocking recent official destruction of the migrant camps in Calais (at the risk of further brutalising many and frequently very young individuals who are already deeply traumatized and often stateless), and – only very recently – the cancellation of Belgrade Pride because Serbian police, in the full knowledge that anti-gay groups were threatening further violence, could not or would not guarantee the safety of the marchers. And those are just a few examples off the top of my head. There are more such stories, and not just in Europe – just read any mainstream or independent news website and you’ll be virtually tripping over such stories.

Change a few details in the above examples and bring in the impact of the economic meltdown, and you could be talking about Europe in the 1930s – a time when the far-right was on the march, when the world’s economies were in collapse leading to poverty and suffering in many places, and when the ethics and necessity of wars and illegal invasions were being questioned by some. Sound familiar? We all know what happened after that.

Some political commentators and historians have been highly critical of such comparisons, seeing them as lazy and incorrect, but, as a historian myself, I believe the comparisons between the situation now and that in the 1930s to be entirely valid and particularly relevant – which is why I use them here. Refusing to look these comparisons in the metaphorical eye is a symptom of a wider refusal to acknowledge that there is actually a problem here. We are so smug and self-satisfied in our protective bubble of  modern superiority that we are quite happy to ignore genocide (Darfur, anyone?), and are happily convinced that the appalling actions of the Nazis could never happen again, because we are so beyond that level of barbarity now – despite the fact that contemporary events are beginning to prove that such hatred, violence and destruction never really went away, because those responsible, both then and now, have been allowed to get away with it.

In fact, those who commit such acts (whether governments, other authorities or organised groups of thugs), do so in the knowledge that they will face no opposition, or if they do, such opposition can be ‘neutralised’ and made ineffective. Why? Because the far-right is either politically legitimized or in the process of  becoming increasingly institutionalised across Europe, even going so far as to create links with ‘regular’ right-wing parliamentary parties (the recent and increasingly hysterical debate over the connections between the official British Opposition party, the Conservatives, and the deeply unpleasant Latvian For Fatherland and Freedom Party is but one example of this).

Such attempts to legitimate and ‘normalise’ the far right politically across Europe is evidence for exactly why it is becoming more and more crucial for all of us to stand up for ourselves, stand up for each other, and stand up against this growing far-right threat to all of us. And that means everyone – whether you are political or not and whether you are a member of one or more of the groups targeted by the far right or not just doesn’t matter.

It matters not to me where you stand in the political spectrum either: socialist, liberal, communist, anarchist, trades unionist, feminist, queer rights activist, apolitical, whatever. And neither does it matter who you are in a spiritual sense: Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, agnostic, one of many faiths or of no faith at all. What matters is that we forget about arguing amongst ourselves about the best way to deal with this threat, and that we start to speak out for ourselves and each other, working together as Martin Niemoller’s dictum so rightly suggests.

Because, on a purely personal and slightly selfish level, as an anti-fascist, as a left-wing political activist, as a part of the LGBT community, and as someone with long-term and potentially serious health problems, I don’t want to reach the point where there is no-one left to speak out for me.

And if we do nothing now, that point will come again; no matter how much we hope, pray, and fervently, sincerely believe it won’t.

Clique para ampliar

Inspirado no poema de Martin Niemöller

Li esse texto e resolvi procurar quem era Martin Niemöller… (Ainda não sei porque o Carlos Cardoso linkou o Wikipédia em inglês.)

Claro, não me dei ao trabalho de clicar nos links, apenas fui googlear… Então achei o tal poema.

Segundo o Wikipédia, o nome é “First they came…“.

O “original” é esse:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Uma tradução MINHA meio rápida seria algo assim:

Primeiro eles vieram pelos Comunistas,
e não protestei, pois não era Comunista.

Então eles vieram pelos Judeus,
e não protestei, pois não era Judeu.

Então eles vieram pelos Católicos,
e não protestei, pois era Protestante.

Então eles vieram por mim,
e neste tempo não tinha ninguém para protestar por mim.

(Algumas “traduções” encontradas na internet dizem “pois não era Católico”, e a tradução de “because I was a Protestant” certamente não é essa, então resolvi re-traduzir eu mesmo. =P)

Não sei quanto a vocês, mas eu gostei deste “poema”, por isso resolvi postar-lo. (Não me parece um poema anyway, mas o Wikipédia diz que é, então é.)

First they came for Hindraf,
I remained silent;
I was not a Hindu.

Then they locked up the bloggers,
I remained silent;
I was not a blogger.

Then they came for Perak,
I did not protest;
I was not a Perakian.

Then they came for Selangor,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Selangorian.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

Adopted from : Pastor Martin Niemöller Poem-”First they came for the Communists”

First they came for the Communists
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Original Version is in German, So this is the English Version Martin Niemöller’s poem -”First they came for the Communists”

起初他们追杀共产主义者
起初他们追杀共产主义者, 我不说话, 因为我不是共产主义者

接着他们追杀社会民主主义者, 我不说话, 因为我不是社会民主主义者

后来他们追杀工会成员, 我不说话, 因为我不是工会成员

之后他们追杀犹太人, 我还是不说话, 因为我不是犹太人

接着，他们追杀天主教徒，我没有挺身直言, 因为我是新教徒。

最后他们要追杀我, 但再也没有人站起来为我说话了

原文:马丁·尼莫拉的反纳粹的忏悔文

Apaprently, that’s the new motto of the Democrats in the House of Representatives. Their newly unveiled health care expansion bill proposes to pay for its $1.2 trillion cost primarily by way of a new surtax (surtax means, “on top of all the other taxes they already pay”) of between 1 and 5.4% on those who earn more than $350,000 annually.

For the record, let me state that I don’t make anything close to that figure and probably never will. So I have no immediate self-interest at stake if such a tax is imposed. But I’m appalled that the party controlling our federal government has apparently committed itself to wide-scale redistribution of wealth – punishing those who have been successful in order to help those who have not.

You have probably heard the economic arguments a million times, how taxing the rich simply shrinks the overall economic pie by diminishing investment capital. (In fact, something like 60% of tax revenue already comes from just the top 5% of earners.) I’m not going to belabor this point, as true as it is.

Instead, let me make a philosophical argument. Most of us accept the principle of paying taxes to the government to support the essential services that government provides (though we often disagree about what those services should be.) We like to imagine that every American makes a contribution – though in fact huge swathes of people pay no federal taxes at all because of their low incomes. (I am not convinced that someone who makes $20,000 a year can’t afford $1 in federal taxes as opposed to $0.) We also like to imagine that every American pays a fair percentage of their income in taxes. (In fact, wealthy Americans not only pay more in absolute dollars – which they should – but are taxed at higher rates determined arbitrarily.)

However, it should make us uneasy when the government starts singling out groups of taxpayers and making them pay more in taxes while others are spared. Imagine, for example, if the federal government decided that Asian-Americans should be taxed at a higher rate because they are, on average, better educated and more successful than other Americans, and can “better afford to pay.” I think we would all agree that would be an outrage.

So why isn’t it an outrage when the group in question is defined by income level? People who make $350,000 or more are not crooks who take advantage of the poor; they are ordinary Americans who have worked hard to become successful in their fields, and generally added great value to our economy by creating jobs, developing new products and services, or expanding consumer access. They are already paying *more* than their fair share under our current tax system. To impose an additional surtax is just punitive.

With each passing day of this Administration, our government’s policies seem more and more to reflect the maxim, “From each according to ability; to each according to need.” If that sounds familiar, it should – it is one of the founding principles of socialism – and an official slogan of the Soviet Union. Is that what we want to model our country after? Was that model so stunningly successful that it should be resurrected here in America?

Keep this in mind when you hear the Democrats talking about the “ability to pay” of the wealthy and those who “need” subsidized health care. They are not trying very hard to conceal their goal here. I just wish there were more voices outside the Republican Party (Nobody takes Republicans seriously when they cry socialism anymore) willing to stand up and denounce this for what it is. Middle America needs to remember that, to paraphrase Martin Niemoller, if they do not speak out on behalf of the rich now, there will be no one left to speak out for them, when our government eventually comes for them.

Our society will self-destruct when we reach the point where all those who are productive are sucked dry of their lifeblood in order to nurture those who are not. Don’t look now, Ayn Rand, but Atlas is shrugging.

Eles começaram perseguindo os comunistas, e eu não protestei,
porque não era comunista.
Depois, vieram buscar os judeus, e eu não protestei,
porque não era judeu.
Depois ainda, vieram buscar os sindicalistas, e eu não protestei,
porque não era sindicalista.
Aí, vieram buscar os homossexuais, e eu não protestei,
porque não era homossexual.
Aí então, vieram buscar os ciganos, e eu não protestei,
porque não era cigano.
E depois, vieram buscar os imigrantes, e eu não protestei,
porque não era imigrante.
Depois, vieram me buscar.
E já não havia ninguém para protestar!

Martin Niemöller (líder religioso alemão)

Lançado em 05/09/2008

This is the World War II diary of Army Chaplain Frank M. Arnold II, my uncle. I have published four earlier sets of excerpts. Uncle Frank used ellipses a lot. I am not using every entry here, but if I use an entry, I use it all. The ellipses are just his writing, possibly indicating multiple times that he wrote in the same day. My notes and translations (using Google) are in italics. CCB is Combat Command B, Uncle Frank’s primary unit.

2/20 Went to Dudelange and Dippach. At D. (sic!) spent quite a while straightening out an undisciplined adolescent who was trying to divorce his wife – whom he said he still loved – to marry an Army nurse whom he hadn’t seen for 3 mos.

2/21 Had services for 46-B and CCB at Bettembourg. Went to see Cohen for a while Went to 37^th to finish up with previous day’s business… Prepared to move quickly, and then find out it is not until tomorrow.

2/22 Left Bettembourg to the tune of tears… Stopped en route and fired Carbine, P-38 and 45. Did surprisingly well with each. Arrived at ruins of Reisdorf. Went over to Wallendorf, Germany. Beat Sgt. Morris in a game of chess.

2/23 Many casualties coming in from 10th and 53rd. Visited CCB in Germany, and watched a beautiful 105 barrage and some P47s at work. Villages here are completely destroyed.

2/24 Moved to Koerperich in Germany. Saw many destroyed pillboxes, etc… Quite a few casualties again.

3/1 Rode around. Jerry counter attacked pretty hard this morning, and got seven of our tanks and quite a few doughboys. We knocked it out. Had BS class for 126-B and drove back black out on as slippery and muddy a road as ever I expect to see – on bad hills all the way. C’est la guerre! (It’s war!)

3/6 Moved again – into a hot spot. Many prisoners arriving… Took 32 pistol from Kraut civilian.

3/7 Travelled quite a bit. Shades of olden times – heard m.g. and small arms fire on all sides and in front and behind. Gen’l. Dagar to take over 11th A.D. Col. Abrams (later Army commander in Vietnam and eventual Army Chief of Staff) gets CCB. We took a regular haul of prisoners today.

3/8 Reached Rhine. 11^th A.D. passed thru us!!! We are at Ochtendung.

3/9 Moving back to take bridge over Moselle… Took to fields in a hurry when Luftwaffe appeared… 1 plane who tried to strafe us. Simultaneously 4 P47s appeared and Jerry quickly went down in smoke and flame. Many casualties from 51st.

3/16 Travelled to Kreuznach. Took Luger from dead German officer motorcyclist. We all had warm time with Luftwaffe for awhile.

3/21 Beauboup Luftwaffe today and last few days. We are just a few kilometers from Worms… Saw some first class m.g. warfare yesterday…

3/24 Interesting experience in Worms… Crossed Rhine at Oppenheim under roof of flak and 50 cal. Many planes… Int. exper. With Kraut motorcycle… Took two prisoners… Drove until 0430.

3/25 Up at 0530. Couple of 88s came pretty close on the road. Today is Palm Sunday. Shelled a few times. Arrived Main River vicinity of Gr. Ostheim.

3/26 Wakened at 0300. Krauts counter attacking with tanks and infantry and beaucoup Luftwaffe. We shot down big Stuka flying at tree top level. Inspected ruined Panther tank factory. Liberated Russian, etc. slaves who were eating our garbage. They have been getting one meal per day (sometimes) and 1 ½ marks per day – less fines. Got a 25 automatic carried by Kraut nurses and doctors.

3/27 Moved at 1030, after cancelling 1000 service (my 19th in two weeks).

3/28 Moved again – near Giessen. Very great destruction and many dead and prisoners. Our Psych. warfare team killed by our own 47s… Took a number of 16 year old kids.

3/29 Kid with soprano voice wounded in leg and arm – crying… old timer next to him, holding his head and trying to console him… Storks on roofs of houses getting to be a common sight now… Comm. serv. at Lauterbach.

3/30 Had Good Friday service at gorgeous church in Lauterbach. Left at 1630 for Hersfeld. Stopped short of Asbach by small arms, bazookas and A.T. fire.

4/1 Off again “early in the morning.” What an Easter this promises to be! But we have a really important mission. Got stopped with a bang. Lost seven tanks.

4/2 Beaucoup FW 190s worked us over this morning. We got several of them. One of them was plenty close!! Our 16^th Field Hospital is captured intact. We are cut off from the rear completely. No word yet of Baum. Got 21 German planes.

4/3 Moved to Mettebach. Got some pretty close mortar fire… saw a few good dog fights. Lt. Wolfe got shot down by a ME 109.

4/4 Lots of Luftwaffe left apparently. Had wild time during church service, with fire coming and going in abundance… Gotha surrendered and we pushed on.

4/5 Church at Muehlburg well attended. Talked to pastor.

4/6 Moved back to Gotha for a couple of days – we hope. Saw “ne plus ultra” in church at Wachmer.

4/7 Service at Olympic For’d. Visited Nazi extermination camp at Ohrdruf (a subcamp of the infamous Buchenwald concentration camp) near Gotha. Features were; classification of prisoners, “hospital”, corpse barn, pyres and ditches and oil, dead in courtyard…

4/8 Two good services. Got “goofed up” on three others. Had lovely church at Wechmer. Got peeved – talked to Emmet and Chief of Staff. Saw dog fight in which 2 P47s shot down an ME109… pilot bailed out, and chute didn’t open… got paid…

4/10 Capt. Baum got back last night. One other man made it too. Not a very good %… Sent beaucoup silk hosiery home.

4/11 Took off early. Went slowly and got only a few kilometers past Weimar. Released 125,000 French prisoners (Buchenwald).

4/12 Got to vicinity of Jena, but held up by blown bridges. Met Chaplain Reilly (Pont Scorff).  (As described in my second and third posts from his diary, Uncle Frank won the Silver Star for his heroism at Pont Scorff.) 

4/14 Cut down 2 min. old corpse from tree in cemetery.

4/18 Moved back to Schmoeln. Rumor is strong that our part of the war is over.

4/22 Three fine church services. H.S. (Holy Spirit) was very evident.

4/23 Lazed around. We are going back to XII Corps.

4/24 Travelled 112 miles, arriving vic. Bayreuth. Third Army captured ammo. dump (Wiedenberg) containing 75,000 gas shells.

4/27 Held memorial service for CCB KIA (killed in action). Went to Bayreuth, birthplace of Wagner. His old home and piano are still there.

4/29 four services. Twelve men for’d at invitation.

5/1 Talked to those who came for’s Sunday.

5/2 Moved 156 miles, SW of Regan. Passed thru much snow on the mountains. It snowed most all day.

5/3 Visited units. Had dinner with Col. Cohen and Mr. Ziemer. Visited old monastery from 8^th cent. And talked with Germ. Maj. Gen’l and his aide – a Col. Chapel had 9 altars and over 200 frescoes.

5/4 Acc. to R.C. (Roman Catholic) Abbot who was recently released from Dachau, and who, while there, was the room mate of M. Niemoeller, M.N. is (was?) the “personal prisoner of Adolph Hitler (Martin Niemöller is best known for the quotation: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”) … Found 20 tons of Lewisite shells on Danube barge… Two services and two communions.

5/5 Cancelled 1000 service bec. of 1030 move. Didn’t move. Petulant R.R.I. isn’t coming to church any more. He’s mad at God because I give public invitations.

5/6 Taking off for Prague! Turned the calendar back to Brittany days: “Nazda!” etc. etc. Flowers, kisses, etc… Met pastor of Bohemian National Ch – a most effervescent fellow whose ears wiggled, who pumped my arm like a pump handle – and who is most likeable. He also smells of garlic. But so do all the Czechs.

5/7 Don’t know how long we’ll be here. The war in Europe is over. Announcement to be made later. We are at Hopzdovice.

5/8 V-E Day! Had three large services. In one of them the Czechs presented us with flowers, and sang their national anthem amid many tears – 1^st time in seven years.

5/9 Service at Div. Hq with JJB

5/10 Drove to XII Corps to wee “Robbie” — who is in London… Saw Russians…

This was Uncle Frank’s last entry for nearly four months until Sept. 9, 1945:

Left Lanshut 0700. Freising, Nurnberg, Wurzburg, Aschaffensburg…three flats…bivouaced in open field, in rain. I expected to hear artillery as soon as I lay down on the ground…

9/10 Left o330. Worms, Kaiserslautern, Saarbrucken, Metz, bivouaced in fine place. One flat …

9/11 Verdun. Chalons. “Miami” c. 1800 Thousands of pryamidal tents and small wall jobs. Looks like we’ll be here perhaps ten days…

9/12 Ennui

9/13-9/15 Encore

9/16 Church

9/17 Processing

9-18-9/20 Ennui

9/21 No word yet.

9/22 More of same.

9/23-9/28 Ditto

9/29 Left at 1230

The diary ends with this note typed by Uncle Frank at some later date:

And thus inelegantly and dully the diary peters out. I obviously lost interest in it with V-E Day. Made no entries at all concerning garrison life and Landshut. (Could have made some most interesting ones, too.) The trouble was that during the war I didn’t have time to write when things were most interesting. And after they had happened I some times didn’t much care to write them down… So it goes. I’ll keep a more detailed journal in World War III.

Chaplain Frank M. Arnold II died in 1965, an Air Force chaplain stationed in Hawaii. He had a heart attack while in Thailand. Fortunately, he never kept that detailed World War III journal. But I’m thankful to him for this World War II journal and for his son, Frank Yunt-Arnold, for sharing the diary with me and letting me publish excerpts and to my sister Carol for providing the photos of Uncle Frank from our mother’s family photos.

Chaplain Frank M. Arnold baptizes a solider during World War II.

Original

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich nicht protestiert; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.

Translation

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest; I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller
(1892–1984)

Seo ráiteas a d’eisigh Conradh na Gaeilge ar son Foinse ó chianaibh?

Tacaíocht do Nuachtán na Gaeilge
10/06/09
Léirigh Conradh na Gaeilge tacaíocht don nuachtán seachtainiúil Foinse i bhfianaise an chruinnithe chinniúnaigh a bheas ag Pádraig Ó Céidigh, úinéir an nuachtáin, le Foras na Gaeilge maidir le cúrsaí maoinithe an pháipéir níos déanaí inniu, Dé Céadaoin, 10 Meitheamh 2009.
Beidh cás éigeandála an nuachtáin le plé tar éis don Uasal Ó Céidigh a rá nach bhféadfadh an comhlacht foilseacháin Móinéar Teo. glacadh le téarmaí chonradh nua an Fhorais chun an t-aon nuachtán náisiúnta Gaeilge atá ann a fhoilsiú go seachtainiúil sa tréimhse 2009 – 2013, ach tá súil ag an gConradh go dtiocfaidh na dreamanna leasmhara ar réiteach gasta ar an scéal inniu.
Arsa Pádraig Mac Fhearghusa, Uachtarán Chonradh na Gaeilge: “Creideann an Conradh go bhfuil riachtanas faoi leith le Foinse, go háirithe toisc go bhfuil nuachtán laethúil na Gaeilge, LÁ, imithe, agus toisc an tseirbhís ar fónamh atá curtha ar fáil ag Foinse do phobal na teanga le tamall maith de blianta, agus toisc an fuinneamh agus an éagsúlacht atá á léiriú ar leathanaigh an nuachtáin.”
“Tá Foinse ag cur seirbhís nuachta ar ard-chaighdeán ar fáil do phobal na Gaeilge le trí bliana déag anuas agus molann Conradh na Gaeilge an dea-obair dhíograiseach atá curtha i gcrích ag foireann an nuachtáin ón gcéad lá riamh.”
Creideann an Conradh, chomh maith, go bhfuil sé rí-thábhachtach postanna in earnáil na Gaeilge a shlánú le linn an chúlú eacnamaíochta seo agus is iomaí iriseoir a bheadh thíos leis dá dtiocfadh deireadh le Foinse. Bheadh sin tubaisteach don iriseoireacht, agus do scríbhneoireacht na Gaeilge trí chéile.

Cá bhfuil na h-eagrais eile agus a gcuid raitis tacaíochta? Céard atá eagrais na Gaeilge chun déanamh ar an gceist seo? Cuimhnigh an méid a scrígh an Pastor Niemoller:

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

Tá sé in am do dhaoine dul sa bhearna baoil ar son na Gaeilge. Ná bí ar chúl. Bí i dtús cadhnaíochta. Tacaigh le Foinse inniu – agus má thagann siad slán, ar a laghad, beidh duine eigean ann le labhairt ar do shon amárach…

This is the second of a thirteen part retrospective on the book, Anxious About Empire: Theological Essays on the New Global Realities.  You can read the overview here. 

The second essay, On Getting past the Preamble, is written by Wes Avram, the editor of the book.  Dr. Avram has taught at the Yale Divinity School and now currently pastors a Presbyterian church in Arizona.  He also has a few articles and videos on Beliefnet.

Avram starts out his essay by comparing The National Security Strategy of the United States of America to a “Protestant confession of faith.”  He has a very strong point, one that shows that Robert Bellah’s idea of America having a “civil religion”  is very arguable. (I would tend to agree with Bellah on that point.)  Avram notes that each section of the document is headed by a terms that could be considered “charges to be followed.”  But then he does what so many apologists do, he tries to find something positive, some sort of common ground, some area that can be praised, so as to lessen the reprimand, or critique:

…[O]ne should give credit to the White House for offering the public such a document to ponder and critique.  that itself remains a testimony to American strength.

Are we the reader to believe that, even 5 years ago, if the public decried this document as foul, it would have been rescinded?!?

The National Security Strategy of the United State of America document wasn’t “offered” to the public, it was thrust upon the American public.

Hindsight is 20/20 and Avram’s questioning of vagueness on certain areas reads prophetically:

Are more potentially controversial applications of this broad strategy hidden behind generalities and couched underneath less controversial affirmations?

Um, like torture and indefinite confinement?  Rendition?  Drone and missile attacks across sovereign borders into Pakistan?  Yes, and this is why Avram and the other authors shouldn’t have been “anxious” about empire, but vocally denouncing empire.  I could understand being anxious in say, late 2001.  But 2004?  Did they want to make sure America was empire-building before speaking out, because I’m sure there are many people from other nations who could answer that question quite authoritatively.

Five years later, and I’m asking why Avram didn’t follow his essay up with stronger language, with more force to wake up his congregations and possibly the Church.  When he speaks about the Security Strategy proclaiming both economic opportunities for other countries, but defending America first, he points out that the two ideals are not compatible.  Why not follow that idea up and put it forth to the American Church at large?

Avram even adds in that being a member of the global body of Christ  puts him at odds with this policy for America.  But he doesn’t go so far as to say you can’t have two allegiances.  Which of course cuts the legs out from which he could have stood on.

Avram also brings up a great point about the document not defining terrorism:

…[M]ilitary and government officials are quick to label roadside bombs targeting military convoys as terrorism, so the presence of civilians must not be a necessary condition for something to be terrorism…

Sounds like the perfect setup for unending war to feed the military-industrial complex to me. 

Avram’s definition of terrorism makes America’s actions complicit to the acts of terrorism worldwide:

…[T]he attempt to manipulate people or policy through the cultivation of terror among those considered either directly or indirectly responsible for a harm against the persons, people, or cause of those sowing the terror.

So why not use that as the focus of his essay?  There are many good ideas in his essay, yet Avram for some reason, chooses not to pursue them.

Also, Avram does and excellent job of picking apart the policy that says “terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and turn the power of modern technologies against us” by noting that 9/11 was carried out via box cutters, not dirty bombs, biological warfare, and other WMDs.

Avram brings up another point, but fails to drive it home when he says governments, but moreso Christians should “pay…attention…to the claims [our] enemies would make on us.”  He says:

…[I]t takes a great deal of courage… to listen to those who hate you and… admit they may have an argument…

To say that, but then list several example prefaced by the phrase, “perhaps we should” only goes to enforce the indifference of world events by a majorityof those who claim to be Christians, let alone Americans.  Looking back after 5 years, Avram was correct, but he was not forceful enough about these issues.  Had his language been stronger and cut a clearer picture, his anxiety about an American empire, could have been used to awaken Christians to pull back from the brink, especially those who staunchly supported the marriage of neo-conservatism and evangelical Christianity, and brought us to this point to begin with.

I am reminded of a quote by Martin Niemöller after reading this essay:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then… they came for me… And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

-mike

San Diego’s 10 News is reporting that a county employee has notified a local pastor and his wife that their small Bible study group, averaging 15 people, is in violation of county ordinances and that they must “stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit.”

Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife. Broyles said, “The county asked, ‘Do you have a regular meeting in your home?’ She said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you say amen?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you pray?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you say praise the Lord?’ ‘Yes.’”

I am stunned at this (as I am with many recent developments in our country) and believe this action by the county is unconstitutional and a clear violation of individual rights; of the right of assembly and of freedom of speech. It is beyond the realm of government to ask such questions, quite beyond their business to inquire of the words we speak in our homes.

We cannot stand silent as our country is ravaged; we must speak out.

Martin Niemöller’s poem inscribed on a stone in the New England Holocaust Memorial.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for the Incurably sick,
I did not speak out;
I was not Incurably sick.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈  
Martin Niemoller,
German Protestant Pastor,
1892-1984

We come, and we go.  We make mistakes and try to rectify them. Sometimes we pay for our mistakes. Pastor Niemoller initially supported the Nazis as they rose up against the Weimar Republic in Germany, and even seemed to have anti-semitic views.  When he was liberated after 13 yrs in Dachau and another camp (for activities “against the state”), he was a changed man, and penned the above piece.

We can only do the best we can do.  Understanding this makes it mighty hard to criticize others.  We come and we go.

A parte Berlusconi, i suoi strafalcioni e i suoi tentativi di bypassare la giustizia, un altro argomento tiene banco in Italia e forse anche nel resto dell’Europa: la Fiat fa acquisti in America e in Germania.

Non sono qui per dare un giudizio sulla questione, da una parte c’è ovviamente paura per le ristrutturazioni che dovranno sicuramente avvenire, dall’altra c’è la certezza che se la Fiat “sta bene” almeno continuerà a dare lavoro, se fallisse o venisse acquistata da altri forse sarebbe peggio.

La cosa, però, che secondo me non va fatta è questa:

Luigi Angeletti, leader della Uil, a proposito delle ristrutturazioni afferma: «Aspettiamo il termine delle trattative con Opel: Fiat versa in situazioni migliori rispetto a Chrysler ed al gruppo tedesco, quindi non vedo perché dovrebbe ridurre gli impianti». Sottintendendo, evidentemente, “se proprio vanno ridotti gli impianti, che venga fatto in America o in Germania”.

Appunto, la guerra dei poveri. Siccome Angeletti prende i soldi dai lavoratori italiani difende loro, e soltanto loro. Non si prova neanche a pensare un pochino in grande.

Non dico che non debba difendere i lavoratori italiani della Fiat, ci mancherebbe, ma invece di dire “beh, licenziate quelli là, invece che questi qui”, dovrebbe parlarsi con i suoi colleghi tedeschi e americani e far pressioni sulla Fiat perché non ci siano esuberi, nè in Italia nè altrove.

La politica attuale di Angeletti e di molti altri è quella di limitare i danni, ovvero di concedere sempre qualcosina di più ai poteri forti, non esagerando per mantenere un minimo di fiducia da parte dei lavoratori.

E invece il sindacato dovrebbe lottare per conquistare nuovi diritti, senza perderli per strada!

Prima vennero per i comunisti
e io non alzai la voce
perché non ero un comunista.

Poi vennero per i socialdemocratici
e io non alzai la voce
perché non ero un socialdemocratico.

Poi vennero per i sindacalisti
e io non alzai la voce
perché non ero un sindacalista.

Poi vennero per gli ebrei
e io non alzai la voce
perché non ero un ebreo.

Poi vennero per me
e allora non era rimasto nessuno
ad alzare la voce per me.

di Martin Niemöller