What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Hoist on his own Petard

This post by Pejman Yousefzadeh has been much linked, in the last couple of days.

In a nutshell, Yousefzadeh complains that Conor Friedersdorf, standing in for Andrew Sullivan at "The Daily Dish" has linked, with limited approval, to a post at "The American Conservative" by a certain Philip Giraldi, who, upon close inspection, turns out to have a long history of expressing the most shocking views [scroll down to "Holocaust as political industry"] - even going so far as to suggest that some Americans have exploited the memory of the Holocaust for their own political ends.

So far, so good.

Unfortunately, in the course of his complaint, Yousefzadeh links, with apparent approval, to this rather remarkable response to Giraldi's screed, by James M. Unger, which includes the following words:

"...the Holocaust...was carried out...with the help or acquiescence of most Christians worldwide...Many Christians believe that the truth of Christianity licenses them to evangelize and otherwise meddle in other people's lives. The Holocaust is unique in the archive of brutality because it invalidated that specific belief...Christianity is the prototype of all modern totalitarian ideologies..."

* * * * *

Well.

I'm trying to figure out why I should be all up in arms about Conor Friedersdorf linking to Philip Giraldi, but all quiescent about Pejman Yousefzadeh linking to James M. Unger. And I'm coming up empty.

Comments (22)

Lordy, here we go again. Btw, I can't find the link to Unger in Y.'s post. I assume it's there, but it doesn't come up on a page search, so apparently one would have to hover over every link to find it.

Here is the letter:

P. M. Giraldi and J. K. Taylor argue from the premise that "the Holocaust is hardly unique in the 20th century" to the conclusion that "most invocations of the Holocaust are cynical and bogus" attempts to "justif[y] special breaks not only for its survivors, but also for their descendants and co-religionists" and "to intensify the collective guilt...of America's Christian majority." However, the Holocaust was unique in one crucial respect: it was carried out in the heart of Christian Europe, with the help or acquiescence of most Christians worldwide, and in spite of the resistance of the rest. Many Christians believe that the truth of Christianity licenses them to evangelize and otherwise meddle in other people's lives. The Holocaust is unique in the archive of brutality because it invalidated that specific belief, just as the purges of Stalin and the Cultural Revolution invalidated the moral presumptions of communism.

Much good has been done in the names of Christianity and communism, but even more evil, and both failed definitively when history put them to the test. Understandably, they failed for the same reason, since Christianity is the prototype of all modern totalitarian ideologies: They both put ultimate authority over infidels in the hands of the faithful. The world was once so sparsely populated and technologically primitive that the damage periodically caused by such religious foolishness was at least limited if not always endurable, but today a single misstep can lead literally to global annihilation. Either we grow up and abandon totalist ideologies categorically or humankind shall perish. It is only a matter of time. Western civilization, at least, provides no "safety net." That is the true lesson of the Holocaust.

Is this not the real reason Giraldi and Taylor decry "the Holocaust industry in academia" so loudly? They do not resent being made to feel guilty; they obviously don't feel guilty at all. They simply resent the way the Holocaust preemptively discredits traditional Christian claims to universal authority.

James M. Unger, AB'69, AM'71
Columbus, Ohio

I wonder if our commenter Al would subscribe to such views.

Well, yes, there is obviously a difference. In the post to which Y. objects, Giraldi's name is used and his writings are quoted in support of the author's own view. In Y's own post, he simply links Unger's letter as one of a series of "strong rebukes" generated by Giraldi's old letter. The word "strong" could simply mean "strongly worded," not "right, righteous, endorsed by me, strongly argued" or anything of the kind. Unger isn't named or quoted (which is what makes it so hard to find the link without guidance). The "approval" implied is much more attenuated, if present at all, in the Unger case.

I shouldn't really have to say this. It's kind of obvious.

I thank Steve Burton for his post. As Lydia McGrew indicates, my use of the word "strong" meant "strongly worded." "Spirited" would have been a better choice. Obviously, I and other Jews are well aware of the fact that scores of Christians were outraged and appalled at the persecution of Jews initiated by the Nazis, and that many risked life and limb to protect Jews, and/or to try to bring the Third Reich to an early end. My purpose in linking to the letter was to make public the three responses (my own included) published by my alumni magazine's decision in response to the letter Giraldi co-wrote. I hope this clears up the matter, and again, I appreciate Steve Burton's decision to call my attention to this matter.

My purpose in linking to the letter was to make public the three responses (my own included) published by my alumni magazine's decision in response to the letter Giraldi co-wrote.

Yes, exactly. It was obviously just part of the narrative of the history of the letter incident. I think any fair-minded reader could tell that.

As opposed to starting an article like this:

"Given recent calls to limit the influence of Islam in America, we might do well to consider James Unger's suggestion that we take a closer look at the history of Christianity [link]."

Which would be the more relevant parallel case.

Either we grow up and abandon totalist ideologies categorically or humankind shall perish. It is only a matter of time.

I almost fell off my chair at the self-satire present here. Categorically, no less: in other words, I am presenting a totality view of what is right or wrong in the world, and one of the things that is always wrong, categorically, is totality views of the world. Mine excepted.

Haven't we outgrown this nonsense yet? Sigh.

Lydia - fair enough. But I think there's no denying that anti-Christian - and especially anti-Catholic - rhetoric more or less gets a pass from a lot of people who are ultra-sensitive to any sign of anti-semitism. And I think that's a problem.

Mr. Yousefzadeh - thank you. That is very well said.

Giraldi's intelligence gossip column is one of my favorite parts of AmConMag, and his interview with Sibel Edmonds deserved more coverage than it got. So I'm sad to see his 12-year-old letter lacked the common sensitivity you would show if you knew relatives of Holocaust victims (or survivors themselves) would be among your readers.

It won't make me stop reading him, but it'll give me pause.

At the same time I'm surprised Mr. Yousefzadeh remembered the letter after all these years. Did you seriously remember Giraldi's name? Invoking his letter didn't exactly advance the debate over how much aid to send Israel.

It's also nutty how much the original Rand Paul interview has been abused. Paul gave a 10 minute interview, Blitzer asked leading questions, and then it's only the controversial Israel bit that gets attention. I'm glad Paul was forthright, and I hope the reaction doesn't encourage him to keep his mouth shut.

These are hard times, and a lot of sacred cows need to be slaughtered (or at least put on a diet).

What Unger and his sort miss is that Christianity has been "found wanting" in the sense he implies only when it's been allied to the state. Which would mean that the problem isn't with the religion per se, but with the religion's co-opting by the state. Christianity is not, of course, inherently theocratic; if it were, it wouldn't have survived its first 300 years.

One cannot say the same for either Islam or communism, both of which bore the sword from their very inception. Totalizing violence is in their genes.

What Unger and his sort miss is that Christianity has been "found wanting" in the sense he implies only when it's been allied to the state.

What Unger and his sort miss is the fact that German paganism was the de facto state religion of Nazi Germany. You can no more blame Christianity for the Holocaust than you can blame Daoism or Confucianism for the Cultural Revolution.

Great post. I enjoy Giraldi's criticism of the Israeli lobby. The fact that Giraldi was in the CIA and experienced the Israel lobby first hand makes his criticism even more thought-provoking. That said, I often find Giraldi to be a little too much of a Muslim apologist for my taste. Isn't it possible for one to adopt a pro-Western position and be skeptical of both Muslims and Israel? Neither is truly on our side. The same neocons that call for war in the Middle East only recently sided with Muslims in Europe against white Christian Russians.

"Christianity is the prototype of all modern totalitarian ideologies..." Sounds like something Spengler would write (as he thought Christian universalism the fons et origo left-wing thought and the Bolshevik state), so it's curious to see someone like James M. Unger make a similar case.

I have to say that I don't find Lydia and Pejman Yousefzadeh's explanation convincing. At first I thought Lydia was being sarcastic. Yousefzadeh did nothing to distance himself from the opinion in that piece, and I can't help feeling that it fails the test of purity he wants in regard to other writers, as in the following two examples:

"... and they don’t even try to do anything to disassociate themselves from those anti-Semites."

"But why is Giraldi allowed anywhere near the realm of polite conversation when it comes to this, or any other issue, given his insane views?"

Moreover, the entire post is filled with vitriol, meant to shame those who sympathize with Giraldi or the "band of merry bloggers" that quote him or link to him favorably, while enraging those that share the biases of Yousefzadeh. Just look at how he describes Giraldi's thought: "obsession," "lunatic ravings," "nasty and disgusting comments," "plain and simple derangement, and the derangement that he excites in others." There is no way this level of abuse does not exceed the bounds of polite conversation. This is not conversation, but highly charged emotional rhetoric that comes one step short of calling down curses on your opponent.

Yes, but I think Giraldi does have an obsession.

In any event, there is a _huge_ difference in rhetorical force between _quoting_ a person, _naming_ that person, and implying clearly that that person has something to teach us about a foreign policy issue, on the one hand, and on the other hand simply linking _all_ of the letters that were sent in during some controversy on a given side, naming none of the writers (other than oneself), quoting none of them, and saying nothing particularly positive about any of the letters.

Anyone who can't see that just has an axe to grind.

In fact, Steve, who wrote the original post, more or less admitted that my point was a fair one. In other words, Y. is not "hoist on his own petard."

I did not entirely dispute the difference, but argued that it was overwhelmed by the rhetorical ferociousness of the post, and I would imagine that anybody who approaches the piece with indifference would see that. That post was nothing but axe-grinding; it reminds me of Mac Flecknoe and Lines to a Don.

If my take on the post was wrong, I doubt Steve ever would have overlooked the 'huge difference' you cite, and which I consider a mere slight-of-hand distinction. He simply had no need to link to that piece, especially in regards to his criticism of comments left on sites. And his use of "strong," even if we accept the limited meaning, is unequal to his description of others as "nasty and disgusting" and "deranged."

The "rhetorical ferociousness" of Y on the subject of Giraldi is completely irrelevant. If one is simply giving the history of a letter controversy and lists, with links, all the negative letters published by the alumni magazine about the letter one is also condemning, this is not *even remotely close* to the association one has with an author one names and actually _quotes_, _favorably_, on a topic substantially related to a topic on which that person is a nut-case or even is likely to be viewed by others as a nut-case. Y. didn't quote Unger on anything, much less anything to do with the evaluation of Christianity, with America's relation to Christianity, etc. Nothing remotely like that. There is simply no remotest comparison. He was simply _linking the letters_ as part of giving the history. That's _it_. Logically, there's no way that can be "overwhelmed" by anything to do with Giraldi whatsoever, whether you agree with Giraldi or anything. That's just a _separate issue_. The point is that even _if_ one considers Unger's comments as objectionable than or more objectionable than Giraldi's, there is still no reason to say that Y. is "hoist on his own petard," because the rhetorical connection is just _not there_ in the first place. This is a matter of being able to read.

In other words, the main post was wrong. It was mistaken. It shouldn't, in fact, have been written, because it was an attempt to make a comparison that turns out on even a cursory examination to be extremely weak.

Yep. That's my position. So sue me.

Lydia: I guess we're just going to have to disagree about this one.

I'd have been perfectly happy to let it rest. But this:

"...the main post was wrong. It was mistaken. It shouldn't, in fact, have been written..."

...is just too much.

Look: Pejman Y. attacked Conor F. for linking to a perfectly reasonable post by Philip G., on the grounds that Philip G. has elsewhere expressed views which Pejman Y. considers anti-Semitic.

Meanwhile, in the course of making his case, Pejman Y. linked *directly* to an almost *unbelievably* offensive chunk of Christophobia, apparently under the impression that it furthered his case against Philip G.

That was, to put it mildly, a mistake.

My own guess is this: Pejman Y. gave his link a cursory once-over and found nothing much to object to - until I called him on it.

Y. does not limit his criticism to the use of quotes in the substance of an argument, but extends it even to the opinions of commentators, from whom he thinks the posters should clearly distance themselves. Yet he did not distance himself from the letter from Unger, which he needlessly linked to. He brought Unger into the conversation by linking to him, and there is no reason given to believe that those letters of disapprobation were meant as anything other than support for his view that Giraldi is beyond the pale.

I see no reason to believe that Y.'s criticism would not extend to links such as he uses.

Steve, you're just using the term "linked" in a way that obscures all the relevant differences I've pointed out. What can I say? That's not very philosophical. It borders on the fallacy of equivocation. Y. doesn't merely criticize Conor F. for "linking" Giraldi but for quoting, naming, and linking him in a way that implies that he's some kind of source on issues closely, indeed intimately, related to the very issues on which Y. thinks people should be distancing themselves from Giraldi. That's not just criticizing him for linking him. I'm sorry, but you're just glossing over things to try to force a comparison that will not work.

Lydia: I'm happy to "accept" Pejman's excuse, 'cause, on the whole, I'm inclined to like him. But, since you seem determined to push me up against the wall, here - I don't believe that excuse for a moment.

I think it's pretty obvious that he read the posts to which he linked, and that he didn't see anything wrong with them, until I objected.

I mean, in all your years of blogging, have you ever attacked somebody, and then linked to somebody else's attack on said somebody, without comment, when you weren't in sympathy with said attack?

Well, yeah - me neither.

Truth is, he read it, he nodded along, he linked to it, and it never even occurred to him that there was anything offensive there. 'Cause he's got a blind spot.

I think it's pretty obvious that he read the posts to which he linked...it never even occurred to him that there was anything offensive there. 'Cause he's got a blind spot.

I don't think it's at all obvious since his own letter to the alumnae mag took careful account of the suffering of other religious adherents both Christian and Muslim; it's a letter very different in tone than Unger's own. That's not to say that he shouldn't have read it before linking to it, but it's not at all obvious that his reading of it was anything other than cursory. If this is an oversight on P.Y.'s part, it is not as much of one as the moral equivalence you draw between the link to Unger and the other to Giraldi. You should be 'all up in arms' about the latter because he's a paranoid, Jew-hating conspiracy nut. If you think P.Y., via his link to Unger, is a paranoid, Christian-hating conspiracy nut, give the evidence. You can use rhymes-with-shmoogle to find out.

I will say I'm a little puzzled by "...I and other Jews are well aware of the fact that scores of Christians were outraged and appalled at the persecution of Jews initiated by the Nazis..." Scores? As in the 40 to 80 range? Maybe it's a typo.

Steve, if you've got independent evidence on this, that's one thing. I know virtually nothing about P.Y. Literally. I only started reading any of his stuff last night. And it wasn't on the topic of Christianity. So he could have some sort of blind spot about Unger or sympathy with him that I'm not aware of, but that would be the way to make your case, not to present the two types of "links" as though they are _on the face of it_ similar, because on the face of it they are totally different.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.