San Francisco has bigger scandals than a debauched mayor

San Francisco has been in the press a lot lately (and inspired some pretty funny Jay Leno riffs) because of Gavin Newsom’s sexual misconduct with his ex-campaign manager’s wife. It’s sordid, it’s sexy, and, at bottom, it’s not troubling. That is, as with all good sex scandals, we can purse up our lips disapprovingly, look for the scintillating, salacious details, and know that, in the grand scheme of things, this story will have absolutely no effect on our lives.

The problem with this sex scandal is that it’s been useful to depress two other, much uglier and more significant stories out of that same city. The first story sheds some light on the renewed fervor and aggression of Holocaust deniers. Eli Wiesel, a famed Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner (one of those who actually deserved the prize), was assaulted and almost kidnapped at a San Francisco hotel by a Holocaust denier who had been stalking him for some time. Wiesel sees the attack on him as something larger than a single sick person’s obsessive mania:

Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel said in an interview published Monday that an attack on him earlier this month in San Francisco shows that Holocaust deniers are increasing worldwide and getting bolder by the day.

The Holocaust scholar was dragged from an elevator and roughed up during a peace conference at a San Francisco hotel on Feb. 1, according to police. The author was not injured.

“Until today they used words; now they have switched to violence,” Wiesel told Milan-based daily Corriere della Sera. “Their numbers are growing by the day.”

He’s right. In year’s past, Holocaust deniers were small groups of greasy haired wackos skulking around at hole-in-wall conferences. That all changed when Ahmadinijad convened the world’s most “prestigious” Holocaust denial conference — one that Matthias Küntzel credibly believes isn’t just the latest gathering of ugly kooks but is, instead, the first step in preparing the world for a new Holocaust:

Just as Hitler sought to “liberate” humanity by murdering the Jews, so Ahmadinejad believes he can “liberate” humanity by eradicating Israel. The deniers’ conference as an instrument for propagating this project is intimately linked to the nuclear program as an instrument for realizing it. Five years ago, in December 2001, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani first boasted that “the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything,” whereas the damage to the Islamic world of a potential retaliatory nuclear attack could be limited: “It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.” While the Islamic world could sacrifice hundreds of thousands of “martyrs” in an Israeli retaliatory strike without disappearing–so goes Rafsanjani’s argument–Israel would be history after the first bomb.

***

Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism at its most extreme. Whoever declares Auschwitz a myth implicitly portrays the Jews as the enemy of humanity: The assumption is that the all-powerful Jews, for filthy lucre, have been duping the rest of humanity for the past 60 years. Whoever talks of the “so-called Holocaust” implies that over 90 percent of the world’s media and university professorships are controlled by Jews and are thereby cut off from the “real” truth. No one who accuses Jews of such perfidy can sincerely regret Hitler’s Final Solution. For this reason alone, every denial of the Holocaust contains an appeal to repeat it.

(By the way, I cannot urge you strongly enough to read all of Küntzel’s article, since it goes to the heart of the extreme madness that is modern anti-Semitism.)

The second story goes beyond Western dhimmitude and into the realms of psychotic identification with murderous thugs. A little background first. San Francisco State University (“SFSU”) is an old and once respected San Francisco institution. Its roots go back to the last days of the 19th century. It boasts some famous and some infamous graduates, including politician Willie Brown; comedian Dana Carvey; actress Annette Bening; novelist Anne Rice; sorry-excuse-for-a-comedian Margaret Cho; singer Johnny Mathis; Kennedy buddy and naive conspiracy theorist Pierre Salinger; and conservative writer and radio host Michael Medved,* among others. My father, a nice Jewish guy, was also an SFSU graduate (in the same Masters program as Michael Medved, although their paths did not cross).

Many of our family friends, all of them nice Jewish guys, were professors at SF State too. They were good professors, but they were also all old-time Jewish liberals who felt it was the right thing to do to invite Black Pantherette and Communist Angela Davis to become a professor there. Sadly, my dear old Jewish liberal friends seem to be reaping what they so inadvertently, and with the best intentions, sowed.

San Francisco State University has become increasingly radical, even by San Francisco standards, in the past few years. Palestinian groups, which have been an increasingly dominant campus presence, almost succeeded in having expelled a Russian immigrant who verbally challenged their violent anti-Semitic rhetoric. Eventually, even the University administration, which supported the Palestinian efforts against her, was forced to concede that Tatiana Menaker had done nothing wrong — she was just being persecuted for exposing the dominant anti-Jewish politics at SFSU.

Jews aren’t the only ones in the radicals’ crosshairs at SFSU. Republicans are also a target. In 2004, SFSU’s administration did absolutely nothing when Palestinian student groups violently attacked College Republicans who were distributing Bush/Cheney materials. That 2004 event educated the administration to the fact that, when verbally threatened, Palestinian groups get violent; and assured the same Palestinian groups that, when they got violent, the administration woudl leave them in peace to attack another day.

The campus College Republicans, showing exceptional bravery for a small and persecuted minority (which is what they are at SFSU), have been at it again, trying to exercise their First Amendment rights. This time, they held an anti-terrorism protest on the campus’s “Malcolm X Plaza” (clearly Martin Luther King is too tame for SFSU). Debra Saunders explains the insanity that subsequently ensued:

This story starts with an “anti-terrorism rally” held last October on campus by the College Republicans. To emphasize their point, students stomped on Hezbollah and Hamas flags. According to the college paper, the Golden Gate (X)Press, members of Students Against War and the International Socialist Organization showed up to call the Republicans “racists,” while the president of the General Union of Palestinian Students accused the Repubs of spreading false information about Muslims.

In November, the Associated Students board passed a unanimous resolution, which the (X)Press reported, denounced the California Republicans for “hateful religious intolerance” and criticized those who “pre-meditated the stomping of the flags knowing it would offend some people and possibly incite violence.”

Now you know that there are students who are opposed to desecrating flags on campus — that is, if the flags represent terrorist organizations.

But wait — there’s more. A student filed a complaint with the Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development. OSPLD Director Joey Greenwell wrote to the College Republicans informing them that his office had completed an investigation of the complaint and forwarded the report to the Student Organization Hearing Panel, which will adjudicate the charge. At issue is the charge that College Republicans had walked on “a banner with the world ‘Allah’ written in Arabic script” — it turns out Allah’s name is incorporated into Hamas and Hezbollah flags — and “allegations of attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment,” as well as “actions of incivility.”

At an unnamed date, the student panel could decide to issue a warning to, suspend or expel the GOP club from campus.

When FIRE took up the cudgels on the Republicans’ behalf, SFSU went even further down the dhimmitude path, and into the realm of Stockholm Syndrome. As Saunders reports:

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a group that stands up for free speech on campus, has taken up the College Republicans’ cause. FIRE sent a letter to SFSU President Robert Corrigan that urged him to “spare SFSU the embarrassment of fighting against the Bill of Rights.” The letter noted, “Burning an American flag as part of a political protest is expression protected by the First Amendment.” And: “Speech does not constitute incitement if a speaker’s words result in violence because people despise what the speaker said and wish to silence him or her.

“By punishing students on the basis of how harshly, violently or unreasonably others might react to their words,” the letter argued, “SFSU would create an incentive for those who disagree to react violently, conferring a ‘heckler’s veto’ on speech to the least tolerant members of the community.”

The university’s response? Spokesperson Ellen Griffin told me, “The university stands behind this process.”

And: “I don’t believe the complaint is about the desecration of the flag. I believe that the complaint is the desecration of Allah.”

To which FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley responded, “It really doesn’t make any difference whether it’s the flag or a religious figure.”

If the College Republicans had denigrated Allah, I would defend their right to do so, while noting I have no use for the gratuitous Islam-bashing endemic in certain circles.

But it is not the students’ fault that Allah is on the Hamas and Hezbollah flags — in a language they don’t read.

Besides, every freshman should know that students have a right to say what they will about any religion, while believers enjoy the right to talk back.

Charles Johnson summed it up the whole thing at Little Green Footballs when he titled his post on the subject “insulting Allah now a crime at SFSU.”

This is truly the world turned upside down. In the sane world, it’s puerile but allowable under the First Amendment to step on someone’s flag to make a statement. (Indeed, in the insane world of the Middle East, it’s de rigeur to burn the American flag on a regular basis for precisely this reason.) However, in the topsy turvey world that is radicalized SFSU, even though Hamas and Hezbollah are murderous terrorist organizations, the fact that they’ve incorporated the word Allah (in Arabic script) on their flags means that those who protest these organizations’ violent acts by using symbolic speech in turn find themselves accused of committing hate crimes and inciting violence.

As I noted above, what happened at SFSU goes beyond the usual dhimmitude. That is, to the extent SFSU mentioned that the flag stopping could “possibly incite violence,” it’s clear that the school, in good dhimmi fashion, learned its lesson in 2004 when the Palestinians actually engaged in violence against speech that offended them. SFSU isn’t going to get in the middle of that fight any more, that’s for sure (“that fight” being any fight in which Muslims/Palestinians are one of the combatant groups).

More significantly, though, the administration’s claim that it is acting to protect the desecration of Allah indicates that this far Left, presumably secular institution, has completely embraced the ethos of a group that is holding it psychology hostile through the ongoing threat of violence. James Lewis, writing at American Thinker, explains what he sees happening to so many institutions and governments worldwide:

Psychiatry is familiar with an odd syndrome called “identification with the aggressor.” It’s sometimes called the Stockholm Syndrome, after the behavior of air passengers taken hostage by PLO terrorists at the Stockholm Airport in 1973, who, when they were rescued, came out singing the praises of their murderous captors.

***

The most infamous examples come from World War II Nazi concentration camps, where some prisoners were placed in charge of others. According to witnesses like psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, these “Kapos” would wear discarded pieces of Nazi uniforms and often abuse their fellow victims. Unconsciously they were identifying with the aggressors, to ward off the awful awareness of their own vulnerability. People do things like that in extremis.

Now look at the behavior of the Left since 9/11, both in this country, Europe, and even Israel. Rather than feel righteously angered by the terrorist mass murder of 3,000 innocent people, large parts of the Left have adopted the aggressors’ point of view. They keep telling us that the Islamic fascists were right to blow up innocent people who had done them no harm; some of them have taken on conspiracy theories, claiming that Bush or Israel really committed the atrocities. At the same time they are in deep denial about the danger of future terrorist attacks on American soil, and blindly refuse to see the rising threat of nuclear proliferation by stateless terror groups. Instead, they “displace” their fear and anger on George W. Bush. To the Left, once Bush is gone, the terror problem will simply and magically go away.

***

The Left claims to value “peace” above all things; but that means that self-defense ranks nowhere. It’s not an option — at least not when Republicans are in office. If we leave out self-defense against Iranian nukes or El Qaida truck bombs, there is no option except submission. That is what “identification with the aggressor” comes down to. It is a Stockholm Syndrome for millions of people — most of the readers of the New York Times and the UK Guardian, just for starters.

To make things worse, the Left itself is ruthlessly aggressive against conservatives, democratic individuals who happen to disagree with them. There is a true persecutorial viciousness in the Left’s attacks on Republican presidents, from Herbert Hoover to Dwight D. Eisenhower and George W. Bush. Emotionally, these people want to destroy those who defy their demands. Almost all the assassins and would-be assassins of American Presidents since JFK have been Leftists, starting with Lee Harvey Oswald. So their rage is not exactly harmless.

(This is another article I urge you to read in its entirety.)

The way I see it, SFSU has gone from fearing its excitable Muslim students, to actually embracing an ideology that ought, in theory, to be completely at odds with the radical secularism that characterizes the Left. It’s reasonable to believe that this counterintuitive outcome results from the fact that the campus Left deeply fears these new radicals, people whose ideology is much more frightening than the chic Communism that Angela Davis embodied, and they have come to associate with the Islamofascist values as a way of distancing themselves from their fear.

And that’s why, while it’s fun to giggle over a titillating and sordid little sex scandal in San Francisco’s City Hall, the real stories in San Francisco, the ones with repercussions that ripple far beyond the San Francisco Bay, are the ones that took place in a downtown hotel and on a uninspiring little university campus.

_______________

*Funnily, the website that lists famous grads doesn’t mention Michael Medved. I only know he went there because he said so on his radio show.

del.icio.us | digg it

19 Responses

  1. Comprehensive post, Book.

    As I noted above, what happened at SFSU goes beyond the usual dhimmitude. That is, to the extent SFSU mentioned that the flag stopping could “possibly incite violence,” it’s clear that the school, in good dhimmi fashion, learned its lesson in 2004 when the Palestinians actually engaged in violence against speech that offended them. SFSU isn’t going to get in the middle of that fight any more, that’s for sure (”that fight” being any fight in which Muslims/Palestinians are one of the combatant groups).

    Remember whatt they told us, Book. Violence solves nothing. But they just have demonstrated that violence solves everything. It even convinces people that the person doing the violent acts is right, even when all the logical and reasoned arguments of Republicans did not do so.

    This is the key principle behind dealing with enemies from a position of strength. Strength commands respect, it is also genetic in that sense. It is implied that if you go up against strength and power that you will be crushed, so self-preservation on a genetic level, pushes your actions one way. Away from being crushed that is.

    So when they say that we are using too much strength and being a bully, what they really mean is that we aren’t using enough. Because if we used enough, they wouldn’t criticize us, either because we would be strong and winning, or because they would be scared.

    What would happen to a person in Venezuella writing in a newspaper that Hugo Chavez is akin to Hitler? Compare that to what happens to reporters in the US when they say things like that about Bush. It is the difference between operating from a position of strength and operation from a position of mercy and weakness.

    Btw, you catch Sala’s post about this Jewish boyfriend thing?

    http://www.dailytarheel.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=83168244-ce8c-46e6-9edc-194de7cf345d

  2. Y: Is Sala’s article satire, or is she really that shallow and revolting a person?

  3. These days the absurb and reprehensible is probably true.

  4. TYPO: that should read absurd and represensible.

  5. Real. You can tell by the fact that she said that she had anarchist tendencies and it is a conflict because she also wants a Palestinian state. Can’t say that it was a surprise she fell for the ‘Qana false flag’ operation. Well done that one was.

    Oh, when I say Sala, I mean CDR Salamander ; )

    It is on his main page –>

    that should read

    I think you should have just left it at absurd ; )

  6. Thanks for the Sala tip. Didn’t catch that. I think of him as Phibian!

  7. Faliuer to pwoofreed. My bbadl.

  8. It shocks me that a radical university would allow the burning of its own nation’s flag (as I am certain they do) but not allow the burning of other nations’ flags. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT IS WRITTEN ON THOSE FLAGS. But, I must wonder, why am I shocked? Leftists have rarely been able to organize around a principle. There are no such thing as principles, just occurences, and each occurrence is unique alone.

    Having said that, I wonder if a different protest might not be effective?
    A. Locate the parts of these flags that contain the script ‘Allah’. With a pair of scissors, CUT IT OUT.
    B. Begin your protest by waving the flags and chanting, ‘Down With Theocracy!’ and ‘Separation Of Church And State!’. Removing a symbol of God (however you may see your God) from any national flag is precisely a correct protest to separate church and state. Shouldn’t THAT go over well at a leftist university?
    C. Once that part of the protest is complete, and now that Allah is no longer present in script as written on these flags, now it should be perfectly fine to begin a protest against the two countries and BURN THEIR FLAGS and STOMP ON THEM! Because they no longer contain the Allah script, you are now protesting precisely the actions of these two countries.

  9. Actually their principle seems quite simple. Hate and undermine America, the power and prestige of America. That’s it. Anything that is good for America, must be blown up. Anything that is bad for America, must be promoted. Seems simple enough of a philosophy for the Left.

  10. Ymarsaker, you’re right. That was glib of me. They do have principles – but they seem to violate them upon any expediency. It must be noted that they’re hardly alone in this: the positions of the Left and Right on Kenneth Starr’s prosecution of Clinton for lying about sex to a grand jury have been reversed exactly 180 degrees for Fitzgerald’s prosecution of Scooter Libby. Principle requires that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. But we don’t see enough of that anywhere. Political expediency is the name of the game.

    I’d like to clarify my above post (#8). I’m not a fan of national flag desecration. I’d never do it. But once you admit to its use, then by principle you can’t start refusing it for this nation or that nation. Also, I was speaking with religious tolerance when I advocated – and I am serious – removing ‘Allah’ script from the flags before protesting against theocracy. If you can protest by defacing any national flag, but you can’t carefully cut a religious symbol from a flag, what are we left with? I am quite serious too, that once ‘Allah’ has been – with great care – removed from the flags, as a nod to religious sensibilities, then there is no remaining argument against burning or stomping on their flags, as students at that university would burn and stomp on our own.

  11. Well written. I’ve linked to this outrageous story on my blog. There are a couple of Wiesel books I’ve been meaning to read. Now seems like the time to purchase them.

  12. FWIW the assault on Wiesel took place in Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district. I don’t think that says anything about Ms. Pelosi herself but it’s sadly suggestive of the people who elected her.

  13. The brief report I read on the internet stated the assailant had been trailing Wiesel for weeks. How do you know he was even from San Fran? I think that is rather thin reasoning to condemn the entire SF Congressional district on the basis of one anti semite stalker. Not that SF isn’t a hotbed of trendy lefties but this nutcase who accosted W. might be from a compound in Montana for all we know.

  14. [...] Bookworm Room, “San Francisco Has Bigger Scandals Than a Debauched Mayor” [...]

  15. [...] its picks for the most outstanding posts of the preceding week. The winning Council post was Bookworm Room’s post, “San Francisco Has Bigger Scandals Than a Debauched Mayor”. Second place honors went to [...]

  16. What a fabulous post, Bookworm. I hope that you don’t mind, but I am going to cut and paste it into an e-mail and circulate it (with the proper attribution, of course). Thank you…………..

  17. [...] 1st Place: “San Francisco Has Bigger Scandals Than a Debauched Mayor” by Bookworm Room [...]

  18. [...] of speech on trial at SFSU A month ago, I wrote about dhimmitude run amok at San Francisco State University in San Francisco, where the University had announced its [...]

  19. […] also remembered that I too wrote something about SFSU’s toxic environment.  I wrote it more than seven years ago, but it’s as pertinent today as ever.  Here are the […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: