Monday, February 06, 2006

Anne Frank and Hitler, Reclining

Adolf ‘n’ Anne

Finally. While looking on the Hy Science blog to see if they had any information on the avian flu death in Lithuania (they didn’t) I came upon something equally compelling. The picture, which I was unable to find last night, is now posted right there at Hy Science. They put up the lovely comic depiction of Anne Frank and Hitler’s post-coital conversation that’s been making the blogorounds. This sort of satiric “art” ought to be seen far and wide, along with "Piss Christ" and the Virgin Mary in horse manure and other “avant-garde” philistinism that plagues much of government-subsidized art work.

It ought to be seen so that we have a full understanding of what it means to be tolerant. In this case, it means I am free to be offended, and Mr. Serrano is free to work out his problems in public. In the West, we don’t find it necessary to blow people up, burn their flags, or otherwise put them in harm’s way because they create offensive pieces and call them art.

In fact, we don’t even find it worthwhile to issue fatwahs on the “art critics” and “experts” who encourage such trash. We are able to differentiate enough to simply enjoy the phantasy of offing the “artists” and those critics who love them. We are mature enough to put down the pistol even when some mandarin blathers on predictably about “cutting edge transgressive art.” You hear that phrase and you know that The Vagina Monologues is coming to a university theatre near you real soon.

Oh... there is one stratum of our society that does indeed resemble the Muslim culture in their extreme reactive hostility to any criticism of their own particular sacred cows. People who appreciate The Vagina Monologues as art definitely do not appreciate those who stand in solidarity with them by attending the play in rented penis costumes. This ummm... vaginal group has been known to become violent at the notion of satire directed toward them. Perhaps this characterological trait is why you don’t see as much interest evoked in the leftist groups by the Muslim outrage. Leftists understand outrage; in fact some of them think they invented it in their Victimology Studies. Neither Muslim cultures nor leftist thinkers are known for their grasp of the longer view of history. Both appear to be so narrowly focused on their areas of expertise that they don’t have much room for secular conversation. That’s how it is with The Anointed.

Perhaps some of you know that the Baron is a landscape artist. He painted for more than twenty years — every darn cedar tree within easy commuting distance (before returning to the world of work when his Boy needed tuition money). During those years, any attempt to have him apply for a government “grant” fell on deaf ears. Art either sold itself or it didn’t, but having government officials involved was sure to make it corrupt, crony-ridden and debased.

Turns out he was right. The picture of the Blessed Mother in the manure was proof of all the things he’d said about artists supported by tax money. And given the large amounts of money paid for Serrano’s “Piss Christ,” one hopes there is enough cash left for several years of serious therapy for the umm... ”creator” of this fascinating work. Watching the crucifix floating in pee, one has to wonder about this boy’s toilet training traumas. They must’ve been horrendous; his “work of art” sure is.

Hy Science also has a link to another cartoon. It is rather large, so instead of showing it, here’s the link instead. Be sure to scroll down the page and read the... the poem which accompanies the image.

Rather edgy and explosive, wouldn’t you say?


Charles Martel said...

I don't get the Hitler/Anne Frank cartoon. Other than the fact that it is offensive to depict Hitler w this beautiful young girl that he murdered I am not sure I see the point - satirical or otherwise. Could someone explain it to me?

A. Eteraz said...

churchill: no relation to ward, I hope.

anne is the voice of the holocaust. to suggest that hitler 'had' her means that the jews were somehow complicit in the holocaust. or rather, 'wanted it' like anne does hitler. get it now?

this is one of the most digusting pieces of 'art' i have seen in my life. wow, i'm actually having a physical reaction. dont know why b/c i never even really read the diary of anne frank.

Solomon2 said...

Why not post some of the Baron's art as thumbnails in the sidebar?

Dymphna said...

Poor LizDexic!

No one told you that the first person to sneer "you suck" loses the argument, did they?

Child, that phrase gets tossed by 8th grade. Use it after the age of 14 and it makes you appear ignorant. Given the level of your ire, I'm sure you just forgot for a moment.

And merci for small graces -- I am relieved to hear you trust art collectors rather than me. That was a close call!


It would be hard to do thumbnails for two reasons: the *good* digital camera went off to college with the Baron's Boy, and the sidebar is already so cluttered that our poor dial-up is suffering big time.
eteraz: If you were a practicing Christian you might have the same visceral reaction to "Piss Christ" as you describe here. For me, *any* bad art -- say, a rusted car bumper mounted on a piece of lucite and given a *deep* and meaningful title -- has that same visceral effect.

That's why I put that 'cartoon' up: we were meant to respond to it and then to examine our responses...I keep thinking about Anne Frank's book and how much courage it gave me as a young girl. To have both those people together is like matter and anti-matter.

It makes you wonder about the cartoonist's mind, too.

Dymphna said...


Sorry about the blogger rules, but most blogs have some kind of gate-keeping policy.

Someone else complained the other day, too. It surprises me since I'm so used to signing in for commenting purposes. Brussels Journal has quite a high gate...

Besides, with blogger, you have the option of not leaving an email and/or making up a wonderful alter ego. Or three or four of them.

If you think the Hitler/Frank cartoon was disturbing, then you haven't been reading the Arab papers on line...some of them are utterly, gob-smackingly gross. The Saudi paper in particular had some awful pictorial renditions of Sharon's surgery.

Dymphna said...

Steven, you said "...You know, I would agree that it is not rational to be overly upset by a cartoon, this one included, but I know my dad would be extremely hurt by them.

But I never said to be rational about this or not to be upset. To say "you suck" closes off the dialogue. When we experience something visceral and upsettting it is important -- crucial, even -- to rummage around and figure out what our visceral response is about. Of course, protect your father. But you are secondarily traumatized and it is important that you understand your own response. Otherwise, we are not in charge of ourselves. Which is not about being "rational" -- it's about using our faculty of reason to understand an important issue.

I did not post that cartoon lightly.But it's important to see because anti-semitism is on the rise in Europe and this time we *must* be prepared.

No more sheep, just sheep dogs -- if you remember Bill Quick's essay.

A. Eteraz said...


you say that anti-semitism is on the rise, but you ahve to also admit that islamophobia is also on the rise. i'm talking about specifically in europe.

a good number of muslims in europe are good people, who don't deserve to be treated as europe once treated its jews.

Dymphna said...

eteraz, when you compare anti-semitism and Islamophobia in Europe you're talking about two different phenomena.

1. Jewish schools in Britain now have structural protection against bombers. Is this true also for Islamic schools?

2. Jewish cemeteries are being desecrated in France and England. Do you have reports of desecration of Muslim cemeteries also? Some of these graveyards are historical places, and the destruction is savagely done.

3. Jewish girls are at more risk of rape in France. This may be also true of Muslim girls, but it is Muslim youths who invented the game of retourne, not native French or Brits.

4. Synagogues in both places have been torched, covered with graffiti and have needed police protection on Holy Days. Is this true for Muslims during, say, Ramadan? Are the Christians, Jews, and atheists out hassling the Muslims?

5. It is hard to imagine Burger King apologizing to Jews because one of them complained that their ice cream cup vaguely resembled a sacred Hebrew letter. It is hard to imagine a Jew complaining about it in the first place.

Islamophobia is on the rise because Islamists are volatile, supremacist, and very much loose cannons in the public sphere. Islamophobia is the result of Muslim behavior. It wasn't a bunch of yeshiva students who set off bombs in London or Madrid.

Unless Islam can shed its present violent acting-out, Islamophobia will continue to rise. Bombs, hate talk, demands for special treatment, and contempt for the country in which they live will endear them to no one.

As you said, there are two choices for Muslims: passivity and arrogance. Until they find some tertium quid, things will continue to deteriorate.

One more: the Danish imam (who is a Danish citizen)who toured the Middle East stirring up trouble with the cartoons of Mohammed (plus a few really ugly ones that he made up and included with the others to aid the incitement)is a traitor to his country, Denmark. He betrayed his people. But he doesn't see it that way. Denmark is simply where he lives. His people are those he incited to riot and boycott.

Denmark feels hurt and betrayed by this man, and their hurt is translated into Islamophobia.

And I'll be darned if I can think of a Jew who has done what he did, either now or in the past millenium.

The funny thing about Israel is that even though it's a theocracy, many of its citizens are atheists. And some of them are Arabs. Meanwhile, the Muslims are killing off the infidels who infest their country. In Iraq there are two Jews left. In Yemen, a thousand year old Jewish culture was obliterated and the remnant moved to Israel.

Now the Middle East says their final solution to the Jews is to either kill them all or make Europe take them.

For me, anti-semitism and islamophobia are not on the same order of injustice at all. The Jews are hated and feared because they exist; the Muslims are hated and feared because they kill people at will and do not seem bound to the rule of law that the rest of us take for granted. That cartoon of Hitler and Anne Frank was drawn and posted by European Muslims. Think about it.

A Hindu ashram moved into our area 20 years ago. I've never worried about them coming to do me harm. But if an equal number of Wahhabist Muslims moved in down the road, I'd sell my house.

That makes me Islamophobic, but it's a recently acquired phobia which began to fester on 9/11/2001. So far I haven't found a way to cure it.

A. Eteraz said...


Fair response. Just two points.

1 - The Europeans who were massacaring the Jewry didn't subjectively think that the Jews had not done anything. They had laundry lists of 'reasons' for their anti-semitism. In hindsight, its clear that most of their reasons were at worst, bull, and at best, hyperbole. So, simply because you give me a lot of reasons for why your phobia is justified, doesn't mean that your phobia is justified. Why? See point 2.

2 - Just as with historical anti-semitism in Europe by Europeans, they could not distinguish between one Jew and another, so your "reasons" do not distinguish between one Muslim and another. Oh, sure, you might in your heart think that not all Muslims are complicit in destructive activities, but for a moment look at how you convey your message. You do it by lumping all Muslims together. "The Muslims are hated and feared because they kill people at will and do not seem bound to the rule of law that the rest of us take for granted." It's rhetoric like that which once led to Europeans killing Jews. That's a very destructive "the." I absolutely agree with you that there are destructive Muslims in Europe (and in other parts of the world including America). However, you seem to forget that at one point, there *were* Jews in Europe who were charging exorbitant interest and using their ability to extend interest in predatory activity. Also, Jews of that time were guilty (in the eyes of europeans) of another crime: of choosing to be Jewish over and above being European or French or German. (Something Muslims are also accused of). Not being an anti-semite, I obviously don't believe that the European reprisal to such allegations was justified. No, it was inhuman. *However* just as the European reprisals against Jews simply because a handful of jews were unethical and did not consider themselves French enough were not ethical, so any European reprisal against "the Muslims" should be considered unethical. It's a matter of consistency. I consider myself a component of the Western civilization. I believe that it should be consistent.

3 - With regards to Algerian rape and other evidences of specific crimes in Europe, I believe the solution is to take constructive action which will bring these people into the ambit of the mainstream. Economic stimulation might be a start. You may have heard today of Abu Hamza in Britain being indicted. I'm all in favor of using rational and judicial means to bring all Muslim perpetrators to justice. However, let's leave the islamophobic rhetoric out of it. It makes you sound like a bigot. I think you'd concur that bigotry is what we're fighting against and trying to remedy. Why should you fall to the level of people whose behavior should *not* be emulated.

Dymph: civilizational and social conflicts in a million ways. Before I got involved in trying to assist the Muslim-West divide, I was deeply involved in assisting the black-white divide in the U.S. Especially since I come from the deep south and have seen and lived some of the abject conditions that create it. I met many white american in this time who were simply unwilling to let go of their 'phobia' of black people. The cure, I'm afraid, I don't have to give. The cure, actually, is our own soul; which asks us to be better than who we are. To strive to be a force of good in the world.

Ask yourself this: do you want to assimilate Muslims in the west because you wish to share with them the beauty of your society? if the answer is yes, then phobia will have to be remedied. If the answer is no, then might I ask you to have a bit more hope. I know it's hard. But we're in it together.

A. Eteraz said...

i realize that was far more than 'just two points.'

OBloodyHell said...

> No more sheep, just sheep dogs -- if you remember Bill Quick's essay.

You referring to this?

The specific reference, though, was written by "Lt. Colonel Grossman, a far better man than me, a man who does things I only talk about, writes in his introduction to The Bulletproof Mind..."

(even if I am wrong, it's worth the read for anyone uninitiated to it...)

And to lizdexic: Get a grip. The point wasn't to spread anti-semitism, it was to show how offensive images can be -- and yet, unlike the average muslim, we (read: most peoples of civilized nations) don't start riots and burn things down just because something is offensive.

...And if that's the most offensive image you've recently encountered, you haven't been looking around. There are plenty of far more revolting pieces floating around of Islamic manufacture.

to eteraz:
> a good number of muslims in europe are good people, who don't deserve to be treated as europe once treated its jews.

Quite simply:
Then let them stand up and be counted.

Let them sign their Declaration of Independence from the "violents" of Islam with the bold strokes of John Hancock.

I, personally, am sick and tired of hearing how many "moderates" there are. If they are too cowardly and weasely to stand up to those who are hijacking their religion, then they need to grasp -- with no uncertainty -- that this is going to fall on their heads eventually -- because they will have rendered themselves indistinguishable from the dangerous ones, and the patience of the west is growing thin, despite the appearance to the contrary.

This purports to be a "moderate". I believed it until I noted this:

Haters of Islam use the simplicity and elegance of its black-and-white rigor for devious political advantage by classifying the Koran's religious edicts as the cult-like behavior of fanatics.

Sorry, it's not a black and white world, and only a lunatic claims it is such. To allow only two colors "black" or "white" is essentially saying "You're either with me or against me."

It does not allow for the sort of flexibility that any civilized peoples absolutely must have -- particularly if they wish to be a part of a polyglot and not "rulers of all they perceive".

To be civilized is to realize that someone else may see things differently than you -- that, to them, your "black" is merely a darker shade of grey. Tho the civilized, your "white" is merely a lighter shade of grey.

Yes, too much of this, and one will descend into the miasma of moral relativism.

Too little, though, results in exactly what he decries it as *not* being a sign of -- unmitigated fanaticism.

A Balance is the only solution.

What THIS man does not realize is that HE is ATTACKING -- directly and intentionally -- a value which *I* consider as sacrosanct as his so-called "prophet". ... Far more so, in fact, since I don't need to be told by some cleric somewhere to defend it.

And I will unhesitatingly shoot him until he is dead, dead, DEAD if he attempts to interfere with that right.

Can he hurt me and mine? Yes.

What he fails to grasp is that my people -- as have been noted elsewhere by others -- have already more than amply demonstrated a willingness to engage in the kind of wholesale slaughter which he and his kind can barely hope for... and his one or two nukes will be of little significance after every arab city on the planet has been reduced to radioactive glass.

HE and his religion do not dictate the rules -- and never will.

As I have said before, elsewhere: I don't want that destruction... And I don't like that we may be reduced to that "black or white" decision... But it can certainly be the way it will be if he insists on only two shades.

THIS desire of his, we CAN accomodate.

OBloodyHell said...

To those who would continue debating with eteraz, i strongly recommend first you read the following:

The pattern of claims he expresses is more than amply described. Note what he does in the first post, then how he responds with Tu-Quoque.

Eteraz: People are onto the game. Islam is gonna lose, if it doesn't learn the rule of flexibility.

Not how to fake flexibility. Real, true, honest flexibility.

Here's your 10 Commandments