Holocaust remembrance these days

The New Neo Posted on by

Holocaust Remembrance Day was yesterday. But in Britain, it’s changed:

Schools are stepping back from Holocaust Memorial Day. Not because the facts changed. Not because the lesson became unclear. Because it became dangerous. Administrators sense backlash. Teachers fear complaints. Institutions calculate risk and choose quiet. …

The West forgetting the Holocaust does not dissolve Jewish identity. Jews do not require British schools to remain Jews. Jewish memory is internal. …

So why does this matter so much.

Because in Britain, and across the West, the Holocaust is not merely a tragic chapter to teach. It is part of the foundation of the moral identity that replaced religion as a shared anchor after the war. …

It built a rules based order with human rights language, minority protections, and institutional checks meant to prevent the machinery from ever being assembled again. It built education systems that treated remembrance as civic duty, not political option.

That is why the retreat from Holocaust Memorial Day is not a marginal culture war story. It is an indicator light on the dashboard of a weakening civilization. …

… [F]ear of backlash now outranks fear of forgetting. …

This is Britain quietly admitting it is no longer sure who it is.

A country that cannot commemorate the clearest moral lesson in its modern history without fear has already begun the next chapter.

I’m not British and don’t claim to know for sure, but my sense from across the pond is that it’s actually worse than that. There is some fear of backlash, of course. But much of British society – both imported and homegrown – has become more anti-Semitic, and the schools themselves are probably staffed by more and more teachers and administrators who at best don’t care about the Holocaust and at worst wish it had been more successful.

What’s more, as the actual event recedes, there’s an understandable diminution of caring as well as knowledge. Unless a person is especially interested in the topic, and makes an effort to read in depth about what is admittedly a distressing example of evil, it is possible to gain only a very cursory and sometimes flawed understanding of what the Holocaust was, how it worked, and what it meant.

It also becomes easier and easier to have Holocaust fatigue and say to oneself, “Why are we learning about Jews and their sufferings compared to everyone else on earth who has suffered? What self-centered and annoying people Jews are; who cares?”

To some people the Holocaust has become a useful way to make false and cheap analogies against one’s opponents. To take a prime example, we have the abominable Tim Walz:

“We have got children in Minnesota hiding in their houses, afraid to go outside. Many of us grew up reading that story of Anne Frank,” Walz said. “Somebody’s going to write that children’s story about Minnesota.”

Speaking of Anne Frank, her father Otto – a person for whom I have the deepest respect – decided, for understandable reasons at the time, to edit her diary to make it more “universal” and somewhat de-emphasize her references to being Jewish. You can read about it in this article.

[NOTE: Here’s a post I wrote about an oft-quoted and oft-misunderstood quote from Anne Frank’s diary. And here’s one of many posts I’ve written on the Holocaust; two more can be found here and here.]

Yesterday

The New Neo Posted on by

I never did post another post yesterday – I was so exhausted I fell asleep early instead.

Did you ever lie down thinking “I’m just going to rest for ten minutes” and wake up five hours later?

By the way, yesterday was also the third anniversary of Gerard’s death. It’s very difficult to believe it’s been that long.

I’ve got some …

The New Neo Posted on by

… large weather-related tasks today that have delayed posting. I plan to post tonight.

It’s very snowy out there. My car in particular needs a lot of tending to before I can do much of anything with it. And yes, it’s cold out, even for here.

By the way, we didn’t get as much snow as expected. But we got plenty.

Anti-American studies

The New Neo Posted on by

This will not surprise you:

The 250th anniversary of America’s founding provides an opportunity to reflect on—and fight over—the country’s extraordinary story. Unfortunately, many of the serious scholars who study America—its history, literature and culture—fail to provide a balanced and nuanced account of the country’s complex tale. …

… [W]e found only one part of this narrative presented in most of almost 100 articles we examined from over a three-year period in American Quarterly, the flagship journal of the American Studies Association. Published by Johns Hopkins University, it’s widely considered the country’s premier journal of American studies.

The journal’s scholarship paints a one-sided and unrelentingly negative portrait of the U.S. We found that 80% of articles published between 2022 and 2024 were critical of America, 20% were neutral, and none were positive. Of the 96 articles we examined, our research identified 77 as critical, focused on American racism, imperialism, classism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and transphobia. Some articles went to absurd lengths to identify sins. One essay posited that thermodynamics—the science dealing with the relationship between energy, heat, work and temperature—is “an abstract settler-capitalist theory that influenced the plunder of Indigenous lands and lives.”

Is it any wonder that so many young people are so down on this country? Although I must say that most of the old people I know are also reflexively critical of America.

This would be a good time to revisit a passage written by Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind, back in the 1980s. In it, he describes an incident he experienced when he was in school in the 1940s. Here you can see the naive origins of the kind of thinking that’s now rampant in academia:

Civic education turned away from concentrating on the Founding to concentrating on openness based on history and social science. There was even a general tendency to debunk the Founding, to prove the beginnings were flawed in order to license a greater openness to the new. What began in Charles Beard’s Marxism and Carl Becker’s historicism became routine. We are used to hearing the Founders being charged with being racists, murderers of Indians, representatives of class interests. I asked my first history professor in the university, a very famous scholar, whether the picture he gave us of George Washington did not have the effect of making us despise our regime. “Not at all,” he said, “it doesn’t depend on individuals but on our having good democratic values.” To which I rejoined, “But you just showed us that Washington was only using those values to further the class interests of the Virginia squirearchy.” He got angry, and that was the end of it. He was comforted by a gentle assurance that the values of democracy are part of the movement of history and did not require his elucidation or defense. He could carry on his historical studies with the moral certitude that they would lead to greater openness and hence more democracy. The lessons of fascism and the vulnerability of democracy, which we had all just experienced, had no effect on him.

And I’ll close with a verse from Robert Frost, first published in 1947:

A CASE FOR JEFFERSON

Harrison loves my country too,
But wants it all made over new.
He’s Freudian Viennese by night.
By day he’s Marxian Muscovite.
It isn’t because he’s Russian Jew.
He’s Puritan Yankee through and through.
He dotes on Saturday pork and beans.
But his mind is hardly out of his teens:
With him the love of country means
Blowing it all to smithereens
And having it all made over new.

The shooting of Alex Pretti

The New Neo Posted on by

There is nothing simple about this case. I’ve been mulling it over and watching videos, and the only thing that’s clear to me is that the situation is murky and (as is often the case) people tend to see what they want to see or expect to see or what conforms to their pre-existing notions. I’ve read many things about it already that turn out to be untrue – or seemingly untrue.

Despite the plethora of videos, none of them show enough to come to a definitive conclusion. We don’t know exactly what led up to the confrontation, or exactly what Pretti was doing with his hands during it, or what was seen and understood by whom, or whether as the officer removed Pretti’s gun it misfired and that set off the fatal shooting in response to a misperception, or many of the most important things we would need to know to come to a strong conclusion about guilt or innocence.

I watched the following video to the bitter end, and although the speakers don’t come to any definite conclusions and it is extremely long, I think it’s valuable to watch at least some of it because it illustrates how very confusing the various videos of the shooting are. One thing that seems to be true is that whether Pretti’s weapon accidentally discharged (in the hands of the officer) as the first shot of the series is of great importance, because if that were the case it probably would absolve the officers of criminal although not civil liability.

So here’s the video. Make of it what you will:

Another thing that seems to be true is that if there’s a criminal trial this would be a federal case; Minnesota would not get to try federal officers in a state trial.

One more video that seems worth watching is this from Andrew Branca, lawyer and expert in self-defense; it’s also extremely long:

The songs of America

The New Neo Posted on by

David Foster of Chicago Boyz has a post on “America’s story in song.” He asks – and offers some of his own answers to – the following question:

Since this year is the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, let’s … discuss: What are some of the songs which most vividly tell the story of American history? Including, certainly, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly?

As a child, we learned some of these songs in school. But I also had a “best friend” who even as a youngster was an excellent pianist and sight reader. Her home had a set of the Fireside Books of music, including the one that had “Favorite American Songs.” We spent hours at the piano in those pre-internet days, sitting on the bench with her playing and both of us singing. It was great fun.

One of those songs – and probably my favorite – was “Oh Shenandoah.” There are so many versions on YouTube I hardly know where to begin. But I’ll choose this one. It omits a verse I remember from the Fireside version: “The white man loved the Indian maiden”. In retrospect, I thought perhaps that verse was my imagination, but it’s not:

Some lyrics of this song heard by and before 1860 tell the story of a trader who fell in love with the daughter of the Oneida Iroquois chief Shenandoah … who lived in the central New York state town of Oneida Castle. He was a co-founder of the Oneida Academy which became Hamilton College in Clinton, New York, and is buried on the campus grounds.

Anyway, here it is, minus the Indian maiden:

We had to learn this one in school:

You’ve got to include Woody Guthrie:

How about some John Denver (interestingly, it mentions the Shenandoah River at the outset):

And this:

Here’s the original version of this great one:

The urge to move on:

But to me, this is the song with the most comprehensive history of America, and it was written by a Brit:

There are countless others, but I’ll stop there and let you continue.

Deportation law

The New Neo Posted on by

I think I’ll post most of the comment today from “Brian E,” which quotes Grok. I don’t usually post AI content, but this is so useful that I would like to call attention to it.

You may have noticed that many people criticize the deportations by saying that overstaying a visa isn’t a criminal act but is a civil offense. They’re right that it’s not criminal – although many of those being rounded up are also guilty of crimes. But let’s just stick with overstaying a visa. The fact that it’s a civil offense does not protect the alien; in fact, it removes the protection afforded to defendants in criminal cases. Nor are those people who’ve overstayed visas (or otherwise entered illegally, but are not criminals) being given prison sentences, as in the criminal system. They are being deported, which is a civil action.

I believe the following is substantially true, although AI isn’t always correct. Let me know if you find fault with it. But here it is:

ICE can immediately deport you for overstaying a visa because overstaying is a civil immigration violation, not a criminal offense in almost all cases — and removal (deportation) is a civil administrative process, not a criminal prosecution.
Here’s how it works in plain terms:

1. Overstaying = Civil Violation, Not a Crime

When your authorized stay (marked by the I-94 arrival/departure record) expires, you begin accruing unlawful presence (INA § 212(a)(9)(B)).
This is purely a civil immigration violation — it does not require a criminal conviction or even a criminal charge.
The government does not need to prove you committed a crime to remove you; it only needs to prove you are removable under immigration law.

2. Removal (Deportation) Is a Civil Administrative Process

Deportation is handled through immigration courts under the Department of Justice (Executive Office for Immigration Review), not criminal courts.
The standard of proof is preponderance of evidence (“more likely than not”), not “beyond a reasonable doubt” (criminal standard).
ICE can initiate removal proceedings against you simply by showing:
You were admitted or paroled into the U.S.
Your authorized stay has expired (I-94 shows overstay)
You are still in the country

That’s it — no criminal trial is required.

3. Expedited Removal and Administrative Removal (Fast-Track Deportation)
In many cases, ICE doesn’t even need to go to immigration court:

Expedited removal (INA § 235(b)(1)): Applies to people who entered without inspection or were admitted for a short period (e.g., Visa Waiver Program) and are caught near the border or within 2 years of entry. Overstays can sometimes fall under this if recently entered.
Administrative removal (INA § 238(b)): For non-citizens who are not lawful permanent residents and have been convicted of an aggravated felony — but this is less common for pure overstays.

Reinstatement of removal (INA § 241(a)(5)): If you were previously removed and re-entered illegally or overstayed again, ICE can reinstate the prior order without a hearing.

For most garden-variety visa overstays (e.g., tourist visa B-2 or student visa F-1), ICE typically places you in regular removal proceedings (Notice to Appear), but if you have no legal defense (no pending application, no asylum claim, no U.S. citizen spouse, etc.), the process can move very quickly — sometimes days or weeks from arrest to deportation.

4. Why It Feels “Immediate”

Once ICE takes you into custody (e.g., traffic stop, workplace raid, routine check), they can verify your status instantly via databases.
If you admit the overstay or have no credible claim to stay, ICE can issue a final order of removal very rapidly.
You may be detained without bond (especially if flight risk or prior violations).
Voluntary departure (self-deport) is sometimes offered to avoid a formal removal order, but if you refuse, they proceed to deport you.

Bottom Line
Overstaying a visa is not a crime ? no criminal trial is needed.
Deportation is a civil immigration process ? ICE only needs to prove you are unlawfully present, which is straightforward once your I-94 shows you overstayed.
That’s why ICE can move to deport you very quickly (sometimes in days) without any criminal prosecution.

This has been the law since 1996. President Clinton signed the law.

However, overstaying a visa can segue into criminal behavior rather easily. Here’s the law on that:

Any alien against whom a final order of removal is outstanding by reason of being a member of any of the classes described in section 1227(a) of this title, who—

(A)willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States within a period of 90 days from the date of the final order of removal under administrative processes, or if judicial review is had, then from the date of the final order of the court,

(B)willfully fails or refuses to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary to the alien’s departure,

(C)connives or conspires, or takes any other action, designed to prevent or hamper or with the purpose of preventing or hampering the alien’s departure pursuant to such, or

(D)willfully fails or refuses to present himself or herself for removal at the time and place required by the Attorney General pursuant to such order, shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than four years …

There’s a lot more at the link, but that’s the basic idea.

What are the goals of George Soros?

The New Neo Posted on by

I promised a while back to tackle this subject, and here’s my effort. I don’t claim to really know the answer – that’s the short version of this post. But I’ll give it a try.

A great many people would probably answer that his goal is to do evil. But of course, that’s not the way he would conceptualize it. He’s also supported some causes that, objectively, seem inarguably good, such as the end of Communism in the eastern European countries. So, what gives?

One hint is the name of his philanthropic foundation: Open Society. What does that mean?:

Under George Soros’s leadership, the Open Society Foundations support individuals and organizations across the globe working to advance human rights, equity, and justice.

So far, it sounds like basic leftist boilerplate.

More:

Starting in Hungary in the mid-1980s, George Soros used his fortune to build a philanthropic network that became the Open Society Foundations—the name reflecting the influence of the philosopher Karl Popper, whom Soros first encountered as a student at the London School of Economics. In his book Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper argues that no philosophy or ideology is the final arbiter of truth, and that societies can only flourish when they allow for democratic governance, freedom of expression, and respect for individual rights—an approach at the core of the Open Society Foundations’ work.

Except for the “no final arbiter of truth” part, that sounds more like classical liberalism or libertarianism.

He started with efforts that weren’t expressly leftist:

George Soros began his philanthropy in 1979, giving scholarships to Black South Africans under apartheid. In the 1980s, he helped promote the open exchange of ideas in Communist Hungary by funding academic visits to the West and supporting fledgling independent cultural groups, as well as other initiatives. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, he created Central European University as a space to foster critical thinking—which at that time was an alien concept for most universities in the former Communist bloc.

With the Cold War over, he gradually expanded his philanthropy to Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the United States, supporting a vast array of new efforts to create more accountable, transparent, and democratic societies.

He then segued into libertarian efforts to end restrictions on drugs and same-sex marriage, the latter of which is certainly a more conventional leftist cause but could also be considered libertarian. The website explains his “evolving causes” this way:

Though his causes have evolved over time, they continue to hew closely to his ideals of an open society.

I suppose that he would consider anything traditional to be non-open – that is, closed. Which brings us to things such as this:

Since 2016, Soros has been donating sums exceeding $1 million to the campaigns of progressive criminal justice reform proponents through the Safety and Justice PAC in local district attorney elections. In many districts, such large contributions were unprecedented and the campaigning strategy was “turned on its head” with a focus on incarceration, police misconduct and bail system, according to the Los Angeles Times.

There’s nothing more “closed” than a prison, right?

Soros also has promoted “death with dignity” euthanasia and assisted suicide efforts; also basically a libertarian and/or leftist cause. He’s become persona non grata in his native Hungary, because (among other things) he backs lots of “migration” from third-world countries into Europe – again, that seems a very “open” and boundary-free cause.

I’ve written about Soros many times before; see this. For post about his Jewishness, please see this, this, and this. Soros was born an ethnic Jew but had zero education in Judaism and in fact he has said the following:

With Soros there’s also the fact that, that although he was born a Jew by the Nazis’ definition—in other words, he was born in Hungary to parents of Jewish ancestry—he was never given any instruction in Judaism and his parents had actually repudiated Judaism. They weren’t just non-practicing Jews (although they were indeed that), they were actually anti-Jewish, according to Soros himself, who said that he “grew up in a Jewish, anti-Semitic home,” and called his parents “uncomfortable with their religious roots.”

So one wouldn’t expect him to support Israel. What he’s said on that subject is this:

“I don’t deny Jews the right to a national existence – but I don’t want to be a part of it”. According to hacked emails released in 2016, Soros’s Open Society Foundation has a self-described objective of “challenging Israel’s racist and anti-democratic policies” in international forums, in part by questioning Israel’s reputation as a democracy. He has funded NGOs which have been actively critical of Israeli policies including groups that campaign for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel

Typical leftist stuff and quite unsurprising.

I’ve probably barely scratched the surface on this, but I think the basic template is Soros’ opinion that whatever he sees as “open” is good, and what he sees as “closed” is bad.

[NOTE: Here’s a summary of Popper’s book about “open societies.” His definition doesn’t seem exactly the same as that of Soros.]