The National Review‘s Eliana Johnson this week wrote an opinion piece defending the Holocaust and Nazism in a thinly-veiled effort to attack President Barack Obama‘s statement commemorating International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Fixating on the President’s use of the term, “senseless violence,” in describing the Holocaust, Johnson writes that the “idea that all violence is ‘senseless’ violence is one that has taken deep root on the left.”
Nazism may have been an ideology to which the United States was — and to which the president is — implacably opposed, but it is hardly “senseless.” By the early 1930s, the Nazi party had hundreds of thousands of devoted members and repeatedly attracted a third of the votes in German elections; its political leaders campaigned on a platform comprising 25 non-senseless points, including the “unification of all Germans,” a demand for “land and territory for the sustenance of our people,” and an assertion that “no Jew can be a member of the race.” Suffice it to say, many sensible Germans were persuaded.
(Clearly, Johnson has never watched “Judgment At Nuremburg.”)
Eliana Johnson’s choice, resorting to defending Nazism, is disgusting. That the National Review has chosen to publish it is absurd. That the refuse to respond to it or denounce it speaks volumes.
The majority of commenters on Johnson’s post are outraged. Perhaps the best comment comes from John Slover:
Holy shit, guys. I mean, I know you don’t like Obama, but you respond to him calling the holocaust “senseless violence” by defending Nazis a little bit? Good god, pick your battles.
What led to this travesty? Did the conversation go something like this?
“Obama thinks Nazi violence against Jews was senseless… do we have an angle on this?”
“Uhh… defend… the Nazis?”
“Better than nothing. Have it on my desk by ten.”
You people are something else. I can’t honestly think of an example worse than this. If you’d defended something else awful because Obama opposed it, and someone said “If he came out against Naziism, the republicans would defend it” I’d have said “Oh, stop being an idiot. No one would defend that”
But then, here you are, doing it.
Stay classy GOP.
The National Review, about which The New Civil Rights Movement has written many times, is or has been home to white supremacists/white nationalists, racists, homophobes, and many others of the far, far radical right.
National Organization For Marriage co-founder Maggie Gallagher for years has made the National Review her home. Avowed racist and homophobe John Derbyshire for years wrote at the National Review, until his racist screed, “The Talk: Nonblack Version,” appeared elsewhere, and caused too much heat for the Review to continue sheltering him.
National Review Senior Editor Jay Nordlinger in a blog post last summer wrote disparagingly that President Reagan in the 1980′s was “welcoming wetbacks.”
And in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, National Review’s Charlotte Allen wrote a vile, sexist, and falsehood-filled post in which she lamented there were no men present at the school (there were) and suggested “some of the huskier 12-year-old boys” should have thrown themselves at the Newtown, Connecticut shooter.
And just this week, David French, who was a Senior Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), wrote a misguided piece for the National Review proclaiming Jesus wants you to have guns.
I kid you not.
The National Review is leading the pace for the GOP, and the road is named, “Oblivion.”
We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.