You Are the Message: Getting What You Want by Being Who You Are

Here are some highlights from this Roger Ailes book:

* Look in a mirror and study your own face. Begin to talk about a political issue and see which part of your face moves and which doesn’t. Using the same subject matter, repeat the conversation; however, imagine that now you’re speaking to a child. See if your face softens and if your eyes become more expressive, and if there is a tendency to care more that the listener understands what you are saying. Most people do tend to use more facial expression when talking to children.

* Here are the ten most common problems in communications. Read the list. If any of them apply to you, the principles in this book will help you solve them.

1. Lack of initial rapport with listeners
2. Stiffness or woodenness in use of body
3. Presentation of material is intellectually oriented; speaker forgets to involve the audience emotionally
4. Speaker seems uncomfortable because of fear of failure
5. Poor use of eye contact and facial expression
6. Lack of humor
7. Speech direction and intent unclear due to improper  preparation
8. Inability to use silence for impact
9. Lack of energy, causing inappropriate pitch pattern, speech  rate, and volume
10. Use of boring language and lack of interesting material

* “You are the message.” What does that mean, exactly? It means that when you communicate with someone, it’s not just the words you choose to send to the other person that make up the message. You’re also sending signals about what kind of person you are—by your eyes, your facial expression, your body movement, your vocal pitch, tone, volume, and intensity, your commitment to your message, your sense of humor, and many other factors.
The receiving person is bombarded with symbols and signals from you. Everything you do in relation to other people causes them to make judgments about what you stand for and what your message is. “You are the message” comes down to the fact that unless you identify yourself as a walking, talking message, you miss that critical point.
The words themselves are meaningless unless the rest of you is in synchronization.

* If you are uncomfortable with who you are, it will make others uncomfortable, too.

* As a consultant to a major broadcasting company, I traveled to various cities to evaluate television talk show hosts. I spent time with each of them and watched them on the air at their stations. But even before meeting them for the first time, I’d check into a hotel and watch their programs on television, with the sound turned off, for five or ten minutes. If there was nothing happening on the screen in the way the host looked or moved that made me interested enough to stand up and turn the sound up, then I knew that the host was not a great television performer. I’d watch the screen for interesting expressions on people’s faces, sudden movement, laughter, or whatever made me say to myself, “Hey, I wonder what’s going on here? I want to reach over and turn the sound up.” If nothing moved me toward that sound knob, I would often recommend terminating the contract of that performer.

* If you have access to videotape, ask someone to interview you. Then turn the sound down and watch yourself. Are you still interesting? Or place a mirror by your telephone. Watch yourself as you speak and listen. Do your eyes and face look engaged and lively? Do you gesture when you speak? Do you ever smile?
People who are the best communicators communicate with their whole being. They’re animated, expressive, interesting to watch—just as they should be on television.

* Tape and ape… buy a tape of a famous actor or actress reading selections from literary works or speeches. Record yourself reading those same selections and compare your vocal quality. Your goal isn’t to become a performer, but when you hear good speech and attempt to emulate it, you will improve your voice.
People who want to be radio announcers train their voices by taping the best professionals and trying, at first, to imitate the pros. The process is called “tape and ape.” The goal isn’t to become a mimic. It’s to develop a range for the voice. Range, or vocal variety, should be your goal, too: It’s what makes a voice interesting, alive, and distinctive. Just as you’d watch a tape of Jack Nicklaus swinging a golf club to help perfect your own swing, or of Martina Navratilova swinging a tennis racquet to improve your backhand, you can do the same with recordings by professionals. You don’t have to turn this into a second career. Fifteen minutes of practice a day will make dramatic improvements not only in your voice but in your pronunciation, articulation, and inflection.

* IF YOU CARE, THEY CARE
As an alternative exercise, try this, using a video recorder or even an audio recorder. Tape yourself as you talk extemporaneously on a topic you really care about. Here’s one possible topic: Recall the best vacation you ever had in your life. Assume you’re talking to people looking for a great getaway. Your job is to convince them that they should go where you went, see what you saw, feel what you felt, understand why you liked it so much. Do that for five minutes and tape it. Replaying the tape, you’ll hear your voice move up and down the musical scale. There will be lots of vocal variety because you relish the topic.

* If you care, your listeners will care and your voice will automatically move up and down gracefully and naturally. If you don’t care, it will automatically flatten out and be b-o-r-i-n-g. And whether you’re talking on the phone, running a meeting, or giving a speech, the last thing you want is a dull, monotonous voice that puts people to sleep.

* FEELINGS
In every communications situation—one-on-one or in a group—you should be asking yourself, “What am I feeling here?” Whenever I’m confused in a business situation, I generally get very quiet, sit back, and ask myself, “How do I feel about what’s going on here?” If I’m in a conversation with one person, I might ask myself, “How do I feel about this person?” The emphasis is first on my feelings.

* Being committed is crucial. Very few people freeze up, unable to speak, when they feel strongly about something.

* When I speak to others, I am always in control of:

•  Time (rate of speech, pauses)
•  Space (where and how I move)
•  Eye contact (not just where I look and at whom, but the emotional messages my eyes send)
•  My voice volume, pronunciation, changes in pitch, and tone)
•  My state of mind (calm, happy, upbeat, self-confident)
•  My attitude (unthreatened, open-minded, friendly)
•  The flow of dialogue (I know when and how to insert my ideas and opinions)
•  The absorb-project balance
•  My feelings (I admit them to myself, understand them, and communicate accordingly)

* I can correct fifteen communication technique problems with one ounce of energy. It’s so fundamental to success. Of course, that doesn’t mean that you come on like some used-car salesmen, leaping all over people, because that really turns everybody off. With the right kind of energy, you’re absorbing what others are broadcasting to you. You project enthusiasm, and most so-called speech problems clear up automatically. A good communicator’s energy is perceived as “life force,” vitality—an aliveness and vigor exemplified at its best by very good communicators like John F. Kennedy, Lee Iacocca, Elizabeth Dole, the young Muhammad Ali, Ted Koppel, and Barbara Walters. One of the absolute rules for control of the atmosphere is focused energy.

* Properly focused energy comes across as positive, a magnetic intensity, rather than negative, an overwrought intensity. It is an inner flame that we all display when we sincerely believe something and we talk about it. We’re committed. Intuitively we know true energy when we see and hear it in a communicator. It is the energy associated in its most consistent form with Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Winston Churchill. We all have known people who radiate this “life force” in abundance. Maybe it’s a parent, a friend, a coach, a teacher, or a member of the clergy. When people with energy speak, or even listen, they don’t display inattention, lack of focus in the eyes, or lack of interest on the face. People in love have energy. People who truly relish their jobs have energy. Communicators with positive energy are involved with their audience (whether one or a thousand) and their message. Because they believe in what they’re saying, you believe them. You may disagree with them, but you can’t question their conviction. Keep this rule in mind: If you have no energy, you have no audience.

If your energy is up, your rate, volume, and pitch will be appropriate to the communications situation. If you are enthusiastic, if your posture is good, if you’re friendly, and if you’re comfortable, you have the “right” kind of energy. Here’s the good news: We have all demonstrated energy at some time in our lives. At those times, we’ve been excellent communicators. It is a completely natural state. Remember back to a moment when you know you were communicating effectively because you absolutely believed in what you were saying. Remember how you felt? Harness that power and you will be successful at communications.
When I first started speech coaching I did it the old-fashioned way: with drills and practice on rate, pitch, and volume. My clients made progress, but it was slow and tedious. Today, I do it organically. I work on the energy level of the communicator. Is it appropriate for the situation? What are his goals? What is he trying to say? What does he mean? How does he feel? How much does he care? If he is in touch with these things, his technique will improve quickly and, often, dramatically. Instead of trying to remember several speech variables—like pitch, rate, volume, and gestures—just remember “energy” and all the variables will take care of themselves. I put the letter E in the margin of all my speeches to remind me of energy.
Today, tomorrow, or next week, when you experience strong feelings and high energy, make a mental note of what you’re thinking about. It will be something about which you feel strongly. My experience is that just about everyone gets good at communications when they get emotional.

* Most people think that their energy level is much higher than it is. Eighty percent of our clients are surprised when they first see themselves on tape. They usually say things like “I thought I was more forceful,” “I didn’t know I was so boring,” “I never move my face or hands,” “I’m talking in a monotone.” Most people think they’re coming on too strong in a speech, when usually it’s just the opposite. Whether you think your energy level is too high, too low, or just right, ask some of your friends what they think. You may be surprised at what you learn. Actually, you should always bring your energy up a little bit in front of an audience. Ninety-nine percent of us have natural inhibitions which will keep us from going too far.

* If I had to summarize in two words the advice I give to many of my clients, it is “Lighten up!” For seven out of ten people who lose their jobs, the reason isn’t lack of skill. According to studies by executive recruiters, it’s personality conflicts. The flip side to that is reflected in this quote from the management newsletter Bottom Line—Personal: “As an executive reaches middle management and beyond, the primary criteria for advancement are communication and motivation skills, rather than basic job performance. Relations with superiors and peers are also critical. Bottom line: Top management promotes people it likes.” What is guaranteed to make people not like you? Taking yourself too seriously.

* What’s on the record? What’s off the record? The problem is, there are no rules. There are many fine reporters who will distinguish for you between (1) material they’ll use only with your name; (2) material they’ll take on “background” without specific attribution; and (3) material they’ll just use for their own better understanding of the issues. Unfortunately, for many reporters, distinguishing between these categories and remembering (or honoring) confidentiality agreements can get hazy, especially when a story becomes “hot” or when it’s a “scoop” and the reporter is under a crushing deadline.

* A good friend of mine who is a reporter told me about an experience he had at an editor’s conference. A grizzled senior editor leaned over his desk, looked at all the young reporters, and snarled, “You know why so many of you are going to get divorced and a lot of you will become alcoholics? Because you are now in the business of selling people out. Your job is to get close to your sources, get as much out of them as you can, and then print it, and don’t worry about them. You say you’re defending the public interest. Your job is to stick it to the guy who trusted you enough to spill his guts to you. And if you can’t handle that, get out of the business now!”

* I have never known of a person’s being fired because he or she refused to talk to the press and turned it over to his or her public relations department.

* Reporters and the people they interview become at odds when either party tries to follow only his own agenda and refuses to address the other person’s needs.

* With the media, make no mistake. You are always on defense, but if you do it right, you can occasionally score.

First recognize that the media has nothing to lose by interviewing you. On the other hand, you or those you represent could lose.

How, then, can you prepare yourself to deal with the news media? What are the strategies and techniques for handling journalists? I will summarize the highlights of what we tell our clients. To begin with, don’t ever take a phone call from a reporter you don’t know. First, tell the reporter, or have your secretary tell him, that you’ll get back to him. You need time to check out who the reporter is, what he could possibly want, and why he might want it. You need to think and compose yourself.

* Have an agenda of three major points you want to discuss in the interview, and plan to work those points in sometime during your conversation with the reporter. The most common mistake made by people who are interviewed is that they wait for the reporter to ask questions which will trigger their agenda points.

* Ask yourself: How can I build a bridge from the reporter’s agenda to my own agenda? You can do this successfully if your agenda consists of points made interesting and newsworthy with the support of facts, illustrations, and examples.

* In many press interviews, reporters will use loaded words in a question. Don’t legitimize these words by repeating them in the answer. Recast language or issues into factual terms. In effect, you reposition the negative premise of the question.

For example, if a reporter characterizes your actions as “corrupt, irresponsible, malicious, and injurious to the public welfare,” you should not say, “We are not corrupt, irresponsible, malicious, and injurious to the public welfare.” All you’re doing then is repeating the charges, which will reinforce and help people remember the words of indictment even more. Instead, you might say, “We’ve answered our critics by …” and then describe positive, concrete actions you’ve taken.

Whenever there’s a loaded question like that, you might also smile and point out that the question is loaded by saying, “Well, obviously, you have a strong opinion against us in this, and let me try to give you the facts.” And then go into your litany.

Our advice to both our political and business clients is to develop three levels or “tiers” of an answer to the most nettlesome questions they could be asked by a reporter. The first level, tier A, is a one- or two-sentence summary of your position. If a reporter wants elaboration, you are ready with tier B, a concrete example to back up that summary, plus a little more detail. Most reporters won’t need more than two levels to an answer, but if need be, you should be ready with tier C, a further elaboration using another supporting statement.

If a reporter wants to push you past C, loop back to your tier A reply. This system keeps you solidly on your position, regardless of how aggressively a reporter wants to push you to an indiscreet reply.

* it’s also a good rule of thumb that the tougher the questions, the shorter your answers should be. Many people foul themselves up in interviews by giving rambling replies. Either they end up sounding as though they’re “protesting too much” or they say something inaccurate or indiscreet in an attempt to be responsive to the premise of the question.

The premises of questions from journalists are sometimes objectionable themselves—or hypothetical. You have no obligation to legitimize a hypothetical or false premise.

The savvy former director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Kenneth Adelman, once appeared on a Sunday morning national news program. A reporter asked Adelman if the Soviet Union might be using Cuba at that very moment to build up arms supplies and then threaten the East Coast of the United States. Adelman said, “No.” That’s all. The reporter didn’t know what to do after that. There was silence. Silence is an enemy on television, a medium where advertisers can pay up to $950,000 for a minute of airtime. So the reporter scrambled around for his next question.

Whether it’s a TV, radio, or print interview, say what you have to say, then stop. It’s the reporter’s problem to come up with the next question. Whenever you can, frame your answers in the context of “the public interest,” which reporters believe they protect and represent. For example, rather than focusing on the return on investment of a new product—as you might at a board of directors meeting—focus with a reporter on the ways the new product will save some consumers time or money or otherwise improve their lives. Answer one question at a time. If you are unsure of the answer, admit it candidly. Say what you can, but don’t fudge. And don’t lie. It will come back to haunt you.

Match your facial expression to the seriousness of the message.

* If you’re besieged by a flock of reporters (let’s say on the steps of a court building), try to control the situation by selecting a single question to which you will respond. Look at the reporter who asked the question. Ignore the cameras and microphones surrounding you and speak to the questioner. Try to come in “under” the tone and volume of the questioner, speaking more calmly. If you shout excitedly, the TV viewer may decide that you sound defensive and are therefore guilty.

Posted in Communication | Comments Off on You Are the Message: Getting What You Want by Being Who You Are

Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations

Here are some highlights from this 2018 book:

* ON SEPTEMBER 11, JIHADIST hijackers flew two airliners into the World Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon. A fourth crashed in a Pennsylvania field after the hijackers were overpowered by passengers. “In one swoop, the complaints against us ceased,” said Major General Giora Eiland, head of Israel’s National Security Council. “It simply dropped off the [international] agenda.” Decades of Israel trying to explain its drastic measures to the rest of the world were suddenly made unnecessary. Everyone, for a time, seemed to understand. Sharon immediately ordered the intelligence organizations to give the Americans all of the files for “Blue Troll,” the code name for the development of Al Qaeda in Sudan, and other relevant intelligence. Later, he ordered the Shin Bet and the IDF to share their experience with guests who came from abroad to learn from the country with the world’s best counterterror program. “There was a stream of people arriving here,” said Diskin, who hosted the senior guests. Sharon issued instructions, as part of his relationship with Bush, “to show them [the Americans] everything, to give them the lot, to allow access to everywhere, including the Joint War Room, even during interdiction operations.” The Americans were most interested to find out how the integrated assassination system of all the intelligence arms worked, and how Israel had developed the capability to execute a number of operations simultaneously. The very system internationally condemned only weeks earlier was now a model to be copied. “The attacks on 9/11 gave our own war absolute international legitimacy,” Diskin said. “We were able to completely untie the ropes that had bound us.”

* [Ariel] Sharon kept a booklet he’d occasionally pull out to share with visiting diplomats. He’d received it from the Israel Police, and it contained color photographs of a bus minutes after a suicide terrorist had blown himself up inside it. Decapitated bodies and human limbs were scattered in every corner. The fire had scorched the clothing off of victims and painted their skin with blotches of green and blue. “When one of those pesky diplomats came to talk to us once again about the elimination of this or that terrorist,” said Dov Weissglass, Sharon’s chief of staff and confidant, “Arik would force the person to look. He’d page through it, picture after picture, watching their eyes widen as they took in the atrocity of it. He didn’t let them off even one contorted body or headless neck. When he was finished, he calmly asked, ‘Now tell me: Would you be prepared for such a thing to happen in your country?’ ” To provide Sharon with more material to show the diplomats, Weissglass’s staff bought photographs from a Palestinian press agency showing Arabs being executed for suspected collaboration with Israel.

* During the course of the conflict in the occupied territories, several variations of the Grass Widow technique were used, baiting gunmen out of their hiding places and exposing them to fire from a concealed sniping position. In one variation, an Israeli force would arrest a comrade of the terrorists out in the open on the street, prompting armed gunmen to come outside and attack the force. In another, an armored car would drive up and down a street, with a loudspeaker broadcasting an Arabic recording of shouted challenges like “So where are all the big heroes of Izz al-Din al-Qassam? Why don’t you come out and fight? Let’s see if you are men.” Or, more provocatively, “All the Jihad are fags” or “Hamas are sons of whores. Your mothers work in the streets and give it out free to anyone who wants it.” These are some of the more refined remarks—others are even less suitable for print. Perhaps surprisingly, this method has worked well. Gunmen come out to shoot at the offending vehicle and end up getting picked off by a sniper from Grass Widow concealed in a nearby apartment. Grass Widow operations killed dozens of gunmen from all the Palestinian organizations. From the military’s point of view, the system worked, and the IDF gained relative freedom of action in the streets of Palestinian cities. The legality of these operations, however, is debatable at best. — BY THE SUMMER OF 2002, the Shin Bet and its partners were able to stop more than 80 percent of attacks before they turned deadly. The targeted killings were clearly saving lives. But there was a disturbing trend in the data, too: The number of attempted attacks was increasing.

* Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was exasperated the agency. The Mossad was too sleepy and effete for his liking, and too reluctant to take risks, after its earlier operational mishaps. Mossad chief Efraim Halevy’s approach was the exact opposite of Sharon’s, who always wanted to take the initiative and attack. As Dov Weissglass explained, “At a time when Israel found itself in one of the most difficult battles of its life, the Second Intifada, we could never understand why that magnificent body known as the Mossad was simply nonexistent. With Halevy, the diplomatic aspect was infinitely developed. The operational aspect was like an appendix to him, superfluous tissue that was dispensable.”

* Sharon really had only one person in mind: Meir Dagan, his good friend who had served under him in the army. Dagan was tough and aggressive, exactly the kind of person Sharon needed to fight back against the Radical Front.

* DAGAN TOOK OVER THE Mossad in September 2002. Shortly afterward, Sharon put him in charge of covert efforts to stymie Iran’s nuclear program. Since the late 1990s, Iran had poured huge resources into its plan to acquire a nuclear weapon capability as rapidly as possible, buying equipment and expertise wherever it could. Both men saw a nuclear Iran as an existential danger to Israel. Dagan was told that he would receive whatever he wanted—money, personnel, endless resources—as long as he stopped the ayatollahs from building an atomic bomb. He took it all and got down to work. “Sharon was right to appoint him,” Weissglass said. “Meir arrived and began to work wonders.” Dagan moved into his new office in the Mossad’s main building and hung a picture of his grandfather, kneeling, staring in terror at the German troops around him, minutes before he was murdered. “Look at this photograph,” Dagan would say to Mossad operatives before sending them off on missions. “I’m here—we, the men and women of the Mossad, are here—to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

Dagan decided to dismantle the Mossad and reassemble it in a way that suited him. First, he sharply focused the Mossad’s intelligence-gathering objective. Information was not to be collected for its own sake, catalogued, and filed into an impotent library—Dagan wanted intelligence that could be directly put to use against the enemy. He wanted information that led quickly to preemptive and preventive operations, to sabotage, ambushes, targeted killings, and assassinations. The Mossad, under the new director, would be a warrior agency. “I told Arik [Sharon] that in my opinion, a deep change had to be made in the organization,” Dagan said. “ ‘But you have to decide,’ I warned him, ‘whether you’re ready to pay the price. Journalists will climb all over me and you and the Mossad. It won’t be easy. Are you ready to pay the price?’ He said that he was. Arik knew how to back someone up.” Dagan frequently met in private with Sharon to get approval for covert operations. A former senior Mossad officer described the mood: “Those were days of hysteria. Dagan would arrive early in the morning, and until nightfall he never stopped yelling at everyone that they weren’t delivering the goods and that they were worthless.” In Dagan’s view, it was particularly important “to straighten out” the personnel in the Junction division, which was in charge of recruiting and operating agents. This was “the real heart of the Mossad,” in his eyes. “Underlying every operation, however you put it together, there is HUMINT.” Junction’s core personnel were “collection officers” (katsa), case officers who recruited and ran the agents. They were sophisticated professionals, skilled in manipulation. According to Dagan, however, the collection officers also manipulated the Mossad itself. Dagan described the Junction division he encountered upon assuming his position as “a complete system of falsehood, which deceives itself and feeds itself lies” in order to convince itself and the entire Mossad of its success. “For years, they did whatever they wanted. They recruit a guy who serves tea in some office near a nuclear facility and say they have someone inside the Iranian atom project. They needed to be grabbed by the collar and given a boot in the ass.” Dagan changed Junction’s procedures and demanded that all agents undergo a polygraph test in order to prove that they were reliable sources.

* UNTIL THE END OF 2001, the Shin Bet confined itself to targeting what were known as “ticking time bombs,” people who either were working on planning an attack or about to carry out an attack, or who were directly involved in such behavior—the commander and recruiter of the suicide attackers, or the bomb maker, for example. There were a number of problems with that approach. The first was identifying targets from among the seemingly endless supply of volunteers. There were “more suicide bombers than explosive vests,” a Hamas spokesman boasted. These Palestinians fit no profile: They were young and elderly, educated and illiterate, those who had nothing to lose and those who had large families. At first they consisted only of adult males, but later on, Hamas leaders encouraged women and children to sacrifice themselves, too. Successfully identifying an attacker, moreover, did not necessarily mean stopping an attack. The monitors, the desk officers, the interpreters, the intelligence analysts, and the technologists might all track an attack as it “rolled along”—in the agency’s professional lingo—“almost until the bang.” But they could not stop them, because Israel could not operate openly inside hostile Palestinian-controlled territory. And by the time the bomber reached Israel, it was generally too late. There were several nervous breakdowns among these desk officers and monitors during this period.

* Since picking off individual bombers was ineffectual, Dichter decided to shift focus. Starting at the end of 2001, Israel would target the “ticking infrastructure” behind the attacks. The person who blew himself up or planted the bomb or pulled the trigger was, after all, usually just the last link in a long chain. There were recruiters, couriers, and weapons procurers, as well as people who maintained safe houses and smuggled money—an entire organization overseen by commanders of regional cells, above whom were the main military commanders, themselves subordinate to the political leaders of the organizations. They would all be targets. A potential death sentence was hung over the heads of all active members of the Hamas military wing, known as the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. “They would very quickly realize that not one of them—from the regional operations officer to the taxi driver to the photographer who shoots the suicide bomber’s farewell video—was immune to getting hit,” said Yitzhak Ilan, a senior Shin Bet operative at the time and later deputy head of the agency. Targeting suicide attackers was futile, because they were, by definition, expendable and easily replaced. The people who groomed and organized and dispatched them, however, were not. Nor, as a rule, were they nearly as eager for martyrdom as those they recruited. Israeli intelligence figured that there were fewer than three hundred people actively involved in organizing the suicide bombings, and no more than five hundred active members of all the terrorist groups combined. They would not all have to be killed. “Terror is a barrel with a bottom,” Dichter explained to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. “You do not have to reach the last terrorist to neutralize it. It is enough to reach a critical mass, and in effect you bring it to a standstill.”

[Israel] developed a mathematical model to determine the amount of “redundancy” or reserve manpower in Hamas. The results showed that taking out 20 to 25 percent of the organization would lead to its collapse.

* Of course, the assassinated would quickly be replaced by those next in line, but over time, the average age dropped, as did the level of experience as younger and younger people filled the ranks. As Yitzhak Ilan said, “One day, when the commander of Islamic Jihad in Jenin was brought into the interrogation room, a man whom, by chance, we had captured and not killed, I was pleased to learn that he was nineteen years old. I realized that we were winning, that we had axed the entire chain that had preceded him.” Now that a coherent strategy had been developed, they had to figure out how to find and kill these targets. The Shin Bet informed Prime Minister Sharon that, with so many assassinations under consideration, all the relevant resources of the State of Israel would be required.

* Schematically, much of the new targeted killing system wasn’t fundamentally new at all: The intelligence echelon gathered information, the prime minister authorized, and the field forces executed the hit, just like in the 1970s and ’80s in Europe and Lebanon. But there were important differences. As one seasoned intelligence officer said, paraphrasing Marshall McLuhan, “The scalability is the message,” meaning that the use of advanced technology in itself created a completely new reality. Enlisting the entire intelligence community, assisted by the best communications and computer systems in the world, along with the most advanced military technology developments, drastically increased the number of assassinations that the system could carry out simultaneously. Until then, “it took the Mossad months, if not years, to plan and implement one hit,” said a Shin Bet officer. But now, “from the Joint War Room, we could run four or five a day.”

* THOUGH THE ISRAELIS MIGHT not have given full consideration to the moral implications of the new program, they were aware that they needed to provide legal cover for officers and subordinates who might later face prosecution, either in Israel or abroad. In early December 2000, IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz summoned the chief of the Military Advocate General’s Corps, Major General Menachem Finkelstein, to his office. “I assume that you know that Israel sometimes has a policy of ‘negative treatment,’ ” Mofaz told Finkelstein. “In the current legal situation, is it permitted for Israel to openly kill defined individuals who are involved in terrorism? Is it legal or illegal?” Finkelstein was stunned. “Do you realize what you are asking me, Chief of Staff?” he replied. “That the IDF’s advocate general will tell you when you can kill people without a trial?”

Mofaz fully realized that. He asked again: Was it legal to assassinate suspected Palestinian terrorists? Finkelstein told him that it was a delicate and complex matter, one that required a comparative study of statutes all over the world, probably even the invention of an entirely new legal concept. “Inter arma enim silent leges,” he said finally, quoting Cicero. In times of war, the law falls silent.

Nevertheless, he ordered a team of bright young attorneys in the IDF to puzzle out a solution. On January 18, 2001, a top-secret legal opinion signed by Finkelstein was submitted to the prime minister, the attorney general, the chief of staff and his deputy, and the director of the Shin Bet. Under the title “Striking at Persons Involved Directly in Attacks against Israelis,” the document opened with this statement: “In the framework of this opinion, we have for the first time set out to analyze the question of the legality of the initiated interdiction”—another euphemism—“actions taken by the IDF….We have been told by IDF and Shin Bet that such actions are carried out in order to save the lives of Israeli civilians and members of the security forces. This is, therefore, in principle, an activity that leans on the moral basis of the rules concerning self-defense, a case of ‘He who comes to kill you, rise up early and kill him first.’ ”

For the first time, a legal instrument had been proposed for endorsing extrajudicial execution by the security forces. The opinion noted that its authors had done their best to find “the balance between a person’s right to life and the duty of the security authorities to protect the citizens of the state.”

The opinion fundamentally recalibrated the legal relationship between Israel and the Palestinians. No longer was the conflict a matter of law enforcement, of police arresting suspects so that they can face trial. Rather, the intifada was an “armed conflict short of war,” but to which the laws of warfare applied. Those laws allowed striking at the enemy wherever he may be, as long as a distinction is drawn between combatants and civilians. In classic wars, that distinction is relatively easy: Members of the adversary’s armed forces, as long as they are in the service, are legitimate targets. In the confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians, however, the distinction was much harder to make. Who is the enemy? How can he be identified? When, if at all, does he cease being the enemy?

The opinion posited a new kind of participant in armed conflict: the “illegal combatant” who takes part in armed operations but is not a soldier in the full sense of the word. The term covered anyone active in a terrorist organization, even if his activity was marginal. As long as he is an active member in the organization, he could be considered a combatant—even when he is asleep in his bed—unlike a soldier on leave who has taken off his uniform. This expansive interpretation of “combatants” led, in marathon discussions in the International Law Department (ILD) of the IDF Military Advocate General’s Corps, to an issue called “the Syrian Cook Question”: If Israel were in a normal state of war with Syria, any Syrian combatant could be killed legitimately, even an army cook in a rear echelon. By that standard, then, given the broad definition of “illegal combatant” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it could be presumed that any person assisting Hamas would qualify as a target, too. This might potentially include a woman who washed a suicide bomber’s clothes before he set out on his mission or a taxi driver who knowingly took activists from one place to another.

That, according to the opinion, was too extreme. The opinion stipulated that only those about whom there is “accurate and reliable information that the person concerned carried out attacks or dispatched attackers” could be targeted. Moreover, assassination could not be used as punishment for past acts, nor as a deterrent to other combatants. It could be used only when “it is almost certain that the target will in the future continue carrying out actions such as this.”

* Strangely enough, Bashar al-Assad had enormous respect for Israeli intelligence, which was why he worked so hard to deceive it. He was convinced that every message in Syria transmitted by electromagnetic means—telephone, cellphone, fax, text, email—was being intercepted by Israeli intelligence. “He truly believed that every time Mustafa called Mohammed, Moishele was listening in.”

Posted in Israel | Comments Off on Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations

The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History

Here are some highlights from this 2005 book:

* NOTHING COULD HAVE STOPPED the sweep of influenza through either the United States or the rest of the world – but ruthless intervention and quarantines might have interrupted its progress and created occasional firebreaks.

Action as ruthless as that taken in 2003 to contain the outbreak of a new disease called severe acute respiratory disorder, SARS, could well have had effect.* Influenza could not have been contained as SARS was – influenza is far more contagious. But any interruption in influenza’s spread could have had significant impact. For the virus was growing weaker over time. Simply delaying its arrival in a community or slowing its spread once there (just such minor successes) would have saved many, many thousands of lives.

There was precedent for ruthless action. Only two years earlier several East Coast cities had fought a polio outbreak with the most stringent measures. Public health authorities wherever polio threatened had been relentless. But that was before the United States entered the war. There would be no comparable effort for influenza.

* But nurses were harder to find than doctors. There were one-quarter fewer to begin with. The earlier refusal of the women who controlled the nursing profession to allow the training of large numbers either of nursing aides or of what came to be called practical nurses prevented the creation of what might have been a large reserve force. The plan had been to produce thousands of such aides; instead the Army School of Nursing had been established. So far it had produced only 221 student nurses and not a single graduate nurse.

* PHILADELPHIA STAGGERED under the influenza attack, isolated and alone. In Philadelphia no sign surfaced of any national Red Cross and Public Health Service effort to help. No doctors recruited by the Public Health Service were sent there. No nurses recruited by the Red Cross were sent there. Those institutions gave no help here.

Each day people discovered that friends and neighbors who had been perfectly healthy a week (or a day) earlier were dead. What should I do? People were panicked, desperate. How long will it go on?

The mayor, arrested in the early days of the epidemic and then himself ill, had done absolutely nothing. A review of five daily newspapers, the Press, Inquirer, Bulletin, Public Ledger, and North American, did not find even a single statement about the crisis from the mayor. The entire city government had done nothing. Wilmer Krusen, head of the city health department, no longer had the confidence of anyone. Someone had to do something.

* Now, in place of the city government, [Philadelphia’s bluebloods] summoned the heads of a dozen private organizations on October 7 to the headquarters of Emergency Aid at 1428 Walnut Street. There the women took charge, with Pepper adding his weight to theirs. To sell war bonds, they had already organized nearly the entire city, all the way down to the level of each block, making each residential block the responsibility of ‘a logical leader no matter what her nationality’ i.e., an Irishwoman in an Irish neighborhood, an African American woman in an African American neighborhood, and so on.

They intended to use that same organization now to distribute everything from medical care to food. They intended to inject organization and leadership into chaos and panic. In conjunction with the Red Cross (which here, unlike nearly everywhere else in the country, allowed its own efforts to be incorporated into this larger Emergency Aid) they also appealed for nurses, declaring, ‘The death toll for one day in Philadelphia alone was greater than the death toll from France for the whole American Army for one day.’

* The corpses had backed up at undertakers’, filling every area of these establishments and pressing up into living quarters; in hospital morgues overflowing into corridors; in the city morgue overflowing into the street. And they had backed up in homes. They lay on porches, in closets, in corners of the floor, on beds. Children would sneak away from adults to stare at them, to touch them; a wife would lie next to a dead husband, unwilling to move him or leave him. The corpses, reminders of death and bringers of terror or grief, lay under ice at Indian-summer temperatures. Their presence was constant, a horror demoralizing the city; a horror that could not be escaped. Finally the city tried to catch up to them.

* Pepper and Martin offered ten dollars a day to anyone who would touch a corpse, but that proved inadequate, and still the bodies piled up. Seminary students volunteered as gravediggers, but they still could not keep pace. The city and archdiocese turned to construction equipment, using steam shovels to dig trenches for mass graves. Michael Donohue, an undertaker, said, ‘They brought a steam shovel in to Holy Cross Cemetery and actually excavated’ . They would begin bringing caskets in and doing the committal prayers right in the trench and they’d line them up right in, one right after another, this was their answer to helping the families get through things.’

The bodies that were choking homes and lying in stacks in mortuaries were ready to go, finally, into the ground.

To collect them, Archbishop Denis Dougherty, installed in office only a few weeks earlier (later he became the first cardinal from the archdiocese) sent priests down the streets to remove bodies from homes. They joined the police and a few hardy others who were doing the same.

Sometimes they collected the bodies in trucks. ‘So many people died they were instructed to ask for wooden boxes and put the corpse on the front porches,’ recalled Harriet Ferrell. ‘An open truck came through the neighborhood and picked up the bodies. There was no place to put them, there was not room.’

And sometimes they collected the bodies in wagons. Selma Epp’s brother Daniel died: ‘[P]eople were being placed on these horse-drawn wagons and my aunt saw the wagons pass by and he was placed on the wagon; everyone was too weak to protest. There were no coffins in the wagon but the people who had died were wrapped in a sort of sackcloth and placed in the wagon. One was on top of the other, there were so many bodies. They were drawn by horses and the wagons took the bodies away.’

No one could look at the trucks and carts carrying bodies (bodies wrapped in cloth stacked loosely on other bodies wrapped in cloth, arms and legs protruding, bodies heading for cemeteries to be buried in trenches) or hear the keening of the mourners and the call for the dead, and not think of another plague – the plague of the Middle Ages.

* Other professionals did their jobs as well. The police performed with heroism. Before the epidemic they had too often acted like a private army that owed its allegiance to the Vare machine. They had stood almost alone in the country against the navy’s crackdown on prostitution near military facilities. Yet when the police department was asked for four volunteers to ‘remove bodies from beds, put them in coffins and load them in vehicles,’ when the police knew that many of those bodies had decomposed, 118 officers responded.

But citizens in general had largely stopped responding. Many women had reported to an emergency hospital for a single shift. They had never returned. Some had disappeared in the middle of a shift. On October 16 the chief nurse at the city’s largest hospital told an advisory council, ‘[V]olunteers in the wards are useless’ . [T]hey are afraid. Many people have volunteered and then refused to have anything to do with patients.’

The attrition rate even where volunteers did not come into contact with the sick (in the kitchens, for example) was little better. Finally Mrs. Martin turned bitter and contemptuous: ‘Hundreds of women who are content to sit back’ had delightful dreams of themselves in the roles of angels of mercy, had the unfathomable vanity to imagine that they were capable of great spirit of sacrifice. Nothing seems to rouse them now. They have been told that there are families in which every member is ill, in which the children are actually starving because there is no one to give them food. The death rate is so high and they still hold back.’

Susanna Turner, who did volunteer at an emergency hospital and stayed, who went there day after day, remembered, ‘The fear in the hearts of the people just withered them’ . They were afraid to go out, afraid to do anything’ . You just lived from day to day, did what you had to do and not think about the future’ . If you asked a neighbor for help, they wouldn’t do so because they weren’t taking any chances. If they didn’t have it in their house, they weren’t going to bring it in there’ . You didn’t have the same spirit of charity that you do with a regular time, when someone was sick you’d go and help them, but at that time they helped themselves. It was a horror-stricken time.’

The professionals were heroes. The physicians and nurses and medical students and student nurses who were all dying in large numbers themselves held nothing of themselves back. And there were others. Ira Thomas played catcher for the Philadelphia Athletics. The baseball season had been shortened by Crowder’s ‘work or fight’ order, since sport was deemed unnecessary labor. Thomas’s wife was a six-foot-tall woman, large-boned, strong. They had no children. Day after day he carried the sick in his car to hospitals and she worked in an emergency hospital. Of course there were others. But they were few.

‘Help out?’ said Susanna Turner. ‘They weren’t going to risk it, they just refused because they were so panic-stricken, they really were, they feared their relatives would die because so many did die (they just dropped dead.’ No one could buy things. Commodities dealers, coal dealers, grocers closed ‘because the people who dealt in them were either sick or afraid and they had reason to be afraid.’

During the week of October 16 alone, 4,597 Philadelphians died from influenza or pneumonia, and influenza killed still more indirectly. That would be the worst week of the epidemic. But no one knew that at the time. Krusen had too often said the peak had passed. The press had too often spoken of triumph over disease.

* As the virus infested the Great Lakes Naval Training Station, the Associated Press reported, ‘To dispel alarm caused throughout the country by exaggerated stories’ Captain W. A. Moffat, commandant, gave out the statement today that while there are about 4,500 cases of the disease among the 45,000 blue jackets at the station, the situation in general is much improved. The death rate has been only one and one half per cent, which is below the death rate in the east.’

That report was meant to reassure. It is unlikely that it did so, even though it omitted the fact that quarantines were being imposed upon the training station, the adjoining Great Lakes Aviation Camp, and the nearby Fort Sheridan army cantonment, which, combined, amounted to the largest military concentration in the country. And military authorities of course assured both civilians nearby as well as the country at large that ‘the epidemic is on the wane.’

Over and over in hundreds of newspapers, day after day, repeated in one form or another people read Rupert Blue’s reassurance as well: ‘There is no cause for alarm if precautions are observed.’

They read the words of Colonel Philip Doane, the officer in charge of health at the country’s shipyards, who told the Associated Press, ‘The so-called Spanish influenza is nothing more or less than old fashioned grippe.’

Those words, too, ran in hundreds of newspapers. But people could smell death in them. Then they came to know that death.

Immediately outside Little Rock lay Camp Pike, where eight thousand cases were admitted to the hospital in four days and the camp commandant stopped releasing the names of the dead. ‘You ought to see this hospital tonight,’ wrote Francis Blake, one of four members of the army’s pneumonia commission at Pike. ‘Every corridor and there are miles of them with a double row of cots and every ward nearly with an extra row down the middle with influenza patients and lots of barracks about the camp turned into emergency infirmaries and the Camp closed’ . There is only death and destruction.’

The camp called upon Little Rock for nurses, doctors, linens, and coffins, all while within the city the Arkansas Gazette declared in headlines, ‘Spanish influenza is plain la grippe – same old fever and chills.’

Outside Des Moines, Iowa, at Camp Dodge, also, influenza was killing hundreds of young soldiers. Within the city a group called the Greater Des Moines Committee, businessmen and professionals who had taken charge during the emergency, included the city attorney who warned publishers (and his warning carried the sting of potential prosecution) ‘I would recommend that if anything be printed in regard to the disease it be confined to simple preventive measures – something constructive rather than destructive.’ Another committee member, a physician, said, ‘There is no question that by a right attitude of the mind these people have kept themselves from illness. I have no doubt that many persons have contracted the disease through fear’ . Fear is the first thing to be overcome, the first step in conquering this epidemic.’

The Bronxville, New York, Review Press and Reporter simply said nothing at all about influenza, absolutely nothing, until October 4, when it reported that the ‘scourge’ had claimed its first victim there. It was as if the scourge had come from nowhere; yet even the paper recognized that, without its printing a word, everyone knew of it. And even as the epidemic rooted itself in Bronxville, the paper condemned ‘alarmism’ and warned, ‘Fear kills more than the disease and the weak and timid often succumb first.’

Fear, that was the enemy. Yes, fear. And the more officials tried to control it with half-truths and outright lies, the more the terror spread.

The Los Angeles public health director said, ‘If ordinary precautions are observed there is no cause for alarm.’ Forty-eight hours later he closed all places of public gatherings, including schools, churches, and theaters.

* How could one not get panicky? Even before people’s neighbors began to die, before bodies began to pile up in each new community, every piece of information except the newspapers told the truth. Even while Blue recited his mantra (There is no cause for alarm if proper precautions are taken) he was calling upon local authorities to ‘close all public gathering places, if their community is threatened with the epidemic. This will do much toward checking the spread of the disease.’ Even if Colonel Doane had said Influenza is nothing more or less than old fashioned grippe, newspapers also quoted him saying, ‘Every person who spits is helping the Kaiser.’

And even while Blue and Doane, governors and mayors, and nearly all the newspapers insisted that this was influenza, only influenza, the Public Health Service was making a massive effort to distribute advice – nearly useless advice. It prepared ready-to-print plates and sent them to ten thousand newspapers, most of which did print them. It prepared (the Red Cross paid for printing and distribution) posters and pamphlets, including six million copies of a single circular. Teachers handed them out in schools; bosses stacked them in stores, post offices, and factories…

* In 1918 fear moved ahead of the virus like the bow wave before a ship. Fear drove the people, and the government and the press could not control it. They could not control it because every true report had been diluted with lies. And the more the officials and newspapers reassured, the more they said, There is no cause for alarm if proper precautions are taken, or Influenza is nothing more or less than old-fashioned grippe, the more people believed themselves cast adrift, adrift with no one to trust, adrift on an ocean of death.

So people watched the virus approach, and feared, feeling as impotent as it moved toward them as if it were an inexorable oncoming cloud of poison gas. It was a thousand miles away, five hundred miles away, fifty miles away, twenty miles away.

* In Colorado, towns in the San Juan Mountains did not panic. They turned grimly serious. They had time to prepare. Lake City guards kept the town entirely free of the disease, allowing no one to enter. Silverton, a town of two thousand, authorized closing businesses even before a single case surfaced. But the virus snuck in, with a vengeance. In a single week in Silverton, 125 died. The town of Ouray set up a ‘shot gun quarantine,’ hiring guards to keep miners from Silverton and Telluride out. But the virus reached Ouray as well.

It had not reached Gunnison. Neither tiny nor isolated, Gunnison was a railroad town, a supply center for the west-central part of the state, the home of Western State Teachers College. In early October (far in advance of any cases of influenza) Gunnison and most neighboring towns issued a closing order and a ban on public gatherings. Then Gunnison decided to isolate itself entirely. Gunnison lawmen blocked all through roads. Train conductors warned all passengers that if they stepped foot on the platform in Gunnison to stretch their legs, they would be arrested and quarantined for five days. Two Nebraskans trying simply to drive through to a town in the next county ran the blockade and were thrown into jail. Meanwhile, the nearby town of Sargents suffered six deaths in a single day – out of a total population of 130.

Early in the epidemic, back on September 27 (it seemed like years before) the Wisconsin newspaper the Jefferson County Union had reported the truth about the disease, and the general in charge of the Army Morale Branch decreed the report ‘depressant to morale’ and forwarded it to enforcement officials for ‘any action which may be deemed appropriate,’ including criminal prosecution. Now, weeks later, after weeks of dying and with the war over, the Gunnison News-Chronicle, unlike virtually every other newspaper in the country, played no games and warned, ‘This disease is no joke, to be made light of, but a terrible calamity.’

Gunnison escaped without a death.

* In Washington, D.C., William Sardo said, ‘It kept people apart’ . It took away all your community life, you had no community life, you had no school life, you had no church life, you had nothing’ . It completely destroyed all family and community life. People were afraid to kiss one another, people were afraid to eat with one another, they were afraid to have anything that made contact because that’s how you got the flu’ . It destroyed those contacts and destroyed the intimacy that existed amongst people’ . You were constantly afraid, you were afraid because you saw so much death around you, you were surrounded by death’ . When each day dawned you didn’t know whether you would be there when the sun set that day. It wiped out entire families from the time that the day began in the morning to bedtime at night – entire families were gone completely, there wasn’t any single soul left and that didn’t happen just intermittently, it happened all the way across the neighborhoods, it was a terrifying experience. It justifiably should be called a plague because that’s what it was’ . You were quarantined, is what you were, from fear, it was so quick, so sudden’ . There was an aura of a constant fear that you lived through from getting up in the morning to going to bed at night.’

In New Haven, Connecticut, John Delano recalled the same isolating fear: ‘Normally when someone was sick in those days the parents, the mothers, the fathers, would bring food over to other families but this was very weird’ . Nobody was coming in, nobody would bring food in, nobody came to visit.’

Prescott, Arizona, made it illegal to shake hands. In Perry County, Kentucky, in the mountains where men either dug into the earth for coal or scratched upon the earth’s surface trying to farm despite topsoil only a few inches deep, a county of hard people, where family ties bound tightly, where men and women were loyal and would murder for pride or honor, the Red Cross chapter chairman begged for help, reporting ‘hundreds of cases up in mountains that they were unable to reach.’ They were unreachable not just because the county had almost no roads; streambeds in dry weather substituted for them and when the streambeds filled, transport became impossible. It was more: ‘People starving to death not from lack of food but because the well were panic stricken and would not go near the sick; that in the stricken families the dead were lying uncared for.’ Doctors were offered $100 to come out and stay there one hour. None came. Even one Red Cross worker, Morgan Brawner, arrived in the county Saturday and left Sunday, himself terror stricken. He had reason to fear: in some areas the civilian mortality rate reached 30 percent.

In Norwood, Massachusetts, a historian years later interviewed survivors. One man, a newsboy in 1918, remembered that his manager would ‘tell me to put the money on the table and he’d spray the money before he’d pick it up.’ Said another survivor; ‘There wasn’t much visiting’ . We stayed by ourselves.’ And another: ‘[H]e’d bring, you know, whatever my father needed and leave it on the doorstep. No one would go into each other’s houses.’ And another: ‘Everything came to a standstill’ . We weren’t allowed out the door. We had to keep away from people.’ And another: ‘A cop, a big burly guy’ came up to the house and nailed a big white sign and on the sign it said INFLUENZA in red letters. And they nailed it to the door.’ A sign made a family even more isolated. And another survivor: ‘I’d go up the street, walk up the street with my hand over my eyes because there were so many houses with crepe draped over the doors.’ And still another: ‘It was horrifying. Not only were you frightened you might come down with it but there was the eerie feeling of people passing away all around you.’

In Luce County, Michigan, one woman was nursing her husband and three boys when she ‘came down with it herself,’ reported a Red Cross worker. ‘Not one of the neighbors would come in and help. I stayed there all night, and in the morning telephoned the woman’s sister. She came and tapped on the window, but refused to talk to me until she had gotten a safe distance away’ . I could do nothing for the woman’ except send for the priest.

* In Arizona, citizens’ committees were taken seriously. A year earlier fifteen hundred armed members of a ‘Citizens Protective League’ had put 1,221 striking miners into cattle and boxcars and abandoned them without food or water on a railroad siding in the desert, across the New Mexico line. In Phoenix another ‘citizens’ committee’ had been going after ‘bond slackers,’ hanging them in effigy on main streets. One man refused to buy a bond because of religious reasons. Nonetheless he was hung in effigy with a placard reading, ‘H. G. Saylor, yellow slacker’ . Can, but won’t buy a liberty bond!’ Saylor was lucky. The committee also seized Charles Reas, a carpenter, tied his hands behind his back, painted his face yellow, put a noose around his neck, and dragged him through downtown Phoenix streets wearing a sign that read ‘with this exception we are 100%.’

The influenza Citizens’ Committee took similar initiatives. It deputized a special police force and also called upon all ‘patriotic citizens’ to enforce anti-influenza ordinances, including requiring every person in public to wear a mask, arresting anyone who spit or coughed without covering his mouth, dictating that businesses (those that remained open) give twelve hundred cubic feet of air space to each customer, and halting all traffic into the city and allowing only those with ‘actual business here’ to enter. Soon the Republican described ‘a city of masked faces, a city as grotesque as a masked carnival.’

And yet (ironically) influenza touched Phoenix only lightly compared to elsewhere. The panic came anyway. Dogs told the story of terror, but not with their barking. Rumors spread that dogs carried influenza. The police began killing all dogs on the street. And people began killing their own dogs, dogs they loved, and if they had not the heart to kill them themselves, they gave them to the police to be killed.

* One Philadelphia doctor had another idea, logical but more reaching, and wrote in JAMA that ‘when the system is saturated with alkalis, there is poor soil for bacterial growth.’ Therefore he tried to turn the entire body alkaline. ‘I have uniformly employed, and always with good results, potassium citrate and sodium bicarbonate saturation by mouth, bowel and skin’ . Patients must be willing to forego [sic] the seductive relief by acetylsalicylic acid [aspirin]’ . My very successful experience in this epidemic cannot be dismissed as accidental or unique’ .

* Physicians injected people with typhoid vaccine, thinking (or simply hoping) it might somehow boost the immune system in general even though the specificity of the immune response was well understood. Some claimed the treatment worked. Others poured every known vaccine into patients on the same theory. Quinine worked on one disease: malaria. Many physicians gave it for influenza with no better reasoning than desperation.

* Places that isolated themselves (such as Gunnison, Colorado, and a few military installations on islands) escaped. But the closing orders that most cities issued could not prevent exposure; they were not extreme enough. Closing saloons and theaters and churches meant nothing if significant numbers of people continued to climb onto streetcars, continued to go to work, continued to go to the grocer. Even where fear closed down businesses, where both store owners and customers refused to stand face-to-face and left orders on sidewalks, there was still too much interaction to break the chain of infection. The virus was too efficient, too explosive, too good at what it did. In the end the virus did its will around the world.

It was as if the virus were a hunter. It was hunting mankind. It found man in the cities easily, but it was not satisfied. It followed him into towns, then villages, then individual homes. It searched for him in the most distant corners of the earth. It hunted him in the forests, tracked him into jungles, pursued him onto the ice. And in those most distant corners of the earth, in those places so inhospitable that they barely allowed man to live, in those places where man was almost wholly innocent of civilization, man was not safer from the virus. He was more vulnerable.

In Alaska, whites in Fairbanks protected themselves. Sentries guarded all trails, and every person entering the city was quarantined for five days. Eskimos had no such luck. A senior Red Cross official warned that without ‘immediate medical assistance the race’ could become ‘extinct.’

* One process involved immunity. Once the virus passed through a population, that population developed at least some immunity to it. Victims were not likely to be reinfected by the same virus, not until it had undergone antigen drift.

The second process occurred within the virus. It was only influenza. By nature the influenza virus is dangerous, considerably more dangerous than the common aches and fever lead people to believe, but it does not kill routinely as it did in 1918. The 1918 pandemic reached an extreme of virulence unknown in any other widespread influenza outbreak in history.

But the 1918 virus, like all influenza viruses, like all viruses that form mutant swarms, mutated rapidly. There is a mathematical concept called ‘reversion to the mean’ this states simply that an extreme event is likely to be followed by a less extreme event. This is not a law, only a probability. The 1918 virus stood at an extreme; any mutations were more likely to make it less lethal than more lethal. In general, that is what happened. So just as it seemed that the virus would bring civilization to its knees, would do what the plagues of the Middle Ages had done, would remake the world, the virus mutated toward its mean, toward the behavior of most influenza viruses. As time went on, it became less lethal.

* The disease has survived in memory more than in any literature. Nearly all those who were adults during the pandemic have died now. Now the memory lives in the minds of those who only heard stories, who heard how their mother lost her father, how an uncle became an orphan, or heard an aunt say, ‘It was the only time I ever saw my father cry.’ Memory dies with people.

The writers of the 1920s had little to say about it.

Mary McCarthy got on a train in Seattle on October 30, 1918, with her three brothers and sisters, her aunt and uncle, and her parents. They arrived in Minneapolis three days later, all of them sick (her father had pulled out a gun when the conductor tried to put them off the train) met by her grandparents wearing masks. All the hospitals were full and so they went home. Her aunt and uncle recovered but her father, Roy, thirty-eight years old, died on November 6, and her mother, Tess, twenty-nine years old, died November 7. In Memories of a Catholic Girlhood she spoke of how deeply being an orphan affected her, made her desperate to distinguish herself, and she vividly remembered the train ride across two-thirds of the country, but she said almost nothing of the epidemic.

John Dos Passos was in his early twenties and seriously ill with influenza, yet barely mentioned the disease in his fiction. Hemingway, Faulkner, Fitzgerald said next to nothing of it. William Maxwell, a New Yorker writer and novelist, lost his mother to the disease. Her death sent his father, brother, and him inward. He recalled, ‘I had to guess what my older brother was thinking. It was not something he cared to share with me. If I hadn’t known, I would have thought that he’d had his feelings hurt by something he was too proud to talk about’ .’ For himself, ‘[T]he ideas that kept recurring to me, perhaps because of that pacing the floor with my father, was that I had inadvertently walked through a door that I shouldn’t have gone through and couldn’t get back to the place I hadn’t meant to leave.’ Of his father he said, ‘His sadness was of the kind that is patient and without hope.’ For himself, ‘the death of my mother’ was a motivating force in four books.’

Katherine Anne Porter was ill enough that her obituary was set in type. She recovered. Her fiancé did not. Years later her haunting novella of the disease and the time, Pale Horse, Pale Rider, is one of the best (and one of the few) sources for what life was like during the disease. And she lived through it in Denver, a city that, compared to those in the east, was struck only a glancing blow.

But the relative lack of impact it left on literature may not be unusual at all. It may not be that much unlike what happened centuries ago. One scholar of medieval literature says, ‘While there are a few vivid and terrifying accounts, it’s actually striking how little was written on the bubonic plague. Outside of these few very well-known accounts, there is almost nothing in literature about it afterwards.’

People write about war. They write about the Holocaust. They write about horrors that people inflict on people. Apparently they forget the horrors that nature inflicts on people, the horrors that make humans least significant. And yet the pandemic resonated. When the Nazis took control of Germany in 1933, Christopher Isherwood wrote of Berlin: ‘The whole city lay under an epidemic of discreet, infectious fear. I could feel it, like influenza, in my bones.

* Yet, despite such occasional harshness, the 1918 influenza pandemic did not in general demonstrate a pattern of race or class antagonism. In epidemiological terms there was a correlation between population density and hence class and deaths, but the disease still struck down everyone. And the deaths of soldiers of such promise and youth struck home with everyone. The disease was too universal, too obviously not tied to race or class. In Philadelphia, white and black certainly got comparable treatment. In mining areas around the country, whether out of self-interest or not, mine owners tried to find doctors for their workers. In Alaska, racism notwithstanding, authorities launched a massive rescue effort, if too late, to save Eskimos. Even the very Red Cross worker so nauseated by filth continued to risk his own life day after day in one of the hardest-hit areas of the country.

During the second wave, many local governments collapsed, and those who held the real power in a community (from Philadelphia’s bluebloods to Phoenix’s citizens’ committee) took over. But generally they exercised power to protect the entire community rather than to split it, to distribute resources widely rather than to guarantee resources for themselves.

Despite that effort, whoever held power, whether a city government or some private gathering of the locals, they generally failed to keep the community together. They failed because they lost trust. They lost trust because they lied. (San Francisco was a rare exception; its leaders told the truth, and the city responded heroically.) And they lied for the war effort, for the propaganda machine that Wilson had created.

It is impossible to quantify how many deaths the lies caused. It is impossible to quantify how many young men died because the army refused to follow the advice of its own surgeon general. But while those in authority were reassuring people that this was influenza, only influenza, nothing different from ordinary ‘la grippe,’ at least some people must have believed them, at least some people must have exposed themselves to the virus in ways they would not have otherwise, and at least some of these people must have died who would otherwise have lived. And fear really did kill people. It killed them because those who feared would not care for many of those who needed but could not find care, those who needed only hydration, food, and rest to survive.

* Every expert on influenza agrees that the ability of the influenza virus to reassort genes means that another pandemic not only can happen. It almost certainly will happen.

For influenza is not like SARS, which was contained and (as this book goes to press) may have been completely eliminated. SARS, although more lethal even than the 1918 influenza virus, is less dangerous for several reasons.

First, SARS requires fairly close contact to spread, while influenza is among the most contagious of all diseases.

* If a new influenza virus does emerge, given modern travel patterns it will likely spread even more rapidly than it did in 1918. It will infect at least several hundred million, and probably more than a billion, people. In the United States alone, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that a new pandemic would make between 40 and 100 million people sick.

* In 1918 the world’s population was 1.8 billion, less than one-third today’s. Yet the 1918 influenza virus killed a likely 50 million and possibly as many as 100 million.

* The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that the annual death toll in the United States from influenza now averages 36,000 in a nonepidemic year. The 1918 virus killed 675,000 people in the United States, out of a population not much more than one-third the size of today’s.

* A vaccine offers far better protection, especially for the elderly. But to make the vaccine, investigators have to aim at a moving target. Every year they try to predict which virus strains will dominate and the direction of antigen drift. Then they design a vaccine for these antigens. When the investigators are right, when they hit their target, the vaccine protects very well for an entire flu season, preventing many attacks and reducing the severity of others. But the vaccine needs to be produced in huge quantities, which takes months, and in that time the virus can mutate in a direction different from the one anticipated. And even if the vaccine includes the right antigens, given the ‘mutant swarm’ nature of the virus, some viral strains will escape it.

* The real danger, though, is that it may not be possible to develop and distribute a vaccine in time to protect against a new virus.

* So even with all the medical advances since 1918, the CDC estimates that if a new pandemic virus strikes, then the U.S. death toll will most likely fall between 89,000 and 300,000. It also estimates a best case scenario of 75,000 deaths and a worst case scenario in which 422,000 Americans would die.

* If a new pandemic struck, people suffering from ARDS would quickly overwhelm intensive care units; those with ARDS who did not get true intensive care would have a mortality rate approaching that in 1918. A new virus would also feast on a population that did not exist in 1918 – those with compromised immune systems, including people undergoing radiation or chemotherapy for cancer and transplant recipients, not to mention anyone with HIV.

No one has attempted to estimate the worldwide death toll of another influenza pandemic, but one could easily imagine a lethal virus (even one less virulent than that of 1918) killing tens of millions. No disease, including AIDS, poses the long-term threat of a violent explosion that influenza does.

* Some medical historians and epidemiologists have hypothesized that the 1918 pandemic began in China. Most pandemics whose origin is known did begin in Asia or Russia. There is no scientific reason for this; it is only a question of probabilities. There large numbers of people live in close contact with pigs and birds, so more opportunities exist for a virus to cross over from animals to humans.

* But before the first notification of WHO, [SARS] existed for months in China. For political and commercial reasons mainland Chinese authorities kept the disease secret and then initially lied about it. Once they did recognize the threat they moved aggressively and successfully to contain it, but had it been a new influenza virus, the months of silence would have made it impossible for public health authorities to have any chance either to contain the virus or develop a vaccine before a pandemic exploded across the world. Possibly the Chinese government (and other governments) learned a lesson they will not forget; possibly they will be both open and aggressive in the future whenever any indication of a new disease surfaces. One hopes so.

* …a small plane spraying anthrax spores over New York City could, under theoretically perfect conditions, kill 120,000 people, while improving distribution of antibiotics alone would slash the death toll from an identical attack to 1,000.

* Public health officials will need the authority to enforce decisions, including ruthless ones. If, for example, unvaccinated individuals threaten not only themselves but others by providing a reservoir in which pathogens can breed, officials might decide to order mandatory vaccination. Or, if there is any chance to limit the geographical spread of the disease, officials must have in place the legal power to take extreme quarantine measures. A centralized system should exist to allocate all resources including professionals as well. The utter waste of resources in 1918 in New York City (when doctors repeatedly crossed each other’s paths entering and leaving the same building because no centralized system was used to dispatch them) should not be tolerated.

Questions about who will have the authority to make and enforce such decisions, and under what circumstances, must be settled in advance. Neither an epidemic nor an attack will leave time for debate.

* There was terror afoot in 1918, real terror. The randomness of death brought that terror home. So did its speed. And so did the fact that the healthiest and strongest seemed the most vulnerable.

The media and public officials helped create that terror – not by exaggerating the disease but by minimizing it, by trying to reassure.

Terror rises in the dark of the mind, in the unknown beast tracking us in the jungle. The fear of the dark is an almost physical manifestation of that. Horror movies build upon the fear of the unknown, the uncertain threat that we cannot see and do not know and can find no safe haven from. But in every horror movie, once the monster appears, terror condenses into the concrete and diminishes. Fear remains. But the edge of panic created by the unknown dissipates. The power of the imagination dissipates.

In 1918 the lies of officials and of the press never allowed the terror to condense into the concrete. The public could trust nothing and so they knew nothing. So a terror seeped into the society that prevented one woman from caring for her sister, that prevented volunteers from bringing food to families too ill to feed themselves and who starved to death because of it, that prevented trained nurses from responding to the most urgent calls for their services. The fear, not the disease, threatened to break the society apart. As Victor Vaughan (a careful man, a measured man, a man who did not overstate to make a point) warned, ‘Civilization could have disappeared within a few more weeks.’

So the final lesson, a simple one yet one most difficult to execute, is that those who occupy positions of authority must lessen the panic that can alienate all within a society. Society cannot function if it is every man for himself. By definition, civilization cannot survive that.

Those in authority must retain the public’s trust. The way to do that is to distort nothing, to put the best face on nothing, to try to manipulate no one. Lincoln said that first, and best.

Leadership must make whatever horror exists concrete. Only then will people be able to break it apart.

FROM ABC NEWS 4-5-20:

In the summer of 2005, President George W. Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, when he began flipping through an advance reading copy of a new book about the 1918 flu pandemic. He couldn’t put it down.

When he returned to Washington, he called his top homeland security adviser into the Oval Office and gave her the galley of historian John M. Barry’s “The Great Influenza,” which told the chilling tale of the mysterious plague that “would kill more people than the outbreak of any other disease in human history.”

“You’ve got to read this,” Fran Townsend remembers the president telling her. “He said, ‘Look, this happens every 100 years. We need a national strategy.'”

Posted in Corona Virus | Comments Off on The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History

Capitalism and the Jews

Here are some highlights from this Jerry Z. Muller book:

* Capitalism has been the most important force in shaping the fate of the Jews in the modern world. Of course, one could plausibly argue that it has been the most important force in shaping the fate of everyone in the modern world. But Jews have had a special relationship with capitalism, for they have been particularly good at it.

* In recent decades, economists have added the concept of “human capital” to their kitbag, by which they mean the characteristics that make for economic success. But they prefer to think of it in terms of measurable criteria such as years of schooling. To the extent that human capital involves character traits and varieties of know-how that are not provided by formal education, it becomes methodologically elusive. Much of the reality of economic history, and of the Jewish role within it, is bound to elude those who proceed on the tacit premise that “if you can’t count it, it doesn’t count.” For liberals, the reality of differential group achievement under conditions of legal equality is something of a scandal, an affront to egalitarian assumptions. For it casts a shadow of doubt on the shibboleth of “equality of opportunity.” If it turns out that the ability to take advantage of opportunity is deeply influenced by cultural traits transmitted in the private realm of the family and the cultural community, then inequality of outcome cannot be attributed merely to legal discrimination, nor can it be eliminated by formal, public institutions, such as schools. For nationalists, the fact that modern nationalism had fateful consequences for the Jews precisely because the Jews were so good at capitalism was itself a source of embarrassment. In the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, many nationalist movements sought to restrict Jewish citizenship and legal equality out of the perception (partly founded) that Jews excelled at capitalist activity compared to their non Jewish countrymen. For many nationalists, in countries from prerevolutionary Russia, to Poland, Hungary, and Germany, the “real” nation was defined in good part over-and-against the Jews. When economic life was conceived of as a zero-sum game, in which the gains of some could only come at the expense of others, the gains of the Jews were made responsible for the psychic or material pains of the “authentic” members of the nation. The extent to which the fellow feeling between gentry, artisans, peasants, and industrial workers was forged in a shared and cultivated antipathy to the Jewish “other” is a part of national history that nationalists would rather forget.

* Jews were associated with trade and with the lending of money long before the rise of a recognizably modern capitalism in the seventeenth century. That association would have ongoing effects. It helps to account for the fact of disproportionate Jewish success under conditions of modern capitalism. In addition, the way in which modern, non-Jewish intellectuals thought about capitalism was often related to how they thought about Jews. Those evaluations in turn affected the ways in which Jews thought about themselves, about their economic role and their position in society. Jewish intellectuals such as Moses Mendelssohn were well aware of this connection, and linked their case for civil equality for the Jews with arguments about the positive function of the economic activities in which Jews were engaged. Yet the disproportionate economic success of the Jews made them a lightning rod for the discontent and resentment that was almost everywhere a product of what Joseph Schumpeter called the “creative destruction” that was part and parcel of capitalist dynamism. By that he meant the displacement of older forms of production, consumption, and styles of life by new forms, created by capitalist innovation. Added to this source of animus was the fact that the development of capitalism went hand in hand with the rise of the modern nation state, which, in much of the Old World, took the form of an ethnic nationalism that defined Jews as outside the national community. That led to new, more modern forms of anti-Jewish animus, rooted less in religious difference than in the resentment of Jewish economic success. And that in turn led a small but salient minority of Jews to embrace Communism, the most radical form of anticapitalism. That embrace had fateful consequences of its own. And finally, it led a growing portion of Jewry to conclude that in an age of capitalism and nationalism, Jews needed a nation-state of their own. Thus the interlocking themes of the four essays that make up this book, which traverse the boundary between general and Jewish history, and between intellectual, economic, and political history. They aim to show the relevance of the experience of the Jews to the larger themes of modern European history: of the development of capitalism, Communism, nationalism, and fascism.

Jews thus had a cultural significance, a radioactive charge, that was not characteristic of merchant minorities elsewhere. It was the confluence of their religious status as tolerated but despised outsiders, together with their economic role as merchant minority, that was so fraught. The association of the Jews with the lending of money at interest was only possible because they were beyond the community of the saved. And the association of money with a theologically stigmatized minority cast an aura of suspicion around money and moneymaking. Had there been no Jews in Europe, the spread of capitalism would still have led to anticapitalist movements as well as to nationalist ones. But the Jews’ premodern commercial experience, together with their emphasis on literacy, predisposed them to do disproportionately well in modern capitalist societies, where success increasingly depended on commercial acumen and book-learning. Anticapitalist thought would stigmatize capitalism by borrowing the conceptual categories of Christian anti-Semitism and the traditional condemnation of usury, of making money with money. The attempt of European states to modernize—which meant becoming literate, capitalist societies—gave rise to ethnic nationalism, which once again conceived of the Jews as outsiders.

* In the face of their increasing exclusion from the ethnically defined community of the nation, Jews responded in three ways. They migrated to countries in which nationalism was defined liberally, rather than by religious or ethnic criteria. That meant, above all, emigrating westward from Russia, where the great bulk of world Jewry was located as of 1880—westward to Austria-Hungary, to Germany, to France and to Britain, and above all, to the United States, until it closed its doors to further mass immigration in 1924. In liberal countries—even in incipiently liberal countries, like the late Habsburg Empire—Jews tended to embrace liberalism, and a program of integration into the dominant culture. While some hoped for complete assimilation and amalgamation, by and large Jews sought to acculturate to the host society without complete assimilation.3 But the border between liberal forms of nationalism and illiberal, ethnic forms was a shifting one, and Jews repeatedly discovered that liberalizing and welcoming political cultures could turn illiberal and hostile. That is what happened in Hungary, Austria, Germany, France, and even, though in a more diluted manner, in the United States. The second response of Jews was therefore to embrace socialist movements that promised to end invidious distinctions based on origin. Most socialists attributed the hold of antiSemitism to capitalism itself, so that eliminating capitalism was understood as a formula for eliminating anti-Semitism. The most radical and uncompromising of these movements was Communism. The third major response, by Jews who remained committed to some form of Jewish continuity, was Zionism.

* Jews and capitalism have long been linked in the European mind. Ever since the Middle Ages, Jews were associated in the Christian West with the handling of money. It is no wonder, then, that the intellectual evaluation of an economy in which money played a central role was often intertwined with attitudes toward Jewry. Jews in Christian Europe were permitted by the church to engage in the stigmatized activity of lending money at interest precisely because they were regarded as outside the community of shared values. For a variety of intellectuals in modern Europe, Jews served as a kind of metaphor-turned flesh for capitalism.

* To our ears, the term usury is likely to sound archaic—a long-discarded conceptual relic of the ancient and medieval past. And so it sounded to many eighteenth-century ears as well. From John Calvin in the sixteenth century through Francis Bacon in the early seventeenth, lending at interest came to be increasingly portrayed as legitimate and necessary, if in need of restriction. John Locke inveighed against the possibility and desirability of setting a legal limit on the rate of interest in Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest, and Raising the Value of Money of 1691. By the time we reach the age of David Hume, Adam Smith, and Jeremy Bentham in the eighteenth century, the legitimacy of lending at interest is taken entirely for granted…

* For Montesquieu, commerce had positive effects on culture and character. He famously asserted that “commerce combats destructive prejudices, and it is almost a general rule that wherever there are gentle manners (moeurs douces), there is commerce, and that wherever there is commerce, there are gentle manners. Therefore, one should not be surprised if our mores are less fierce than they were formerly. Commerce has spread knowledge of the mores of all nations everywhere; they are compared to each other, and from this comparison arise great advantages.”2 Montesquieu drew a direct line between the stigmatization of usury and economic backwardness. He regarded the decline of commerce in the Middle Ages as one of the great misfortunes of European history. And he attributed that misfortune to the interpretation of usury by medieval Catholics theologians. “We owe all the misfortunes that accompanied the destruction of commerce to the speculations of the schoolmen,” he wrote.

* Montesquieu attributed the rise of civilization and good government in modern Europe to the Jews. For by creating bills of exchange, Jews managed to make their valuables intangible, putting their wealth beyond the oppressive hand of princes. Deprived of the ability to gain income by squeezing the Jews who in turn had squeezed the populace, princes were forced by circumstances to govern more prudently, since only good government would bring prosperity. That in turn set the stage for the rebirth of European commerce, and with it the beginning of the decline of prejudice and the rise of a more gentle, less ferocious way of life.

* In Catholic countries, usury was condemned the long shadow of usury in both canon and civil law until well into the eighteenth century, and remained an object of obloquy even later… By the mid-nineteenth century, the Vatican advised faithful Catholics who retained qualms about lending at the legal rate of interest not to worry about its effect upon their souls, but left the theoretical basis for this change of heart undecided.

Yet whether the lending of money at interest was illegal in theory and subverted in practice (as in Catholic countries), or legal in theory and practice up to some limit (as in Protestant countries), the odium of the traditional connotations of usury and its connection to Jewry lingered. In the popular mind, usury was not confined to lending at interest: it was a term of opprobrium applied to any mercantile transaction regarded as unseemly or inequitable.

Underlying the condemnation of merchants and moneylenders was the assumption that only those whose labor produced sweat really worked and produced.

* Nowhere was the intellectual exploration of the origins, nature, and moral significance of capitalism pursued with greater intensity than in Germany at the turn of the twentieth century. At its highest levels, it took the form of a three-way debate between Georg Simmel (1858–1918), Max Weber (1864–1920), and Werner Sombart (1863–1941). The role of Jews and of fi nance were central to the debate, either explicitly or implicitly. Much of the stimulus for the debate came from Simmel’s remarkable work The Philosophy of Money, published in 1900. A religious outsider by familial origin but a religious insider by upbringing (his ancestors were Jewish, but his parents had converted to Lutheranism), a member of the upper middle class living at the cultural and commercial crossroads of German life, fl uent in French and cosmopolitan in orientation, Simmel was keenly sensitive to the burgeoning possibilities of modern life.48 Simmel explored the psychological effects of living in an economy in which more and more areas of life could be measured in money. Such an economy created a mind-set that was more abstract, because the means of exchange were themselves becoming ever more abstract. Exchange had begun as barter, the very tangible giving of one thing for another… With the development of credit, money becomes more abstract still, little more than a bookkeeping notation.49 Through constant exposure to an abstract means of exchange, individuals under capitalism are habituated to thinking about the world in a more abstract manner. They also become more calculating and more used to weighing factors in making decisions. Where one is dependent on the market for almost everything from food to entertainment to medicine, decisions about how to live become decisions about what to buy; choices about how to live better become choices of how much of one thing to trade off for another. Because each of these decisions requires calculations of more or less—if I pay more for item X, I’ll have less left over for item Y—people in a money economy become acclimated to thinking in numerical terms. This numerical, calculating style of thought spills over into more and more personal decisions. Life becomes more cool and calculated, less impulsive and emotional.50 Life in a modern, money economy, Simmel stressed, is characterized by ever greater distances between means and ends. Determining how to attain our ends is a matter of intellect: of calculation, weighing, comparing the various possible means to reach our goals most efficiently. Thus intellect, concerned with the weighing of means, comes to play an ever greater role.

* For competition was not a relationship between those who competed only, it was a struggle for the affection—or money—of a third party. To compete successfully, Simmel noted, the competitor must devote himself to discovering the desires of that third party. As a result, competition often “achieves what usually only love can do: the divination of the innermost wishes of the other, even before he himself becomes aware of them. Antagonistic
the long shadow of usury tension with his competitor sharpens the businessman’s sensitivity to the tendencies of the public, even to the point of clairvoyance, regarding future changes in the public’s tastes, fashions, interests.” And the competition for customers and consumers had a highly democratic aspect as well. “Modern competition,” Simmel observed, “is often described as the fight of all against all, but at the same time it is the fi ght of all for all.” Thus, he concluded, competition forms “a web of a thousand social threads: through concentrating the consciousness on the will and feeling and thinking of fellowmen, through the adaptation of producers to consumers, through the discovery of ever more refined possibilities of gaining their favor and patronage.”51 In The Philosophy of Money and in his other works, Simmel explained that the development of the market economy made for new possibilities of individuality. Simmel suggested that the limited-liability corporation was a model for many characteristic forms of association under advanced capitalism, in which individuals cooperate with a limited portion of their lives for common but limited purposes. Compared to the precapitalist past, in which individuals lived most of their lives in a single, circumscribed community, modern life was based upon looser more temporary associations, founded to pursue specifi c economic, cultural, or political interests, and demanding of the individual only a small part of himself, sometimes only a monetary contribution in the form of dues. As a result, the modern individual can belong to a greater range of groups, but groups that are looser and less encompassing. Thus Simmel concluded that “money establishes incomparably more connections among people than ever existed in the days of the feudal associations so beloved by romantics.”52 In contrast to earlier forms of association, modern groups allow for participation without absorption. They make it possible for the individual to develop a variety of interests and to become involved in a wider range of activities than would otherwise be possible, yet to do so without surrendering the totality of his time, income, or identity to any particular association, from the family to the state.53 For Simmel, the eclipse of “community” was not a source of nostalgic lament: it presented new possibilities, along with potential pitfalls. He highlighted the development of a new form of individuality promoted by the market economy, an individuality based on choice from among the many cultural spheres and social circles created by the capitalist market.

* In a lecture first delivered in 1972 entitled “Capitalism and the Jews,” Milton Friedman, the distinguished libertarian economist and defender of the free market, presented what he regarded as a paradox: the Jews “owe an enormous debt to free enterprise and competitive capitalism,” but “for at least the past century the Jews have been consistently opposed to capitalism and have done much on an ideological level to undermine it.”1 Friedman argued that the element of capitalism that has most benefited the Jews is free competition. Free competition counteracts the forces of anti-Semitic prejudice. For under conditions of free competition, ethnic or religious discrimination puts the discriminator at a competitive disadvantage. The customer who buys from the baker that shares his race, or ideology, or religion, rather than from the baker who produces the best bread at the cheapest price, pays a premium. The law firm that hires only lawyers of the traditionally dominant ethnic group eventually finds itself losing more cases and more clients to firms who hire the best and brightest lawyers, regardless of origin. The use of such discriminatory criteria, Friedman argued, is most likely to occur under conditions of monopoly, governmental or private, where the quest for comparative economic advantage is less acute. In a more competitive market, by contrast, prejudice becomes more disadvantageous. Hiring the less qualified, or buying from the less efficient producer because buyer and seller share some cultural trait, will eventually lead to bankruptcy.

* The notion of revealed preferences is that we discover what people want not from what individuals say but from what they do.

* Jewish immigrants [to the United States] came with even less capital than most turn-of-the-century immigrants; they went into an industry with the worst working conditions and with low wages. Yet a substantial number of first-generation immigrants moved from the ranks of workers to entrepreneurs, first in the clothing trades, and then beyond. By the second generation, they had moved into other forms of retailing, and then into real estate and the professions.9 As laborers, Jews were active in trade unions, but they did not think of themselves as part of a transgenerational working class: on the contrary, they wanted something different, for themselves if possible, and certainly for their children. During the era from 1880 through the 1920s, when a high percentage of Jewish immigrants in America were employed in the needle trades, one of the most striking phenomena was their high rate of mobility from hourly and piecework into management and entrepreneurship.10 Compared to most immigrant groups, and indeed to most native Americans, they had an abundance of commercial skills, drawn either from their own experience in commerce or from sustained contact with businessmen.11

In many regions of the United States, Jews began as peddlers, the lowest rung on the entrepreneurial ladder, and then moved up to shop-owning and other forms of retailing, before they too made the transition to real estate and the professions.12 In thinking about Jewish economic success across generations, an important factor was that Jews were not inclined to maintain the economic status quo in a particular inherited craft, but rather to find market opportunities in a changing dynamic economy. For economic success depends not only on a sensitivity to where economic possibilities are opening up, but also on the willingness to abandon a declining economic sector. Jewish economic success across generations was predicated on a readiness to leave the clothing business behind as its potential decreased.13 Thus, by the early decades of the twentieth century, Jews had returned to the disproportionate involvement in trade and commerce that had been their pattern from the High Middle Ages through the early nineteenth century.

* Compared to Christianity, Judaism was more favorably disposed toward commerce.

* Talmudic law—which educated Jews continued to study and refine through the ages— was replete with debates about economic matters, including contracts, torts, and prices. Unlike Christianity, Judaism considered poverty as anything but ennobling. “Nothing is harder to bear than poverty,” says the Talmud, “because he who is crushed by poverty is like to one to whom all the troubles of the world cling and upon whom all the curses of Deuteronomy have descended. If all other troubles were placed on one side and poverty on the other, poverty would outweigh them all.”19 The more favorable Jewish valuation of commerce, compared to Christianity, was due in part to the more favorable Jewish attitude toward the natural passions, which involved a greater emphasis on family and marriage as well. As opposed to the Augustinian view of original sin as the basis of concupiscence (sexual lust), the Talmud, in a famous passage, speaks of “the evil inclination,” the yetzer hara as the basis of both family and commerce.20 Commerce, then, like marriage, was natural and providential.

* As the Catholic theologian Michael Novak has rightly noted, “Jewish thought has had a candid orientation toward private property, commercial activity, markets, and profits, whereas Catholic thought—articulated from an early period chiefly among priests and monks—has persistently tried to direct the attention of its adherents beyond the activities and interests of this world to the next.”

* If Jews did not glorify poverty, neither did they sanctify the attainment of wealth or value physical labor for its own sake. The great halachists (rabbinical authorities) called on men to devote as little time as possible to their occupation, in order to devote more time to study. They therefore preferred commerce to crafts, on the grounds that it was less timeconsuming.23 The suspicion of merchants and commerce so prominent in the Christian tradition was lacking among Jews.24

Posted in Capitalism, Jews | Comments Off on Capitalism and the Jews

Inter arma enim silent leges (In times of war, the law falls silent) (4-16-20)

00:00 How you like your freedoms now?
08:00 Natural rights vs nationalism
16:00 Fox News: Sources believe coronavirus outbreak originated in Wuhan lab as part of China’s efforts to compete with US
20:00 Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political
25:00 University of Queensland takes disciplinary action against pro-Hong Kong student activist
31:00 China drops rockets on its own people
34:30 John M. Barry “The Next Pandemic: Lessons from History”
38:00 The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History by John M. Barry
44:00 Kevin MacDonald, Richard Spencer, Nathan Cofnas twitter thread debate, https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1249706934740979714
51:00 Ron Unz on corona virus, Israel
1:05:00 Bean of ‘The Kevin & Bean Show’ Talks About Why He’s Really Leaving the US
1:24:00 Why did Australians remember the Spanish Flu as the bubonic plague?
1:30:00 Why was 1918 influenza outbreak called the Spanish Flu?
1:41:00 When you look like a serial killer on camera – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU9-0UfK1jg, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymyVwx4xNNQ
https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-great-outdoors/
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coronavirus-wuhan-lab-china-compete-us-sources

Posted in America | Comments Off on Inter arma enim silent leges (In times of war, the law falls silent) (4-16-20)