Why Are Some Countries Less Corrupt Than Others? And Why Are They Anglo?

Posted on February 20, 2018 by Luke Ford

Harvard ethics blog:

Independent of the econometric methodology applied, we consistently find:

Immigration from corruption-ridden countries boosts corruption in the destination country.

Hence, the international legislators’ fear (as expressed in recent agreements by the G20 group) that immigration may cause a problematic inflow of corruption appears to be justified. Policy-makers will therefore have to take precautions to avoid this problem. However, the optimal response is not obvious. One possibility could be to restrict immigration by only selecting immigrants originating from non-corrupt countries. Alternatively, very careful checks ad personam could be conducted. The downside of this policy is that it could seriously restrict the inflow of migrants, which might not be optimal given that most OECD countries face a severe aging problem and are in need of immigration to keep their social security systems sustainable. An arguably better strategy could be to immunize the domestic population against a corrupt attitude brought into the country by some immigrants and thus preserve the state’s purposeful functionality. One way to achieve this is through better educating the domestic population of the detrimental effects brought about by corruption. This would both raise their awareness and yield a critical state of mind.

Posted in WASPs | Comments Off on Why Are Some Countries Less Corrupt Than Others? And Why Are They Anglo?

What’s More Likely To Produce A Good World?

Posted on February 20, 2018 by Luke Ford

Following the laws of God or the laws of Nature? That’s the basis of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim conflict with the Alt Right. All of the leading five or so intellectuals of the Alt Right are atheists even though most people who identify with the Alt Right are Christian.

If we follow the laws of nature, we don’t adopt extraordinary measures to keep the sick and dying alive. We practice eugenics. We allow the aristocracy to rule. We don’t view people as primarily made in God’s image. We accept hierarchy. We get rid of the homeless, the crazy, the addicted and the criminally incline. We notice that in nature you don’t have two sub-species living together in peace and so you don’t try to impose multi-culturalism on nations.

On the other hand, if you believe in God and any of the three monotheistic religions, you posit that if people would simply fear God and follow His dictates, we can all get along in peace, no matter our racial differences (unless your religion posits that your group should rule the world, which each of the monotheist faiths does). With monotheism, your opponents aren’t just competitors, they’re evil, they’re opposed to God.

Monotheism has a strong totalitarian streak.

Great exponents of ethical monotheism include Dennis Prager. Great exponents of the natural perspective include Carl Schmitt, Greg Johnson, Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, etc.

It’s easier to talk to people who are naturalists, because you can limit the discussion to facts and logic while arguing with monotheists means arguing about religious faith, which contains tremendous subjectivity.

The ideology of Mein Kampf is the ideology of the Alt Right (with some superficial PR differences).

The ideology of today’s ruling powers is a weird combination of secular humanism, Judaism, Christianity, capitalism and left-wing thought.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on What’s More Likely To Produce A Good World?

Rabbis Vs Rabbis

Posted on February 20, 2018 by Luke Ford

The funniest statement in the Siddur (Jewish prayer book) is that Torah scholars increase peace in the world. If you know any Torah scholars, you know that they are always feuding. There is no definition of lashon hara (evil speech) that would not apply to the routine speech of Torah scholars.

Jews do not only apply their culture of critique to gentiles.

Marc B. Shapiro writes:

In a recent Jewish Review of Books (Summer 2017), I published a translation of an interview R. Joseph Rozin, the Rogochover, gave to the New York Yiddish paper, Der morgen zhurnal. You can see the original interview here. The fact that the Rogochover agreed to the interview is itself significant. As is to be expected, the content of the interview is also of great interest.

In the preface to the interview, I mentioned that the Rogochover famously studied Torah on Tisha be-Av and when he was an avel, both of which are in violation of accepted halakhah. When he was once asked why, while sitting shiva, he learnt Torah, he is reported to have replied:[1]

ודאי, עבירה היא זו, וכשאקבל עונש על שאר עונותי יענישוני אף על עון זה, אבל אני אקבל באהבה וברצון את העונש על חטא זה, וכדאית היא התורה להלקות עליה

R. Yissachar Tamar cites an eye-witness who reported that the Rogochover said basically the same thing in explaining why he learnt on Tisha be-Av, and noted how wonderful it will be to be punished for studying Torah.[2]

ומה נעים לקבל צליפות על עסק התורה

The Hazon Ish was told that the Rogochover learnt Torah when he was in mourning and that he made another antinomian-like comment in justification of his behavior, namely, that he wants to be in the gehinom of those who learn Torah. The Hazon Ish replied that “this gehinom is the same gehinom for the other sins.”[3]

The various comments quoted in the name of the Rogochover show his great need for studying Torah, a need that simply did not allow him to put aside his Torah study, even when halakhah required it. Yet the antinomian implication of the Rogochover’s comments was too much to be ignored. R. Gavriel Zinner’s reaction after quoting the Rogochover is how many felt.[4]

ולא זכיתי להבין, הלא מי לנו גדול מחכמי הגמ’ שנפשם ג”כ חשקה בתורה ואפ”ה גזרו שבת”ב ובזמן אבל אסורים בלימוד התורה, ועוד שאחז”ל הלומד ע”מ שלא לעשות נוח לו שלא נברא.

It is thus to be expected that some authors deny that the Rogochover could have really said any of what I have quoted. And if he did say it, they feel that it must have been merely a joke or a comment not meant to be taken seriously, or that he did not want people to know the real reason he studied Torah while in avelut (namely, the Yerushalmi which will soon be mentioned).[5] R. Abraham Weinfeld goes so far as to say, with reference to one of the comments I have quoted that “It is forbidden to hear these words, and Heaven forbid to suspect that Rabban shel Yisrael [the Rogochover] would say this.”[6]

Those who refuse to accept that the Rogochover meant what he said are forced to find a halakhic justification for his behavior, and indeed, when it comes to an avel studying Torah (and this would also apply to Tisha be-Av, the halakhot of which are not as stringent as those of personal mourning), there is a passage in the Yerushalmi, Moed Katan 3:5, that permits Torah study for one who has a great need.[7] (This heter is not recorded in the Shulhan Arukh, but this would not have concerned the Rogochover.[8]) Yet it is important to remember that as far as we know the Rogochover never cited this passage in the Yerushalmi as justification for his studying Torah when he was sitting shiva.[9]

Now for something disappointing and even a bit shocking: Here are the two pages from R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Ishim ve-Shitot (Jerusalem, 2007), pp. 75-76, where you can see one of the“controversial” quotations (which as R. Zevin notes is taken from an article in Ha-Hed)….

Zvi Hirsch Masliansky, Maslianky’s Zikhroynes (New York, 1924), p. 107, who has a very negative view of the Rogochover, also records how he denigrated R. Isaac Elhanan as well as R. Samuel Mohilever and the Hibbat Zion movement. He further mentions that the Rogochover disparaged his own rebbe, R. Joseph Baer Soloveitchik…

See also R. Nathan Kamenetsky, Making of a Godol, pp. 743, 747, for other times that the Rogochover insulted R. Joseph Baer Soloveitchik. (On p. 744 Kamenetsky writes that the Rogochover received semikhah from R. Soloveitchik.)
Kamenetsky, Making of a Godol, p. 747 n. b, mentions the Hebrew edition’s deletion of these “revolting lines of the original text.” We have a number of descriptions of the Rogochover from people who met him, and while all portray him as unusual, none have the negative spin of Masliansky. Perhaps it was the Rogochover’s anti-Zionism that turned Masliansky against him.
R. Moshe Maimon called my attention to She’elot u-Teshuvot Tzafnat Paneah ha-Hadashot (Modi’in Ilit, 2012), vol. 2, p. 391 (unpaginated), where we see that in newly published material the Rogochover referred to the Vilna Gaon as “Rabbenu ha-Gra.” This is significant because in the interview I published the Rogochover was hardly complimentary to the Vilna Gaon.[21]
She’elot u-Teshuvot Tzafnat Paneah ha-Hadashot is quite an interesting publication and includes the Rogochover’s notes to some poems of R. Judah Halevi. It is not that the Rogochover had any great interest in Halevi’s poetry. However, the Rogochover was one of those people whose mind was such that he had something to say about everything he read.
I encourage anyone interested in the Rogochover to watch this wonderful video by Louis Jacobs. The Rogochover was one of Jacobs’ heroes, and somewhere he mentions that the Rogochover was one of the people he would have loved to have met.
Regarding Bialik’s visit with the Rogochover that I mentioned in the Jewish Review of Books article, Maimon called my attention to this article by Noah Zevuluni [22]. For more on the meeting of Bialik and the Rogochover, see Doar ha-Yom, Jan. 10, 1932, p. 2, and Davar, April 17, 1935, p. 16 (where it mistakenly states that Bialik said that you could make ten Einsteins out of one Rogochover. He actually said that you could make two Einsteins out of one Rogochover.). The last two sources were brought to my attention by R. Shimon Szimonowitz.
Yossi Newfeld called my attention to the following two works focused on the Rogochover: Regarding the Rogochover and the Lubavitcher Rebbe, there is an MA dissertation by Yisrael Ori Meitlis, “‘Ha-Lamdanut ha-Filosofit’ shel Rabbi Yosef Rozin bi-Derashotav shel Rabbi Menahem Mendel Schneersohn (ha-Rebbe mi-Lubavitch),” (Bar-Ilan University, 2013). There is also the volume Ha-Tzafnat Paneah be-Mishnat ha-Rebbe (Brooklyn, 2003). In a previous post I called attention to R. Dovber Schwartz’s wonderful book The Rogatchover Gaon.
It is often said that the Rebbe received semichah from the Rogochover, yet there is no documentary evidence of this. The origin of this notion might be the Rebbe’s mother, who stated as such. See the comprehensive and beautifully produced new book on the Rebbe by R. Boruch Oberlander and R. Elkanah Shmotkin, Early Years.
In my article I mentioned the Rogochover’s unique perspective on the halakhic status of civil marriage. Those interested in this topic should consult R. Menahem Mendel Tenenbaum, Nisuim Ezrahiyim be-Mishnato shel Ha-Rogochovi z”l (n.p., 1988). This book contains an analysis of six responsa of the Rogochover on the topic.
One final point I would like to make about the Rogochover relates to his view of secular studies. He was one of those who responded to R. Shimon Schwab’s query about the halakhic validity of the German Torah im Derekh Eretz approach.[23] You can find his letter in Ha-Ma’yan[24] 16 (Nisan 5736), pp. 1ff. Among the significant points he makes is that, following Maimonides, a father must teach his son “wisdom.” He derives this from Maimonides’ ruling in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Rotzeah 5:5:
הבן שהרג את אביו בשגגה גולה וכן האב שהרג את בנו בשגגה גולה על ידו. במה דברים אמורים בשהרגו שלא בשעת לימוד או שהיה מלמדו אומנות אחרת שאינו צריך לה. אבל אם ייסר את בנו כדי ללמדו תורה או חכמה או אומנות ומת פטור.
He adds, however, that instruction in “secular” subjects is not something that the community should be involved in, with the exception of medicine, astronomy, and the skills which allow one to take proper measurements, since all these matters have halakhic relevance. In other words, according to the Rogochover, while Jewish schools should teach these subjects, no other secular subjects (“wisdom”) should be taught by the schools, but the father should arrange private instruction for his son.
רואים דהרמב”ם ס”ל דגם חכמה מותר וצריך אב ללמוד לבנו אבל ציבור ודאי אסורים בשאר חכמות חוץ מן רפואה ותקפות [!] דשיך [!] לעבובר [צ”ל לעבור] וגמטרא [!] השייך למדידה דזה ג”כ בגדר דין.
He then refers to the Mekhilta, parashat Bo (ch. 18), which cites R. Judah ha-Nasi as saying that a father must teach his son ישוב המדינה. The Rogochover does not explain what yishuv ha-medinah means, just as he earlier does not explain what is meant by “wisdom,” but these terms obviously include the secular studies that are necessary to function properly in society.
The publication of this letter of the Rogochover was regarded as quite significant. Yet as far as I know, no one has pointed out that the main point of the letter had already appeared in print. In 1937 R. Judah Ari Wohlgemuth published Yesodot Hinukh ha-Dat le-Dor. On p. 250 he included the following comment of the Rogochover, found in the margin of Rogochover’s copy of the Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Rotzeah 5:5…

R. Raphael Mordechai Barishansky was shocked to read what the Rogochover said about the Vilna Gaon, as I think we all are. He responded strongly in an article in Der morgen zhurnal which was later reprinted in his Osef Mikhtavim Mehutavim (New York, 1952), pp. 167-169. Even though his words are strong, R. Barishansky shows great respect for the Rogochover.

This is not the case with R. Abraham Aaron Yudelevitz whose attack on the Rogochover is quite sharp. It needs to be said, however, that this came after the Rogochover referred to R. Yudelevitz – who was himself an outstanding scholar – in a very negative way. In printing the Rogochover’s letter, R. Yudelevitz tells us that he cut out some of Rogochover’s harshest words, but we still get the picture. The Rogochover was responding to R. Yudelevitz’s novel view that halitzah can be done with an agent, and the Rogochover referred to R. Yudelevitz as a בן סורר ומורה. See R. Yudelevitz, Av be-Hokhmah (New York, 1927), p. 82. [27]
Here is some of what R. Yudelevitz said in response, ibid., pp. 83,85-86. The language is very sharp (and also refers to how the Rogochover rejected something the Vilna Gaon wrote):
פער פיו בזלזולים כהאשה בת בוזי היושבת בשוק ומוכרת עיגולים בשער האשפתות ואולתו כפרתו כי אין קץ לשטותו ולגאותו.
אבל הוא אינו חושש לזה, לא להרמב”ם ולא להשו”ע, כי הוא חושב כי עד שבא הוא לעולם לא היתה לישראל תורה כלל כי לא הבינו תורה מאומה וממנו התחילה התורה ובו תסיים וראוי היה לו לומר דכל מי שאינו אומר כמותו יתכן כי הוא עוד גאון אבל אינו עוד גאון עצום ויחיד בדור כמוהו, אבל גאות אדם תשפילנו כתיב לכן הוא בגאותו שחקים משפיל את עצמו כי אמר רק דברים פשוטים הגונים לבור ולא גאונות והאיש שאינו אומר כמוהו הוא פחות מתלמיד בור ולא שייך בו גדר זקן ממרא ורק הוא שאומר דברי בורות יכול להיות זקן ממרא ח”ו ובאמת כי כל התורה שלנו מונחת במוחו בכח זכרונו הנפלא אבל כח הבנתו קטנה מהכיל זה (כי כח הזכרון וכח הבנה באדם הם שני כחות נגדיים זה לזה כידוע), ולכן הוא מבולבל ומשוגע ומקיים מ”ע והיית משוגע בכל פרטיה ודקדוקיה כראוי לצדיק ובגודל חסידותיה הוא מבטל גם דברי הגר”א מווילנא זצ”ל והוא יושב בעינים על הדרך כי תורתו מלאה עינים, עיין עיין, אבל אינה ברה מאירת עינים רק סמיות עינים.
Regarding the Vilna Gaon, I know of only one other figure in the twentieth century who expressed a somewhat critical view of him and that is R. Nahum Ben-Horim…

Zevuluni records the following story that he heard from the Rogochover. The Rogochover was once a dayan in a large monetary dispute. After a compromise was reached, the litigants put a significant amount of money on the table as payment to the dayanim. The other two dayanim refused to take the money and the Rogochover therefore took it all. He explained that the Talmud, Hagigah 4a, states: “Who is [deemed] an imbecile (shoteh)? One that destroys all that is given to him.” The Rogochover said that one would have expected the Talmud to say, “One that destroys all that he has” rather than “all that is given to him.” From here, the Rogochover stated, there is a proof that if someone gives you something and you refuse to accept it, that you are an imbecile. The Rogochover added, “I do not want to to included in this category.”

Kamenetsky, Making of a Godol, also records comments of the Rogochover about other Torah scholars. See e.g., p. 743 n. i, that in 1934 the Rogochover said that there is no one in Eretz Yisrael who knows how to learn.

Interestingly, on p. 739, Kamenetsky quotes his father that R. Hayyim Soloveitchik and R. David Friedman of Karlin were greater scholars than the Rogochover…

R. Elijah David Rabinowitz-Teomim also was very critical of the Rogochover, yet any such comments have been censored in his published writings.

Posted in Rabbis, Rogachover | Comments Off on Rabbis Vs Rabbis

Hitler’s Press Criticism

Posted on February 19, 2018 by Luke Ford

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

I gradually discovered that the Social Democratic Press was predominantly controlled by Jews. But I did not attach special importance to this circumstance, for the same state of affairs existed also in other newspapers. But there was one striking fact in this connection. It was that there was not a single newspaper with which Jews were connected that could be spoken of as National, in the meaning that my education and convictions attached to that word.

…One fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for months past. I was happy at last to know for certain that the Jew is not a German.

When the anti-semite and the philo-semite make the same point — that Jews are a distinctive people wherever they may claim citizenship — then you might be on to something real.

Traditional Eastern European Jews prior to the Holocaust would have told German Jews that they could never be German.

Jews tend not to be nationalists (except that many are Jewish nationalists). For a religious Jew, Torah must come first, not nationalism. However, in America, the gulden medina, many secular Jews are America-First, including leading immigration restrictionists such as Mickey Kaus, Stephen Steinlight, and Stephen Miller.

Isaiah 2:4: “And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”

Source: Why did Hitler hate the jews? By Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi and Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat. 16 min:

We didn’t receive the curriculum. They didn’t teach them even in high education. I gave lectures in front of history professors. Why really (did) Hitler hate the Jews? What did he want from them? How did they bother him? But it’s all written here in Mein Kampf. This book was published only recently, it just got approved to be translated into Hebrew (my language). It was forbidden all these years. But there is an earlier translation made by Yad Vashem. Hitler claims in his book, that Jews are communists. They made the Russian Revolution. They killed there 30 million Russians (Alex. Solzhenitsyn claims 66 million.) All the intelligent ones, in a cruel and horrific way, and that’s their plan for the entire world. The next country in line is Germany. They founded the German communist and socialist parties, and that’s true. “If we don’t defeat them now, they will eliminate us, and they will slaughter another 20 million, all the intelligent people.” And that’s how they went from country to country. So eventually the only intelligent ones remaining would be the Jews. And he (Hitler) repeats it many times, make no mistake. And he is right.

The Russian Revolution was made by the Jews. The Russian Army was built by Trotsky, who was an incredible genius, an anti-semite like no other. He created the Jewish division of the (Russian) Communist Party, which members informed on their father, mother, brother and son, whoever owns a Siddur or even a Hebrew learning book, I’m not even talking about Tefilin and Mikveh. He (Trotsky) destroyed everything by the Jews, but for sure, by the Russians. In the first picture of the Russian government, out of 13 members, 6 were Jews. Who founded the KGB? Jews. So everything is clearly written. He (Hitler) didn’t hate the Jews because they had “Peos”, he didn’t hate them for observing Mitzvoth, (he hated them) because they are communists. He writes it clearly: “The Jews destroyed religion and faith.” They spread in Germany the heresy in G-d.” That’s how he writes… “I feel like the messenger of G-d to exterminate the Jews, because they don’t believe in Him.” (Hitler) writes this (in Mein Kampf).

Now you understand why they don’t teach (the book) in schools? Because who writes the curriculum?… those same Leftists. Of course they will not write that Hitler wanted to kill the Jews because they are the forefathers of the Left, and of Marxism, of Communism and Leninism. But that’s what Hitler writes. They (Jews) destroyed all the values (Weimar republic). Poisoned literature and theater. Who did that? Torah-obervant Jews poisoned the German theater?

Out of 9 large German newspapers 7 were owned by Jews. There was one of the great composers, Wagner, whose pieces are still forbidden to be played, up until now he is banned (in Israel). Because he was anti-semite, long before the NAZI era. I was very interested to know what (Wagner) really said. So the Hebrew University published his book translated to Hebrew. He writes this: “I don’t like the Jews. The religious ones, I don’t like them. But what do I care? The Jews who left the Torah and the Mitzvoth, and look like the gentiles, I hate. Because they merge into our society, and destroy our culture and poetry, and the German being. Those who converted to Christianity, I see them as 5th column. Traitors that are going to destroy the German nation, if we don’t defend ourselves of them from now, they will finish us. Because they are disguised to Germans, but they are not Germans, they are (still) Jews. (it happened in medieval Spain too)”

So do you understand why it is forbidden here (Israel) to teach about him (Hitler or Wagner) and what he says? Just how everyone here hates the Nuremberg Laws without even knowing them. (Rabbi makes derisive gesture.) Nuremberg said that a Jew can’t marry a gentile, so for sure the schools here call it racism. To say that a Jew is different than a gentile is racism, here in this state, unfortunately. Nuremberg just copied what’s written in the Torah. Wagner just said what’s written in the Torah. That a Jew is a Jew, even if he wears a mask, even if he converts to Christianity. “A Jew who sinned is still a Jew.” (Wagner) writes “You are merciful people. We are cruel people. You destroy our culture.” Yes, that’s how Wagner writes. Therefore his entire book is aimed against the Jewish composer (Felix) Mendelsohn, whose father converted to Christianity, and baptized him in church when he was 5 years old. He (Wagner) writes to him (Mendelsohn): “Listen, do you think that if you speak German, and converted to Christianity, you are German? No! Your poetry is of a crybaby, your music is not authentic, (not German) and you poison our culture, because people think that this is German music. German music is filled with pride, and you can’t do it. And therefore you are called the enemy of German culture.” So isn’t he (Wagner) right? Of course he is right! “You choose us from all the nations”, true, we (Jews) are humble, merciful, shy, indeed. This is our source of pride.

So understand that things didn’t just happen, not a coincidence, it didn’t happen without alerts. “Our sins sent us to exile, out of our land.” And thank G-d we returned (to Israel), and we have to be careful not to repeat the same mistakes, and re-assimilate right here, and give legitimacy to that low self-esteem in front of the gentiles, and the will to be like them. We came to this world to be different, we were created in this world to be Jewish, and our entire purpose is to be with G-d. Whoever really wants to be with G-d, G-d is with him. In any place. In good times and bad, here and also not here, and may it be G-d’s will that G-d will say to our troubles “Enough”. In any form, and in any situation, and in any place, may we have the merit for eternal redemption, and eternal happiness.

Hitler did not believe that diversity was a strength:

More than any other State, the existence of the old Austria depended on a strong and capable Government. The Habsburg Empire lacked ethnical uniformity, which constitutes the fundamental basis of a national State and will preserve the existence of such a State even though the ruling power should be grossly inefficient. When a State is composed of a homogeneous population, the natural inertia of such a population will hold the Stage together and maintain its existence through astonishingly long periods of misgovernment and maladministration. It may often seem as if the principle of life had died out in such a body-politic; but a time comes when the apparent corpse rises up and displays before the world an astonishing manifestation of its indestructible vitality.

But the situation is utterly different in a country where the population is not homogeneous, where there is no bond of common blood but only that of one ruling hand. Should the ruling hand show signs of weakness in such a State the result will not be to cause a kind of hibernation of the State but rather to awaken the individualist instincts which are slumbering in the ethnological groups. These instincts do not make themselves felt as long as these groups are dominated by a strong central will-to-govern. The danger which exists in these slumbering separatist instincts can be rendered more or less innocuous only through centuries of common education, common traditions and common interests. The younger such States are, the more their existence will depend on the ability and strength of the central government. If their foundation was due only to the work of a strong personality or a leader who is a man of genius, in many cases they will break up as soon as the founder disappears; because, though great, he stood alone. But even after centuries of a common education and experiences these separatist instincts I have spoken of are not always completely overcome. They may be only dormant and may suddenly awaken when the central government shows weakness and the force of a common education as well as the prestige of a common tradition prove unable to withstand the vital energies of separatist nationalities forging ahead towards the shaping of their own individual existence.

Torah also does not hold that diversity is a strength as it makes no allowance for non-Jewish citizenship in a Torah state.

Hitler was not a big fan of democracy: “Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the fore-runner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding-ground in which the bacilli of the Marxist world pest can grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an abortion of filth and fire, the creative fire of which, however, seems to have died out.”

Posted in Diversity, Jews | Comments Off on Hitler’s Press Criticism

NYT: Is Australia’s Media Too Prudish for a Sex Scandal?

Posted on February 18, 2018 by Luke Ford

Amelia Lester writes in the New York Times:

Barnaby Joyce was probably the last politician average Australians would expect to be embroiled in a sex scandal. A comparison to Mike Pence isn’t so far-fetched: They’re both second in charge of a conservative government led by a flashy businessman, and standard-bearers for family values, tilled in the nation’s agrarian heartland. For most of the Australian public, Mr. Joyce was a bumbling farm boy who meant well.

Last week, though, a story broke that turned public sentiment against him. Following investigations by two small websites last year, the Sydney-based Daily Telegraph reported that the deputy prime minister was having a child with a former staff member, Vikki Campion. A photo on the front page of the tabloid showed Ms. Campion, pregnant and unwitting, crossing the street. (“Bundle of Joyce” said the headline.) That this story, like so many others, involves personal hypocrisy is hardly surprising. Mr. Joyce has been a strident opponent of gay marriage, basing his opposition in part on what he has called his four daughters’ right to a “secure relationship with a loving husband” and the right of every child “to know her or his mother and father.” What is more noteworthy is the degree to which the Joyce affair has sparked a long-overdue debate about the deference Australian media still accords politicians when it comes to their private lives.

Mr. Joyce’s relationship with Ms. Campion, we’ve learned in the past few days, was an open secret among the Canberra press corps. Back in October, Sharri Markson, the reporter who eventually got the print scoop, wrote a piece alluding to a “deeply personal crisis” in Mr. Joyce’s life. Now that the story’s out there, it’s very easy to read between the lines about “vicious rumors” and “personal pressures” in dozens of media clips from last year. The deputy prime minister’s private situation was well known enough that he got into a pub brawl with a constituent about it last year and apparently knocked the man’s hat off.

Did the media choose not report on Mr. Joyce because they didn’t have all the facts? Perhaps in part. As the national broadsheet The Australian has reported, repeated inquiries about Ms. Campion’s multiple job titles, let alone her taxpayer-funded salary, were met with stonewalling. Mr. Joyce would refuse to talk about the relationship when they asked. (This week, he released a statement denying that the relationship, and Ms. Campion’s employment in the government, breached ministerial rules.) Another major consideration is that Australian journalists face extremely strict libel laws, the kind Donald Trump would appreciate.

Posted in Australia, Journalism | Comments Off on NYT: Is Australia’s Media Too Prudish for a Sex Scandal?