Journal articles on the topic 'Nazisme – Aspect moral'

La novela autobiográfica de Knausgård es un caso paradigmático para el análisis del vínculo entre derecho y literatura, porque permite tener tres perspectivas del mismo: la del Derecho en, de y como literatura. En este artículo se hace hincapié en la primera. La tesis defendida es que la postura de Knausgård, de afirmar el carácter utópico del nazismo, es análoga al debate en torno al derecho nazi. Siendo el aspecto más criticable el relativismo moral que sustenta dicha concepción y que le impide tener una visión más cabal del elemento justificativo de las utopías y del derecho. Palabras clave: Derecho y literatura, Derecho nazi, Utopismo, Relativismo moral.

Abstract Scholars have so far interpreted postwar depictions of Germans saving Jews from Nazi persecution mainly as apologetic references that allowed Germans to avoid addressing problematic aspects of their history. Yet although such portrayals appear in many postwar German accounts, depictions of successful rescues of Jews are relatively rare in literary and filmic works produced between 1945 and the early 1960s. This article argues that in presenting failed rescue of Jews, several German authors aimed to contribute to the re-education and moral transformation of the German population. The article’s first part shows that narratives of failed rescue were considered particularly useful for arousing Germans’ empathy with the Nazis’ Jewish victims. The article’s second part examines those works that went further and tailored stories of unsuccessful rescue to criticize Germans for not doing more to resist the regime. Although these works presented Germans as victims, as was common in many contemporaneous depictions, it would be misleading to view them merely as apologetic accounts. Rather, the widespread reluctance to commemorate the persecution of Jews urged several authors to retain the common image of Germans as victims in order to avoid alienating their audience. At the same time, using narratives of failed rescue, these writers and filmmakers explored new ways to allow Germans to speak about the Holocaust and reflect on their conduct. Attempts to both arouse a moral debate and avoid directly speaking about Germans’ collective responsibility might seem irreconcilable from today’s perspective, but not for Germans of the 1940s and 1950s.

In this forum onNeighborsby Jan T. Gross (Princeton, 2001), four scholars respond to the book and to the issues of evidence, causality, and interpretation that it raises. Janine P. Holc summarizes the contents and the book's approach and explores the roles of individual choice, on the one hand, and ethnic identity categories, on the other, in Gross's presentation of the causes of the massacre of the Jewish residents of Jedwabne by their non-Jewish neighbors. She argues for an approach to readingNeighborsthat links the emotive mode in which some of the narrative is expressed to a productive engagement with traumatic or violent historical episodes. This type of history resists finality and closure and creates an avenue for active engagement by members of ethnic (or other) communities with violent and traumatic pasts. Wojciech Roszkowski discusses three aspects of the debate onNeighborsin Poland: the credibility of the book, the facts of 10 July 1941 and their moral meaning, and the representativeness of the Jedwabne case and the question of “innocence” or “guilt” of nations. While arguing that the credibility ofNeighborsis low and that Gross's thesis that “one half of the Jedwabne inhabitants killed the other half” has not been proven, he writes that it is impossible to deny Polish participation in the massacre. Yet, as with other documented cases of Polish wartime evildoing, it is unfair to blow this incident out of proportion and produce unwarranted generalizations. Past and present realities are always more complicated than simple stereotypes that “Poles” or “Jews” are to blame or that they have always been innocent. William W. Hagen argues that Gross vacillates between a robust positivism promising that “a reconstruction” of “what actually took place” is possible, such that guilt and motive may confidently be assigned, and an interpretive pessimism suggesting that “we will never 'understand' why it happened.” In his assignment of causality, Gross offers a largely unconnected, in part inferential or speculative, array of determinants and motives. Although some ofthecauses Gross adduces are certainly persuasive, his analysis does not address the Jedwabne perpetrators' and witnesses' perception of the cultural meaning of the inhuman violence their Jewish neighbors were suffering. Hagen offers some suggestive historical evidence on the Poles' subjective response to the Jewish genocide and to their own wartime fate, arguing that the Jedwabne Poles' participation in the mass murder of the Jews must be conceived as a response, mediated by the penetration of ideological anti-Semitism into the countryside, to profound anxiety over the individual and social death menacing Polish identity under Soviet and Nazi occupation. Norman M. Naimark argues that the appearance of Gross'sNeighborshas created an entirely new dimension to the historiography of World War II in Poland. The book demonstrated, as has no other work, the extent to which the Poles were directly involved in the genocide of the Jews. The clarity and force of Gross's presentation provides Polish historiography with an unprecedented opportunity “to come to terms with the past.” The essay also suggests that the Jedwabne massacre needs to be looked at in the context of overall German policy “in the east” and in comparison to similar horrors taking place roughly at the same time in Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, and Latvia. The Nazis intentionally (and surreptitiously) sought to incite pogroms in the region, filming and photographing the horrific events for audiences back home. Their own propaganda about the “Jewish-Bolshevik” menace both prompted and was ostensibly confirmed by the pogroms. In his response, Jan T. Gross replies to Roszkowski's criticism concerning historical credibility.

It is understood that the education’s being brought under the control of government and educational activities carried out under the name of character and race unity education were tools for the destruction of the individual and masses during the national socialist era in Germany. For this reason, the state’s monopolizing and more or less intervening in moral education can be regarded as a fascist act. The connection of altruism with race and the fact that race consciousness has aspects supporting the idealism have been abused by the fascist education. The fact that the individuals were directed to race by being impregnated with the sense of altruism showed how the two basic principles of national socialist education complemented each other. On the one hand, the individual was taught how to be altruistic, on the other hand, the superiority, holiness and supremacy of race were romanticized, and the infrastructure of the reason for the necessity of being altruistic was instilled on their mind.This study, which was made by reviewing the documents of Hitler (1938), Kubizek (1954), Schirach (1967), Gay (1968), Fest (1970 and 1973), Noakes (1971), Giles (1985), Domarus (1990), Burleigh and Wippermann (1991) and Canetti (2014), not only shows the fact that the character and race unity education that Nazis gave in schools wasn’t compatible with universal principles, but also the fact that the number of children in school age who died during the World War II reached a half million teaches how to act against the negative success of the fascist education that is focused on destruction.

Editor in Chief of “The Pedagogical Quarterly” discourses with Irena Wojnar, employed at the University of Warsaw since early post-war time. Her intellectual evolution (l’âge où l’on grandit) occurs in changing dramatic periods of our history, optimism of elementary school before the World War II, painful time of clandestine education during the Nazi occupation in Warsaw, hopes and illusions of the post-war epoch. In these periods, the essential inspirations for Irena Wojnar were successive books of Bogdan Suchodolski, with symbolic titles: Love life – be valiant (2nd ed. 1930), Whence and where are we going to? (1943) and Education for the future (1947). In the Polish school before the WWII, pupils were educated in the spirit of patriotism and civic duties, sensibility to the surrounding world and the service of humans. Tragic heroism of the WWII became the proof of those values. In the conditions of constant aggressive and permanent threat, quasi “against the night”, the fight with the occupant becomes the essential moral duty. For young people, pupils and students, when secondary and tertiary schools were closed by the Nazis, this duty signified participation in clandestine education supporting hope to preserve future order in the world and preparation of the future activity in the free Poland after the WWII. The end of the WWII created a chance for the future shape of the world in line with our humanistic values. It was the period of the reconstruction of Warsaw, destroyed during the WWII, becoming a city of “sorrow and dreams”. In the final part of the conversation there appears the general opinion that every individual life–story, beyond its individual aspects, reveals a more general educational idea. Human life runs across destiny and personal consciousness. Independently of our destiny, we have a chance to choose values important for us, to realise the “poetics of the self” (poétique du soi) based on our capacity to overcome own limitations and to increase goodness in the world.

Moral ethics which developed and grew only to become stronger and clearer, during and after World War II is a complex and resourceful subject which can be found in the work from “The Good Man from Cologne” – Heinrich Böll. Even at first glance, Böll has a rather clear message that he sends to his readers, whether he writes from experience or his state of mind (one affected by the other): War is not to be glorified. There is not one aspect of the war that can or should be considered as pride or heroism, for no one participating (in example – honoring a soldier with a piece of metal, which is in war used to kill and destroy). Then, why write about war? Because no one should ever forget it. All the suffering and victims should be presented simply – as they were, to warn and clarify the readers. The clarification meant for Böll to name the ones that let this kind of horror to take place, like organizations that collaborated with the Nazis for their own interests. In his works, he shows how the characters – uneducated and the intellectuals – deal with guilt even years after the war has ended – every simple character for himself, as an individual. Therefore, he shows his compassion for the simple men but underlines his hostility towards organizations. Not only have Germans had to live with their guilt, but also with a vast amount of rubble – in their minds, souls, but also in their physical world. That is why Böll holds onto “Rubble Literature” for a long period after the war. The importance of the precise depiction of war shows how strongly Böll committed in his effort to shine the light only on the real side of war. His determination to fight for the “weak” that were by the mainstream defined as “waste” shows high levels of his morality and ethics. He enjoys a society full of individuals, whose life conditions vary from case to case, and therefore, vary in their (inter)actions towards life, and is their voice in the constant fight for human and civil rights.

Moral ethics which developed and grew only to become stronger and clearer, during and after World War II is a complex and resourceful subject which can be found in the work from “The Good Man from Cologne” – Heinrich Böll. Even at first glance, Böll has a rather clear message that he sends to his readers, whether he writes from experience or his state of mind (one affected by the other): War is not to be glorified. There is not one aspect of the war that can or should be considered as pride or heroism, for no one participating (in example – honoring a soldier with a piece of metal, which is in war used to kill and destroy). Then, why write about war? Because no one should ever forget it. All the suffering and victims should be presented simply – as they were, to warn and clarify the readers. The clarification meant for Böll to name the ones that let this kind of horror to take place, like organizations that collaborated with the Nazis for their own interests. In his works, he shows how the characters – uneducated and the intellectuals – deal with guilt even years after the war has ended – every simple character for himself, as an individual. Therefore, he shows his compassion for the simple men but underlines his hostility towards organizations. Not only have Germans had to live with their guilt, but also with a vast amount of rubble – in their minds, souls, but also in their physical world. That is why Böll holds onto “Rubble Literature” for a long period after the war. The importance of the precise depiction of war shows how strongly Böll committed in his effort to shine the light only on the real side of war. His determination to fight for the “weak” that were by the mainstream defined as “waste” shows high levels of his morality and ethics. He enjoys a society full of individuals, whose life conditions vary from case to case, and therefore, vary in their (inter)actions towards life, and is their voice in the constant fight for human and civil rights.

NOT CHANGING LOOKS. PRESENTATION OF CRUELTY AND EVIL IN THE FILMS OF ANDRZEJ WAJDAAmong Andrzej Wajda’s legacy, the image of the totalitarian regime and its repercussions for people, countries, and humanity holds a significant place. Films of Andrzej Wajda, who was a liaison officer in the anti-Hitler Polish underground, are a kind of chronicle of the survivors of twentieth century. The article is dedicated to study the various forms of evil and its effects on real people. The study is applicable for our time because the world again deals with the recidivism of evil which the Soviet government spread in its own country and beyond its own borders. In the USRR, the perception of Andrzej Wajda’s films was dependent on the political play in action: when the relations between two countries were friendly, he received awards, however after the Solidarity was established, no one ever mentioned Wajda. The epic work Danton, about the French revolution, made in France during times difficult for Poland because of the martial law imposed on Poland, reveals the effects of revolution that paradoxically destroyed its most dedicated revolutionists, including Danton. Wajda’s refusal to American producers to direct a motion picture based on a screen play of Aleksander Slozenicyn had se-rious reasons, primarily commitment to his homeland. He made up for the missed opportunity to show Stalin’s evil empire when he shot the film Katyń. This word echoes deep tragedy in the heart of every Pole and the director succeeded in portraying the cruelty of mechanism of punishment in totalitarian USRR. The second most important aspect was the discovery of the lies of this regime, which tried to place the responsibility for the execution of Polish officers on the Nazis. After a premiere of Katyń in Ukraine, Andrzej Wajda was awarded the medal of Jaroslaw Madry. The article also includes the theme of influence of Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novels on Andrzej Wajda’s work — the director not only used Dostoyevsky’s work for his filmmaking and staging, but as well he was inspired by Dostoyevsky’s deep analysis of dangerous social phenomena and the courage in discovering the evil. In Wajda’s films, which belongs to the so-called “cinema of moral unrest”, the tragic fate of a talented journalist Jerzy Michalowski, the hero of film Bez znieczulenia who personalizes the characteristics of a professional and a good man, simply horrifies. In his last film Powidoki, the director masterfully shows circles of hell survived by avant-garde artist Wladyslaw Strzeminski, the lecturer of Fine Arts Academy. All the films mentioned above are deemed necessary warning for future generations, they cannot put up with the aggression — on a political and private levels. Wajda’s lessons are universal, timeless, and everla-sting, like an eternal battle of good against evil.

This article is dedicated to my beloved mother, Zofia Kuzak, Honorary Member of the Polish Neuropsychological Society, and my highest moral authority, to honor her 100 th birthday. During the Nazi occu pation, at the age of 23, she was deport ed to Germany and forced into slave labour at a German camp, from which she managed to escape. During this escape she had to sit for three long days high up in a tree, without food and without anything to drink, something made possible by her strong physical condition. After three days, she dared to leave the tree and, in throwing the Nazis pursuing her, she ran away not to the South - to her home in Nowy Sącz, but to the North – to Poznań, where she took refuge in the apartment of other relatives, true Polish patriots. She stayed there for the years 1943–1947, keeping the accounts at the large family grocery store. The experiences from this period influenced the formation of her own self and her identity. Her stories about times of tragedy and her ways of dealing with the darkest moments in her life contributed to the fact that I became interested in the subject of the self and identity. I have prepared two monographs and several articles on this topic. This article presents a new approach to integrated self system, associated not only with the physical organism, but also with the social and cultural world. The foundation of this approach to the self is microgenetic theory, especially its account of consciousness, of the transition from self to image, act and object, the epochal nature of this transition, and its relation to introspection, imagination and agency. The affinities of microgenetic theory to many aspects of the thought process should be evident to readers of this journal, but the theory, which was developed from studies of pathological cases, rests on a wealth of clinical detail. In brief, the micro-temporal transition from archaic to recent formations (distributed systems) in the phyletic history of the forebrain constitutes the absolute mental state, with consciousness the relation of self to image and/or object. The reader will be able also to find here the overlapping of states, the continuity of the core over successive states, and subjective time experience. However, the integrated self system is associated not only with the operation of the biological brain and its complex patterns of neural connections, but also with the activity of the social mind/brain, in terms of bonds created within social groups, as well as the cultural mind/brain creating the world of cultural values, including religious ones. I will sum up with a model of self system changing in time (4D), pulsating according to the states of mind (5D) forming different numbers of “bits” of information, as marked on the x axis, and linked to the duration of memories, marked on the y axis. The self system also depends on gravity (6D), and other hyperspace dimensions hitherto unknown in neuroscience.

Hitler occupation of Ukraine became the most difficult challenge for the Ukrainian people as the "new order" leaders’ aim was to eliminate the population of captured territories, to prepare a living space for the "Aryan people" whom Hitler and his ascendants considered the Germans to be. The policy of the Nazi regime on the occupied territories, which were regarded as an object of exploitation, oppression and robbery, led to significant changes in the practice of everyday life of the civilian population. History becomes more anthropological and it encourages the study of everyday life in order to understand holistic picture of historical events. This picture had its own peculiarities in different regions of Ukraine. In the Soviet period the issues of everyday life in occupied areas were considered fragmentarily, with the main focus on the other images - the nationwide struggle against the invaders, the moral and political unity of the Ukrainian people, the leading role of the party in fighting back the occupiers, etc. In fact, modern national scientists had to study the problem of anthropological measurements of occupation from scratch. However, in recent decades in Ukraine there has appeared a lot of historical research, the subject of which is the anthropological defining of occupation. These studies are being considered in the given article. A particular subject of research and this publication as well is certain categories of population: women, minors and intelligentsia. The existence of these categories of people in occupation has certain features that researchers disclose from different, often opposite, points of view. At the present stage various aspects of the Ukrainian peasantry life during the years of Nazi occupation are investigated by O. Potylchak, O. Perekhrest, V. Revehuk, T. Nagayko and others. The works of T. Vronska, K. Kurylyshyn, L. Kovpak, O. Isaikin, M. Herasimov, V. Kononenko, A. Yankovska and others were dedicated to the everyday life issues in the years of the Second World War and in the first post-war decade. The material, household and social spheres in the post-occupation period in different regions of Ukraine were studied by S. Galchenko, M. Dedkov, I. Spudka. However, in most of these works, the strategies of town people’s survival in the liberated territories in 1943-1945 are briefly outlined. Some researchers (T. Zabolotna, T. Nahayko, O. Savitska, V. Yakovenko) emphasize the everyday life of individual cities. I. Vetrov researched the economic robbery of the national economy and the population of Ukraine by invaders. Some aspects of the social policy of occupiers are highlighted in the study of O. Potylchak. M. Shevchenko, V. Hedz conducted a study of "female" narrative sources. Nowadays there are two directions of coverage of children lives during the occupation. The first direction is represented by D. Slobodynsky, who assumes that the state of children during the Nazi occupation of Ukraine was unbearable. H. Holysh and L. Holysh consider that children and teens played a very active role in the struggle against the Nazis. The state of the intelligentsia during the occupation was studied by L. Bidocha, V. Hinda, O. Salata, T. Zabolotna. The researchers point to the reasons of cooperation of this segment of the population with the occupants, which in fact did not differ from the motives of other groups of society. The author comes to the conclusion that the Nazi occupation had a negative impact on the various spheres of life of the society at that time, which led to significant changes in the everyday life of the local population of Central Ukraine. At that period the majority of people tried to fulfill their existential needs, for example to preserve their own lives and protect their loved ones in particular. The author comes to the conclusion that the aspects of people’s life during the Nazi occupation, disclosed by the authors in modern historiography, constitute a far-incomplete picture of Ukrainians’ life during this period. There are issues that require a detailed study and analysis of researchers in order to imagine life and daily realities on the occupied territory and what problems they had to deal with in order to survive in those conditions. There is a considerable spectrum of problems associated with the occupational routine, which requires a detailed study and analysis of researchers and it allows to make a coherent picture of living conditions on the occupied territories of Ukraine.

In this forum onNeighborsby Jan T. Gross (Princeton, 2001), four scholars respond to the book and to the issues of evidence, causality, and interpretation that it raises. Janine P. Holc summarizes the contents and the book's approach and explores the roles of individual choice, on the one hand, and ethnic identity categories, on the other, in Gross's presentation of the causes of the massacre of the Jewish residents of Jedwabne by their non-Jewish neighbors. She argues for an approach to readingNeighborsthat links the emotive mode in which some of the narrative is expressed to a productive engagement with traumatic or violent historical episodes. This type of history resists finality and closure and creates an avenue for active engagement by members of ethnic (or other) communities with violent and traumatic pasts. Wojciech Roszkowski discusses three aspects of the debate onNeighborsin Poland: the credibility of the book, the facts of 10 July 1941 and their moral meaning, and the representativeness of the Jedwabne case and the question of “innocence” or “guilt” of nations. While arguing that the credibility ofNeighborsis low and that Gross's thesis that “one half of the Jedwabne inhabitants killed the other half” has not been proven, he writes that it is impossible to deny Polish participation in the massacre. Yet, as with other documented cases of Polish wartime evildoing, it is unfair to blow this incident out of proportion and produce unwarranted generalizations. Past and present realities are always more complicated than simple stereotypes that “Poles” or “Jews” are to blame or that they have always been innocent. William W. Hagen argues that Gross vacillates between a robust positivism promising that “a reconstruction” of “what actually took place” is possible, such that guilt and motive may confidently be assigned, and an interpretive pessimism suggesting that “we will never 'understand' why it happened.” In his assignment of causality, Gross offers a largely unconnected, in part inferential or speculative, array of determinants and motives. Although some ofthecauses Gross adduces are certainly persuasive, his analysis does not address the Jedwabne perpetrators' and witnesses' perception of the cultural meaning of the inhuman violence their Jewish neighbors were suffering. Hagen offers some suggestive historical evidence on the Poles' subjective response to the Jewish genocide and to their own wartime fate, arguing that the Jedwabne Poles' participation in the mass murder of the Jews must be conceived as a response, mediated by the penetration of ideological anti-Semitism into the countryside, to profound anxiety over the individual and social death menacing Polish identity under Soviet and Nazi occupation. Norman M. Naimark argues that the appearance of Gross'sNeighborshas created an entirely new dimension to the historiography of World War II in Poland. The book demonstrated, as has no other work, the extent to which the Poles were directly involved in the genocide of the Jews. The clarity and force of Gross's presentation provides Polish historiography with an unprecedented opportunity “to come to terms with the past.” The essay also suggests that the Jedwabne massacre needs to be looked at in the context of overall German policy “in the east” and in comparison to similar horrors taking place roughly at the same time in Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, and Latvia. The Nazis intentionally (and surreptitiously) sought to incite pogroms in the region, filming and photographing the horrific events for audiences back home. Their own propaganda about the “Jewish-Bolshevik” menace both prompted and was ostensibly confirmed by the pogroms. In his response, Jan T. Gross replies to Roszkowski's criticism concerning historical credibility.

In this forum on Neighbors by Jan T. Gross (Princeton, 2001), four scholars respond to the book and to the issues of evidence, causality, and interpretation that it raises. Janine P. Holc summarizes the contents and the book's approach and explores the roles of individual choice, on the one hand, and ethnic identity categories, on the other, in Gross's presentation of the causes of the massacre of the Jewish residents of Jedwabne by their non-Jewish neighbors. She argues for an approach to reading Neighbors that links the emotive mode in which some of the narrative is expressed to a productive engagement with traumatic or violent historical episodes. This type of history resists finality and closure and creates an avenue for active engagement by members of ethnic (or other) communities with violent and traumatic pasts. Wojciech Roszkowski discusses three aspects of the debate on Neighbors in Poland: the credibility of the book, the facts of 10 July 1941 and their moral meaning, and the representativeness of the Jedwabne case and the question of “innocence” or “guilt” of nations. While arguing that the credibility of Neighbors is low and that Gross's thesis that “one half of the Jedwabne inhabitants killed the other half” has not been proven, he writes that it is impossible to deny Polish participation in the massacre. Yet, as with other documented cases of Polish wartime evildoing, it is unfair to blow this incident out of proportion and produce unwarranted generalizations. Past and present realities are always more complicated than simple stereotypes that “Poles” or “Jews” are to blame or that they have always been innocent. William W. Hagen argues that Gross vacillates between a robust positivism promising that “a reconstruction” of “what actually took place” is possible, such that guilt and motive may confidently be assigned, and an interpretive pessimism suggesting that “we will never 'understand' why it happened.” In his assignment of causality, Gross offers a largely unconnected, in part inferential or speculative, array of determinants and motives. Although some of the causes Gross adduces are certainly persuasive, his analysis does not address the Jedwabne perpetrators' and witnesses' perception of the cultural meaning of the inhuman violence their Jewish neighbors were suffering. Hagen offers some suggestive historical evidence on the Poles' subjective response to the Jewish genocide and to their own wartime fate, arguing that the Jedwabne Poles' participation in the mass murder of the Jews must be conceived as a response, mediated by the penetration of ideological anti-Semitism into the countryside, to profound anxiety over the individual and social death menacing Polish identity under Soviet and Nazi occupation. Norman M. Naimark argues that the appearance of Gross's Neighbors has created an entirely new dimension to the historiography of World War II in Poland. The book demonstrated, as has no other work, the extent to which the Poles were directly involved in the genocide of the Jews. The clarity and force of Gross's presentation provides Polish historiography with an unprecedented opportunity “to come to terms with the past.” The essay also suggests that the Jedwabne massacre needs to be looked at in the context of overall German policy “in the east” and in comparison to similar horrors taking place roughly at the same time in Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, and Latvia. The Nazis intentionally (and surreptitiously) sought to incite pogroms in the region, filming and photographing the horrific events for audiences back home. Their own propaganda about the “Jewish-Bolshevik” menace both prompted and was ostensibly confirmed by the pogroms. In his response, Jan T. Gross replies to Roszkowski's criticism concerning historical credibility.

In this forum onNeighborsby Jan T. Gross (Princeton, 2001), four scholars respond to the book and to the issues of evidence, causality, and interpretation that it raises. Janine P. Holc summarizes the contents and the book's approach and explores the roles of individual choice, on the one hand, and ethnic identity categories, on the other, in Gross's presentation of the causes of the massacre of the Jewish residents of Jedwabne by their non-Jewish neighbors. She argues for an approach to readingNeighborsthat links the emotive mode in which some of the narrative is expressed to a productive engagement with traumatic or violent historical episodes. This type of history resists finality and closure and creates an avenue for active engagement by members of ethnic (or other) communities with violent and traumatic pasts. Wojciech Roszkowski discusses three aspects of the debate onNeighborsin Poland: the credibility of the book, the facts of 10 July 1941 and their moral meaning, and the representativeness of the Jedwabne case and the question of “innocence” or “guilt” of nations. While arguing that the credibility ofNeighborsis low and that Gross's thesis that “one half of the Jedwabne inhabitants killed the other half” has not been proven, he writes that it is impossible to deny Polish participation in the massacre. Yet, as with other documented cases of Polish wartime evildoing, it is unfair to blow this incident out of proportion and produce unwarranted generalizations. Past and present realities are always more complicated than simple stereotypes that “Poles” or “Jews” are to blame or that they have always been innocent. William W. Hagen argues that Gross vacillates between a robust positivism promising that “a reconstruction” of “what actually took place” is possible, such that guilt and motive may confidently be assigned, and an interpretive pessimism suggesting that “we will never 'understand' why it happened.” In his assignment of causality, Gross offers a largely unconnected, in part inferential or speculative, array of determinants and motives. Although some ofthecauses Gross adduces are certainly persuasive, his analysis does not address the Jedwabne perpetrators' and witnesses' perception of the cultural meaning of the inhuman violence their Jewish neighbors were suffering. Hagen offers some suggestive historical evidence on the Poles' subjective response to the Jewish genocide and to their own wartime fate, arguing that the Jedwabne Poles' participation in the mass murder of the Jews must be conceived as a response, mediated by the penetration of ideological anti-Semitism into the countryside, to profound anxiety over the individual and social death menacing Polish identity under Soviet and Nazi occupation. Norman M. Naimark argues that the appearance of Gross'sNeighborshas created an entirely new dimension to the historiography of World War II in Poland. The book demonstrated, as has no other work, the extent to which the Poles were directly involved in the genocide of the Jews. The clarity and force of Gross's presentation provides Polish historiography with an unprecedented opportunity “to come to terms with the past.” The essay also suggests that the Jedwabne massacre needs to be looked at in the context of overall German policy “in the east” and in comparison to similar horrors taking place roughly at the same time in Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, and Latvia. The Nazis intentionally (and surreptitiously) sought to incite pogroms in the region, filming and photographing the horrific events for audiences back home. Their own propaganda about the “Jewish-Bolshevik” menace both prompted and was ostensibly confirmed by the pogroms. In his response, Jan T. Gross replies to Roszkowski's criticism concerning historical credibility.

In this forum on Neighbors by Jan T. Gross (Princeton, 2001), four scholars respond to the book and to the issues of evidence, causality, and interpretation that it raises. Janine P. Holc summarizes the contents and the book's approach and explores the roles of individual choice, on the one hand, and ethnic identity categories, on the other, in Gross's presentation of the causes of the massacre of the Jewish residents of Jedwabne by their non-Jewish neighbors. She argues for an approach to reading Neighbors that links the emotive mode in which some of the narrative is expressed to a productive engagement with traumatic or violent historical episodes. This type of history resists finality and closure and creates an avenue for active engagement by members of ethnic (or other) communities with violent and traumatic pasts. Wojciech Roszkowski discusses three aspects of the debate on Neighbors in Poland: the credibility of the book, the facts of 10 July 1941 and their moral meaning, and the representativeness of the Jedwabne case and the question of “innocence” or “guilt” of nations. While arguing that the credibility of Neighbors is low and that Gross's thesis that “one half of the Jedwabne inhabitants killed the other half” has not been proven, he writes that it is impossible to deny Polish participation in the massacre. Yet, as with other documented cases of Polish wartime evildoing, it is unfair to blow this incident out of proportion and produce unwarranted generalizations. Past and present realities are always more complicated than simple stereotypes that “Poles” or “Jews” are to blame or that they have always been innocent. William W. Hagen argues that Gross vacillates between a robust positivism promising that “a reconstruction” of “what actually took place” is possible, such that guilt and motive may confidently be assigned, and an interpretive pessimism suggesting that “we will never 'understand' why it happened.” In his assignment of causality, Gross offers a largely unconnected, in part inferential or speculative, array of determinants and motives. Although some of the causes Gross adduces are certainly persuasive, his analysis does not address the Jedwabne perpetrators' and witnesses' perception of the cultural meaning of the inhuman violence their Jewish neighbors were suffering. Hagen offers some suggestive historical evidence on the Poles' subjective response to the Jewish genocide and to their own wartime fate, arguing that the Jedwabne Poles' participation in the mass murder of the Jews must be conceived as a response, mediated by the penetration of ideological anti-Semitism into the countryside, to profound anxiety over the individual and social death menacing Polish identity under Soviet and Nazi occupation. Norman M. Naimark argues that the appearance of Gross's Neighbors has created an entirely new dimension to the historiography of World War II in Poland. The book demonstrated, as has no other work, the extent to which the Poles were directly involved in the genocide of the Jews. The clarity and force of Gross's presentation provides Polish historiography with an unprecedented opportunity “to come to terms with the past.” The essay also suggests that the Jedwabne massacre needs to be looked at in the context of overall German policy “in the east” and in comparison to similar horrors taking place roughly at the same time in Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, and Latvia. The Nazis intentionally (and surreptitiously) sought to incite pogroms in the region, filming and photographing the horrific events for audiences back home. Their own propaganda about the “Jewish-Bolshevik” menace both prompted and was ostensibly confirmed by the pogroms. In his response, Jan T. Gross replies to Roszkowski's criticism concerning historical credibility.

The main research aspect of the article is the “issue of guilt”, i. e. Germany’s responsibility for the establishment of Nazism and the outbreak of World War II in the philosophical legacy of the German existentialist philosopher Karl Jaspers. The article analyzes the ideas of K. Jaspers on the need to realize and admit guilt for their crimes by the German people and to overcome the totalitarian legacy. K. Jaspers emphasizes that the German people must be held accountable for the crimes of the Nazi regime in the 1930s and 1940s. Jaspers addresses the issue of morality and identifies four types of guilt. The first type is criminal guilt, which lies on those who have committed criminal offenses. The second type is political guilt. The third type is moral guilt. The last, fourth type is metaphysical guilt which is associated with a sense of responsibility for every wrong and unjust act in the world. For the author, the last two types of guilt are of the greatest importance. Thus, the tragedy of World War II and the ethnic genocides committed by the Nazis were the result of moral and ethical problems and the general spiritual crisis of the German people. The key role is given to the metaphysical aspect of this crisis. It is claimed that it was the spiritual problems that gave rise to the irreversible processes in the development of the entire nation. The paramount importance of the phenomenon of collective thinking is denied, giving preference to the personal level. It is noted that the main condition for spiritual revival is the rejection of national illusions, an unbiased view of one’s own past and present life, the recognition of one’s own sin, without which repentance of both the nation and the individual is impossible. Of great importance is the aspect of humility, which functions as “our spiritual essence”, which leads to the fact that man is on the path of perfection, which ultimately leads him to God. It is emphasized that the admission of guilt and remorse is a vital necessity for the German people. The article also highlights the impact of Jaspers’ ideas on the formation of modern humanitarian policy in the Federal Republic of Germany.

В настоящей рецензии дается оценка коллективной работе историков Ставропольского края, посвященной изучению слабо- или и вовсе неисследованных аспектов битвы за Кавказ в годы Великой Отечественной войны. Основное внимание было уделено региональному компоненту одного из важнейших эпизодов войны. Какая роль в планах гитлеровцев отводилась битве за Кавказ? Какими средствами их предполагалось реализовать и что мешало их воплощению? Как защищался Кавказ, и как проявлялась в этом процессе региональная специфика? Эти и некоторые иные вопросы были рассмотрены в рецензируемой монографии. Длительное время отсутствовали обобщающие работы по региональной истории Кавказа в тот тяжелейший период жизни государства. В связи с подготовкой к празднованию 75-й годовщины Великой Победы коллектив ставропольских авторов издал крупную работу, посвященную истории Ставропольского края, Северной Осетии и других районов Кавказа в период Великой Отечественной войны. В современных условиях требуется новое, системное прочтение этих событий, не только победных, но и трагических, извлечение нравственных истоков Победы для каждого народа. Источниковая база монографии представлена многочисленными и разнообразными источниками: материалами федеральных и региональных архивов, воспоминаниями участников событий, статистическими данными. Важным аспектом книги является комплексный анализ основных сторон жизни населения Ставрополья как региона Кавказа в годы Великой Отечественной войны. На местном материале (что особенно важно) авторы «изнутри» рассматривают различные стороны тех событий, выводя в свет и анализируя разнородные сведения: о ходе боевых действий, о трудностях, вызванных спецификой региона, о его социальной жизни. This review provides an assessment of the collective work of historians of the Stavropol Area, devoted to the study of poorly or completely unexplored aspects of the Battle of the Caucasus during the Great Patriotic War. The main focus was on the regional component of one of the most important war episode. What role in the plans of the Nazis was assigned to the Battle of the Caucasus? What means were they supposed to realize and what prevented their accurate implementation? How did the Caucasus defend itself, and how was the regional specificity manifested in this process? These and some other issues were considered in the monograph under review. For a long time there were no summarizing works on the regional history of the Caucasus in that most difficult period of the life of the state. In connection with the preparations for the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Great Victory, the team of Stavropol authors published a major work on the history of the Stavropol region, North Ossetia and other regions of the Caucasus during the Great Patriotic War. In modern conditions, a new, systematic reading of these events is required, not only victorious but also tragic, extracting the moral sources of the Victory for every nation. The source base of the monograph is represented by numerous, diverse sources: materials of federal and regional archives, memories of participants in the events, statistical data. An important aspect of the book is a comprehensive analysis of the main aspects of the life of the population of Stavropol as a region of the Caucasus during the Great Patriotic War. On the local material (which is especially important), the authors, as they say, “from the inside,” consider various aspects of those events, displaying and analyzing various information: about the course of hostilities, about the difficulties caused by the specifics of the region, about its social life.

Photo by Scott Graham on Unsplash INTRODUCTION It is a classic ethical dilemma to have something of potential value that comes at a tremendous cost to others.[1] To access the good, you must have the bad. For decision-makers, it becomes an onerous task of deciding if they would deny the world something 'good' or create something bad to achieve the good. Weighing the two possible outcomes has proven timelessly frustrating to those well-intentioned people who wish to "do the right thing." Medical research has yielded data derived from unethical situations wherein research participants were vulnerable and whose consent was questionable, absent, or not sought. The rules currently governing research allow for broad use of ill-gotten data. While providing a deterrent to unethical research practices, stricter rules still would allow some use of data. This paper argues the permissibility depends primarily on the nature of the unethical data collection and the potential benefits. ANALYSIS The American Medical Association (AMA) places additional obligations on researchers who utilize data obtained from unethical experiments. The Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 7.2.2[2] recommends that researchers and peer reviewers should take the following steps to best handle such data: (a) Disclose that the data derived from studies do not meet contemporary standards for the ethical conduct of research. (b) Clearly describe and acknowledge the unethical nature of the experiment(s) from which the data are derived. (c) Provide ethically compelling reasons for which the data are being released or cited, such as the need to save human lives when no other relevant data are available. (d) Pay respect to those who were the victims of the unethical experimentation. The AMA does not go far enough to protect past research victims or prevent future research ethics violations. Three additional considerations beyond the limitations offered by the APA are needed for ethical use of the data: who collected the data and ran the experiments, who would benefit from the data, and how much additional benefit would ensue from its use. A specific focus on data generated by Nazis whose research subjects were imprisoned in concentration camps highlights the ethical challenge. l. Who Created the Data? Medical research generated during the Holocaust subjected innocent people to torture in the name of science. Arguments can be made against the use of such data on the grounds that using the data represents a further indignity to those who suffered such horrific conditions and persecution. However, some of the data that emerged out of the Holocaust was not created by oppressors at the expense of the oppressed. Rather it grew out of the horrific conditions and was amassed by fellow prisoners. One prominent example is Myron Winick's work on hunger and disease, which edited the detailed records of Jewish physicians working in the Warsaw Ghetto, who traced the progression of starvation in stunning detail.[3] One obvious difference is that the Jewish physicians were not responsible for the conditions under which the data was gathered. But if we ask ourselves if their work represents a further indignity to those who had their starvation documented, the answer is not so clear. In this way, it is important to determine the explicit purpose of medical research as opposed to data generation as one aspect of the violation. To record the medical symptoms of a 'subject' who is, as you are, a victim of the circumstances with no other recourse, is different in kind from 'subjecting' a person to the condition in the first instance. Therefore, an analysis of the person doing the research provides an added limitation on using research performed by an oppressor yet allows some lenience for research by fellow victims. Research performed by oppressors must have a significantly higher marginal benefit over other available or collectable data. ll. Who Gains from the Data? Is it of Sufficient Benefit? (An effort to expand part C of the AMA unethical experimentation rules) In the spirit of contrition and commitment to the truth of historical ignominies, such as the Holocaust, the AMA created these best practices for physicians dealing with any ill-gotten data. In the case of the Holocaust, the period that has passed since 1945 would suggest that most, if not all, perpetrators of this research are deceased. However, prior to using data, modern researchers should ensure that there is no gain to be had on the part of the families of the perpetrators. When a large organization can offer mea culpa and seemingly genuine pledges toward reconciliation while still enjoying the advantages gained over others by virtue of their wrongdoing, it undermines sincerity, creates an incentive for more researchers to engage in unethical data collection, and would be an injustice to the relatives of victims. This matter may become more relevant going forward as private ownership and patents could play a role in sustaining the fiscal or reputational benefits to those who conduct science devoid of ethics. The Belmont Report lays out a risk-benefit equation which states that research that posed significant risks to the participants must also carry sufficient benefits to those who take risks. This element suggests two aspects that speak to the "justness" of a research project: First, a balance must be struck between potential harms and potential benefits; second, those who took risks must not be precluded from accessing the benefits of the products a successful trial would create.[4] Researchers must evaluate whether the data is both scientifically valid and usable from a methodological point of view, but also if what the use of the data promises is sufficiently compelling to benefit the progress of science. Second, the data must refer to some aspect of human health or illness, the amelioration of which would create an empirical improvement to all social and economic classes of humanity. The social justice issues embedded in the ethical use of the data are overlooked by the AMA. While the AMA suggests saving human lives makes the use of ill-gotten data acceptable, it fails to address any effort to make up for the wrongdoing. Examples of added considerations could be the use of the research to benefit people who were research subjects or their descendants or a broader race or ethnic group that was victimized. Examples of groups subjected to unethical research in the 20th century include Residential Schools for Aboriginal Canadians,[5] senior citizens,[6] and typically, members of socially deprived and undervalued populations.[7] The more reliable scientific data that emerged from Nazi experimentation is in the areas of hypothermia,[8] malnutrition and starvation,[9] and anatomical studies.[10] It is impossible to justify the use by the AMA criteria alone. If the research benefited relatives and descendants of Nazi prisoners or the broader marginalized community of which they belonged, its use might be considered ethical if there were no other way to obtain comparable data. The value and impact of Nazi science is minimal at this point, with much more reliable data available, but this type of transgression continues. There are modern examples of data procured in breach of ethics that still lend themselves to this question. CONCLUSION These suggestions would add complexity and substance to the AMA's Code of Medical Ethics Opinion. Beyond that scope, the considerations offered here would contribute to a stronger statement about the obligations and prohibitions in circumstances in which data was wrongfully collected. Too often, one could default to a brash 'means-to-an-ends' approach, especially when issues of funding and measured productivity come into the equation. The considerations here recognize that data gathered during the Holocaust is particularly sensitive. By eliminating any encouragement of unethical practices, a stricter test for the use of ill-gotten research is a deterrent but recognizes that sometimes the benefits call for the use of the research. The considerations also recognize that one legacy of such data is to create good in the modern-day, even as we recognize the shameful context of its creation and existence. [1] Marcus, Ruth B; Moral Dilemmas and Consistency. Journal of Philosophy. 1980;77(3):121-136. [2] American Medical Association. Opinion 7.2.2 Release of Data from Unethical Experiments Code of Medical Ethics. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/release-data-unethical-experiments. Accessed January 3, 2021. [3] Winick, 1979. [4] Freedman, B. Scientific value and validity as ethical requirements for research: a proposed explanation. IRB: Rev Hum Subj Res. 1987;17(6):7-10. [5] Mosby, I. Administering Colonial Science: Nutrition Research and Human Biomedical Experimentation in Aboriginal Communities and Residential Schools, 1942–1952. Histoire sociale/Social History. 2013;46(91): 615-642. [6] Beecher, H. Ethics and Clincial Research. N Engl J Med. 1966;274:1354-1360 [7] Rawlinson, P. Of Mice and Men: Violence and Human Experimentation. State Crime Journal. 2013;2(1):72-90. [8] Fernardez, J.P. et al; Rapid Active External Rewarming in Accidental Hypothermia. JAMA.1970;212:153 [9] Winick, M. (ed.). Hunger Disease. New York, NY: Wiley; 1979. [10] Norton, S.A.; On First Looking into Pernkopf's Atlas (part 1). Arch Dermatol. 2001;137:549-551

The power of culturally-bound controlling images around notions of 'colour' in regard to ethnicity have historically been marked and far-reaching. Most obvious examples of such political power relations can be seen in regard to racism and social domination. Biologically-based assertions that one specific category of people are somehow inherently inferior or superior to another were central and indeed continue to be paramount in (neo) Nazi-style rhetoric. Such political beliefs, most notable of course within the first half of the Twentieth Century, often went hand-in-hand with a right-wing ecologism that eschewed the alienation of urban life for an idealised rural existence (Heywood 283). This paper focusses upon how such assumptions and controlling images have resonated in recent times within the Nordic Black Metal music scene - an encompassing term used to describe a sub-genre of music that exists within a wider Heavy Metal and in particular Extreme Metal scene. Black Metal did not gain a stranglehold on Extreme Metal subculture until the 1990s. It also took socio-politics in Metal a stage further and to an extreme never seen before. Being most prolific in Scandinavia, and in particular Norway, Black Metal tended to focus upon Viking mythology and Odinism as a source of subject matter. Here, Nordic Black Metal based its identity on the virtues associated with its geographical location. As Dyer (21) points out, Northern Europe, with its notions of remoteness and coldness, combined with ideas of the cleanliness of the air, the soul- elevating beauty of mountain vistas, and the pureness of the white snow, could be seen to have formed the distinctiveness of a white identity and its related notions of energy, discipline and spiritual elevation. Such notions have their roots in the National Socialist programme of propaganda films of the 1930s and 1940s. Such films included Ich fur Dich - Du fur Mich (Me for You - You for Me, 1934), (Welch 48), which reinforced Nazi ideals of 'racial purity' and was centred on two interrelated themes; that of Blut und Boden ('blood and soil'), and Volk und Heimat ('a people and a homeland'). Here the strength of the 'master race' was linked to the sacredness of the German soil, usually in the form of some idyllic pastoral setting. Nazi 'revolution' was based upon presumed Germanic traditions and the recapture of a mythical past. Thus urban and industrial life was eschewed in favour of a more Germanic utopian community vision. This led the Nazis to draw an inexorable link between the pureness of the German land and the pureness of the Aryan race. The idea of the German utopian community raised notions of fitness and survival. For example, Walther Darre, the then Minister for Agriculture, drew Darwinistic parallels between animals and humans when he stated that, “We shall gather together the best blood. Just as we are now breeding our Hanover horse from the few remaining pure-blooded male and female stock, so we shall see the same type of breeding over the next generation of the pure type of Nordic German” (Welch 67). Such Nazi ideas of purity and survival of the fittest have been echoed in the Black Metal scene of recent years. This has clearly been illustrated, for example, in the sentiments of musicians such as 'Hellhammer', drummer with Norwegian band Mayhem who, when asked if he had fascist views, revealed that “I'm pretty convinced that there are differences between races as well as anything else. I think that like animals, some races are more... you know, like a cat is much more intelligent than a bird or a cow, or even a dog, and I think that's also the case with different races” (Moynihan and Soderlind 306). The comparison of certain people to animals acts to create controlling images that, in this instance, makes racism appear to be natural and inevitable (Collins 68). As Davis (25) points out, a key belief in racist ideology is the biologically and genetically-based assumption that ethnic minorities share similar patterns of behaviour because it is 'in their blood'. Indeed, it is no accident that some Black Metal musicians have made comparisons between ethnicity and animals. Such comparisons act to not only further this idea of superior 'blood stock' but also serve to dehumanise those who are seen to be inferior. Black Metal musicians saw themselves as being superior both musically as well as 'racially'. Just as Minister for Agriculture Walther Darre suggested that the pure blooded Nordic German was, although few in numbers, a superior racial minority within the human race in general, certain Black Metal musicians have shared a similar view that they are a racially and therefore musically superior group within the wider Extreme and Heavy Metal scene. Such assumptions have manifested themselves in a number of ways. Musicians such as Varg Vikernes, of Norwegian band Burzum, have made direct links between the development of Metal and assumed qualities of 'whiteness' when he argued that “The guitar is a European invention ... However, the music played on the guitar is mostly nigger (sic) music”, (NME n.pag). In such an example there is the assumption that 'white' Metal and Metal musicians are somehow inherently superior, and that this superiority of talent stems from a racial 'purity' lacking in 'non-white' metal scenes which, consequently, are seen as nothing more than a contamination, both racially and therefore musically. As Nazi actions were in part based upon the recapture of a mythical past, so too in Black Metal is there a notion that “We must take this scene to what it was in the past”, (Moynihan and Soderlind 60). Thus, as in National Socialism of the 1930s and 1940s, modern day Nazism within the Black Metal scene takes inspiration, ideology and hope from a romanticised notion of the past. This can be seen in the slogans that adorn much Black Metal band's merchandise, for example the band Darkthrone and their self-confessed “Norsk Arisk Black Metal” (Norwegian Aryan Black Metal) which appeared on the sleeve of their 1994 album Transylvanian Hunger, and in the more elaborate socio-political views of other Black Metal musicians such as Varg Vikernes who has expressed his Utopian visions in the belief that there should be a “return to the life-style of the Middle-Ages” in which “The masses need to live in harmony with nature”, (Vikernes n.pag). The notion that “Black Metal is for white people” (Moynihan and Doderlind 305) was also reflected in other stylistic components of Black Metal iconography. The practice of wearing “corpsepaint” was quickly adopted by nearly all Black Metal bands in the early years of its development, and is still widely used today. The concept of wearing corpsepaint - theatrical black and white makeup that created a gruesome appearance - can be traced as far back as the emergence of rock bands such as KISS and heavier acts such as King Diamond, who became known for their elaborate stage rock shows. However, whilst the adoption of corpsepaint by Black Metal bands may have been to create similar macabre images as more established rock and Heavy Metal bands had before them, the emphasis on 'whiteness' that corpsepaint gives cannot be overlooked. Such images, the pale white face emphasised even further when contrasted with traditional codes of dress - the black denim and leather clothes, can be seen to be emphasising the idea of white being an 'ideal'. That is, the symbolism that is carried by the colour white, its “moral and also aesthetic superiority”, (Dyer 70), has also manifested itself in certain aspects of Extreme Metal and in particular Black Metal. As highlighted earlier, just as 'whiteness' has been linked with notions of power, superiority and purity, so to have some Black Metal bands suggested that whiteness within Metal is inherently superior. The adoption of corpse paint is just one way notions of 'whiteness' have been underlined in the Extreme Metal scene. Such ideas of whiteness in some cases developed into more pronounced aspects of Nationalism and in particular National Socialism. The development of extreme right-wing beliefs, coupled with other more established controversial subject matters, such as Satanism, led to a notoriety that some Black Metal was, in many ways, proud to live up to. Whilst overtly racist or fascist sentiments are far from the norm within the Black Metal and wider Extreme Metal genre and the intolerance of such beliefs within the Metal industry in general has been clearly illustrated on many occasions, it cannot be said that those who are open and committed to extreme right-wing beliefs have not gained attention and some support through the controversial iconography and discourse they have used. A marked example of such attitudes can be found in the music, beliefs and actions of the Norwegian Black Metal band Burzum. Burzum, a solo project of musician Varg Vikernes, was one of the first Black Metal bands to appear in Norway. Although originally gaining inspiration from popular motifs in fantasy literature, Vikernes became increasingly known within the Black Metal scene for his increasingly radical views in regard to racial ideology and is now an outright self-confessed Neo-Nazi. In recent years Vikernes has courted controversy and reinforced a racist and fascist discourse within the Black Metal scene. In 1997, Vikernes was heavily criticised by many within Extreme Metal over the design of a new Burzum t-shirt. Created by Vikernes himself, the front featured the usual Burzum logo but was also adorned with a German World War II SS Death's Head logo. This, combined with a back print which bore the slogan “Support your local Einsatzkommando”, led to problems licensing and printing the shirt. Whilst Tiziana Stupia, Director of the now defunct Suffolk-based Misanthropy Records to which Burzum was signed, highlighted that the term Einsatzkommando was “still used quite uncontroversially to describe police SWAT teams” (Terrorizer 1997:6, no.41), the unambiguous fascist motifs also present on the shirt betray the true intention of the slogan. However, it would be erroneous to suggest that controlling images of 'colour' within the Nordic Black Metal scene are situated merely within a framework of neo-Nazi rhetoric. Indeed, such radical and consequently isolated ideologies and actions of certain Extreme Metal musicians that were very much apparent in the early 1990s have largely given way to more contemporary and in some ways egalitarian aesthetic, thematic and stylistic formations. The pastoral fixations of Black Metal that were very much analogous with right-wing dogmatic beliefs have been replaced by a distinctly 'urban' mindset that now focuses upon a 'commonality of adversity' and problems of modern existence for all peoples. Aesthetically the use of 'corpsepaint' has largely been dropped by many of the more pioneering acts, and this combined with stylistic movements that have seen the adoption of traditionally 'non-white' musical formations, has resulted in the drum 'n' bass/ ambient trip-hop concentrations of bands such as Arcturus and Ulver, and the general focus of 'urban decay' espoused by those such as Satyricon. Yet, even contemporary Black Metal has not completely severed its links with fascist controversy, and consequently constructs of colour, as even merely the names of acts such as Zyklon clearly illustrate. It is clear then that certain oppressive texts in relation to constructs of 'colour' can be highly problematic for many, both within and outside the Extreme metal scene. Powerful and historical discourses that espouse 'natural' assumptions around notions of ethnicity produce crude yet largely unquestioned presentations. Consequently, through its incorporation of such texts, certain aspects of Black Metal can be seen to perpetuate oppressive ideas of 'difference'. Via certain controlling images, some individuals can be subjected to objectification within Extreme Metal subculture which sees them marginalised and relegated. Consequently, dominant discourses within some areas of Black Metal can have the result of portraying ethnic minorities as merely 'non-white' and thus inexorably link such groups with a notion of 'inferiority'. References Collins, P.H. Black Feminist Thought. London: Routledge, 1991. Davis, F.J. Who is Black?. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991. Dyer, W. White. London: Routledge, 1997. Heywood, A. Political Ideologies. London: MacMillan Press LTD, 1998. Moynihan, M. & Soderlind, D. Lords of Chaos: The Bloody Rise of the Satanic Metal Underground. Venice: Feral House, 1998. NME Magazine. No Title. (September 5 1997) http.http://www.burzum.com. Accessed November 28 2000. Terrorizer Extreme Music Magazine (no.41, 1997:6) EQ Publications LTD. Vikernes, Varg. Civilisation. (no date) http.http://www.burzum.com/library/varg/civil... Accessed December 7 2000. Welch, D. The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda. London: Routledge, 1993. Discography: Darkthrone, Transylvanian Hunger. Peaceville records, Vile 43, 1994. Links http://www.burzum.com. http://www.burzum.com/library/varg/civilisation.html. CIT Citation reference for this article MLA Style Beckwith., Karl. ""Black Metal is for white people"" M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 5.3 (2002). [your date of access] < http://www.media-culture.org.au/0207/blackmetal.php>. Chicago Style Beckwith., Karl, ""Black Metal is for white people"" M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 5, no. 3 (2002), < http://www.media-culture.org.au/0207/blackmetal.php> ([your date of access]). APA Style Beckwith., Karl. (2002) "Black Metal is for white people". M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 5(3). < http://www.media-culture.org.au/0207/blackmetal.php> ([your date of access]).

1. Guy Debord in the Land of the Long WeekendIt’s the weekend – leisure time. It’s the interlude when, Guy Debord contends, the proletarian is briefly free of the “total contempt so clearly built into every aspect of the organization and management of production” in commodity capitalism; when workers are temporarily “treated like grown-ups, with a great show of solicitude and politeness, in their new role as consumers.” But this patronising show turns out to be another form of subjection to the diktats of “political economy”: “the totality of human existence falls under the regime of the ‘perfected denial of man’.” (30). As Debord suggests, even the creation of leisure time and space is predicated upon a form of contempt: the “perfected denial” of who we, as living people, really are in the eyes of those who presume the power to legislate our working practices and private identities.This Saturday The Weekend Australian runs an opinion piece by Christopher Pearson, defending ABC Radio National’s Stephen Crittenden, whose program The Religion Report has been axed. “Some of Crittenden’s finest half-hours have been devoted to Islam in Australia in the wake of September 11,” Pearson writes. “Again and again he’s confronted a left-of-centre audience that expected multi-cultural pieties with disturbing assertions.” Along the way in this admirable Crusade, Pearson notes that Crittenden has exposed “the Left’s recent tendency to ally itself with Islam.” According to Pearson, Crittenden has also thankfully given oxygen to claims by James Cook University’s Mervyn Bendle, the “fairly conservative academic whose work sometimes appears in [these] pages,” that “the discipline of critical terrorism studies has been captured by neo-Marxists of a postmodern bent” (30). Both of these points are well beyond misunderstanding or untested proposition. If Pearson means them sincerely he should be embarrassed and sacked. But of course he does not and will not be. These are deliberate lies, the confabulations of an eminent right-wing culture warrior whose job is to vilify minorities and intellectuals (Bendle escapes censure as an academic because he occasionally scribbles for the Murdoch press). It should be observed, too, how the patent absurdity of Pearson’s remarks reveals the extent to which he holds the intelligence of his readers in contempt. And he is not original in peddling these toxic wares.In their insightful—often hilarious—study of Australian opinion writers, The War on Democracy, Niall Lucy and Steve Mickler identify the left-academic-Islam nexus as the brain-child of former Treasurer-cum-memoirist Peter Costello. The germinal moment was “a speech to the Australian American Leadership Dialogue forum at the Art Gallery of NSW in 2005” concerning anti-Americanism in Australian schools. Lucy and Mickler argue that “it was only a matter of time” before a conservative politician or journalist took the plunge to link the left and terrorism, and Costello plunged brilliantly. He drew a mental map of the Great Chain of Being: left-wing academics taught teacher trainees to be anti-American; teacher trainees became teachers and taught kids to be anti-American; anti-Americanism morphs into anti-Westernism; anti-Westernism veers into terrorism (38). This is contempt for the reasoning capacity of the Australian people and, further still, contempt for any observable reality. Not for nothing was Costello generally perceived by the public as a politician whose very physiognomy radiated smugness and contempt.Recycling Costello, Christopher Pearson’s article subtly interpellates the reader as an ordinary, common-sense individual who instinctively feels what’s right and has no need to think too much—thinking too much is the prerogative of “neo-Marxists” and postmodernists. Ultimately, Pearson’s article is about channelling outrage: directing the down-to-earth passions of the Australian people against stock-in-trade culture-war hate figures. And in Pearson’s paranoid world, words like “neo-Marxist” and “postmodern” are devoid of historical or intellectual meaning. They are, as Lucy and Mickler’s War on Democracy repeatedly demonstrate, mere ciphers packed with the baggage of contempt for independent critical thought itself.Contempt is everywhere this weekend. The Weekend Australian’s colour magazine runs a feature story on Malcolm Turnbull: one of those familiar profiles designed to reveal the everyday human touch of the political classes. In this puff-piece, Jennifer Hewett finds Turnbull has “a restless passion for participating in public life” (20); that beneath “the aggressive political rhetoric […] behind the journalist turned lawyer turned banker turned politician turned would-be prime minister is a man who really enjoys that human interaction, however brief, with the many, many ordinary people he encounters” (16). Given all this energetic turning, it’s a wonder that Turnbull has time for human interactions at all. The distinction here of Turnbull and “many, many ordinary people” – the anonymous masses – surely runs counter to Hewett’s brief to personalise and quotidianise him. Likewise, those two key words, “however brief”, have an unfortunate, unintended effect. Presumably meant to conjure a picture of Turnbull’s hectic schedules and serial turnings, the words also convey the image of a patrician who begrudgingly knows one of the costs of a political career is that common flesh must be pressed—but as gingerly as possible.Hewett proceeds to disclose that Turnbull is “no conservative cultural warrior”, “onfounds stereotypes” and “hates labels” (like any baby-boomer rebel) and “has always read widely on political philosophy—his favourite is Edmund Burke”. He sees the “role of the state above all as enabling people to do their best” but knows that “the main game is the economy” and is “content to play mainstream gesture politics” (19). I am genuinely puzzled by this and imagine that my intelligence is being held in contempt once again. That the man of substance is given to populist gesturing is problematic enough; but that the Burke fan believes the state is about personal empowerment is just too much. Maybe Turnbull is a fan of Burke’s complex writings on the sublime and the beautiful—but no, Hewett avers, Turnbull is engaged by Burke’s “political philosophy”. So what is it in Burke that Turnbull finds to favour?Turnbull’s invocation of Edmund Burke is empty, gestural and contradictory. The comfortable notion that the state helps people to realise their potential is contravened by Burke’s view that the state functions so “the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection… by a power out of themselves” (151). Nor does Burke believe that anyone of humble origins could or should rise to the top of the social heap: “The occupation of an hair-dresser, or of a working tallow-chandler, cannot be a matter of honour to any person… the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule” (138).If Turnbull’s main game as a would-be statesman is the economy, Burke profoundly disagrees: “the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, callico or tobacco, or some other such low concern… It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection”—a sublime entity, not an economic manager (194). Burke understands, long before Antonio Gramsci or Louis Althusser, that individuals or social fractions must be made admirably “obedient” to the state “by consent or force” (195). Burke has a verdict on mainstream gesture politics too: “When men of rank sacrifice all ideas of dignity to an ambition without a distinct object, and work with low instruments and for low ends, the whole composition [of the state] becomes low and base” (136).Is Malcolm Turnbull so contemptuous of the public that he assumes nobody will notice the gross discrepancies between his own ideals and what Burke stands for? His invocation of Burke is, indeed, “mainstream gesture politics”: on one level, “Burke” signifies nothing more than Turnbull’s performance of himself as a deep thinker. In this process, the real Edmund Burke is historically erased; reduced to the status of stage-prop in the theatrical production of Turnbull’s mass-mediated identity. “Edmund Burke” is re-invented as a term in an aesthetic repertoire.This transmutation of knowledge and history into mere cipher is the staple trick of culture-war discourse. Jennifer Hewett casts Turnbull as “no conservative culture warrior”, but he certainly shows a facility with culture-war rhetoric. And as much as Turnbull “confounds stereotypes” his verbal gesture to Edmund Burke entrenches a stereotype: at another level, the incantation “Edmund Burke” is implicitly meant to connect Turnbull with conservative tradition—in the exact way that John Howard regularly self-nominated as a “Burkean conservative”.This appeal to tradition effectively places “the people” in a power relation. Tradition has a sublimity that is bigger than us; it precedes us and will outlast us. Consequently, for a politician to claim that tradition has fashioned him, that he is welded to it or perhaps even owns it as part of his heritage, is to glibly imply an authority greater than that of “the many, many ordinary people”—Burke’s hair-dressers and tallow-chandlers—whose company he so briefly enjoys.In The Ideology of the Aesthetic, Terry Eagleton assesses one of Burke’s important legacies, placing him beside another eighteenth-century thinker so loved by the right—Adam Smith. Ideology of the Aesthetic is premised on the view that “Aesthetics is born as a discourse of the body”; that the aesthetic gives form to the “primitive materialism” of human passions and organises “the whole of our sensate life together… a society’s somatic, sensational life” (13). Reading Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, Eagleton discerns that society appears as “an immense machine, whose regular and harmonious movements produce a thousand agreeable effects”, like “any production of human art”. In Smith’s work, the “whole of social life is aestheticized” and people inhabit “a social order so spontaneously cohesive that its members no longer need to think about it.” In Burke, Eagleton discovers that the aesthetics of “manners” can be understood in terms of Gramscian hegemony: “in the aesthetics of social conduct, or ‘culture’ as it would later be called, the law is always with us, as the very unconscious structure of our life”, and as a result conformity to a dominant ideological order is deeply felt as pleasurable and beautiful (37, 42). When this conservative aesthetic enters the realm of politics, Eagleton contends, the “right turn, from Burke” onwards follows a dark trajectory: “forget about theoretical analysis… view society as a self-grounding organism, all of whose parts miraculously interpenetrate without conflict and require no rational justification. Think with the blood and the body. Remember that tradition is always wiser and richer than one’s own poor, pitiable ego. It is this line of descent, in one of its tributaries, which will lead to the Third Reich” (368–9).2. Jean Baudrillard, the Nazis and Public MemoryIn 1937, during the Spanish Civil War, the Third Reich’s Condor Legion of the Luftwaffe was on loan to Franco’s forces. On 26 April that year, the Condor Legion bombed the market-town of Guernica: the first deliberate attempt to obliterate an entire town from the air and the first experiment in what became known as “terror bombing”—the targeting of civilians. A legacy of this violence was Pablo Picasso’s monumental canvas Guernica – the best-known anti-war painting in art history.When US Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations on 5 February 2003 to make the case for war on Iraq, he stopped to face the press in the UN building’s lobby. The doorstop was globally televised, packaged as a moment of incredible significance: history in the making. It was also theatre: a moment in which history was staged as “event” and the real traces of history were carefully erased. Millions of viewers world-wide were undoubtedly unaware that the blue backdrop before which Powell stood was specifically designed to cover the full-scale tapestry copy of Picasso’s Guernica. This one-act, agitprop drama was a splendid example of politics as aesthetic action: a “performance” of history in the making which required the loss of actual historical memory enshrined in Guernica. Powell’s performance took its cues from the culture wars, which require the ceaseless erasure of history and public memory—on this occasion enacted on a breathtaking global, rather than national, scale.Inside the UN chamber, Powell’s performance was equally staged-crafted. As he brandished vials of ersatz anthrax, the power-point behind him (the theatrical set) showed artists’ impressions of imaginary mobile chemical weapons laboratories. Powell was playing lead role in a kind of populist, hyperreal production. It was Jean Baudrillard’s postmodernism, no less, as the media space in which Powell acted out the drama was not a secondary representation of reality but a reality of its own; the overheads of mobile weapons labs were simulacra, “models of a real without origins or reality”, pictures referring to nothing but themselves (2). In short, Powell’s performance was anchored in a “semiurgic” aesthetic; and it was a dreadful real-life enactment of Walter Benjamin’s maxim that “All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war” (241).For Benjamin, “Fascism attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate.” Fascism gave “these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves.” In turn, this required “the introduction of aesthetics into politics”, the objective of which was “the production of ritual values” (241). Under Adolf Hitler’s Reich, people were able to express themselves but only via the rehearsal of officially produced ritual values: by their participation in the disquisition on what Germany meant and what it meant to be German, by the aesthetic regulation of their passions. As Frederic Spotts’ fine study Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics reveals, this passionate disquisition permeated public and private life, through the artfully constructed total field of national narratives, myths, symbols and iconographies. And the ritualistic reiteration of national values in Nazi Germany hinged on two things: contempt and memory loss.By April 1945, as Berlin fell, Hitler’s contempt for the German people was at its apogee. Hitler ordered a scorched earth operation: the destruction of everything from factories to farms to food stores. The Russians would get nothing, the German people would perish. Albert Speer refused to implement the plan and remembered that “Until then… Germany and Hitler had been synonymous in my mind. But now I saw two entities opposed… A passionate love of one’s country… a leader who seemed to hate his people” (Sereny 472). But Hitler’s contempt for the German people was betrayed in the blusterous pages of Mein Kampf years earlier: “The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous” (165). On the back of this belief, Hitler launched what today would be called a culture war, with its Jewish folk devils, loathsome Marxist intellectuals, incitement of popular passions, invented traditions, historical erasures and constant iteration of values.When Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer fled Fascism, landing in the United States, their view of capitalist democracy borrowed from Benjamin and anticipated both Baudrillard and Guy Debord. In their well-know essay on “The Culture Industry”, in Dialectic of Enlightenment, they applied Benjamin’s insight on mass self-expression and the maintenance of property relations and ritual values to American popular culture: “All are free to dance and enjoy themselves”, but the freedom to choose how to do so “proves to be the freedom to choose what is always the same”, manufactured by monopoly capital (161–162). Anticipating Baudrillard, they found a society in which “only the copy appears: in the movie theatre, the photograph; on the radio, the recording” (143). And anticipating Debord’s “perfected denial of man” they found a society where work and leisure were structured by the repetition-compulsion principles of capitalism: where people became consumers who appeared “s statistics on research organization charts” (123). “Culture” came to do people’s thinking for them: “Pleasure always means not to think about anything, to forget suffering even where it is shown” (144).In this mass-mediated environment, a culture of repetitions, simulacra, billboards and flickering screens, Adorno and Horkheimer concluded that language lost its historical anchorages: “Innumerable people use words and expressions which they have either ceased to understand or employ only because they trigger off conditioned reflexes” in precisely the same way that the illusory “free” expression of passions in Germany operated, where words were “debased by the Fascist pseudo-folk community” (166).I know that the turf of the culture wars, the US and Australia, are not Fascist states; and I know that “the first one to mention the Nazis loses the argument”. I know, too, that there are obvious shortcomings in Adorno and Horkheimer’s reactions to popular culture and these have been widely criticised. However, I would suggest that there is a great deal of value still in Frankfurt School analyses of what we might call the “authoritarian popular” which can be applied to the conservative prosecution of populist culture wars today. Think, for example, how the concept of a “pseudo folk community” might well describe the earthy, common-sense public constructed and interpellated by right-wing culture warriors: America’s Joe Six-Pack, John Howard’s battlers or Kevin Rudd’s working families.In fact, Adorno and Horkheimer’s observations on language go to the heart of a contemporary culture war strategy. Words lose their history, becoming ciphers and “triggers” in a politicised lexicon. Later, Roland Barthes would write that this is a form of myth-making: “myth is constituted by the loss of the historical quality of things.” Barthes reasoned further that “Bourgeois ideology continuously transforms the products of history into essential types”, generating a “cultural logic” and an ideological re-ordering of the world (142). Types such as “neo-Marxist”, “postmodernist” and “Burkean conservative”.Surely, Benjamin’s assessment that Fascism gives “the people” the occasion to express itself, but only through “values”, describes the right’s pernicious incitement of the mythic “dispossessed mainstream” to reclaim its voice: to shout down the noisy minorities—the gays, greenies, blacks, feminists, multiculturalists and neo-Marxist postmodernists—who’ve apparently been running the show. Even more telling, Benjamin’s insight that the incitement to self-expression is connected to the maintenance of property relations, to economic power, is crucial to understanding the contemptuous conduct of culture wars.3. Jesus Dunked in Urine from Kansas to CronullaAmerican commentator Thomas Frank bases his study What’s the Matter with Kansas? on this very point. Subtitled How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, Frank’s book is a striking analysis of the indexation of Chicago School free-market reform and the mobilisation of “explosive social issues—summoning public outrage over everything from busing to un-Christian art—which it then marries to pro-business policies”; but it is the “economic achievements” of free-market capitalism, “not the forgettable skirmishes of the never-ending culture wars” that are conservatism’s “greatest monuments.” Nevertheless, the culture wars are necessary as Chicago School economic thinking consigns American communities to the rust belt. The promise of “free-market miracles” fails ordinary Americans, Frank reasons, leaving them in “backlash” mode: angry, bewildered and broke. And in this context, culture wars are a convenient form of anger management: “Because some artist decides to shock the hicks by dunking Jesus in urine, the entire planet must remake itself along the lines preferred” by nationalist, populist moralism and free-market fundamentalism (5).When John Howard received the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute’s Irving Kristol Award, on 6 March 2008, he gave a speech in Washington titled “Sharing Our Common Values”. The nub of the speech was Howard’s revelation that he understood the index of neo-liberal economics and culture wars precisely as Thomas Frank does. Howard told the AEI audience that under his prime ministership Australia had “pursued reform and further modernisation of our economy” and that this inevitably meant “dislocation for communities”. This “reform-dislocation” package needed the palliative of a culture war, with his government preaching the “consistency and reassurance” of “our nation’s traditional values… pride in her history”; his government “became assertive about the intrinsic worth of our national identity. In the process we ended the seemingly endless seminar about that identity which had been in progress for some years.” Howard’s boast that his government ended the “seminar” on national identity insinuates an important point. “Seminar” is a culture-war cipher for intellection, just as “pride” is code for passion; so Howard’s self-proclaimed achievement, in Terry Eagleton’s terms, was to valorise “the blood and the body” over “theoretical analysis”. This speaks stratospheric contempt: ordinary people have their identity fashioned for them; they need not think about it, only feel it deeply and passionately according to “ritual values”. Undoubtedly this paved the way to Cronulla.The rubric of Howard’s speech—“Sharing Our Common Values”—was both a homage to international neo-conservatism and a reminder that culture wars are a trans-national phenomenon. In his address, Howard said that in all his “years in politics” he had not heard a “more evocative political slogan” than Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America”—the rhetorical catch-cry for moral re-awakening that launched the culture wars. According to Lawrence Grossberg, America’s culture wars were predicated on the perception that the nation was afflicted by “a crisis of our lack of passion, of not caring enough about the values we hold… a crisis of nihilism which, while not restructuring our ideological beliefs, has undermined our ability to organise effective action on their behalf”; and this “New Right” alarmism “operates in the conjuncture of economics and popular culture” and “a popular struggle by which culture can lead politics” in the passionate pursuit of ritual values (31–2). When popular culture leads politics in this way we are in the zone of the image, myth and Adorno and Horkheimer’s “trigger words” that have lost their history. In this context, McKenzie Wark observes that “radical writers influenced by Marx will see the idea of culture as compensation for a fragmented and alienated life as a con. Guy Debord, perhaps the last of the great revolutionary thinkers of Europe, will call it “the spectacle”’ (20). Adorno and Horkheimer might well have called it “the authoritarian popular”. As Jonathan Charteris-Black’s work capably demonstrates, all politicians have their own idiolect: their personally coded language, preferred narratives and myths; their own vision of who “the people” might or should be that is conjured in their words. But the language of the culture wars is different. It is not a personal idiolect. It is a shared vocabulary, a networked vernacular, a pervasive trans-national aesthetic that pivots on the fact that words like “neo-Marxist”, “postmodern” and “Edmund Burke” have no historical or intellectual context or content: they exist as the ciphers of “values”. And the fact that culture warriors continually mouth them is a supreme act of contempt: it robs the public of its memory. And that’s why, as Lucy and Mickler’s War on Democracy so wittily argues, if there are any postmodernists left they’ll be on the right.Benjamin, Adorno, Horkheimer and, later, Debord and Grossberg understood how the political activation of the popular constitutes a hegemonic project. The result is nothing short of persuading “the people” to collaborate in its own oppression. The activation of the popular is perfectly geared to an age where the main stage of political life is the mainstream media; an age in which, Charteris-Black notes, political classes assume the general antipathy of publics to social change and act on the principle that the most effective political messages are sold to “the people” by an appeal “to familiar experiences”—market populism (10). In her substantial study The Persuaders, Sally Young cites an Australian Labor Party survey, conducted by pollster Rod Cameron in the late 1970s, in which the party’s message machine was finely tuned to this populist position. The survey also dripped with contempt for ordinary people: their “Interest in political philosophy… is very low… They are essentially the products (and supporters) of mass market commercialism”. Young observes that this view of “the people” was the foundation of a new order of political advertising and the conduct of politics on the mass-media stage. Cameron’s profile of “ordinary people” went on to assert that they are fatally attracted to “a moderate leader who is strong… but can understand and represent their value system” (47): a prescription for populist discourse which begs the question of whether the values a politician or party represent via the media are ever really those of “the people”. More likely, people are hegemonised into a value system which they take to be theirs. Writing of the media side of the equation, David Salter raises the point that when media “moguls thunder about ‘the public interest’ what they really mean is ‘what we think the public is interested in”, which is quite another matter… Why this self-serving deception is still so sheepishly accepted by the same public it is so often used to violate remains a mystery” (40).Sally Young’s Persuaders retails a story that she sees as “symbolic” of the new world of mass-mediated political life. The story concerns Mark Latham and his “revolutionary” journeys to regional Australia to meet the people. “When a political leader who holds a public meeting is dubbed a ‘revolutionary’”, Young rightly observes, “something has gone seriously wrong”. She notes how Latham’s “use of old-fashioned ‘meet-and-greet’campaigning methods was seen as a breath of fresh air because it was unlike the type of packaged, stage-managed and media-dependent politics that have become the norm in Australia.” Except that it wasn’t. “A media pack of thirty journalists trailed Latham in a bus”, meaning, that he was not meeting the people at all (6–7). He was traducing the people as participants in a media spectacle, as his “meet and greet” was designed to fill the image-banks of print and electronic media. Even meeting the people becomes a media pseudo-event in which the people impersonate the people for the camera’s benefit; a spectacle as artfully deceitful as Colin Powell’s UN performance on Iraq.If the success of this kind of “self-serving deception” is a mystery to David Salter, it would not be so to the Frankfurt School. For them, an understanding of the processes of mass-mediated politics sits somewhere near the core of their analysis of the culture industries in the “democratic” world. I think the Frankfurt school should be restored to a more important role in the project of cultural studies. Apart from an aversion to jazz and other supposedly “elitist” heresies, thinkers like Adorno, Benjamin, Horkheimer and their progeny Debord have a functional claim to provide the theory for us to expose the machinations of the politics of contempt and its aesthetic ruses.ReferencesAdorno, Theodor and Max Horkheimer. "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception." Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Verso, 1979. 120–167.Barthes Roland. “Myth Today.” Mythologies. Trans. Annette Lavers. St Albans: Paladin, 1972. 109–58.Baudrillard, Jean. Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e), 1983.Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Illuminations. Ed. Hannah Arendt. Trans. Harry Zorn. New York: Schocken Books, 1969. 217–251.Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Ed. Conor Cruise O’Brien. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969.Charteris-Black, Jonathan. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. Trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith. New York: Zone Books, 1994.Eagleton, Terry. The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.Frank, Thomas. What’s the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004.Grossberg, Lawrence. “It’s a Sin: Politics, Post-Modernity and the Popular.” It’s a Sin: Essays on Postmodern Politics & Culture. Eds. Tony Fry, Ann Curthoys and Paul Patton. Sydney: Power Publications, 1988. 6–71.Hewett, Jennifer. “The Opportunist.” The Weekend Australian Magazine. 25–26 October 2008. 16–22.Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Trans. Ralph Manheim. London: Pimlico, 1993.Howard, John. “Sharing Our Common Values.” Washington: Irving Kristol Lecture, American Enterprise Institute. 5 March 2008. ‹http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,233328945-5014047,00html›.Lucy, Niall and Steve Mickler. The War on Democracy: Conservative Opinion in the Australian Press. Crawley: University of Western Australia Press, 2006.Pearson, Christopher. “Pray for Sense to Prevail.” The Weekend Australian. 25–26 October 2008. 30.Salter, David. The Media We Deserve: Underachievement in the Fourth Estate. Melbourne: Melbourne UP, 2007. Sereny, Gitta. Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth. London: Picador, 1996.Spotts, Frederic. Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics. London: Pimlico, 2003.Wark, McKenzie. The Virtual Republic: Australia’s Culture Wars of the 1990s. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 1997.Young, Sally. The Persuaders: Inside the Hidden Machine of Political Advertising. Melbourne: Pluto Press, 2004.