The Mendacious Professor Eco

While in Italy this past January (2012), I had a conversation on the subject of the Italian author, Umberto Eco. We both had a mutual affection for the movie, "The Name of the Rose."

It was a terrific movie, but in fact it was a fraud -- like Umberto Eco’s book of the same name. The Benedictines are portrayed as the bad guys, and the Franciscans as the good.

In fact, the Benedictine Order was responsible for monasticism, which became the basis of Western monastic life, aka, the Rule of St. Benedict. Equally important, the Benedictines, in no small part, were responsible for preserving the history of western civilization by instituting the tradition of scriptorium, literally a place to copy manuscripts by monastic scribes. Bendict of Nursia, aka St. Benedict (529), initiated the tradition of Benedictine scriptoria that not only improved the minds of monastic monks, but also produced a valuable product – books. Each monastery was required to have its own extensive library, hence saving the religious and secular literary works of the West.

On the other hand, Professor Eco portrays the Franciscans as all that is righteous. In truth, the Franciscan Order was established against the directive of St. Francis. Francis of Assisi, who’s legacy created the Franciscan Order stipulated in his own Testament (1226), against building convents to themselves. His followers ignored him. More importantly, the followers of St. Francis were among the chief sustainers of the growing hatred of Jews in medieval Western Europe (13th Century); avid prosecutors of the Inquisition in Italy and Spain, along with the Dominicans; and brutal subjugators of the indigenous populations of the Americas. Yet, to read Professor Eco, this history is whitewashed, in favor of the Franciscan myth of poverty, truth, and benevolence to all God's creatures.

Arcane esoteric semiotics does not render a particular supposition valid. Perhaps, those who do not understand Professor Eco do so because there is nothing to understand. In the words of one literary critic, "there is no there there." Unfortunately, many who read Professor Eco's books do not understand that it really is fiction -- and all to often, bad fiction at that.


Below is a critical opinion piece of Umberto Eco's latest book, "The Prague Cemetery."

Overrated: Umberto Eco
DANIEL JOHNSON

Who said: "When men stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing: they believe in anything"? The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations attributes it to G.K. Chesterton, but it cannot be found in any of his works and appears to have begun life as a paraphrase by his biographer Emile Cammaerts. One does not need to be a scholar to trace this cliché to its origin. Yet on the home page of the extensive website of Umberto Eco, one is greeted with the following quotation by the great man: "When men stop believing in God, it isn't that they then believe in nothing: they believe in everything."

Undergraduates who tried to palm off such a hackneyed misquotation as their own might expect to be laughed at or even reprimanded by their teachers. But Eco is Europe's most celebrated living writer, with countless academic honours to his name. Why does a man so feted, who boasts that he owns 50,000 books (including 1,200 rare titles) "in my various homes", seek to appropriate Chesterton's gnomic wisdom? Is it possible that Umberto Eco is, as Henry IV of France said of James I of England, "the wisest fool in Christendom"?

In his own eyes, at least, Eco is the opposite: the most disillusioned of men, "fascinated by error, bad faith and idiocy", and thus perfectly equipped to expose everyone else as a fraud. In his recent published conversation with Jean-Claude Carrière, This is Not the End of the Book, he reveals that his vast library consists entirely of "books whose contents I don't believe”; these "lies" include a first edition of Joyce's Ulysses. Eco makes no distinction between fiction and forgery. He also assumes that most of his readers are hopelessly ignorant: "The current generation is probably tempted to think, as the Americans do, that what happened 300 years ago no longer matters..."

This pose of the learned skeptic, even the arch-cynic, has stood Eco in good stead. Without it he could never have written The Name of the Rose, the medieval whodunit that became a film vehicle for Sean Connery and has gone on to sell more than 50 million copies. The novel is an exercise in debunking the monks to whom he owed his education and who immunized him from fascism. Eco's first book, based on his doctoral thesis, is his best: The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas. He still recalls the joy of being surrounded by old books and manuscripts at the Sainte-Geneviève Library in Paris. Then he lost his faith and has spent the rest of his life in search of a substitute.

Eco found his pseudo-religion in the pseudo-science of semiotics, which he has taught for many years. His novels are case studies in postmodernism, which elides all categories of truth, beauty, morality and politics into an esoteric game. The Plan, which forms the theme of Foucault's Pendulum, his second bestseller, shows Eco was already obsessed with conspiracy theories, involving everything from the Knights Templar to Kabbalah. But the subversive message of the novel is that conspiracy theories may after all be true, and secret societies may actually exist. The dissolution of reality into mere "narratives" lends the conspiracy theory new life.

In Eco's latest novel, The Prague Cemetery, his idée fixe mutates into a gothic fantasy embracing Jesuits, Freemasons and above all Jews, culminating in the most pernicious conspiracy theory of them all: the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Eco claims that he has invented only one character, the protagonist Simone Simonini, whose fictitious diaries record how he forges the Protocols, frames Dreyfus and infects Europe with anti-Semitism. "But on reflection," he adds, "even Simone Simonini ... did in some sense exist. Indeed, to be frank, he is still with us." In other words, Eco deliberately confuses fact and fiction. Having immersed his readers in conspiracy theories against the Jews, he then leaves them wondering whether some of these vile slanders might, after all, be true.

The trouble with what his publisher calls "an inspired twisting of history and fiction" is that Eco is playing with fire. This time it is not a game. There is nothing esoteric about the Protocols, millions of copies of which circulate in the Muslim world. Anti-Semitism is on the march, not only in the Middle East but across the globe, including the West, fuelled by that multiplier of conspiracy theories, the Internet. The leaders of Iran have made Holocaust denial state policy and signaled that they plan a second Holocaust, using nuclear technology supplied by, among others, Germany and Russia — the two worst persecutors of Jews in the recent past. Eco's frivolous treatment of Jew-hatred as a cloak-and-dagger mystery, to fund his collection of incunabula, while real Jews are targeted by terrorists from New York to Mumbai and from London to Buenos Aires have left many readers feeling queasy.

The doubts sown by the book fall on fertile soil, for ours is a culture that long ago lost its bearings, thanks to the prestige of postmodernists such as Umberto Eco. He stands for the intellectuals of the 21st century who, like those of the last century, commit trahison des clercs by flirting with anti-Semitism when their duty is to take a clear stand against it.

Charles Alan Murray (1943 - )

In 1984 I read Charles Murray's "Losing Ground." It was the definitive indictment of the Great Society, a game changer for anyone with an open mind and an intellect that wanted to comprehend progressive social policy for the past two decades. In the 1980's you could not study US public policy without knowing something was very wrong. Yet, most in academia choose to ignore Charles Murray's scholarship.

It is now 2012. The bankrupt theories of the Great Society have gotten a rebirth from the liberal left who have ruled this country for the last 7 years. This time, unfortunately, their bankrupt theories are destroying the fabric and culture of American society. So for a moment, consider this from a brilliant man:

"It is condescending to treat people who have less education or money as less morally accountable than we are. We should stop making excuses for them that we wouldn't make for ourselves. Respect those who deserve respect, and look down on those who deserve looking down on."

James Q. Wilson (1931 – 2012)

In graduate school at Vanderbilt University, working towards my doctorate in Public Policy Studies, my principle advisor and Chairman of my dissertation committee, Erwin C. Hargrove, directed me to the work of James Q. Wilson. My particular interest was implementation, and Professor Wilson had a lot to say.

In implementation I was taught that some factors are more critical than others in their impact on a particular program’s implementation. Analysis, therefore, should not give equal weight to each factor. In this sense, Professor Wilson (1967) was instructive. For example:

“The government – at least publicly – seems to act as if the supply of able political executives were infinitely elastic, though people setting up new agencies will often admit privately that they are frustrated and appalled by the shortage of talent, that the only wonder is why disaster is so long in coming.”

It may sound simple, but you have no idea how many people in positions of power throughout government at every level, just do not get it. Common sense is not common.

In tribute* I postulate this deferential corollary to James Q. Wilson’s antidote for “selfishness,” or "greed" (in the parlance of our time):

Ownership confers title,
Title confers responsibility,
Responsibility confers accountability,
And, accountability confers the ability to succeed or fail.

*Tonight I’ll do what I always do to honor the life of a great man – I’ll take a drink or two of Blanton’s.

Awareness 2012: A New Year’s Greeting

The hour comes today,
We say good-bye,
To this year’s last light.

The sun sets,
We can hope we did some good,
Yet, we know this is not our way.

Should we lament the change that tears our fiber?
Should we quell the acts that give us pain?
We await another voice.

O Abraham, let your son trumpets his horn,
There is a false prophet in the land,
And, his deeds must tumble.

A commitment to excellence and exceptionalism,
Work, sacrifice, perseverance, selflessness,
Respect for our way of life.

This is the toll,
To achieve our goals,
So the wise Man said.

No whining, no whimpers,
No lying, no deceit,
No generational parasites, no billionaires prophesying.

To achieve success,
Whatever the job,
We must all pay the price.

Remember, The sun also rises.


L. S. Schneiderman

Iraq War III

Mr. Obama proclaimed the second Iraq War is over. He may be right about US military involvement, at least for now. But he and Mrs. Clinton better not get comfortable, because Iraq War III is about to start.

No sooner then the last American boot on the ground left Iraq, Mr. Nouri al – Maliki, Shia Prime Minister of Iraq, sprang into odious action and issued an arrest warrant for his Sunni Vice President, Mr. Tariq al – Hashimi. If there is any truth to Mr. Maliki’s accusations against Mr. Hashimi – it is essentially a case of ‘the pot calling the kettle black.’ Mr. Maliki’s manifest goal is to eliminate all opposition in Iraq to his rule, even if that means literally “eliminating” his opposition. Of course he waited until the American troops withdrew.

But more importantly, if you think Mr. Maliki took this action and thought this up on his own, you qualify to work for Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. It is Iran who is controlling this gambit. Mr. Maliki is simply the puppet. Iran is pulling the strings.

It should be understood, that Mr. George W. Bush and Ms. Rice allowed the Mullah’s grand plan to hatch, by insisting that Iraq is a sovereign nation. The naïveté of this foreign policy and its continuation under the Obama Administration deserves our opprobrium and contradicts ever reality. It is as if these “elites” have never read history. But they have. They went to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford. Hence, it is not for lack of intelligence, but rather the execution of knowledge and an arrogance, in which they believe they can orchestrate the lives of others deemed inferior.

For now, Mr. Hashimi rests with the Kurds, not with the fishes. Yet, all of this did not have to happen. I wrote the following essay in June 2007. I’m not prophetic, but I have read history, and I am not arrogant.

The best United States strategy for Iraq was the concentration of US forces on the part of Iraq where the US mission has succeeded - Kurdistan. Kurdistan is the right solution to this conflict. Here are the reasons why.

First, military bases in Kurdistan can be used to launch strikes (or conduct a campaign) in Iraq and if necessary throughout the Middle East. A powerful US presence would also serve as a deterrent to others in the region with expansionist intentions.

Second, it would support a new democratic republic in the Middle East. Democracy is not given to a people - the people win it. The Kurds seem to be the only group in Iraq who stand where they sit. A secure Kurdistan (Mosul Province) also would serve as a model for what success looks like.

Third, reducing our exposure and concentrating our troops in Kurdistan, will be less costly than our failed strategy of waiting for the “Iraqi Army” to bring peace and stability to a Nation in name only.

Fourth, the hell with what Turkey thinks - they have had every opportunity for partnership and constructive intervention in the region and have never failed to miss an opportunity. It’s long over due for Turkey to support its NATO partner(s). No matter what they wish to think - Kurds are not Turks and Mosul does not belong to Turkey.

And, in the last analysis, there is no compelling historic justification for modern day Iraq. The 1919 Paris Peace Conference and subsequently the San Remo Conference in April of 1920 laid the groundwork for an Iraqi nation. Before 1919 there was no Iraq. There was no Iraqi nationalism and no Iraqi identity. There was what the British called Mesopotamia - referring to the Ottoman Empire’s provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. It was not until 1922 that the League of Nations confirmed statehood on Iraq that it became a Nation and legal entity. In 1932 Iraq joined the League of Nations. Hence, the partition of Iraq between the Kurds (Mosul), Sunni (Baghdad), and Shia (Basra), is not only a pragmatic solution to help end the Iraqi conflict, it is a historical imperative to correct past indiscretions and the myth of a greater Arabia. To believe that Kurds, Sunni, and Shia can live peacefully together contradicts every realty.

Just as Bosnia became a failed state when Muslims, Serbs, and Croatians, where provided the excuse and means to choose the conditions under which they wished to live - similarly the Kurds, Sunni, and Shia, are doing so in Iraq today.

Hence, a solution to the Iraqi conflict is to let the “Iraqi people” construct a new compact to determine their own destiny based on historic and current realities.

Russia’s Response to Super Committee’s Failure

Mr. Obama and his Democratic cohorts sabotaged and killed another attempt to bring some fiscal sanity to our national debt crisis. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction's failure to reach an agreement trigged an automatic $1.2 trillion spending cuts, in which one-half will come from the nation’s defense budget. Just politics. Think again.

It took just one day for a response. On Wednesday, November 23rd, Dmitry Medvedev*, in a nationally televised appearance by the Russian president, let the world know what Russia now thinks of the United States' military capacity. In response to what Russia perceives is an active incursion and a potential act of eventual aggression on behalf of NATO countries in Eastern Europe (and hence the US), he said the following:

"First, I am instructing the Defense Ministry to immediately put the missile attack early warning radar station in Kaliningrad on combat alert. Second, protective cover of Russia's strategic nuclear weapons, will be reinforced as a priority measure under the program to develop out air and space defenses. Third, the new strategic ballistic missiles commissioned by the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy will be equipped with advanced missile defense penetration systems and new highly effective warheads. Fourth, I have instructed the Armed Forces to draw up measures for disabling missile defense system data and guidance systems if need be... Fifth, if the above measures prove insufficient, the Russian Federation will deploy modern offensive weapon systems in the west and south of the country, ensuring our ability to take out any part of the US missile defense system, in Europe. One step in this process will be to deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad Region."

Never mind that the Bear's plaint is groundless. Never mind that Russia knows it has nothing to fear from old Europe. Since 1945 Western Europe (except for Great Britain) has not commit monies to its national defense -- the European sovereign debt crisis will make this matter even worse. And, never mind that Russia speaks loudly, but carries a small stick. For example, in 1914 war against Serbia meant war against Russia as well. Yet, after Afghanistan and the break up of the Soviet Union, Russia was humiliated, and could do nothing to support its fellow Slavs in Serbia during the 1999 Kosovo War and particularly its aftermath.

Still, what is important here is Russia is immediately jumping on what they perceive to be America’s weakness and failure to commit resources to its National Defense. Concomitantly, they view Mr. Obama as a weakling. Russia understands that with Mr. Obama, politics trumps everything – including National Defense and the security of the American people.

* When Mr. Medvedev speaks, it is Mr. Putin speaking. This is the way it has always been. If anyone still believes that Mr. Medvedev’s views are his own, they are foolish. After all, Mr. Medvedev, it should not go unnoticed, bears a striking physical resemblance to a hand puppet.

His Is the Path of Destruction!

Why did Barack Obama appoint Tim Geithner Treasury Secretary? That is an important question that deserves an answer.

Here’s what Jim Cramer had to say before Mr. Geithner’s appointment in 2008 (thanks to ZeroHedge). "If Tim Geithner, the much praised and ballyhooed NY Fed Chairman gets to be Obama's Treasury secretary, and he looks like a shoo in for the job, let me just tell you something, we are done, we are kaput, we are finished, we are completely and royally hosed as a nation... Geithner should be facing a senate investigation, not a senate confirmation...I am predicting he will be a total disaster as he has been as a New York Fed Chairman. Please I am begging you: don't hire Tim Geithner, he is an academic and all he has going for him is that he is a Democrat."

Yet, Mr. Geithner was appointed by Mr. Obama and confirmed by the super majority Democratic Senate. After his sycophantic bailouts of Goldman and Morgan, et al, Mr. Obama handed him the keys to the American taxpayer’s wealth, which he along with Mr. Bernanke has destroyed.

Again, the question is why? Given Mr. Geithner’s record at the New York Fed, his total lack of experience in the private sector, and his incompetence as Treasury Secretary, why would Mr. Obama look to him to solve our financial crisis?

There is only one rational and reasonable answer. Mr. Obama does not want to solve our financial crisis. His is the path of destruction!