From the “National” and the “Cotidianul” newspapers - A WARNING

    Violence is no stranger to the stands of the Romanian football matches. The stadiums are filled with scores of thousands of people, mostly young, for whom the galleries of the teams become real schools of violence and racism. The front page of the “National” newspaper of February 27, 2000 bears the title: “Things are getting serious. The extremism and racism of the football fans are one step away from extending to the rest of the population”. Here are a few excerpts from this page: “On Saturdays and Sundays, extremism is out on the streets. «We hate the color of your skin», says a banner that the «Steaua» fans carry at a match with the «Rapid». During a match with the «Steaua», the «Dinamo» gallery displays the question «Hungarians, Gypsies, Albanians… Got any Jews?». Swastikas and Celtic crosses are part of the imagery used by the galleries. Slogans with Antonescu are popular among the «Steaua» and the «Dinamo» fans at the matches with the «Rapid».”

    The article justly notes that “these young people who come from underprivileged environments and who are inclined to violence only lack a real leader in order to become what they only claim to be. The slogans are already in their brains. The display of anti-Semite, racist or xenophobe symbols on the stadiums is ignored by the authorities, even though such manifestations are illegal…

    The “Cotidianul” newspaper of March 1, 2000 has a page dedicated especially to the violence on the stadiums. And the authors of the articles on this page notice that the violence is based on a racist education of the galleries, on the use (on banners and on web-sites) of Nazi symbols, on the promotion of the fascist salute, on the affirmation of the white race”s superiority.

The new (old) left doesn’t know what the old (new) right is writing about?

    There is this magazine called “Regasirea” (“Rediscovering”); we have no idea who reads it, but we know who writes it. The astonishment of the prospective reader can only intensify from one page to another as he or she discovers the names who sign the materials. Thus, left-wing or extreme left-wing journalists and former officials, such as Alexandru Mironov, Serban Cionoff or Paul Niculescu-Mizil (whom we cannot suspect of anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi feelings) stand next to Corneliu Vadim Tudor, Ion Coja and Victor Duta, whose anti-Semite position is well-known. The magazine helps the former general and nomenclature member Ion Coman to exculpate himself and commemorates the former Legionary Pan M. Vizirescu. We wonder if Alexandru Mironov, former councilor of President Ion Iliescu, then minister of Youth and Sports, knows about the things that another contributor of the magazine, Victor Duta, is writing about.

    Mr. Victor Duta restates the classical theses of anti-Semitism promoted by the Tsarist Ohrana in order to justify the anti-Semitic policy of Nicolas II. Mr. V. Duta insists on convincing his readers of the existence of a Jewish-Masonic conspiracy that has been trying to gain control of the world for many centuries. This idea appealed to Goebbels so much that he himself consistently supported it throughout the Nazi regime. Karl Marx was a Mason and a Jew (though baptized).

    The League of Nations and the UN are and have been the Masons” headquarters. It is them who organized the separation of the Czech Republic from Slovakia and the dismantlement of Yugoslavia; and now, they want to dismantle Spain and Italy. Mr. V. Duta”s delirium goes on to claim that the Masons want to create an universal religion that will put an end to all the existing ones. NATO, the UN”s Security Council, the Club in Rome are all led by Masons. The article reminds us of the Nazi propaganda”s spirit, based on Goebbels” famous aphorism: “The greater the lie, the more it is credible”. And so that the lie may be greater, readers are recommended the famous forgery ordered by the Tsarist Ohrana: “The Protocols of the Zion”s Sages”.

    And since the editor takes refuge behind the disclaimer that “the responsibility for the opinions expressed in the articles published in this magazine belongs to each individual author”, we are to understand that no one is editorially responsible for anything. Which explains the article signed by Ion Coja, who claims (on his own responsibility, of course) that “the Legionaries didn”t kill a single Jew”.

    We assure you on our own responsibility, Mr. Ion Coja, that the Legionaries did kill Jews!

Six decades ago… Perpessicius firmly condemned the reactionary theory “Numerus clausus” in literature

    The text that we have decided to publish in “The Jewish Reality” is a conference that the great literary critic Perpessicius held on Radio Bucharest in 1934, after he had ceased to sign his weekly column in the “Cuvantul” (“The Word”) newspaper, of a slight right-wing orientation. It is to be mentioned that Perpecissius was the first literary reviewer of the national radio station and that the conference was broadcast (perhaps not by accident) only one year after the instauration of the Nazism in Germany. A stand worthy of the highest honor in a time when some “literates” favored the “Numerus clausus” in literature. (C. Darie)

    ”Almost ten years have passed since we wrote an article entitled “Numerus clausus in literature” in which we answered the apprehensions that had been stirred by the Jewish poets that Ion Pillat and myself had hosted in “The Anthology of Contemporary Poets”. Bearing in mind the illustrious case of Panait Istrati (who is now included in all the French literary anthologies), as well as the objections brought against the Jewish poets, who sometimes exhibited awkwardness in using the Romanian language, we wrote: “we cannot exclude a poet […] on grounds of nationality alone. The artist”s nationality interests us in a lesser degree. His nationality is ultimately the one of the people whose language he uses. But it is certain that what interests us in his work is the distinctive mark of art.

    This is why we have similarly considered both the Romanian and the Jewish poets. They all believed in art and suffered in the name of art, which flows beyond national borders (not to mention within them). The Romanian poetry claims them with equal warmth.” This is what we wrote ten years ago and this is what we still hold to be true today.

    Of course, there is a political Jewish problem which is so pressing, or, better yet, so permanent, that it has been recently echoed by two of this year”s best novels, in the same way that it made the object of one of Jacques de Lacretelle”s first novels more than ten years ago in France. Between de Lacretelle”s “Silberman” on the one hand and Mihail Sebastian”s “For Two Thousand Years” or Ury Benador”s “Ghetto Century XX” on the other hand there are both similarities prompted by the same theme, but also differences determined by the geographical or ethnical backgrounds of their authors […].

nbsp;   Placed at this historical and ethnical crossroads, our writers are naturally called to debate the Jewish problem, less from the great political point of view and more from the outlook of the psychological problem of the Jewish intellectual, raised in the midst of the large Romanian community to which he feels bound by so many organic likenesses, even when forced to cross times of adversity and spiritual pain […].

    The question thus reduced, it is probably worth mentioning a third novel, the earliest chronologically, namely I. Peltz”s “Vacaresti Avenue” […]. “Vacaresti Avenue” is, by all I. Peltz”s known literary means, the poem of the Bucharest ghetto”s misery. It portrays a place where material and spiritual suffering reach their peak, where all dwellings become brothers under the wing of death, which, like in the Latin poet”s ode, brings uniformity and justice to all. I. Peltz is the bard of a special suffering, which he promotes to the position of universal pain. The novel is populated by different mores and souls (simple, nostalgic or illuminated), and Peltz understands them all because his sensitivity vibrates especially to suffering, irrespective of its nature […].

    The novels of Mihail Sebastian and Ury Benador are also filled with sensitivity, but it is a sensitivity which surpassed its natural state and was enriched by the novel”s theme or by the author”s critical spirit. Both novels are confessions and deal with two different eras in the history of the Romanian Jewry. Ury Benador”s novel ends just before Romania”s entry in the war, while the other two volumes of the trilogy are to carry on with the life and thoughts of its hero, Baruch Landau. It is a work about germination (as he refers to this first volume), a work about the formation period of his hero, a precious and self-taught intellectual whose teenage tribulations in the pre-war Braila arouse our most vivid interest. The people, the scenes and the life in this “Ghetto Century XX” often remind of Peretz”s Hassidic stories or of the short stories so full of life from Zangwill. A thing for which Ury Benador is only to be commended.

    The hero in “For Two Thousand Years”, Mihail Sebastian”s biographical alter-ego, narrates the post-war events, the life as a student in Bucharest, in a time of ethnical effervescence […], the spiritual bonds with the professors at the University and with the members of his profession. These journal pages (where the already well-known talent of Mihail Sebastian gains a mature quality) include all the spiritual experiences of a Jewish intellectual (living in a world of fertile psychological collisions) that may serve to enrich both his life and the literary material of his journal […].

    The conclusion of “For Two Thousand Years” is of the most pathetic and psychologically valid, and we will quote a few lines from it: “Of course, I will never cease to be a Jew”, says the narrator. “This is not an office that one can resign from! One has it or not. It is not about pride and it is not about shame. It”s a fact. Trying to forget it would be useless. Should anyone try to deny it to me, it would be equally useless. But I will never cease to be a man of the Danube either. And this is also a fact. Whether it is granted to me or not, by whomever may chose to do so, is none of my concern. I shall keep on talking about the Baragan and the Danube as of something that belongs to me not legally and abstractly, through the Constitution, treatises and laws, but physically, through memories, joys, pains…” […]”

July 26, 1934