Добірка наукової літератури з теми "World Jewish Congress. French Section"

Call for Papers: World Library and Information Congress: 73rd IFLA General Conference and Council, Durban, South Africa, 19-23 August 2007 Libraries for the future: Progress, Development and Partnerships The IFLA Social Science Libraries Section Standing Committee invites Library and Information Science professionals to submit paper proposals on the theme: “Evidence Based Practice in Social Science Libraries: Using research and empirical data to improve service” Proposals should focus on one or more of the following areas within Social Science Library settings: Case Studies that demonstrate the use of Evidence Based Practice to improve or create new library services Case Studies that focus on the use of Evidence Based Practice to guide professional development of librarians Essays that provide theoretical or practical approaches to Evidence Based Practice for social science libraries (this may include the application of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methodologies such as Fieldwork and Observation, Interviewing, Qualitative Inquiry, Meta-analysis, Evaluation Studies etc…) Important Dates Please e-mail abstracts (maximum 500 words) by 1 February 2007 to: Steve Witt, Standing Committee Chair, swwitt@uiuc.edu Accompanied by the following information: Abstract Names of presenter(s) Position or title of presenter (s) Employer or affiliated institution Mailing address Telephone/fax numbers E-mail address Short biographical statement and resume Notifications of abstracts acceptance will be issued by 1 March 2006. The deadline for submission of full papers is 1 May 2006. Important Notes Regrettably, no financial support can be provided, but a special invitation can be sent to authors of accepted papers. Abstracts and papers must be submitted in one of the official IFLA languages (Chinese, English, French, German, Russian, and Spanish).

In January 2002, Zacarias Moussaoui, a French national of Moroccan descent, pleaded not guilty in Virginia federal court to six counts of conspiring to commit acts of international terrorism in connection with the September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. In other times, it would have seemed unremarkable for someone charged with conspiring to murder American citizens and destroy American property on American soil to be tried in a U.S. civilian court. More than two centuries ago, Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the United States Constitution granted Congress the power to "define and punish Piracies, Felonies committed on the High Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations," a power that Congress immediately exercised by criminalizing piracy, the eighteenth-century version of modern terrorism. Since then, Congress has criminalized numerous other international offenses. In recent decades, United States courts have decided criminal cases convicting international hijackers, terrorists, and drug smugglers, as well as a string of well-publicized civil lawsuits adjudicating gross human rights violations. Most pertinent, federal prosecutors have successfully tried and convicted in U.S. courts numerous members of Al Qaeda, the very terrorist group charged with planning the September 11 attacks, for earlier attacks on the World Trade Center and the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.

AbstractThe return of captured French archives—not art—ignited debate in the Russian Duma in the spring of 1994, leading to the passage of the 1998 Federal Law “On Cultural Valuables Displaced to the USSR as a Result of the Second World War and Located on the Territory of the Russian Federation.” Yet, a decade since the law was signed, there have been five cases of captured archives from the Second World War returned to Western European countries, as explained in the recent book, Returned from Russia. The aim of this article is to examine major factors involved in the restitution of archives from Russia, and why amid the politics of restitution the return of archives has been more successful than art.The article first successively examines the major factors involved, namely, foreign political pressure; the underlying support of international law, both in specific instruments and historical archival practice; the circumstances and Soviet aims of archival plunder; the present contrast with Soviet political ideology and alignments; the fact that Russian archivists were more willing to return their loot than museum directors; and that archival returns were easier to conform to the 1998 law, because the receiving countries were willing to offer the “compensation” Russian archivists were demanding. Country by country, first in Western Europe starting with France and now Austria and Greece, archives have been going home, but so far only a few symbolic files from Germany have been returned. A final section of the article briefly singles out the captured records from several other countries remaining in Moscow, including many Jewish records, even some representing Holocaust losses.

Abstract Đorđe Đorđević, a Serb from Croatia, was born in Grubišno polje (Croatia) on April 22, 1885. He studied medicine in Vienna and graduated in 1909. Till 1912, he advanced his knowledge working at dermatology clinics with Prof. Finger and Prof. Arning, as well as with Prof. Weichselbaum, professor of pathological anatomy and bacteriology. From 1912 he worked in Zagreb, at the Dermatology Department of the Brothers of Mercy Hospital, and during World War I as a military doctor at the Dermatology Department and the Zagreb Outpatient Department (Second kolodvor). After the war, in 1918, he moved to Belgrade, where he was the Head of the Polyclinic for Skin and Venereal Diseases, and in 1922 he became an Assistant Professor of Dermatology at the School of Medicine in Belgrade. In the same year, he founded the Department of Dermatovenereology at the School of Medicine in Belgrade and the Clinic for Skin and Venereal Diseases, of which he was also the Head. In 1923, he became an Associate Professor, and in 1934 a Full Professor. He is given credit for passing legislation on prostitution and banning brothels. The professional work of Prof. Đorđe Đorđević encompasses all areas of dermatology, including his special interest in experimental studies in the field of venereology. He organized medical-research trips to study people’s health status, and his teams visited the South Serbia (today Macedonia), Sandžak and Montenegro. In 1927, he founded the Dermatovenereology Section of the Serbian Medical Society (19) and the Association of Dermatovenereologists of Yugoslavia. He was the chairman of the I, II and III Yugoslav Congress of Dermatology in Belgrade, and of the II Congress of the Pan-Slavic Association of Dermatovenereologists with international participation. He was an honorary member of the Bulgarian, Czechoslovakian, Polish and Danish Dermatological Societies, as well as a regular member of the Association of French Speaking Dermatologists, and of French, German and Biology Society. He was the Vice dean of the School of Medicine. He died suddenly on April 27, 1935, shortly after his 50th birthday, and was mourned by colleagues, friends and students. On the first anniversary of his death, his family, friends and colleagues established a ”Foundation of Dr. Đorđe-Đurica Đorđević” meant for ”doctors and health workers”. Unfortunately, the foundation was disestablished in the early eighties of the 20th century.

The paper deals with the orientation of the Yugoslav freemasonry during the existence of the Grand Lodge of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes ?Jugoslavia? (GLJ), later the Grand Lodge of Yugoslavia (GLY). The state of freemasonry in Serbia on the eve of the Great War is briefly described and followed by an analysis of how the experience of the First World War influenced Serbian freemasons to establish strong ties with French freemasonry. During the 1920s the Grand Lodge ?Jugoslavia? maintained very close relations with the Grand Orient of France and the Grand Lodge of France, and this was particularly obvious when GLJ got the opportunity to organise the Masonic congress for peace in Belgrade in 1926 through its links with French Freemasonry. Grand Master Georges Weifert (1919-34) also symbolised close links of French and Serbian freemasonry. However, his deputy and later Grand Master Douchan Militchevitch (1934-39) initiated in 1936 the policy of reorientation of Yugoslav freemasonry to the United Grand Lodge of England. Although there had already been such initiatives, they could not be materialised due to the fact that it was not until 1930 that the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) recognised several continental grand lodges, including GLJ. In a special section efforts of GLJ to be recognised by UGLE are analysed. Efforts for reorientation of GLY were conducted through several persons, including Douchan Militchevitch (1869-1939), Stanoje Mihajlovic (1882-1946), Vladimir Corovic (1885-1941) and Dragan Militchevitch (1895-1942). Special attention is given to the plans of GLY?s grand master to make the Duke of York (subsequently King George VI), who was a very dedicated freemason, an honorary past master of GLY. This plan failed, and the main idea behind it was to make GLY more resistant to internal clerical attacks and also to the external pressure of Italy. Mihajlovic?s three official Masonic visits to Britain (1933-39) are analysed as well as a private visit of Corovic and Dragan Militchevitch in March 1940. In the context of the visits made in 1939-40 plans to establish an Anglo-Yugoslav lodge are also analysed. Finally, the context of the de facto ban on Yugoslav freemasonry in August 1940 is given and the subsequent fates of its pro-British actors are also described.

Dear readers, I am pleased to introduce the 2021 Issue of IJCAR, the International Journal of Child and Adolescent Resilience, addressing various aspects of youth resilience. We also have a thematic section focused on resilience in Indigenous and multicultural populations. This issue includes five regular articles on different aspects of resilience. First, Lafrenaye-Dugas et al. document the sources of distress of adolescent boy victims of physical violence within their romantic relationships. Then, Martinez and her colleagues examine the effect of disclosure on resilience in adult female victims of childhood sexual abuse. In the following paper, Dr. Medico proposes a theoretical model of trans affirmative approaches for trans and non-binary youth based on Axel Honneth's ethics of recognition model (2000; 2006). Richard et al. investigate the role of perceptions of harm and perceived peer and parental attitudes towards substance use in the association between adverse childhood experiences and substance use in adolescents. Finally, Villate and her colleagues document the subjective experiences of emerging adults who have a parent with a mental disorder and suggest ways to support their resilience in the transition to adulthood. In addition to these regular articles, we also have a commentary on the 5th World Congress on Resilience by Dr. Ionescu and a thematic section focused on resilience in Indigenous and multicultural populations. This section presents five articles on the effects of the Lantern|Awacic sexual violence prevention program training for workers in Indigenous care settings (Attard et al.), the relations between virtues, well-being, and resilience in Indigenous youth in the Peruvian Amazon (Bullock et al.), Child Maltreatment-Related Investigations of Children from Newcomer Households in Canada (Houston et al.), a review of the use of mobile applications to support Indigenous youth well-being (Noronha et al.), and finally, the validation of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM-28; Ungar & Liebenberg, 2011) in Nicaraguan youth. I wish to take this opportunity to warmly thank each member of the IJCAR team, namely Dr. Isabelle Daigneault, Dr. Rachel Langevin and Dr. Tara Black, associate editors; Catherine Moreau, managing editor; Manon Robichaud, layout editor; Andréanne Fortin, senior copyeditor; and Ruo Feng, Sereena Pigeon, and Carley Marshall, junior copyeditor. We hope you enjoy your reading! Don’t forget to prepare your manuscripts for the 2022 issue. In addition to regular papers, we will feature a thematic section on research presented at the Child and Youth Trauma Symposium. Submit your manuscripts in English or in French by November 15th, 2021. Please feel free to send the information to colleagues and students who may be interested. Martine Hébert, Editor-in-Chief

Recently published by the Madrid publishing house Sequitur, La Escuela Universalista Española del siglo XVIII is an introductory work to a study of the so-called Universalist School. Its author, Pedro Aullón de Haro from the University of Alicante, Spain, and Head of the Research Group “Humanism-Europe” since 1994, has coordinated various volumes whose main objective is the historical reconstruction of the Late Spanish Enlightenment Period, which was truncated by Charles III of Spain’s expulsion of the Jesuits, affecting a great many of its members. This Enlightenment Period, in contrast to the victorious French Enlightenment, offered not a political, but a scientific and humanistic view of knowledge, taking a comparative and universalist approach, but, due to the aforementioned expulsion of the Jesuits, the authors dispersed, leaving their work unfinished; and it is only now, under the label of the Universalist School, coined by Prof. Aullón de Haro, that they have been gathered together furthering the possibility of recovering their meaning and systematic cohesion. This volume serves as an introduction to the publications that the author has announced for 2018, in which the detailed study of the main authors within this scientific community will be undertaken following an encyclopaedic structure, which will finally give recognition to the Universalist School movement, and whose stand out authors include: Juan Andrés, creator of the Universal History of the Humanities and Sciences; Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro, creator of Universal and Comparative Linguistics; and Antonio Eximeno, creator of a universal aesthetic concept of music as language and expression.The common thread of the School is precisely the "universalist ideation" that assumes the unity of knowledge in a harmonious integration of experimental sciences, fine arts and human sciences within a humanistic epistemological framework, and consequently, comparativism as a methodology of study, based on the unity of its object: the destiny of man, with his knowledge integrated into a unitary vision of the universe and the world. All this is ultimately based on the work of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, historically rooted in the process of Greco-Roman cultural parallels, and with the main figures of Macrobius, Scaliger and Morhof.Furthermore, 2017 is the second centenary of the death of Juan Andrés, commemorated by an international Congress held at the Complutense University of Madrid and featuring an important bibliographical exhibition in the History Library of this Madrid University, titled "Juan Andres y la Escuela Universalista Española" (2017).The great scientific and thematic scope of the School means that it is possible to discern several sectors or "sub-schools", although the authors often practice several disciplines: the linguistic sub-school (Hervás and his extensive circle of collaborators), bibliographical (Miguel de Casiri, Diosdado Caballero…), botanical-naturalist (Antonio José Cavanilles, Pedro Franco Dávila, Juan José Ruperto de Cuéllar, José Celestino Mutis, Eduardo Romeo…), musicological (Antonio Eximeno, Josef Pintado, Vicente Requeno, Buenaventura Prats, Joaquín Millás…), Americanist-Mexicanist (Francisco Javier Clavijero, Juan Bautista Muñoz, Miguel del Barco González, José Lino Fábregas, Juan Nuix y Perpiñá…), on the Philippines (Juan de la Concepción, Antonio de Tornos, Bernardo Bruno de la Fuente…), meteorology (Andrés, Viñes, Faura…), studies on translation (Carlos Andrés, Juan Bautista Colomés, Pedro Cantón…) etc.The work is divided into three sections: "Teoría general", "Textos de y sobre autores de la Escuela", and "Bibliografía fundamental y selecta".The first section begins with an introductory chapter in which the conceptual principles of the School are explained in relation to the particularity of the Hispanic cultural history, where both its antecedents and theoretical limits are determined. Next comes a description of the sequence of milestones, historical circumstances and accidents that resulted in the formation of the School, as well as an in-depth explanation of the concept of "universalist ideation". Finally, "La ideación del primer programa epistemológico", is a necessary exposition of the important and almost inaccessible Prospectus Philosophiae Universae, a work that was written and directed by Juan Andrés. It is a general and pluridisciplinary programmatic text published in 1773 in Ferrara, and access to it for consultation is hard to come by. That is, it is a kind of program that intends to carry out a radical overcoming of the culture and thought of the Baroque era, through the integration of empiricist science and philosophy with classical humanism and its evolution through a historically founded and revisable concept of progress. The fourth chapter, entitled "La Ilustración universalista: creación de la Comparatística moderna y Literatura Universal", lists the conceptual keys to understanding the particularity of this late Spanish age of Enlightenment of Hispanic-Italian roots, Christian, integrative, international, intercontinental, founded on a unitary vision of the universe and the world. The fifth chapter, "La clasificación de las ciencias, la universalidad tematológica y la estética de la expresión", analyses the variables of the Enlightenment Period, the various types of European illustrations and their internal conceptual sectors, in an attempt to bring to light the lack of historical and intellectual homogeneity of a process of great relevance, and analyses the universalistic classification of scientific disciplines by comparison with the classification of the French illustration, showing the flagrant reduction of the French classification, and also includes a revealing study on the concept of "expression" elaborated by Antonio Eximeno, which was later also recovered by Benedetto Croce, although without him acknowledging the precedence of Eximeno’s work.The second part, "Textos de y sobre autores de la Escuela", presents a series of documents as a critical support of the School and its authors. This is especially true of the textual references from the three main authors with respect to the other members of the School, which provides an account of the indisputable existence of a productive and active scientific community.The last part records essential bibliographical sources and information intended to enable a continuation of the study by the authors of this School, a bibliographic selection of the most important works of all the members of the School, and another selection of general and monographic studies on relevant theoretical, historical and cultural issues.In short, this work succeeds in refuting one of the most important historical and intellectual fallacies of our time: the absence of a Spanish Enlightenment Period, and consequently, proves the existence of an original and consistent modern Hispanic thought. In this way, it opens up a field of study that demands new research that will bring to light better-informed reinterpretations of both Spanish and Hispanic America pasts in general, which will lead to a search for unity, not in political and economic terms, as seems to be the objective of economic globalization, but on the basis of the concept of universality. For this purpose, the Research Group Humanismo-Europa has affiliated itself with the Instituto Juan Andrés de Comparatística y Globalización, as well created links to its online network Biblioteca HumanismoEuropa, where all the information about the authors of the School and their texts has been gathered and made available to the general public.

STANLEY JAKI: Science and Faith in a Realist Perspective by Alessandro Giostra. Rome, Italy: IF Press, 2019. 144 pages. Paperback; $24.24. ISBN: 9788867881857. *The subject of this short introduction--Father Stanley L. Jaki (1924–2009), a giant in the world of science and religion--is more important than this book's contents, a collection of conference papers and articles published between 2015 and 2019. *Readers of this journal should recognize Jaki, a Benedictine priest with doctorates in theology and physics, 1975–1976 Gifford lecturer, 1987 Templeton Prize winner, and professor at Seton Hall University, for his prolific, valuable work in the history of the relations between theology and science. He sharply contrasted Christian and non-Christian/scientific cosmologies and unfortunately, often slipped into polemics and apologetics. The title of Stacy Trasanco's 2014 examination of his work, Science Was Born of Christianity, captures Jaki's key thesis. Science in non-Christian cultures was, in Jaki's (in)famous and frequent characterizations, "stillborn" and a "failure" (e.g., see Giostra, pp. 99, 113). Incidentally, Giostra seems unaware that various Protestant scholars shared Jaki's key thesis and arguments. *The Introduction begins with a quotation from Jaki that so-called conflicts between science and religion "must be seen against objective reality, which alone has the power to unmask illusions." Jaki continued, "There may be clashes between science and religion, or rather between some religionists and some scientists, but no irresolvable fundamental conflict" (p. 15). *This raises two other crucial aspects of Jaki's approach: his realist epistemology and his claim that, properly understood, science and Christian theology cannot be in conflict. Why? Because what Jaki opposed was not science itself--which he saw as specific knowledge of the physical world that was quantifiable and mathematically expressible--but ideologies that were attached to science in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, that is, materialism, naturalism, reductionism, positivism, pantheism, and atheism. *For Jaki, the real problem for Christian approaches to the natural world was the scientism which dismissed theology, especially Catholicism, as superstition, dogmatism, and delusion. Jaki followed the groundbreaking work of Pierre Duhem in arguing that the impetus theory of the fourteenth-century philosopher John Buridan was the first sign of the principle of inertia, the first law of Newtonian physics. One of the foundational shifts in the birth of a new "revolutionary" science in the Christian West was a post-Aristotelian understanding of bodies in motion (both uniform and uniformly accelerating: see chapter three for more details). *The first chapter is a bio- and bibliographical essay by an admiring Antonio Colombo that traces and situates Jaki the historian as a man of both science and faith. Chapter two lays out Jaki's critical realism and theses about the history of science and theology, in contrast to scientisms past and present that claim scientific reason as the sole trustworthy route to legitimate knowledge. The roles played by the doctrine of creation ex nihilo and the Christology of the pre-existent Logos in Jaki's cosmological thinking are also outlined. *Many readers will be most interested in the third chapter which surveys Jaki's writing about the notorious case of Galileo, condemned by the church in 1633 for defending Copernicus. Jaki detected scientific and theological errors in the positions of both Galileo and the church. For instance, Galileo did not provide proof of the motion of the earth around the sun. Nor did the church understand errors in Aristotelian science. Galileo was right, however, in arguing that the Bible's purpose was not to convey scientific knowledge; while the church's rejection of heliocentric cosmology was correct, given the dearth of convincing evidence for it. *Chapter four is of wider interest than its title, "The Errors of Hegelian Idealism," might suggest. Jaki's belief that only Christian theology could give birth to the exact sciences is reviewed, along with his rejection of conflict and concord models of faith and science. His critiques of Hegelian and Marxist views of the world are thoughtfully discussed. *Jaki was unrelentingly hostile to all types of pantheism, and Plato was the most influential purveyor of that erroneous philosophy. Chapter five outlines Jaki's objections to Platonism, as well as to Plotinus's view of the universe as an emanation from an utterly transcendent One, and to Giordano Bruno's neo-Platonic animism and Hermeticism. *Jaki's interpretation of medieval Islamic cosmologists is the subject of the fifth chapter, in which the Qur'an, Averroes, and Avicenna are examined and found wanting. Monotheism by itself could not lead to science. Incorrect theology blinded those without an understanding of the world as God's creation or of Christ as Word and Savior from seeing scientific truth. This chapter is curious in several respects. On page 98, Giostra equates Christ as the only begotten Son with Jesus as the only "emanation from the Father." Emanationism is a Gnostic, Manichaean, and neo-Platonic concept; it is not, to my knowledge, part of orthodox Catholic Trinitarian discourse. On pages 101–2, the presence of astrology in the Qur'an disqualifies it as an ancestor of modern science. But astrology then was not yet divorced from astronomy. Astrological/astronomical imagery and terminology were integral to ancient cosmologies and apocalypses, including Jewish, Christian, and Muslim ones. Lastly, pages 104–5 feature quotations in untranslated Latin. *Chapter seven is a review of the 2016 edition of Jaki's Science and Creation; this is one more example of content repeated elsewhere in the book. "Benedict XVI and the limits of scientific learning" is the eighth and final chapter. The former pope is presented as a Jaki-like thinker in his views of science and faith. Strangely, Benedict does not cite Jaki; this absense weakens Giostra's case somewhat. *Jaki--whose faith was shaped by the eminent French theologian and historian of medieval thought, Etienne Gilson--was a diehard Roman Catholic, wary of Protestant thought, defender of priestly celibacy and of the ineligibility of women for ordination. On the other hand, his study of both Duhem and Gilson probably sensitized Jaki to ideological claims made by scientists. *As a historian of science, Jaki was meticulous and comprehensive in his research with primary documents. His interpretations of historical texts were as confident and swaggering as his critiques of scientists and scientism were withering. Among Jaki's more interesting and helpful contributions to scholarship are his translations and annotations of such important primary texts as Johann Heinrich Lambert's Cosmological Letters (1976), Immanuel Kant's Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens (1981), and Bruno's The Ash Wednesday Supper (1984). *Personally, I have found much of value in Jaki's The Relevance of Physics (1966); Brain, Mind and Computers (1969); The Paradox of Olbers' Paradox (1969); The Milky Way (1972); Planets and Planetarians (1978); The Road of Science and the Ways to God (1978); Cosmos and Creator (1980); Genesis 1 through the Ages (1998); The Savior of Science (2000); Giordano Bruno: A Martyr of Science? (2000); Galileo Lessons (2001); Questions on Science and Religion (2004); The Mirage of Conflict between Science and Religion (2009); and the second enlarged edition of his 1974 book, Science and Creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe (2016). *Jaki also published studies of figures whose life and work most impressed him personally. These include three books (1984, 1988, 1991) on the Catholic physicist and historian of cosmology, Pierre Duhem, author of the ten-volume Système du Monde, and studies of English converts to Catholicism, John Henry, Cardinal Newman (2001, 2004, 2007) and G. K. Chesterton (1986, new ed., 2001). *Among Jaki's books not mentioned by Giostra but of interest to readers of this journal are The Origin of Science and the Science of its Origin (1979), Angels, Apes, and Men (1988), and Miracles and Physics (2004). For a complete Jaki bibliography, see http://www.sljaki.com/. *No translator is identified in the book under review; my guess is that Giostra, an Italian, was writing in English. Although generally clear and correct, the book contains enough small errors and infelicities to suggest that the services of a professional translator were not used. Not counting blank, title, and contents pages, this book has but 128 pages, including lots of block quotations. *For those unfamiliar with Jaki's work and not too interested in detailed studies in the history and philosophy of science and religion, this introduction is a decent start--and perhaps an end point as well. I strongly encourage curious readers to consult Jaki's own books, including his intellectual autobiography A Mind's Matter (2002). For other scholarly English-language perspectives on his work, see Paul Haffner, Creation and Scientific Creativity: A Study in the Thought of S. L. Jaki (2nd ed., 2009); Science and Orthodoxy [special issue of the Saint Austin Review on Jaki], vol. 14, no. 3 (2014); and Paul Carr and Paul Arveson, eds., Stanley Jaki Foundation International Congress 2015 (2020). *Reviewed by Paul Fayter, a retired pastor and historian of Victorian science and theology, who lives in Hamilton, Ontario.

This article demonstrates how anti-gender discourse – originating in the Vatican and spreading through ultra-conservative networks such as the World Congress of Families – draws on traditions of conspiratorial anti-Semitism. The repressed link takes two forms: displacement (Judaization of sexual minorities) and attribution of blame (Jews having invented ‘gender’ to destroy Christianity). The first section outlines the structural and historical kinship between the two discourses. Anti-gender discourse continues the 19th-century strand of European anti-Semitism that operates as a cultural code for anti-modernism, reproducing its conspiratorial and polarizing structure and repeating the stereotypes of gendered anti-Semitism. Part two examines an example of disguised anti-Semitic subtext: Gabriele Kuby's Global Sexual Revolution (2015), a central text of anti-genderism, is shown to draw on the writings of E. Michael Jones, a ‘Radical Catholic Traditionalist’. Jones claims that Jews have been plotting for centuries to destroy Western Civilization and enjoys a certain popularity with the Polish right. The final section reflects on the elusiveness of the anti-Semitic subtext and its dependence on cultural context. The displacement of Jews by ‘gender’ facilitates the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism and helps legitimize radical-right groups as political players.

Preface In the last twelve years of following copyright developments, I have witnessed an accelerating growth in the agitation over its application and increasing cries for reform. This was triggered by a mounting corporate hysteria for strengthening copyright which seems to mask other anxieties and other issues of bad faith beside the one at hand. This is in contrast with the more reasonable stance of the U.S. government in the 1980s when Congress refused to regulate video rentals and the Courts refused to cite the video recorder for ‘contributory infringement.’ In the 1990s, the Republican-controlled Congress passed several pieces of legislation extending copyright and punishing reverse engineering. Congressional giveaways and corporate shrillness has inspired a progressive movement to defend the intellectual ‘commons.’ The reality is that intellectual property is not owned by intellectuals, and so people are realising that further extensions of copyright no longer benefits the sciences and useful arts. Developments in copyright are driven by the challenges of new technologies of communication. This is a problem for the law, which does not like surprises and certainly proceeds by analogising new situations to old ones in order to build continuity. Case law (which is law that is developed by judges’ decisions and interpretations) proceeds by precedent. Yet old technologies are not the accurate precedents for new technology and this is particularly the situation today. The new technologies have a particular impact on the situation since they change not just one variable in the earlier balance of copyright, but all the variables. While the courts and the corporations have concentrated on the one variable of easy reproduction of content, we should also pay attention to how the new technologies have changed the very balance between the so-called ‘real world’ and cultural expression. The material world is now composed to a significant extent by cultural expression. We walk through physical landscapes dominated by billboards and other totems of the marketplace, while our mentalscapes are filled with trademarks and other commodity bits. This was not the case as copyright law developed; it is the case now, and the various underpinnings of copyright law have become embarrassingly ineffective in this new world. Edelman Bernard Edelman pushes back to find the moment of embarrassment. He finds it in photography. As Paul Hirst points out, ‘[Edelman’s title] Le Droit saisi par la photographie puns on the law being seized or caught by photography, surprised or caught out by it. Photography, a technical innovation developing independently of law, contradicts the existing formulations of property right in representations of things’ (Hirst 1-2). Prior to photography, representation inherently had stamps of personality that allowed such representation (painting, drawing, engraving et alia) to be easily and significantly distinguished from that part of the material world it was representing, as well as from other artistic representations (even of the same referent). The earliest French legal pronouncements on photography were reluctant to grant it copyright protection, precisely because it was thought to have no personality and to be a mechanical copy of nature. When the court did extend copyright protection to photography and admitted its personality, it was faced with how to distinguish it from the natural. The camera could no longer be interpreting as transparently reproducing the real. Edelman calls this the subjectivisation of the machine. The camera can no longer be both a transparent reproducer of the real; it has been found always to invest the real with the personality of its subject (the photographer). This has resulted in a number of ad hoc decisions to prevent ‘over-appropriation’ of the real. Anglo-American versus French Law Anglo-American writing about copyright has never wasted much time on subjectivisation of the machine. The basis of British copyright was pragmatic and economic to begin with, having originated with the Tudors’ desire to encourage printing by granting monopoly rights to printers, and to control and censor printing. The relocation of copyright ownership from printer to author in the 18th century was also an economically driven consideration reflecting the new spirit of competitive capitalism. Certainly the language of the U.S. Constitution that authorised the federal prerogative in setting copyright law was very pragmatic in its emphasis on promoting the progress of science and the ‘useful’ arts (Article 1 Section 8). The French tradition, which is somewhat paralleled by the German and those of other continental nations, was born out of a more courtly regard for the rights of genius. Although France recognised that works ‘made for hire’ were owned by the employer, it vested certain inalienable moral privileges in the real person of the artist. This legal doctrine is known as droit d’auteur. (see Ginsburg) Idea/Expression Yet the American tradition is not totally pragmatic. The balance between copyright and the First Amendment commitment to an absolute freedom of speech calls for a certain degree of abstraction. It was Thomas Jefferson who cautioned about the chilling effect copyright law might have with the spread of ideas. Fortunately in written language it was rather easy to work out that the way to protect ideas from property claims was to distinguish between the expression, which can be copyrighted, and the idea, which cannot. Siva Vaidhyanathan (109-15) goes over Judge Learned Hand’s development of the test to distinguish the idea from the expression in the 1920s and 1930s as particularly instructive for striking the balance. In Nichols v. Universal (1929), Hand develops the theme of ‘patterns of increasing generality’ as more incident is left out. At some point the abstraction is too great to be protected, since it now is more in the realm of idea then of particular expression. (45 F.2d 120) But Edelman’s work poses the question whether this works, as we move from machines of writing to machines of visual reproduction. Doesn’t Apply to Mechanical Mimetic Reproduction Photographs can be taken of the imaginary world and indeed the subjectivisation model holds that every photograph is determined by the imagination of the author. But it is commonsensical that photographs begin as traces of the material world. This is not analogous to the written word. The structural nature of language removes the written word from a direct relationship with its physical referent. Indeed, the entire linguistic turn in post-war philosophy is premised on the lack of any transparent or even determined relationship between language and things. Even in pre-war jurisprudence it was this lack of coincidence that allowed the easy split of the idea from its expression. As the expression floats above the idea, the word floats above the physical. Vincent Porter argues that in contrast to language, visual and audio recordings do not have this split, they do not float above the physical. He noted sound/image recordings have presented a problem in that they are speech acts without a language system, or in a distinction borrowed from Saussure ‘a series of paroles without a langue.’ (Porter 12) After all does a photograph fit into a grammar of images? Are there photographs that are ‘patterns of increasing generality?’ Where is the photograph that is the same idea as another photograph without being the same photograph? Is there a photograph that can do the same work as the word ‘mother?’ No. Every photograph will be of a particular mother of a particular age and particular ethnic group and the same difficulty applies even if we photograph a group of mothers or edit a montage of mothers. This has the effect of making the idea the same as the expression. If you protect one you have protected the other. At this point I was not certain how decisive an intervention these concepts could make in the current copyright ferment. Certainly the most exciting argument was the one mounted at the Berkman Institute at Harvard by several lawyers and argued before the Supreme Court by Lawrence Lessig in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003). This presented the argument that the government had strayed from the original Constitutional mandate to allow exclusive rights only for a limited time. But as I read Lessig’s Free Culture and as I re-read Edelman, it strikes me that the idea/expression test does not adequately help the First Amendment rights of technologies of mimetic reproduction (film, audio recordings). It is that these technologies allow reproductions to easily re-enter the material world. When these reproductions do re-enter they will naturally become part of the domain of creative expression. Our artists must be allowed to freely comment on the world in which we live and the world in which we live is now visually and aurally full of copyrighted material. This image came to mind forcefully when Lessig explained the difficulties of documentarians when they film their subjects watching TV and then have to edit out the TV image rather than deal with the risk of being sued for infringement (Aufderheide and Jaszi 95-8). This image also comes to mind when reading of farmers who are not allowed to harvest their seed because they come from patented plants. But I will defer to patent philosophers on that apparent travesty of natural rights. I wish to stay focused on the argument that is the corollary of Edelman’s subjectivisation of the camera. The camera records the physical world and in turn that recording enters that world. This is to say that the genius of copyright is in the literary domain because written language never re-enters the material world. When copyright was extended beyond the literary, policy makers should have noticed that earlier tests were no longer capable of maintaining balance between our divine right to express our lives and the practical right to own our own expressions (for a limited time). The new test is almost already present in the law: it is the protection of parody from copyright infringement violation. The courts recognise that parody positions the original expression as an artifact of the world in order to comment on it. If only the policy makers could extend that view to documentarians and others who film the world and include in their film the physical fact of other videos being displayed in the world. Just as in parody they ought to consider the intent of the video makers is to comment on the original, not to plagiarise it. References Aufderheide, P., and P. Jaszi. Untold Stories: Creative Consequences of the Rights Clearance Culture for Documentary Filmmakers. 2004. 25 April 2005 http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/rock/index.htm>. Edelman, B. Ownership of the Image: Elements for a Marxist Theory of Law. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979. Eldred v. Ashcroft, Attorney General. United States Supreme Court decision, 15 January 2003. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-618.pdf>. Ginsburg, J. C. “A Tale of Two Copyrights: Literary Property in Revolutionary France and America.” Tulane Law Review 64.5 (1990): 991-1032. Hirst, P. Q. “Introduction.” In Bernard Edelman, Ownership of the Image: Elements for a Marxist Theory of Law. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979. Lessig, L. Free Culture. 2004. 8 April 2005 http://free-culture.org/get-it>. Porter, V. “Copyright: The New Protectionism.” InterMedia 17.1 (1989): 10-7. Vaidhyanathan, S. Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity. New York: NYU Press, 2001. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Wasser, Frederick. "When Did They Copyright the World Without Us Noticing?." M/C Journal 8.3 (2005). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0507/05-wasser.php>. APA Style Wasser, F. (Jul. 2005) "When Did They Copyright the World Without Us Noticing?," M/C Journal, 8(3). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0507/05-wasser.php>.

This chapter focuses on the Cold War, which split both Europe and its Jews into two camps. The Cold War imposed new barriers, both literally and figuratively. For the Jews of western Europe in particular, Soviet and American threats of unleashing nuclear missiles raised the prospect of a posthumous victory for Adolf Hitler over his ideological and ‘racial’ enemies. Divisions also arose in the communities themselves, reviving political debates from the interwar period that threatened to undo the fragile unity that leaders had attempted to forge after 1945. Yet rising East–West tensions did not totally paralyse west European Jewish communal life. Despite the formidable obstacles, both non-communist left-wing elements in the European Section of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) and mainstream leaders in western Europe worked diligently to steer a middle path between the demands of local political militants and leaders of Jewish organizations in the United States.