Piers Akerman, Ahmadinejad, the Holocaust, and a mountain of horse dung

(Above: an old League of Nations cartoon from Punch - the original and interesting Punch, that is. The title was"Moral Suasion" and the caption: The Rabbit: 'My offensive equipment being practically nil, it remains for me to fascinate him with the power of my eye.')

Searching for the truth at the Daily Telegraph is like looking for kernels of wheat in a mountain of horse dung.

From the unscientific blather about global warming from our own Piers Akerman and meaningless posturing by Tim Blair and his colleague in bubble-headedness Glenn Milne, the nuggets are rare, and when they fall, the do so largely unnoticed.

Well it's an opener of sorts, and of course it leads us to Piers Akerman, bashing away as usual in A playground for the vile and dangerous, in which he manages in his usual offensive way to link Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama with Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad. Here's how he does it:

Searching for truth at the United Nations is like looking for kernels of wheat in a mountain of horse dung.

From the unscientific blather about global warming from our own Kevin Rudd and meaningless posturing by Barack Obama to Libya’s President for Life and Eternity Muammar Gaddafi and his Iranian colleague-in-evil President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the nuggets are rare and, when they fall, they do so largely unheard.

Akerman, a regular United Nations denier, is irritated that both Gaddafi and Ahmadinejad were given an opportunity to deliver numbingly tedious addresses at the United Nations. He might have - if he was so intent on moving these leaders outside the fold - spent some time on the way Gaddafi has been allowed back inside the tent because of the need for Libyan oil, with Britain leading the charge. Or he might have wondered why the powerful movement for change within Iran is being tip toed around by foreign leaders intent on not upsetting the Iranian oil cart.

But then he might have to discuss the so-called nonsense of so-called peak oil and the pinch the west is already facing in relation to its preferred forms of transportation.

He might also have had to explain how the world would be best served by excluding all the half-baked tosspots and dictators from the United Nations, which is supposed to be a forum for discussion of world issues, a world body where even a mad uncle is allowed into the venue. In much the same way as Wilson 'Ironbar' Tuckey is allowed to stay in the Liberal party.

But the main point of Akerman's column is that the Holocaust did indeed occur, an issue which he seems to think has been made only an issue by the ravings of Ahmadinejad. When of course the likes of David Irving (here) have long been a feeder of this flame, and especially on the loony right in the United States, there remains much talk of international conspiracies involving Jewish control of banks, resulting in the recent GFC (yes, Holocaust denying is just one branch of the conspiracy theorist business).

Well, let's not go there. There's your everyday loon, and then there's the holocaust denying loon, and that's where loonacy shifts from amiable eccentricity into offensive behavior.

Instead, let's see where Akerman's recognition of the reality of the Holocaust takes him, as he quotes Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu on Ahmadinejad:

“Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You’re wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.”

Netanyahu said the current Iranian regime was fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that had in the past 30 years swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims.

“It has callously slaughtered Muslims and Christians, Jews and Hindus and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times,” he said.

“Wherever they can, they impose a backward society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed a true believer is brutally subjugated.”

The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress and strengths of the 21st century.

The allure of freedom, power of technology, reach of communications should surely win the day.

Oh yes, suddenly Piers - who hates the National Broadband Network and wants it thrown away - is a believer in the power of technology and reach of communications. Suddenly he's a believer in the rights of minorities and gays, except blacks who live handsome lives exploiting the Australian taxpayer, and gays who insist on outrageous absurd notions like gay marriage (two bolts in search of a nut, or was it two nuts in search of a bolt).

And suddenly he's a believer in the rights of women, unless that involves him giving up the sly innuendo he loves when talking of women and their rights. Well not so sly really, since Akerman uses the word 'feminist' as one of his strongest term of abuse (as in that feminist Quentin Bryce), even more heavy hitting in terms of perceived loonacy than socialist or environmentalist.

But perhaps the funniest bit of incoherent, illogical contradiction? Who is going to do something about Iran and its nuclear weapons? Which organization should we call upon to take a stand?

Yep, you guessed it. The United Nations.

But, he pointed out, the most urgent challenge facing the UN was to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The big question is whether the member states of the UN are up to that challenge, is the international community prepared to confront a despotism that terrorises its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Unfortunately, there is no moral clarity at the UN, as Netanyahu says, the jury is still out and recent signs are not encouraging.

Curse you UN, curse you to hell. Just like women really. You can't live with 'em and you can't live without 'em.

Oh and one last note from one of Piers readers, correcting any false impression his readers might have gained about the Holocaust from Akerman himself:

Indeed. To deny what happened to the Jews in WW2 is to be an accomplice after the fact. It should never be forgotten. However, I have serious reservations about the 6 million figure. I also think the suffering and murder of other non Jewish groups in the camps has been radically understated. Does this make the holocaust any less significant? NOPE! Because it is not about numbers. If even one Jew or Christian or Muslim was killed for their beliefs then that is an atrocity.

Dearie me. It's not about the numbers. So now we argue about the numbers, diminishing them, while contemplating the suffering of non Jewish groups? To what end? For what purpose? Suddenly talk about 6 million is reduced to the atrocity of killing one person for their beliefs?

But then searching for the truth in the comments section of Akerman's blog is like looking for kernels of wheat in a mountain of horse dung ...

Should we judge Akerman on the basis of his comments section? Well no more than I'd judge the usefulness of the broad temple of the United Nations, which by its nature must open its doors to all kinds of maddies, because it is also one of the few alternatives to unilateral action (such as the United States recently attempted) and one of the few international structures that offers mechanisms for dealing with the likes of Iran and North Korea.

Unless we'd like to return to the nineteen thirties, when the League of Nations fell under the weight of the combined lunacy of the Axis powers. The entry in the Wikipedia (here) is revealing:

When during the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, the League accused Benito Mussolini's soldiers of targeting Red Cross medical tents, Mussolini responded that Ethiopians were not fully human, therefore the human rights laws did not apply. Benito Mussolini stated that "The League is very well when sparrows shout, but no good at all when eagles fall out."

After a number of notable successes and some early failures in the 1920s, the League ultimately proved incapable of preventing aggression by the Axis powers in the 1930s. In May 1933 the League was powerless to convince Hitler that Franz Bernheim, a Jew, was protected under the minority clauses established by the League in 1919 (that all minorities were fully human and held equal rights among all men). Hitler claimed these clauses violated Germany's sovereignty. Germany withdrew from the League soon to be followed by many other totalitarian and militaristic nations.

When even Piers Akerman suddenly becomes a supporter of communications technology like the NBN, and concerned for the rights of minorities, women and gays, I guess we'll just have to stay in that mountain of horse dung, and start fossicking for kernels of wheat.

Second thoughts, perhaps Akerman should keep up his perennial abuse of the UN. We could always have a third world war as an alternative to negotiations and speech making, in much the same way as those who degutted the League of Nations marched eagerly towards the second world war and the Holocaust ...

(Below: another Punch cartoon on the fatal weakness of the League of Nations, from the Wiki on the League. Everything changes so it can stay the same?)