Smearing

Ken Parish at Troppo republishes a note from The Art Life on Pro Hart. I had already cited my own views on Pro Hart. I quote from the reproduced report by Parish:

'What hasn’t been reported was Hart’s politics. When Harry Seidler died his life as a refugee from Germany was duly reported, as was Seidler’s own unfortunate youthful enthusiasm for the aesthetics of the Nazis. It was a revealing and interesting insight into Seidler’s personal history and development, but perhaps everyone has forgotten then that Pro Hart, while a charming duffer, held extreme right political views. It was a paranoid view which claimed – among other things - that a Zionist Occupation Government [read “jews”] is vying for the control of Australia and the United States, either via the United Nations or through “international banking”. ZOG and its various conspiracy theory derivatives are a rank form of neo-Nazism'.

So as I read it:

(i) Pro Hart's politics have not been discussed but Harry Siedler just died and he had a youthful connection with the Nazis and Pro Hart just died so he too.... .....well, no, that's not right.
(ii) Pro Hart believed in a 'rank form of neo-Nazism' - you can see this from the link. Or can you? The link doesn't refer to Hart or Neo-Nazism but to ZOG which is 'used by several extremist groups in various countries, such as neo-Nazis .......' (my emphasis). (The recent Mearsheimer and Walts piece criticising the role of the Israel Lobby in determining US foreign policy has been used by US neo-Nazis. Are Professors Mearsheimer and Walts neo-Nazis?).

So, conclusion: Pro Hart is a Neo-Nazi or perhaps, with further simplification, just a Nazi.

Ken Parish appreciates Pro Hart and his work. So do I. But his account is promoting guilt-by-association which smears a reputation. I responded in comments to the Art Life and Troppo. The Art Life I think is a bunch of brainless kids who misled Ken.