in January 1994. Frank has also agreednto meet regularly with a therapist. Fornaccording to what the Department ofnChildren and Family Services told himnlast July, if upon release from prison henwould ever like to see his son again, whonis now age seven, he must consent toncounseling and therapy now. Franknagreed to this because he loves his son,nbut he nevertheless resents the legal extortionnthe state exercises in the namenof “family welfare.” As he explained tonme recently, “The counselor is a nice lady,nand occasionally it is good to havensomeone to talk to. But I wasn’t convictednof a sex crime, or of abusing children.nThe state has no right to hold mynchild captive or control my family afternI’ve paid my legal debt to society.”nFrank faces a double-threat; the wrathnof the gangs and the benevolence of thentherapeutic state.n—Theodore PappasnREGARDING EUROPE, I’ve got annagging twofold question I’d love tonhave answered: Why has no one remarkednon the incredible, glaring doublenstandard in Establishment treatment ofnex-Nazi and Communist regimes? Andnwhat in blazes is the justification for thatndouble standard? We start with a stipulation,npresumably made both by myselfnand by all members of the Establishmentn(i.e., the spectrum from leftliberalsnlike the New York Times overnto official conservatives and neoeonservatives):nthat both the Nazi andnCommunist regimes were despotic, evil,nand genocidal. So, in that case, howncome the double standard, both in actualntreatment of former officials in thentwo regimes, and in Received Opinionnabout such treatment?nAfter the end of World War II, Nazisnand their collaborators, both real and alleged,nwere a) slaughtered on the spotnby vengeful Communist successorregimesnor by Communist partisans (asnin Italy or France); b) indicted and convicted,nfirst by the Allies and then bynsuccessor regimes, for “war crimes” andn”crimes against humanity,” with thenleaders put to death or sentenced to longnjail terms; c) masses of officials were “denazified”nand either jailed or preventednfrom holding office; and d) for the pastn47 years, alleged ex-Nazis, down to thenstatus of concentration camp guards,nwere yanked out of their beds as Americanncitizens or out of some South Amer­nican jungle to stand trial for these crimesneither in their Communist-run homelandnor in Israel. Moreover, ReceivednOpinion of the Establishment is constantlynberating Western countries, includingnthe United States, for havingnbeen too soft on ex-Nazis, etc. Andnthen as the decades pass, we are urgednon every side to “never forget” the Nazincrimes.nOkay, but now consider the contrastnin treating Communists. The revolutionarynimplosions of Communistnregimes since 1989 have occurred peacefully,nand successor regimes peacefullynestablished. Not only guards, but highnofficials, even secret police officials, havennot only not been executed or tried forntheir crimes against humanity, but mostnSERIES OFnnnof them are still there, still in place—eithernas bureaucrats serving new regimes,nor as “former” Communists now callingnthemselves “Social Democrats” or whatever.nIt is a massive understatement to saynthat there has been no deeommunizationnwhatsoever, nothing comparable tonthe denazification of yore. Not onlynhave the KGB and the East GermannStasi not been brought to book for theirncrimes, but now the big argument in thenformer Communist countries is whethernthe infamous secret police files shouldneven be opened to the public, much lessnacted upon.nHow has the Establishment reactednto this shocking contrast in treatmentnof ex-despots and state criminals. HavenOCTOBER 1992/7n