Left anti-semitism and ultra-left purism

2008-11-25T15:55:17-05:00

246 2 hizgirl2.jpg 1 A letter to Communicating Vessels Portland USA 19 November 2008 Dear Communicating Vessels, I read with interest the article Are We All Hamas and Hezbollah? - A Critical Look at the Left's Flirtation with Islamic Fundamentalism in issue 19 of your magazine. I enclose my new pamphlet The Mass Psychology of Anti-Fascism, which comes to conclusions diametrically opposed to yours. Instead of dismissing Mearsheimer and Walt's 2007 bestseller The Israel Lobby as a 'conspiracy theory', as you do, I rely on it to explain US Middle East policy. In truth, they do not describe the Lobby as a conspiracy. In fact, the Lobby is mostly legal and fairly open. When you state that Mearsheimer and Walt's viewpoint is 'fragmentary', you are just using a piece of ultra-left jargon to avoid the issue. Whether you believe the US political system is supposed to serve capitalist interests, or the interests of 'the people' as Mearsheimer and Walt believe, the Israel Lobby's power is a separate question. You do have a point when you say that America would still bomb other countries without the influence of the Lobby. But understanding the Lobby is key to understanding why America bombs particular countries and not others. If US Middle East policy is not driven by US capitalist interests, but by Israel's, we have some chance of changing it, rather than complaining about how fragmentary it is. Worse, you give various hints in your article that you buy the idea that critics of the Israel Lobby are closet anti-semites. 'By monomanically focusing on Israel, Saudi Arabia and America are taken off the hook'. In my pamphlet, I parody the 'taken off the hook' argument, and demolish the followers of Noam Chomsky, whose love of Israel and hatred of America is so pathological they claim that in 2006, the USA 'goaded' Israel into attacking Lebanon in order to stir up hatred against itself and take the heat off Uncle Sam. You endorse this perspective at the end of your article when you recommend the Zionist magazine Tikkun's 'rebuttal' of The Israel Lobby. In issue 20, you uncritically published a letter from the anarchists of The Fifth Estate claiming that there is such a thing as 'left anti-semitism'. This how Zionists  smear critics of Israel. In the USA, the left is pro-semitic. America's support for Israel is itself pro-Jewish racism (contrast its sanctions against South Africa) and its political atmosphere, including the left, anarchists and the ultra-left, is permeated by that form of racism. Mention the Lobby and watch the accusations fly. Like you, I attended the demonstrations against the Lebanon war, but reached opposite conclusions about what was wrong with them. The protests in Portland and Seattle were smaller than usual. The rent-a-mob anarchists who usually show up at anti-war demos were missing. These protests consisted mostly of well-dressed Lebanese families, unsupported by Americans, politely complaining about cluster-bombs raining on their homeland. There was very little of the traditional leftist tail-ending of 'anti-imperialist' movements. Like you, I reject anti-imperialism - in a nutshell, because poor people have no interest in fighting and dying for these movements, who only end up exploiting them. I also agree with your criticism of Islamic martyrdom – but doesn't it miss the point – what would make someone want to be a suicide bomber? However, I disagree with you about American leftists supporting Islamic fundamentalism. They do not support Hezbollah, even verbally, the way some of them supported the Viet Cong. This is not a positive development – the grip of Zionism is so strong, the left daren't follow the logic of its own position! Telling leftists not to support anti-imperialist fighters is a waste of time, like telling the Pope not to be a Catholic – unless those fighters are fighting Israel. The only form of overt racism tolerated, and actively promoted, by the USA, and all other Western countries today, is Zionism. This is true both in the Middle East and at home. The question of Israel and its influence cannot be avoided by mixing left communist truisms with Zionist fiction. Fraternally, Jay Knott <a href="../../">http://pacificaforum.org</a>   <hr />   More about the 'Communicating Vessels' article can be found on this ultra-left website <a href="http://www.ibrp.org/en/articles/2008-05-15/review-communicating-vessels-are-we-all-hamas-and-hezbollah">www.ibrp.org/en/articles/2008-05-15/review-communicating-vessels-are-we-all-hamas-and-hezbollah</a> along with a standard knee-jerk description of Israel as a US 'client state'. Ultra-leftists spend a lot of their efforts trying to correct the left's habit of supporting anything which moves. In the sixties, some leftists shouted 'Victory to the NLF', the ruling party of North Vietnam. Ultra-leftists rightly point out that this was a mistake. Just because a movement opposes US imperialism doesn't mean it's any good. Today, the equivalent would be to cheer on Hamas and Hezbollah (no leftists are quite brave, consistent and stupid enough to support the forces fighting the Americans in Afghanistan!). Ultra-leftists rightly point out that the poor oppressed proletarians of the world have no interest in fighting for any of their bosses. So far, so good. But the ultra-left can make the opposite mistake to the left, supporting the powers that be instead of their opponents. An apposite example is the rapid degeneration of the long-standing anarchist collective who produce the magazine The Fifth Estate. During the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, they were so determined not to be tainted with the left's sympathy for Serbia, they effectively supported the other side, uncritically repeating the International Criminal Court's charges against Serbian politicians. Anyone who doubted these charges they denounced as holocaust deniers. Later, the headman of this egalitarian anarchist collective campaigned for the Democrats in the 2000 general election, and more recently, some of its lesser souls have expressed their concern about 'left anti-semitism'. The logic is clear: when the world capitalist system commits some particularly gruesome crime, like melting Palestinian babies with phosphorus bombs, there is a great temptation to put aside one's differences with whomever opposes the party dropping the phosphorus bombs. In this case, there is a danger of compromising with Islamic fundamentalism. This is what the left do, and ultra-leftists have a duty to point out that all capitalist forces are the same. While the left point to the crimes of the Jewish state of Israel, the ultra-left warn of the danger of anti-semitism. The most coherent example I've seen can be found here: <a href="http://libcom.org/blog/anti-semitism-left-05012009">libcom.org/blog/anti-semitism-left-05012009</a> The authors try to distinguish their critique of left anti-semitism from that of the powerful Zionist pressure group the Anti-Defamation League. The difference is, they claim, that the ADL attempt to paint all criticism of Israel as anti-semitic, and thus silence all dissent. The ultra-lefties, on the other hand, only attempt to paint any concern with the issue of the Israel Lobby as anti-semitic, and thus silence some dissent. The article explains how they persuaded some contributors to amend their articles so they no longer referred to 'the powerful US Jewish economic lobby', and 'as moderators of this forum we've had to unpublish comments...'. Now, suppose contributors, instead of referring to the Jewish economic lobby, complained about the powerful traditional White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, who, according to some lefty types, run the USA. I bet the moderators would not react in the same way. They would say something along the lines of 'capitalism has a history of white racism, and the WASP elite is a reality, however, it is not particularly important; what really matters is for workers to unite as a class against the capitalists of all colors and creeds'. In other words, a reasonable answer to a reasonable argument. But substitute Jews for WASPs, and reason goes out the window. Yet the USA does have a powerful wealthy Jewish elite. It has no history of anti-semitism (can anyone name a single lynching of a Jew in the whole history of America?). So the concept of a Jewish elite should be treated the same way as the concept of a white elite. One may argue that it is not particularly important, but getting hysterical about it and suppressing debate is inappropriate and does the dirty work of the Anti-Defamation League. Why the disparity? Why treat one reasonable argument about a powerful ethnic minority differently to another such argument? This is discrimination - pro-Jewish racism. This is what paralyzes opposition to Israeli apartheid. Most of the ultra-left, with a few noble exceptions, can't see this; it is worse than useless: 'Every qassam rocket and IDF shell brings neither safety nor community nor freedom' <a href="http://www.anti-politics.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=75&p=475&hilit=israel">www.anti-politics.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=75&p=475&hilit=israel</a> I hope I don't need to spell out why this plaintive lamentation makes me heave. It is not left anti-semitism which killed the children of Gaza - it is pro-semitism, the powerful sympathy for the Jews which permeates Western society. <a href="http://libcom.org/forums/organise/israel-29122008?page=11#comment-315215">libcom.org/forums/organise/israel-29122008?page=11#comment-315215</a> More: <a href="http://www.anti-politics.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=75&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=82131b0ed0a2d8e6ef9dccc4c51da240&start=10#p511">www.anti-politics.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=75&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=82131b0ed0a2d8e6ef9dccc4c51da240&start=10#p511</a>   <hr /> Scratch an anarchist... Well, there I was, in the middle of a debate on the web forum libcom.org, arguing that racism in Israel is much worse than racism in other Western countries, when I was banned, on the grounds that I am an apologist for neo-Nazis. After banning me from contributing, one of the libcom hacks claimed that I don't really believe in freedom of speech, we just use the 'strategy' of presenting both sides of an issue as a way of making it look like we believe in free speech. <a href="http://libcom.org/forums/organise/israel-29122008?page=11#comment-315315">libcom.org/forums/organise/israel-29122008?page=11#comment-315315</a> I thought I'd parodied that argument to death in 'The Mass Psychology of Anti-Fascism': <a href="../../mass/back">http://pacificaforum.org/mass/back</a> 'Playing into the hands of people who hide behind freedom of speech to preach intolerance' But there's no parody like an unconscious parody. The libcommisars believe that people who defend and practice freedom of speech are closet totalitarians, whereas those who ban people from replying to their arguments, and delete entire websites containing twenty-five years of revolutionary content - <a href="http://f.acetio.us/wildcat">http://f.acetio.us/wildcat</a> - are the real freedom-lovers. Eat your heart out, George Orwell! It's not just anarchists who make the mistake of buying into a self-confirming theory. A scientific theory, in other words, a statement which might be true, is in principle open to being proven false. If you always interpret arguments against your theory in terms of that theory, you have fallen into a trap. For example, some religious people believe the evidence for evolution was put there by the Devil to lead us away from the Bible. For anti-fascists, if I, and other defenders of logic, truth and freedom, put forward reasonable arguments against anti-fascism, they think I'm just using a 'strategy' to cover up my fascist leanings. Any evidence against their beliefs can be explained away as part of a conspiracy to discredit them. Smarter readers, such as Marxists, will probably detect the influence of Karl Popper - they too can fall into the trap - for example, by dismissing his argument as 'bourgeois' and so on. The scientific method also implies that holocaust revisionism should not be dismissed out of hand. Few have the brains to see this; fewer have the balls to say it. The libcommies pressurized an ultra-leftist webmaster to remove the contents of Wildcat, a revolutionary journal, from a website he runs, because I wrote some of the articles in it.    'I think that apologizing for people who apologize for neo-nazis is "no more or less idiotic" than... apologizing for neo-nazis' - <a href="http://libcom.org/forums/organise/israel-29122008?page=12#comment-315538">libcom.org/forums/organise/israel-29122008?page=12#comment-315538</a> Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that any doubt about anti-fascism at all leads to fascism. But illogical though it may be, it worked. The webmaster in question hurriedly removed Wildcat from his site, though it contains nothing which would offend the pc wankers to whom he has pledged his allegiance.<a href="../../wildcat"></a> Americans are particularly prone to kissing Israeli ass. Recently, Massachusets saw the first student occupation in the USA for a boycott of Israel. It's a long way behind other countries, but its something. A Zionist lawyer deluged the students with slander, and the administration replied with one of the most nauseatingly sycophantic examples of American subordination to Zionism I have read: <a href="http://pulsemedia.org/2009/02/25/on-dershowitz-and-hampshire-college/">pulsemedia.org/2009/02/25/on-dershowitz-and-hampshire-college/</a> Of course, it would be going too far to claim there is any sort of connection between the use of excessive fear of anti-semitism in lefty circles to police debate, and the same thing in the American establishment. When anarchists swallow whole the Zionist fiction that there is such a thing as 'left anti-semitism' and spread it around, it is not like the campaign of Alan Dershowitz to slander Hampshire College students as anti-semitic in an attempt to snuff out the beginnings of a campaign for sanctions against Israel in the USA. It would be superficial to note the similarity between Zionist slanders and the attacks on me on libcom.org demanding that all my output for the last quarter-century, on any subject, regardless of its political position, should be ruthlessly suppressed. It would be absurd to mention that this description of the Israel Lobby's approach, by a conservative diplomat, exactly fits the behavior of the anarchist mob toward me: "The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth" just because he and I have both identified the source of this behavior in 'the substitution of political correctness for analysis'. <a href="http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit">thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit</a>   One of my motives in writing 'The Mass Psychology of Anti-Fascism' <a href="../../mass">http://pacificaforum.org/mass</a> was to defend the anti-Zionist ex-Jew Gilad Atzmon against slanders, which sound very similar to the attacks of American Zionists and the anarchists mentioned above, by 'Jews Against Zionism', a group with which I once had a brief flirtation: <a href="http://f.acetio.us/wildcat/jagainstz.html">http://f.acetio.us/wildcat/jagainstz.html</a> Defending Atzmon is SOLIDARITY. Ultra-leftists seem incapable of understanding this. In truth, I do not conflate 'Jews, Zionists, the Israel Lobby...' as my critics allege. I deal with the complex question of the relationship between Jews and Zionism by quoting Jeffrey Blankfort: 'The distinction that we are always careful to make between being Jewish and being Zionist is essentially deceptive and that while all Jews are not Zionists, the organized Jewish communities throughout the world, despite whatever differences they may have, are totally behind the Zionist project.' I then comment as follows: "Do I agree? I DON'T KNOW". <a href="../../mass/3">http://pacificaforum.org/mass/3</a> That's not good enough for the anti-fascists. Saying you DON'T KNOW exactly what the relationship is between Jews and Zionism gets you condemned as a Nazi apologist.  Sometimes, the anarchos are worse than the Zios. During the Hannukah massacre, some protestors held up signs calling for a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv. The leading Zionist organization, the Anti-Defamation League, objected: 'Freedom of speech is not just a right, it is also a responsibility... comparisons of Israel to the Nazis are a deeply cynical perversion of history, an attempt to turn the tragedy that befell the Jewish people into a bludgeon against Israel.' - <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052901.html">http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052901.html</a> The ADL's response to extremely violent rhetoric was civil and measured. Contrast this with the anti-fascist backlash against my recent writings, which contain no advocacy of hatred or violence: <ul> <li> Your blog makes it clear what an apologist for fascism you are</li> <li> You're an anti-semitic troll</li> <li> He is an anti-semite (he fucking cites David Irving!!)</li> <li> His seething Jew-hatred comes out despite his wish to appear objective </li> <li> Why do you focus on Jews so much? </li> </ul> This article, by a comrade in Britain who has independently arrived at similar conclusions to my own, answers this last question better than I can: <a href="http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/01/16/gaza-the-tip-of-an-iceberg/">http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/01/16/gaza-the-tip-of-an-iceberg/</a> <address style="padding-left: 30px;">"Now the Jews are trying to wipe out the Palestinians.</address><address style="padding-left: 30px;"> You may say that I should moderate my language and say only that we are witness to an unfortunate war in which people are getting killed. But this is part of an intentional war on the part of Israel, and, moreover, it clearly coincides with the international legal definition of genocide. Let us not, therefore mince our words.</address><address style="padding-left: 30px;"> Perhaps you will also say that only some Jews are involved in this crime, that I should hold ‘Israel’ or ‘the Zionists’ responsible. But do you ask me to say that only some Spanish, or some British, or some Americans, or some Belgians committed genocides?</address><address style="padding-left: 30px;"> Perhaps you will now ask me to do this, but if I hadn’t said that ‘the Jews’ were trying to wipe out the Palestinians you would probably have been quite happy with my generalisations."</address> I noticed the same phenomenon myself. If you say 'The Americans bombed Vietnam', no-one points out that it wasn't all Americans. No American says they are offended by this generalization. But if you say the Jews are killing Palestinian babies, they are offended. Perhaps we should stop making such generalizations. But why did it take generalizing about Jews to make us think about it? Why this specific generalization? We want to protect Jews against the danger of generalization more than others. This is discrimination. A 'troll' is someone who posts on internet sites pretending they believe one thing when in fact they believe something else. According to the libcommisars, I'm an fascist troll pretending to be a communist. But how do they know it's not the other way round? The moderators barred me, and instead give voice to such exemplars of reasoned argument as this: 'he fucking cites David Irving!!'. Why doesn't the author cite the citation from Irving which I fucking cite on my fucking site? Because there isn't one, that's why. I did, however, paraphrase some of what Irving said last summer in Eugene. I openly declared that he said some highly offensive things in the midst of his generally useful talk, and far from hiding or apologizing for them, I said I disagree with them. <address style="padding-left: 30px;">'He made our hair stand on end with descriptions of jews being machine-gunned and piled into pits, backed up with memoirs of Nazis only he has unearthed and translated. This was convincing, precisely BECAUSE Irving is known as someone who defends the Nazis against certain other allegations. So how is he a holocaust denier?' </address> What offends the anarcho-zionists is not Irving's research into Nazi war crimes, but into Allied ones. The myth that Irving is a holocaust denier comes from a judgement in a court case in London, which was decided in favor of the Zionist academic Deborah Lipstadt. The anarchists who peddle this lie get their information from a pro-Israel judge! Their anti-state credentials are skin-deep, and people like Irving are useful for exposing this. Outside the meeting, the left and the Jewish supremacists, the rabbis and the rabble, united in opposition to truth. ' '¡No pasaran!' they shouted. But we did. This post is getting too long. It started as a letter to the journal 'Communicating Vessels', which gets its politics from ultra-leftism and its sense of humor from feminism. If nothing else, breaking from ultra-leftism enables you to have a laugh: <a href="http://churchofnobody.blogspot.com/2009/02/burn-in-hell-you-deniers-of-holocausts.html">http://churchofnobody.blogspot.com/2009/02/burn-in-hell-you-deniers-of-holocausts.html</a>   <hr /> Organizations referred to in this article: International Criminal Court International Communist Current International Cricket Council <hr /> Note: the picture accompanying this post, a Hezbollah hottie on the streets of Beirut, is only here to illustrate that not all supporters of Islamic groups in the Middle East are fanatical puritans, in order to counter stereotypes, and not at all to make this site look good.   Left anti-semitism and ultra-left purism

2010-01-26T10:53:14-05:00

200

2008-12-06T11:10:12-05:00

189 4 de-nile.jpg 2 This article was posted on Portland Indymedia, the usual place for articles about Eugene, a nearby city: <img src="http://rogueimc.org/img/extlink.gif" border="0" alt="" /> <a href="http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/06/376650.shtml">http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/06/376650.shtml</a> It took a day to get posted, instead of the usual five minutes. It was there for another day, then disappeared. Here's the reason Indymedia deleted it: 'Sorry, now that I've read it and I feel that it's actually promoting anti-semitism, which violates our editorial policies, we're removing your post now.' This statement is, of course, false. My article doesn't promote anti-semitism, it says it is no big deal - a very different thing. On June 9, 2008, I attended a meeting at the University in Eugene organized by Pacifica Forum, addressed by the infamous historian David Irving. He's infamous because he a. understates some of the war crimes of the Nazis b. tells the truth about Allied war crimes and c. says offensive things about jews Outside the meeting, the 'Anti-Hate Task Force' handed out flyers claiming that minorities 'feel less safe' because Irving was speaking. These touchy-feely totalitarians want to use the vague modern legal concept, harassment, to undermine the precise ancient legal concept, freedom of speech. Most of Irving's talk was a description of his imprisonment in Austria for holocaust denial, a denial he denies. His denial of denial sounded convincing, since he described some of the Nazi war crimes he DOES believe in in graphic detail. He made our hair stand on end with descriptions of jews being machine-gunned and piled into pits, backed up with memoirs of Nazis only he has unearthed and translated. This was convincing, precisely BECAUSE Irving is known as someone who defends the Nazis against certain other allegations. So how is he a holocaust denier? How is he a recruiter for racism? Is anyone likely to sympathize with the Nazis because they believe they ONLY killed civilians with guns, not gas? Because they agree with Irving's estimate of six hundred thousand jews rather than the Party Line of six million? The rest of the talk was a description of how he investigates the role of the Nazis in World War Two, livened up with amusing anecdotes. His sense of humor is so dry it stopped raining in Oregon while he was speaking. He defended the occupation of historian, and explained its methods. He never reads other people's books. He always goes straight to original material and interviews with survivors - he claims to have shaken more hands that shook Hitler's hand than any other living person, which made everyone feel uncomfortable. He also knew Bomber Harris, the British commander responsible for the destruction of Dresden. To its credit, the audience shuddered at this revelation too. Also to its credit, and unlike the protesters outside, the audience didn't feel that feeling uncomfortable should be grounds for the supression of 'hate speech'. Many of his claims he backed up with citations from archives in Germany, Moscow, Britain and the USA, tens of thousands of pages in several languages. He illustrated the historian's method with an example. Witnesses at the Nuremburg Trials gave evidence against their commanding officers. Those officers were secretly taped while awaiting trial. The records of those tapes have recently been released from British archives. Irving has read them all. He said that the tape recordings show that some of the allegations 'proven' at the Nuremburg Trials are untrue - people recorded having what they think are secret conversations are more reliable than evidence given in court. A crucial moment came during questions and answers when the atmosphere was beginning to turn against Irving, a result of his frank answers to questions about whether he, in some sense, blames jews for some of the tragedies which have befallen them. His reply? Well, let's just say it tested our belief in freedom of expression. He was on surer ground, in my opinion, when someone asked what he meant by the Holocaust Circus, and he described how it has been manufactured by marketing, and how the compensation for victims has mostly ended up in the hands of Jewish pressure groups like the Anti-Defamation League rather than actual victims of the Nazis. He went on to wonder how long it would be before the victims of the American bombing at Dresden, Hiroshima and Hanoi received compensation. This was received with a round of applause, and the atmosphere turned positive again. The leaflets being handed out outside said they "honor and respect the University's painful decision to uphold the First Amendment rights of a bigoted speaker". However, they also said 'what can we do to repair the damage done by Pacifica Forum and their promotion of hate speech?'. How's that for sitting on the fence? A woman in the audience mentioned that she had read Irving's book 'The Destruction of Dresden' and added her own research - a description of a children's festival that was taking place in the city at the time. So Irving added to our knowledge of German war crimes, and this woman added to our understanding of Allied ones. The anti-hate people would say that this is not what they mean by 'hate speech'. But they can't wriggle out of it like that. If the meeting hadn't happened, the opportunity to add to our understanding of the crimes committed by all sides during World War II wouldn't have happened either. This also clearly illustrates that there is no middle ground - anti-fascism attacks our freedom to discover the truth about the horrendous events which created the modern world, helping to perpetuate it. Whatever liberal, leftist and anarchist anti-fascists think they are doing, in reality, they help make the official party line on World War II the only story most people hear. The principal beneficiary of this story is the state of Israel. Irving comes from another world. He manages to combine old-world politeness with being deliberately offensive. But when it came to facts, he forced us - the honest enquirers who went in to hear what he had to say - to ask 'how do we KNOW exactly who did what?'. You cannot claim to know what happened unless you have tested your hypothesis by attempting to DISPROVE it. This is the historical method, and it means, in the case of the Holocaust, that you have to try to prove IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. This requires freedom of speech. We need freedom for practical, not moral reasons - everything we know about the universe depends on it. I said at the beginning that Irving's notoriety derived from three factors: a. he understates some of the war crimes of the Nazis b. tells the truth about Allied war crimes and c. says offensive things about jews On balance, I would say his contribution is positive. In conclusion, and to come to the point, some of the commentators on various internet posts about Irving in Oregon say that Palestine Solidarity activists should watch out for anti-semites infiltrating their ranks because this gives Zionists evidence for their claim that opponents of Israeli crimes are anti-semitic. This is a mistake, and one of the reasons Palestine Solidarity is so ineffective. Constant vigilance against thought-crimes only encourages Zionists and their friends. Activists should have no problem at all with the occasional comment about 'the jews', any more than the headline 'Our Sacred History & White Man Lies' by a Native American group  <img src="http://rogueimc.org/img/extlink.gif" border="0" alt="" /> <a href="http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/06/03/18504239.php">http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/06/03/18504239.php</a> should be censored from Indymedia because it might offend white people. Suppose Palestinians posted an article entitled 'Our Sacred History and Jewish Lies', an equally justifiable headline. It would probably be censored, given Indymedia's record of sensitivity to Jewish feelings. Yet, clearly, jews are at least as 'privileged' as white people in general, so if Indymedia and pinko types in general treated people according to their own principles, they would treat negative remarks about jews in general in the same way as negative remarks about white people in general. But they don't. They give special rights to jews. Whether you agree that this statement is true, it is certain that it is difficult to SAY it, because we have censored ourselves by internalizing the supposed feelings of certain kinds of people. I don't want to add discussions about Jewish privilege to the hand-wringing about white privilege led by people who can't spell the word 'privilege'. On the contrary, this is part of a wider argument that touchy-feely politics has weakened the movement which stopped the Vietnam War. So to hell with the Anti-Defamation League and their anarcho-zionist demo fodder. To hell with the feelings of minorities. Anti-semitism, if it exists at all, should not be seen as a problem. The Lobby is leading this country toward a war with Iran whose consequences could include a million deaths and the collapse of the world economy, and there are people busy trying to stop speech wich 'diminishes our sense of safety and diversity'. They should get over it. The meeting in Eugene, the capital of sensitivity, gives us reason to hope that political correctness is so, like, nineteen-nineties, and that freedom is on the way back. The anti-hate brigade were more pathetic than sinister. Their flyers were a parody of leftist moralizing. Some in the audience repeated some of their allegations, and Irving laughed them off. What a refreshing break from arguments about which Zionist puppet to vote for in November! My article on David Irving, banned from Indymedia

2009-10-01T18:43:19-04:00

200

2009-01-15T13:53:11-05:00

150 5 hizgirlz.jpg 3 <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/israelandthepalestinians-us-olmert-bush">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/israelandthepalestinians-us-olmert-bush</a> <a href="http://www.forward.com/articles/14957/">http://www.forward.com/articles/14957/</a> The Prime Minister of Israel brags about how he ordered President Bush out of a meeting, and told him to abstain from a UN resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. It's official. Well, it's not quite official, but the White House strenuously denies that Israel dictates the USA's foreign policy. A denial from the White House is pretty much an affirmation. More and more of us, from all shades of the political spectrum, are seeing that one of the main problems in the world today is Israel's power in the USA and other Western countries: <a href="http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit">thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit</a> Much of the reaction among Westerners concerned about the massacre in the Gaza Strip which began during the festival of Hannukah 2008 is an attempt to lump together the behavior of the Jewish state with 'oppression', 'colonialism' and so on. Here is a good example, from a British left-wing blogger: <a href="http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/up-to-200000-protest-israeli-aggression.html">http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/up-to-200000-protest-israeli-aggression.html</a>. "this war is not between Muslims and Jews, it is between the oppressed and the oppressor" Great efforts are made to try to separate Israel from the Jews. Here is another example, from some American leftists: 'In many ways, the genocidal siege of Gaza that many of us have been demonstrating against in recent weeks is a harbinger of the widening war against the workers and oppressed peoples of the planet that is sure to intensify this year.' Nice try. Here is another hack, putting forward the usual argument against the Israel Lobby theory - that it contains the danger of encouraging... you guessed it, anti-Semitism: <a href="http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14970">palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14970</a> Some even claim that Israel is an example of white supremacy. If intellectual gymnastics was an Olympic sport, these '<a href="http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/">Jews Against Zionism</a>' would deserve gold medals. In fact, white supremacists are against Israel. Israel is unique. The genocidal siege of Gaza is not a harbiinger of a widening war against the workers and oppressed peoples. It is a harbinger of genocide against one oppressed people in particular. It is between Muslims and Jews, just a bit. It is a massacre of Palestinians, carried out by Israeli Jews, with the support of the organized communities of Jews throughout the world. Most of the Israeli Jewish population supports the massacre in Gaza. That is, most of the Israeli Jewish population supports killing  babies. Most of the American Jewish community <a href="http://www.jewishsf.com/">also supports killing babies</a>. If I wrote 'most of the American Jewish community supports liberal causes such as raising the minimum wage', nobody would bat an eyelid. Everyone knows the phrase 'Jewish community' is simplistic. People don't just belong to ethnic communities, they belong to classes, genders, and stamp-collecting societies too. But within that framework, it is acceptable to make broad generalizations about what ethnic groups do. Unless you are saying something negative about the Jewish community. We have a deep-rooted fear of criticizing Jews. This manifests itself in a form of racism - pro-Jewish racism. I repeat: 'most of the American Jewish community supports killing babies'. We are so afraid of being anti-Semitic, we cannot call a spade a spade. Let the Hannukah massacre, which has plumbed new depths of barbarism (even the Nazis respected the Red Cross), have one positive result - we must lose our fear.   It's Official - Tail Wags Dog

2009-04-04T23:10:25-04:00

200

2009-01-16T13:39:19-05:00

285 6 a-a-t-wall.jpg 3 <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/13/israeli-soldiers-gaza-deaths-allegations">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/13/israeli-soldiers-gaza-deaths-allegations</a> <a href="http://counterpunch.org/butterly01162009.html">counterpunch.org/butterly01162009.html</a> This report, from an Irish peace activist and medical volunteer, describes the horror of Gaza and the inspiring resistance of the community to the Israeli massacre. Another particularly gruesome account: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/growing-concern-over-israels-weapons-use-1514347.html">www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/growing-concern-over-israels-weapons-use-1514347.html</a> and another: <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/ips/cunningham.php?articleid=14121">www.antiwar.com/ips/cunningham.php?articleid=14121</a> More: "The spate of reports coming out of the Middle East in the past two weeks are signs of a coming danger greater than the region has known in its modern history. The Israeli onslaught on Gaza; the massacre of civilians; the strafing of hospitals, ambulances and medical staff; the vandalisation of Palestinian homes; the violent, racist graffiti scrawled on walls; the soldiers’ t-shirts patterned with graphics showing a pregnant Palestinian woman in the cross hairs of a rifle; the support by 85 per cent of the Israeli population for an attack on civilians which killed hundreds of children; the evidence of Israeli soldiers themselves of how civilians were murdered in cold blood; the march on Umm al Fahm by the followers of Meir Kahane, at the same time as Palestinian cultural festivals in Jerusalem were being prohibited; the choice of a settler racist as Israel’s Foreign Minister; the two-tier colonial society established on the West Bank, reminiscent of Algeria in the 19th century; the wall, the checkpoints, the closures, the daily humiliation, the seizure of land and demolition of homes; the continuing demographic war against the Palestinians in Jerusalem; the recent attack on Sudan by unknown planes said to have been Israeli; the wars of the past and now the preparations for an attack on Iran - what more evidence could anyone need of how utterly dangerous the state of Israel is to regional and global stability?" <a href="http://pulsemedia.org/2009/03/30/boycott-surrender-or-war/#more-9243">pulsemedia.org/2009/03/30/boycott-surrender-or-war/#more-9243</a> Report from Gaza

2009-08-13T17:31:32-04:00

200

2009-01-23T12:53:44-05:00

150 10 antifa-gaza.jpg 1 This picture shows anarchists at a protest in Britain against the Gaza attack with an anti-fascism banner The purpose of this article is to argue that anti-fascism is incompatible with effective opposition to Zionism, which I define as the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Jews and the prevention of opposition to this crime by means of Jewish power in Western countries. I argued this first in my pamphlet '<a href="../../mass">The Mass Psychology of Anti-Fascism</a>': 'It is an inconvenient truth that for a section of the Western public, an increase in anti-semitism would lead to a decrease in support for Israel, so Zionism and anti-semitism are sometimes on opposite sides of the fence, rather than two sides of the same coin. It follows that it is impossible to be equally opposed to Zionism and to anti-semitism.' Some readers, either out of carelessness or malice, may take this to mean advocating anti-semitism as a way of combatting the influence of Israel. I can only suggest they read what I actually wrote, rather than what they wish I'd written. The point of the argument is to counter the prevailing apologetic attitude to Jewish baby-killers, sorry I mean Zionists, among many of those in Western countries who claim to oppose Jews killing babies, I mean, Israel's breaches of international law. The apologetic attitude I refer to aims to <ul> <li>Turn Jews against Zionism by saying that killing Palestinians is bad for Jews too</li> <li>Refute the argument of Zionists that opposition to Israel is anti-semitic</li> </ul> The crudest examples of these attempts to convince the ethnic cleansers of Palestine that we are morally fit to criticize them can be found among American anti-Zionist activists. Whenever there is a protest in New York about Israel's crimes, the media shows pictures of a small number of Orthodox Jews who oppose Israel - as if to say 'See! not all Jews are Zionists!'. The Palestinian solidarity movement makes a big issue of how many of its activists are Jewish. An extreme example can be found in this article - 'Jews Shut Down Los Angeles Israeli Consulate!': <a href="http://la.indymedia.org/news/2009/01/223869.php">la.indymedia.org/news/2009/01/223869.php</a> Why Jews Against Zionism? We never had Aryans Against Apartheid. The reason for all this effort to turn Jews against baby-killing and prove that we are not racist is that we tend to half-believe the Zionists have a point. After all, the Nazis did kill a lot of Jews. So anti-semitism did happen. So we have to prove that we are not anti-semitic. This approach only helps Zionism, by implicitly confirming the idea that we have something to apologize for. That is why we should not be concerned about anti-semitism. If we ever do encounter real anti-semitism, either from white identity types or Islamists, we should not make a big deal out of it. In particular, the purist attitude towards Muslims among ultra-leftists makes me retch - I  prefer the opportunist approach of orthodox leftists. The point is to disable one of Zionism's most potent weapons - guilt. We should flaunt our contempt for Jewish supremacy, not carefully explain why we don't agree with it. Our taxes go to their country - in a sense, we are occupied too. The picture with this article shows a group of anarchists in London protesting against the Israeli assault on Gaza. The protests in Britain were quite positive, with serious attempts to get close to the Israeli embassy. But why does the banner say 'AntFa' which means 'Anti-Fascism'? Didn't they have time to make a banner saying 'AntiZi'? These anarchists spend more time trying to get into fights with 'fascists' than they do protesting against Zionists. Yet fascists are a miniscule issue compared with Jewish power. Western countries don't finance anti-semitism, they finance pro-semitism. It is perfectly legal to raise money for killing Palestinian babies - yet you never see activists protesting outside a synagogue. But when a historian who underestimates the Nazi holocaust wants to speak, he will either be arrested or attacked by anarchists. Anarchists refer to the crimes of 'the Israeli state', as if the state is worse than the people. In Israel, that is certainly not the case. Most Israeli Jews supported the attack on Gaza. One of the reasons for the attack was to attempt to win the forthcoming election by proving the government isn't soft. Anarchists and ultra-lefties cannot choose between a one-state and a two-state solution, since both involve states. In fact, a two-state solution is much worse than a one-state solution, which means giving the right of return to the whole land of Palestine to the Palestinians. A two-state solution, which Obama wants to implement, consists of Bantustans and ghettos like the Gaza strip surrounded by heavily-armed Jewish racist baby-killers. <ul> <li>Fascism is dead. Zionism isn't.</li> <li>Real fascists are against Zionism. Their genuine opposition to Jewish supremacy should be openly discussed, not slandered and suppressed.</li> <li>Britain's main extreme right-wing party, the BNP, embraced Zionism at the same time it abandoned the last trace of anti-semitism - yet the left still calls it 'Nazi'</li> </ul> Some lefties employ convoluted arguments to try to prove that Israel is an example of white supremacy, because its founders came from Europe, ignoring the fact that many of its most violently racist citizens came from elsewhere. Israel is not anti-semitic, it is not an example of white supremacy - it is pro-semitic, and it is an expression of Jewish supremacy. Israel is not primarily harmful to Jews - it is primarily beneficial to them. Any Jew in the world can travel to Palestine, take part in the ethnic cleansing of its natives, and live on a piece of their land. Jewish privilege, Jewish supremacy, Jewish power - these are problems that have to be confronted, not wriggled out of.  Anti-fascism means greatly exaggerating the danger from white supremacists, dwelling in particular on their anti-semitism (which is why they all get labelled as 'Nazi', no matter how critical their reading of Mein Kampf). This obsession with anti-semitism is a key component of the psychological complex which underlies the West's support for Israel. If we are to save the Palestinians from genocide, we must abandon anti-fascism.   Anti-Fascism or Anti-Zionism?

2009-01-25T10:42:45-05:00

200

2009-01-25T09:35:12-05:00

150 12 bikini-protest-1.JPG 1 Since the Hannukah massacre began, there has been an outpouring of sympathy and support for the Palestinians around the world. Western Europe has been far ahead of the USA. There have been huge protests in Paris every weekend. Britain has seen the first wave of university occupations in support of a foreign policy change since the early eighties. Muslims have united with others - Israel has inadvertently helped to overcome the divisions on which it depends: <a href="http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/534">london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/534</a> The USA has had less activity. <a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/06/israel">www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/03/06/israel</a> This is not because Americans are inherently barbaric. Nor is it because the US is Israel's leading backer. The USA was the main cause of the Vietnam war, and also the main center of resistance to it in the West. The reason is because the USA has a more sophisticated framework for preventing an effective movement against Israeli crimes emerging. The role of the official media is obvious. It simply repeats Israel's lies, making the racial oppression of Palestinians sound like an even-handed conflict, home-made rockets equivalent to phosphorus bombs fired from jet fighters, and most of all, making ethnic cleansing seem no worse than defending oneself against ethnic cleansing. In no other part of the world, including within the USA and countries it dominates, is the news so biased in favor of the oppressors. Part of this framework of falsehood is the tame left. The most famous hack in this milieu is Noam Chomsky. Other leading lights include Amy Goodman and Naomi Klein. All these lefties and many others provide cover for Israel among interested Americans. (There are honorable exceptions, like the folks at <a href="http://ifamericansonlyknew.org/">ifamericansonlyknew.org</a> which isn't as bad as its name suggests). Here is the latest from Chomsky, on Amy Goodman's popular radio show Democracy Now!, which is as bad as its name suggests: <pre>'Israel can defend itself by stopping its crimes'</pre> <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/23/noam_chomsky_obamas_stance_on_gaza">www.democracynow.org/2009/1/23/noam_chomsky_obamas_stance_on_gaza</a> For Chomsky and his adherents, ethnic cleansing is a mistake made by Israel. Its current policies are bad for its security. So Israel can be persuaded to stop. The USA, on the other hand, has an interest in Israel's actions, because of oil and, er, hegemony and stuff. To put it politely, Chomsky turns reality on its head. In doing so, he serves Israel by making opposition to its crimes in the USA look harder than it is, and distracting us from two major points- <ul> <li>Israel's crimes derive from its nature, a state based on racial supremacy</li> <li>It is against the interests of most of the US ruling class to support it</li> </ul> I am not suggesting he is helping Israel undermine opposition within the USA deliberately. But to persuade the USA to oppose Israeli apartheid as it opposed South African apartheid, it is necessary to consciously reject the falsehoods of the alternative as well as the official media. OK, maybe I was a bit harsh on Klein. She's Canadian, not American. <a href="http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/01/israel-boycott-divest-sanction">www.naomiklein.org/articles/2009/01/israel-boycott-divest-sanction</a>   America's tame left weakens opposition to Israeli apartheid

2009-06-25T12:39:14-04:00

200

2009-02-09T09:32:35-05:00

245 13 israelcoatofarms.png 3 Israel's coat of arms <a href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/10/439021.html?c=on#c233827">http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/10/439021.html?c=on#c233827</a> - the latest on the Scotsmen who are charged with 'aggravated racism' for disturbing a concert of Israeli musicians during the siege of Gaza. <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6837725.ece">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6837725.ece</a> - the latest on this diplomat <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5693687.ece">www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5693687.ece</a> 'A senior Foreign Office diplomat has been arrested for inciting racial hatred after an angry tirade at his gym. News reports today said that Rowan Laxton, 47, allegedly shouted "f***ing Israelis, f***ing Jews" while watching television reports of the Israeli attack on Gaza last month. He is also alleged to have said that Israeli soldiers should be "wiped off the face of the Earth" during the rant at the London Business School gym near Regents Park.' It doesn't stop with charging people for expressing their opinions. The guys in this story tried to start a boycott of Israeli dates by taking them outside their local grocery store and painting them red. The police are charging them with 'conspiring to commit racially aggravated criminal damage'. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235337">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235337</a> Here are the details of Scottish Palestine solidaritiy activists charged with 'racially agravated conduct' for disrupting a concert by an Israeli group: <a href="http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/04/scottish-solidarity-activists-charged.html">http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/04/scottish-solidarity-activists-charged.html</a> Britain's pc police charged a couple with a "religiously-aggravated" offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress to a Muslim woman, despite lack of evidence. Though the case was dismissed, they have had death threats: <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235337">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235337</a> British men arrested for thought crimes

2009-12-12T23:57:04-05:00

200

2009-02-25T13:39:30-05:00

168 15 naomi.jpeg 4 Naomi Klein's recent book 'The Shock Doctrine - the Rise of Disaster Capitalism' aims to show how the 'elites' have recently discovered how to profit from the disasters they cause (such as wars) or which happen naturally (such as tsunamis). Here is Alexander Cockburn's review: <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09222007.html ">http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09222007.html </a> and here is a review of his review by a chap called George Eaton at Warwick University: <a href="http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/geaton/entry/naomi_klein_and">blogs.warwick.ac.uk/geaton/entry/naomi_klein_and</a> Cockburn's points are <ul> <li>Capitalism has always used shock (the enclosures, transportation, the Irish Famine)</li> <li>Shock often fails ('Mission Accomplished')</li> <li>The poor can take advantage of disasters too (the Mexican earthquake of 1985) </li> </ul> This doesn't leave much of  Klein's theory. If the proletariat can use disasters too, it is better to figure out how, rather than playing the victim game, and her claim that there is some sort of new doctrine at work in modern capitalism is simply false. George Eaton defends her, claiming that Cockburn's review is  "another blow to Cockburn’s standing following his recent denial of man-made climate change..." Miaow! Seriously, Cockburn is one of a rare breed who doesn't worry about his 'standing'. He's not going to be intimidated by hacks like Eaton slipping in the loaded word 'denial' in place of 'skepticism'. Eaton does manage to fairly sum up one of Cockburn's points thus: "you're onto nothing new Naomi", but somehow misses the fact that he is right. Eaton claims that in listing the numerous shocking things capitalism has done before the shock doctrine was formulated, Cockburn misses Klein's point - "Klein’s specific objective is to document how disaster capitalism relates directly to the neoliberal counter-revolution that culminated in the 1980s" - which amounts to saying Klein tries to justify her argument by giving examples of when her argument is correct - which she does, but that of course proves nothing. Klein's awestruck fan then claims that Cockburn fails to mention Klein's section on natural disasters. Really? This is what Cockburn says: "Capitalists try to use social and economic dislocation to advantage, but so do those they oppress. War has been the mother of many a positive social revolution, as have natural disasters. The incompetence of the Mexican police and emergency forces after the huge earthquake of 1985 prompted a vast popular upheaval. In Latin America there have been shock attacks and shock doctrines for 500 years. Right now, in Latin America, the pendulum is swinging away from the years of darkness, the death squads and Friedman’s doctrines." This reminds me of the point I want to make. Klein et. al. complain about capitalism not being democratic. Trouble is, it IS democratic. The USA did, it is true, back military regimes in Latin America, but since the nineteen-seventies, has changed every one of them for a parliamentary democracy. It has invaded Iraq and installed a parliamentary democracy. It has invaded Afghanistan and installed a parliamentary democracy. Unlike Klein, Cockburn notices inconvenient truths like the fact that the huge country of India was shocked into neoliberalism without wars or tsunamis, but via democratically elected governments. This is because he uses the method of trying to find counter-examples, rather than examples, of a theory. I suppose I ought to read Klein's book myself before making a final pronunciamento on the subject, one which will settle the issue throughout blogosphere now and forever, and Naomi Klein will read it and say how clever I am.   Well, I tried. I got to about page ten. "I started researching the free market's dependence on shock four years ago, during the early days of the occupation of Iraq" she writes. Then she describes jetsetting around the world to scenes of devastation, and always finds the same thing - businessmen trying to take advantage of the crisis, backed up by pundits who say shock is good for business. As I guessed, her method proves nothing - it just consists of finding examples which support her hypothesis. Of course businesses try to make money in a crisis - they do the same when there's not a crisis. There are theorists who say shock can be good for business - there are as many who promote stability. On the other hand, radicals since Marx, have always seen crises, wars, etc. as harbingers of revolution. Revolutionaries, not reactionaries, are the more consistent promoters of 'shock doctrine'. The only time she finds evidence which disproves her argument, she doesn't notice. In Iraq, she finds corporations who have made lots of money out of the chaos. Much of this money was made because of the US government's failure to allow competitive bidding - it just gave contracts to Haliburton and so on. Competitive bidding is one of the hallmarks of neoliberalism - giving government contracts and taxpayers' money to the companies which can do the job most cheaply. The Iraq disaster isn't an example of shock in the service of neoliberalism. The occupation was not driven by rational capitalist interests. Klein's book is testimony to something she has pointed to - the 'dumbing down' of the left. Hopefully, she'll do better next time.   The Shock Jock Queen

2009-09-10T00:23:40-04:00

200

2009-02-27T10:41:47-05:00

<a href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/02/422947.html">http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/02/422947.html</a> Tbe author criticizes the union bureacracy for conspiring secretly with management to agree 850 job losses and hiding these plans from the workers. He quotes an orthodox trade unionist hack explaining how the union had no choice but to do this, given the current economic situation, and saying that some criticisms of the Unite union 'verge on being anti-union'. The author of this post on Indymedia goes further than 'verging' on this position: "The fact that BMW management felt comfortable to leave Unite to break the news indicates that management had complete confidence in the union to act as industrial policeman." He points out that the trade union view defends the needs of the market against the needs of the workers. There is no 'objective situation' - just the opposed interests of two classes. All I can add is to point out that unions have engaged in similar manouvers against the workers they claim to represent since they were founded!   Union vs. workers at BMW plant in Oxford, UK

2009-03-30T00:35:43-04:00

2009-03-30T00:09:38-04:00

A month after the murder of Oscar Grant, 4 cops died killing another man: <a href="http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/03/22/18580641.php">http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/03/22/18580641.php</a> Four Cops Die Killing Man in Oakland

2009-03-30T00:09:38-04:00

2009-04-02T13:04:16-04:00

Update: September 3, 2009 <a href="http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/09/03/the-good-war">http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/09/03/the-good-war</a> <h3>The 70th anniversary of the 'outbreak' of WWII</h3> Again, Raimondo is on the ball at <a href="http://antiwar.com">antiwar.com</a>. He defends Pat Buchanan's analysis of 'the unnecessary war' against people who call him a 'fascist' and so on. I was raised to believe Briain 'had to' declare war on Germany in order to stop a madman taking over the world. This is quite a claim, since this declaration of war led to over fifty million deaths. You have to be pretty sure you are right to make such a claim. But in our topsy-turvy world, it is those who challenge the official story who are put on the defensive. For the last few days, the media has been full of stories of the argument between the Polish and Russian governments about Russia's role in starting the war. The Poles claim the Russians carved up Eastern Europe with Germany, and this constituted an act of war. Conversely, the Russians claim the Poles were colluding with the Nazis. In fact, neither Germany nor Russia started the Holocaust. It was Britain.   In 2004, I posted a review of Philip Roth's novel The Plot Against America on Indymedia: <a href="http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/304581.shtml">portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/304581.shtml</a> Since Indymedia has deleted another post on a similar subject, with the same politics, by me - <a href="4">https://pacificaforum.org/posts/4</a> -  I thought I'd repost it here for posterity in case they ban this too. But first, here is one of the replies to my review by a fellow named 'Bakunin': 'Check into your history about Lindbergh and quit perpetuating the anti-semeitc argument that it's a "Jewish lobby" that motivates US policy in Isreal. It's geo-politics moron.' Read the review, and decide for yourselft who is more of a moron, Bakunin or me. Below it, a more recent review by me of a book by Patrick Buchanan.   <h3 class="articletitle">Review: 'The Plot Against America' by Philip Roth</h3> published by Houghton Miffin, New York, 2004 I like Philip Roth's robust writing style. It reminds me of Hemingway and Miller. There is a connection between attitude and style. Honesty isn't as easy as we like to think. Roth's strength has always been honesty about sex, violence, and family life. There is a shadow of this honesty in this novel, but this shadow is overshadowed by an agenda. This leads to bad politics and plot. 'The Plot Against America' is about what might have happened if the anti-war aviator Charles Lindbergh had stood against Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940 and won the presidency: the US government negotiates with Nazi Germany and persecutes Jews, including Philip Roth's family. Before Pearl Harbor, there was a conservative isolationist movement in the USA consisting of Americans who didn't see why they should die in wars between European powers. Roosevelt did see why, and he won the 1940 election and pushed America into war. This novel tries to convince us that 'War is Peace'. Roosevelt, the man who supported Britain's declaration of war on Germany by supplying her with guns, who provoked the Japanese, who used every trick in the book to drag a reluctant America into a massacre, is tarted up as a good guy, whereas Lindbergh, who wanted to keep America out of the war, is an accomplice of Nazi aggression. It is true that Lindbergh was anti-semitic. He was also anti-black and anti-Asian. Anti-semitism is taken out of context, arbitrarily separated from other prejudices and given special importance. It never occurs to Roth to step outside of being Jewish and take a more generically human perspective. I know this is possible, as I've done it myself. I could use my own family's experience to excuse support for the Allied side during World War II - my mother was a refugee from German bombing - but I have risen above this and adopted a more balanced view. Both sides committed war crimes on an unimaginable scale. There is nothing to choose between Germany and Russia, Japan and America, Fascism and Democracy. Whining about the Nazis when you support the Allies is chutzpah. On page thirteen, Roth is outraged that Lindbergh accuses the Jews of supporting war. On page fifteen, he describes his Jewish neighborhood in New Jersey as being one hundred percent pro-Roosevelt - in other words, pro-war! To his credit, Roth reproduces one of Lindbergh's actual speeches in an appendix. Lindbergh argued that both the British and Jewish 'races' had good reasons for wanting America to enter the war, but that Americans had equally good reasons for staying out (page 388). A bit archaic, but not quite the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Lindbergh believed in the significance of race. So did almost everyone at the time. Today, only the American left still considers race important. Roosevelt supported the Eugenics movement which led to the sterilization of perhaps 60,000 people. There's not much to choose between Lindbergh and Roosevelt in racism. But in Roth's imaginary 1940 election, there was one significant difference. Lindbergh was against war. I regard Roosevelt as the greatest war criminal in history - greater even than Stalin or Hitler. It was Britain which started world war two, the worst conflict in history, by declaring war on Germany. Chamberlain announced 'this country is now at war with Germany' as though it were a fait accompli and he could do nothing about it. He claimed he had to attack Germany because Germany attacked Poland. Bad luck Poland, but is it my problem? In any case, Russia also attacked Poland a few days later, and Chamberlain didn't declare war on Russia. On the contrary, Britain allied herself with a country similar to Nazi Germany. Even an average person, stupified by democracy, should be able to see the absurdity of allying with Stalin against Hitler. Stalin also murdered millions of people in concentration camps, but not many of them were Jewish, so it's OK. Britain found itself batting from a sticky wicket, and called on the colonies. Faithful retainer Franklin D. Roosevelt supplied arms - an act of war - and risked American merchant seamen's lives among the U-boats. Pearl Harbor is still a hotly contested topic today. There is no room here to go into it, but it was certainly not an unprovoked attack. But Roosevelt's greatest crime was this: in 1943 he persuaded Churchill to adopt the policy of 'unconditional surrender'. This was his offer to Hitler and Tojo: "Here's the deal - you surrender, we occupy your countries, then we hang you". This insanity prolonged the war and condemned millions to death. Roth makes some good points about the futility of compromise, about the need to stand up to violence, about the cowardly tendency we all have to blame the victim. The journalist Walter Winchell is accused by more moderate Jews of 'playing into the hands' of anti-semites by being too extreme. A common mistake. Always defend extremists on your own side. Grovelling to authority gets the Jewish leaders as little as it got Yasir `Arafat. There is a clear analogy between the Jews who collaborate with Lindbergh's regime and European Jews who thought they could ingratiate themselves with the Nazis. Chief among these were the Zionists (see Lenni Brenner - <img src="http://portland.indymedia.org/img/extlink.gif" border="0" alt="" /> <a href="http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner">http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner</a>). For some reason, Roth misses the opportunity to discredit Zionists by imagining them collaborating with an anti-semitic American government. As a child, Roth is acutely aware that an African American was featured on a postage stamp before a Jew, and that there was only one Jewish baseball player in 1942. He is right to say there was anti-semitism in pre-war America, but he takes it out of context. There was all sorts of racism. The biggest lynching in American history claimed the lives of eleven Italians (<img src="http://portland.indymedia.org/img/extlink.gif" border="0" alt="" /> <a href="http://www.niaf.org/milestones/year_1891.asp">http://www.niaf.org/milestones/year_1891.asp</a>). But anyone with a brain, and a heart, can see that the overwhelming racism issue in the USA is anti-black racism. Roth ignores this completely. This is not only politically insensitive, it leads to some implausible events. He imagines anti-Jewish riots with the complicity of Lindbergh's government. Jews are attacked in their cars driving through the midwest. But hang on a minute - how do the rednecks know they are Jews? Perhaps this is one of the reasons racism tends to focus on black people - they're easy to spot. Roth views the Ku Klux Klan and other American racist organizations as being primarily anti-semitic. This is not true. Jewish identity colors his view of the whole world. On page 157, he describes with horror Japan's 1942 offensive in the Pacific. Doesn't he know that the British and the Americans also ruled with 'all the righteous cruelty of the racially superior', from the Philipines to Tasmania? The Japanese showed that racism is not the prerogative of the white man. Roth could easily see this, but his typically Jewish obsession with the evils of Nazism leads to a similar one-sidedness in his view of Germany's ally. It is well known that the Allies did nothing to stop the Germans killing Jewish and other civilians. They could have bombed the railroads leading to the concentration camps, but instead, bombed German cities, adding to the holocaust rather than subtracting from it. I don't know if this made German anti-semitism worse, but certainly, bombing doesn't bring out the best in people. Take my family for example. They still think Roosevelt was a good guy. Towards the end of the novel, Roth's hypersensitivity gets the better of him, and the novel races from plausibility to paranoia and unintended comedy. Not satisfied with amalgamating anti-war conservatives with pro-Nazis, he throws in the whole history of anti-semitism. Lindbergh's government ends up not only taking orders from the Nazis, but spreading old Russian stories about child sacrifices and so on. I won't spoil the reader's enjoyment by telling how Roth explains the true story of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping. I will reveal that he tries to get his revenge on the Germans by imagining them committing crimes as fantastic as any that anyone has alleged against the Jews. 'The Plot Against America' is a fun read, and deservedly popular. I expect most of its readers agree with its pro-war politics. Yet its timing is odd. Fascism in America today hasn't come from the isolationist right, but from the war party, subordinated to Israel by the American Jewish lobby. The continuing importance of world war two is illustrated by the fact that 'appeasement' is used to insult opponents of the 'war on terror'. The answer to these taunts should be that appeasement was right then, and it's right now. It's close to the sixtieth anniversary of the end of the second world war. It's a tribute to the propaganda machine in which Roth is a small wheel that most people see Roosevelt as a hero. But we have our media too - Antiwar.com being the most prominent. One day, we'll bury the war party and burn their flag.   <h3 class="articletitle">Review: 'Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War' by Patrick Buchanan</h3> Published by Crown Publishers, New York, 2008 When the Bush administration announced it was going to invade Iraq in 2003, some of its supporters compared Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler, and compared opponents of war to those who had 'appeased' the Nazi leader. The usual response to this slur is to say that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the world, as Hitler had been. Pat Buchanan, old-time conservative and opponent of war and empire, takes a different tack. He says "Well, what if we had appeased Hitler? How could it have made things worse?". There are numerous ways in which it can be argued that Germany's foreign policy, up until the invasion of Russia in 1941, was no more aggressive than Britain's. The key argument, ably disinterred by Buchanan, is that Britain's guarantee of Poland's independence, given in March 1939, encouraged the Polish dictator to think he didn't have to give an inch to Germany, even though some of the latter's demands were reasonable attempts to claim back land which had been unfairly taken at the end of World War I. This provoked Hitler, who didn't want a war with Britain, and couldn't see why she had any quarrel with his ambitions in Central and Eastern Europe, particularly when she couldn't do anything to stop him. There is not a shred of evidence that the Nazis wanted to take over the world. They believed Britain should keep her Empire. Hitler refused to support Indian independence because of his racism; he thought the British had the right to rule there. War didn't 'break out'. Neither did Hitler start the war. When Prime Minister Chamberlain announced, on September 3rd 1939, that 'this country is at war with Germany', he made it sound like something which had just happened, rather than admitting that he had just declared war. Britain started the worst disaster in history. Churchill's wholehearted incorporation of left-wing propaganda into his already deranged world-view made it worse. The alliance between Britain and Russia is difficult to understand. Ideologically, from a Western democratic conservative perspective, there is nothing to choose between Hitler's and Stalin's regimes. Stalin attacked Poland sixteen days after Hitler, so how could Britain's guarantee to Poland justify war with Stalin against Hitler? Buchanan gets a bit carried away in his denunciation of 'Bolshevism', showing no sympathy whatever for how the Russian Revolution started. However, he is right to say that in 1939, Stalin had killed a helluva lot more people than Hitler. Just as today it is crucial to understand what makes people become Islamic fundamentalists, rather than moralistically and hypocritically denouncing them for their 'hate', so Buchanan tries to understand the appeal of fascism and the origins of the Axis, the alliance of Japan, Germany, Italy, Hungary and Romania during World War II. In a nutshell, it was the shabby treatment of Japan and Germany by Britain and France that caused their adoption of imperialism, and the other countries jumped on board because they thought Germany and Japan would win. Japan was offended by Britain's renunciation of the Anglo-Japanese treaty. It was interesting to read of the Australian Prime Minister trying to persuade the authorities in London to keep this treaty going - he knew that Britain couldn't defend his country. The best course was to allow Japan to rampage around at will north of Malaya, and agree to allow Britain to keep its existing possessions. Instead, the Brits tore up the treaty, and threw themselves into the arms of Uncle Sam, who at the time had no commitment or ability to defend them. So the Japanese rampaged around anyway, and got as far south as Darwin. A thought experiment: I used to believe that, in 1939, I would not have fought for Britain, because Britain had no real quarrel with Germany. On the other hand, I reasoned, in 1941, when Japan started moving toward Australasia, I would have joined up, hoping to defend its people from a repeat of the horrors the Japanese army had inflicted on the inhabitants of Asia. In other words, I admit to a trace of 'ethnic identity' - though in theory I should defend the people of Nanking, in practice, I would no more defend them than today I would volunteer to defend Rwandans. On the other hand, Australians and New Zealanders are not foreigners to me. There is no rational or moral reason for this attitude - it just happens that I had it.   Buchanan has restored me to a pure 'revolutionary defeatist' position - I would try to avoid national service in any of the wars at that time. I would attempt to subvert Australian loyalty to Britain, and argue for a separate peace with Japan. I would be the Lenin of the South Pacific, sailing to Sydney in a sealed submarine. Germany's conquests up until after Britain and France declared war on her consisted mostly of taking back land that had been stolen from her at the end of World War I. France and Britain achieved this by deliberately causing mass starvation, and threatening more if Germany didn't capitulate. Buchanan is so determined to show Germany's lack of culpability, he claims the bombing of Rotterdam and Guernica was not really 'terror bombing' because they were being invaded at the time, so they were military targets, and it was just traditional 'siege warfare'! On the other hand, Britain started 'terror bombing' of civilian targets in earnest from the day Churchill took over in May 1940. Some people use the Nazi Holocaust as an excuse for the massive bombing raids on German civilian targets. The problem is, the raids started before the Holocaust. Those who blame the Holocaust on the bombing are on more logical ground, although admittedly, that's not saying much. Historians such as Buchanan, and some even further to the right, are useful in helping undermine anti-fascism, the fusion of socialism and barbarism on which we have all been fed since birth. Buchanan mentions Italy's invasion of Albania, when King Zog was forced to flee. Perhaps one day Buchanan and his supporters will repeat the exercise in America. Lindbergh, Fascism and World War II

2009-09-11T16:38:01-04:00

2009-04-03T20:02:18-04:00

Re. your battle with libcom.org <a href="2"></a> <a href="2">https://pacificaforum.org/posts/2</a> it does seem strange that a collective of mostly Brits should have become so enamoured of American crypto-Zionism. They recently claimed that something someone in San Francisco wrote about the Iraq war contained 'casual antisemitism', seemingly just because it makes some 'tail wagging the dog'-type observations.  Anyway, I've had a good look at the stuff you've been writing on Pacifica Forum. In general I think it's pretty good. In particular, I think your article about the David Irving meeting was a very well argued defence of the need for 'freedom of speech' in connection with the Holocaust and related issues. But the best thing about your writings on the Israel/Palestine/US question is that they've encouraged me to read Gilad Atzmon's stuff. <a href="http://gilad.co.uk/politiks.htm">http://gilad.co.uk/politiks.htm</a> He's a cool dude! I can see exactly why the Zionists and PC lefties hate him so much. I suppose the main point he's making is that if you want to oppose Zionism then you have to oppose Jewish identity. This is spot on. I remember the folk singer Leon Rosselson once making a comment at one of his gigs along the lines of "if you're of Jewish origin but you're not religious and you're not a Zionist there's not really much point in calling yourself a Jew". Unfortunately, he then fudged the issue by claiming to believe in some kind of 'Jewish spirit' and then sang a song about it. I guess Mr Atzmon wouldn't do that. The only problem I have with Atzmon's writings (but maybe I haven't read enough of them) is that he doesn't seem to see, or can't be bothered to point out, that most of what he says about the inconsistencies and double standards associated with pro-semitism/anti-semitism apply just as much to other forms of racism. But he certainly makes his points very clearly. Personally, I think it's worth talking about these kind of issues because it highlights the whole area of 'the irrational in politics'. The reasons people have for adopting all kinds of inconsistent attitudes to racism (and sexism) don't really have much to do with 'politics' in the usual sense - we're in the realm of psychology. What we're dealing with here is 'emotional blackmail' politics, and it's a very powerful force! An importance difference between the US and the UK in this area is that in the UK the Islamists are able to organise greater forces of emotional blackmail within the left than the Zionists are. However, I still think it's worth pointing out that a lot of what passes for opposition to racism is actually racist, although obviously not with the intention of making the anti-racists feel guilty about it. Finally, I think that the guy who removed Wildcat from his site was acting despicably. Keep up the good work - libcom.org suck!

2009-04-03T20:02:18-04:00

2009-05-03T19:57:21-04:00

257 24 ahava-protest.jpg 5 Protest against Ahava cosmetics The website <a href="http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com">http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com</a> is a useful source of information on Zionism. I expected it to produce a clear analysis of the recent United Nations Conference Against Racism, which several countries withdrew from because they said it would descend into 'Israel-bashing'. Since the state of Israel is clearly racist, it is difficult to see how a conference against racism can avoid bashing it. The countries which withdrew, boycotted a speech by the Iranian President, or never showed up in the first place, consist of Israel and several Western countries, including the USA, Britain, Holland and Australia. According to the analysis in 'Jews Sans Frontieres', the reason these Western countries showed solidarity with Israel, is because of white racism: <a href="http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/05/durban-and-white-zionist-alliance.html">http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/05/durban-and-white-zionist-alliance.html</a> 'Since Herzl's famous "rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism," Zionist organizations know who their natural allies are.' - 'the genocidal settler colonial states (the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand)'. It's not surprising these Western countries should have supported Israel in diverting the conference from criticizing her racist policies against the Palestinians, says Gabriel, the author of the piece - they are racist too! But, in spite of their undeniably racist history, these 'genocidal' states have some record of opposition to racism in the last few decades. The towering example, but not the only one, is their boycott of their sister state, South Africa, which was one of the main reasons apartheid fell. When African dictators like Haile Selassie made speeches calling for the apartheid state to be 'utterly destroyed', diplomats from Britain and the USA listened politely and applauded. Yet when the president of Iran made a speech denouncing Israel as racist, the Western governments and the media ignored the truth of this allegation, focusing on the fact that he has in the past called for the Israeli regime to be... utterly destroyed! The Western countries do not in fact uncritically support racism. They would not disrupt the conference against racism, UNLESS, as they made perfectly clear, it condemns JEWISH racism. Gabriel claims the 'clowns' who disrupted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech were 'white', and that this is significant. But isn't it possible that they are Jewish, too? And isn't it possible that this, too, is significant? The Western countries and their European populations are not 'natural' allies of Israel at all. If they followed their own interests, they would certainly downgrade their support for the Jewish state. A white European has no reason to support Jews against Iranians. But his government, and the media, tell him he should. A more accurate, and more effective, way of turning Europeans and Americans against Zionism would be to point out their lack of interest in funding it, rather than tell them they do it because they are racist. But Gabriel and his fellow 'Jews Against Zionism' try to eat their cake and have it too, by fusing Jewish supremacy with white supremacy. They say to Jews "don't support Zionism - it's linked to white supremacy!". But most Jews know better. They support Israel because Israel defends their interests. Jews blackmail others into supporting their racism, using white guilt and the daily media barrage of Holocaust history to which we are exposed. This is why the US and the European countries backed Israel and undermined the conference against racism. When the German chancellor visited Israel, she said Germans have to support Israel because of the Holocaust, and she meant it. She isn't a closet white supremacist, supporting Israel because she thinks Jews are whitey's natural allies. On the contrary. White guilt won't defeat Zionism, and I wonder if Gabriel and his comrades really believe it will. PS. My post at Jews Sans Frontieres is still deleted, but they have explained why they deleted it - a perfect illustration of how political correctness undermines criticism of Jewish racism: I don't know who deleted your comment, but I sure don't have a problem with that and will continue to delete your white supremacist cant. The post you "criticized" has links and quotes to African American activists, who, unlike you, understand that there's more to the world's problems than Jews. It was published in Pambazuka, a Pan African liberation website, that, again unlike you, understand that Durban was not primarily about Israel. I am sorry that it hurts so much, but you are white. Glad that you found a way to avoid taking responsibility for white domination by blaming "the Jews". The answer to that last sentence is so obvious I won't insult the reader by writing it...         The UN Conference Against Racism - A White-Zionist Alliance?

2009-10-11T12:00:25-04:00

200

2009-05-06T14:01:35-04:00

149 25 palin.jpg 1 <a href="http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/05/05/jon-stewart-wimp-wuss-moral-coward/">http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/05/05/jon-stewart-wimp-wuss-moral-coward/</a> This writer, Justin Raimondo, usually has something interesting to say, but today, he's excelled himself. He's not the only person in America who doesn't watch Jon Stewart's show - I've never seen it either. But almost everyone I know does, and they regard Stewart as a brilliant comedian and a major influence on politics - apparently his attack on Republican airhead Sarah Palin helped swing the election. Raimondo's article explains how Stewart called Harry Truman a war criminal for murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians - then retracted it under pressure! On an unrelated note, the people remaking the 'Dambusters' movie about a bombing raid on Germany are having sleepless nights worrying about whether to reveal the fact that the commander's dog was called 'Nigger'. Not about the thousands of people killed in the raid. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise</a> I used to have a model of a Lancaster bomber hanging from my ceiling when I was young. Considering how much damage these planes caused, mostly to civilian targets, this is like a German boy having a model gas chamber. Yet another unrelated note: Anthony Beevor's new book challenges the official story of D-Day - many French people did not see the invaders as 'liberators', mostly because of the bombing which had preceded the invasion. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8084210.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8084210.stm</a> He also withdrew the comment that the Americans were guilty of war crimes. He's the guy from whom I got the information about the Russian assault on Berlin ( not for the faint-hearted ): <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/01/news.features11">http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/01/news.features11</a> Jon Stewart retracts calling man who bombed Hiroshima a 'war criminal'

2009-06-13T08:44:00-04:00

200

2009-06-23T15:52:19-04:00

150 26 bikini-protest-2.JPG 6 <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05072009.html">http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05072009.html</a> - 'Criminalizing Criticism of Israel' by Paul Craig Roberts - describes the international effort to suppress criticism of the Jewish state. In Europe, this effort is led by Germany, and in America, it's led by the Anti-Defamation League. The new Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act says 'Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)' It offers special protection for people who can claim to be oppressed for their 'race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability'. According to the Anti-Defamation League, which sponsored the act, “freedom of speech does not extend to racist groups” (the ADL, a keen supporter of apartheid Israel, obviously does not include itself in this category). Left-wing anti-fascists seem to agree with the ADL, as I explain in this post: <a href="http://palestinethinktank.com/2008/05/22/the-mass-psychology-of-anti-fascism/#comment-9884">palestinethinktank.com/2008/05/22/the-mass-psychology-of-anti-fascism/#comment-9884</a> It is idiotic for leftists to help Zionism. Numerous left-wing academics have come under sustained attack from Zionists who hate our freedoms. Norman Finkelstein didn't get tenure at DePaul, Douglas Card at Oregon grovelled, Hampshire College was forced to apologize for supporting a boycott of Israel, and so on... <a href="http://pulsemedia.org/2009/02/25/on-dershowitz-and-hampshire-college/">pulsemedia.org/2009/02/25/on-dershowitz-and-hampshire-college/</a> Recently, I engaged in correspondence with a major historian of the Middle East. He complimented my views, though we have tactical disagreements. He could not give me permission to publish his reply on this site alongside his name, because this site mentions David Irving, even though it does not endorse any of Irving's controversial views. Even this link would get him into trouble with the university and with the national education department. And he doesn't live in Israel. A recent issue of Counterpunch print magazine contained a graphic description of the persecution of a liberal Peace Studies academic for her study of the Iraq war and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. The author of the piece generally describes the Zionist manouvers which led her to leave her job at Colgate College in New York as examples of right-wing pressure. For example, Fox News and the loony right-wing site freerepublic.com both had something to say about her careful, compassionate treatment of the negative consequences of US Middle East policy. In retrospect, she says she is just as aware of left-wing and anarchist capitulation to Zionist pressure. AK Press, the anarchist publisher, is about to produce a book about threats to academic freedom. The piece in Counterpunch was originally intended for this book, but AK Press chickened out. One of their excuses was that they thought her article might be libellous. But Counterpunch showed it to their lawyer, and he said it wasn't actionable. Another anarchist excuse was that a famous left-wing author wouldn't give the article a good review. He is a friend of a professor of Peace Studies at Colgate who is sympathetic to Israel. Well, put it this way, he describes Israel's Apartheid Wall as a 'fence'. AK Press met with this jerk, and refused to meet the author. She is just as much a victim of left-wing as of right-wing complicity with Zionism. More importantly, our ability to resist Jewish racial supremacy is threatened by every move against Zionism's critics, whether the critics, or their attackers, are left, right or neither. It's not about left and right.   Attacks on freedom from left and right in the service of Israel

2009-11-05T13:22:10-05:00

200

2009-07-16T17:18:45-04:00

144 27 guards-attack-prisoners-in-florida.jpg 4 <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1200163/Caught-camera-The-shocking-moment-40-prison-guards-kick-punch-juvenile-inmates--handcuffed.html">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1200163/Caught-camera-The-shocking-moment-40-prison-guards-kick-punch-juvenile-inmates--handcuffed.html</a> Vicious attack on handcuffed prisoners by prison guards in Florida

2009-07-16T17:36:06-04:00

200

2009-07-20T13:20:13-04:00

274 28 irving-ad.jpg 2 Updated 9/16/09 Anti-fascists are still whining about the David Irving presentation. According to a new article on that paragon of journalistic integrity, Portland Indymedia,  'Northwest Nazi Campout Draws Small Crowd', SOME of the people who attended the Irving meeting actually believe in National Socialism. They had a barbecue in Washington (the state, not the occupied territory). The anti-fascists claim this proves that the Irving talk was 'a fascist networking event in which links and plans were made'. They want to imply that anyone who went to the talk, including us anti-war activists, was enabling Nazis to plot their dirty deeds. Indymedia won't allow us to defend ourselves against slander, so we have to do it here. As usual, the truth is more prosaic than the ravings of the anti-racists. Irving gave an interesting talk about British code-breaking during World War II. The meal was surprisingly good for a hotel, but there were no vegan options. None of the people in the room identified themselves as Nazis. It is of course possible that some were - we lack the mind-reading abilities of the anti-fascists. It is also possible that some of them talked to each other after the meeting. One of them may have said 'would you like to come to my fancy dress barbecue?'. This does not make it a fascist networking event. If fascists networked in your local Starbucks, it would not make it a fascist networking café. Come to think of it, I met a couple of left-wingers at the meeting, so was it a leftist networking event too? If a few nuts want to wear swastikas, it's not against the law. If anyone has evidence of any of them plotting to commit criminal violence, they should tell the police. Anti-fascists don't have such evidence, but they do have an agenda - using these irrelevant events to make us worried about 'hate', in particular, anti-semitism, undermining our ability to question the power of Zionism in the USA. <hr /> In the face of protests, an internet campaign of slander by antifascists, an alleged assault (of a hotel employee in Seattle - 'alleged' is a word unknown to antifascists), and petty vandalism in Phoenix, David Irving, the famous historian, spoke in Portland yesterday. We, Portlanders with enquiring minds, and a defiant attitude to people who use intimidation in place of argument, went to see him. Irving was in better form than he was in Eugene last year. I am not a historian, but I do know about two things he talked about: code-breaking and postwar UK government secrecy. In all sorts of details, Irving was scrupulous. He makes mistakes - like saying Britain had a queen during the war - but I didn't hear any evidence of deliberate falsification. He continues to do research into the vast piles of decoded messages from Bletchley Park, England - no honest person could say they are sure he is not telling the truth - unless they are a historian of WWII who can show how Irving is wrong. The internet antifascists and the protesters outside are not historians, but they have no shame in shouting 'Nazi' and 'Holocaust denier'. Both of these descriptions are lies, pure and simple. They call Irving a 'fraudulent historian', but how would they know? Judging by their comments on Indymedia, they can barely read and write English, and certainly not check thousands of documents in German typed by the employees of Bletchley Park. My point is not that Irving is right - I do not know whether he is right or wrong, so I do not claim to know. His antifascist opponents claim to know something which they do not know - that he is definitely wrong. This means they are lying, even if it turns out that Irving is in error. The main reason I and the others went was to defy the people who have slandered us on Indymedia and tried to get one of us fired from his job. But as it turned out, I learned something. So we should thank the antifascists for daring us to go. I sometimes wonder if Zionists wonder how useful their useful idiots really are. As our motley crew filed in, the police thought we were protestors, but we explained we just looked like them, that's all. Some of us felt unease at being behind a line of police rather than in front of them as is our wont, and we anticipate jeers about 'hiding behind the police'. Well, the alternatives are not going, thus handing a victory to a coalition of Zios and anarchos, or utilizing our knowledge of the constitution. Besides, you are often protected by the police; it's the nature of this society. Sometimes, you just have to go about your legal business under the protection of the law. Irving's audience in the hotel consisted of a mixture of people. There were old men with white beards, young smartly-dressed women, and some old Germans, pleased to hear an Englishman who doesn't blame them for all the horrors of World War II. As far as I could make out from some of the questions and the general demeanour of the assembly, it consisted mostly of 'Freedom-Loving Americans'. The kind of people who might vote for the Libertarian Party. That's L-i-b-e-r-t-a-r-i-a-n. Not N-a-z-i. One point most of the audience wouldn't have noticed is that Irving is a class traitor. He comes from a very upper-class English family. When the government wanted him to keep quiet about something, they asked him 'as a gentleman'. He has spent his career attacking his own class for their crimes against humanity, starting with his book on the British raid on Dresden in 1945. You might expect the left to welcome a man who deserts the upper class and condemns its crimes in the face of a barrage of lies, harrassment and even prison. Instead, they add to these lies and harrassment, of Irving and anyone who even wants to hear him. What about the Holocaust? Having gone through, in painstaking detail, numerous intercepts he has dug up in the British archives, numerous examples of why you believe some things and not others, why secretly-recorded confessions are more reliable than courtroom statements, he read out an estimate of the number of Jews killed by Himmler's 'special program', by Germany's leading statitician of the time. It was 1,274,116. I don't know about you, but for me, murdering this number of civilians puts the Nazis beyond the pale. I certainly won't be voting for them! For me, the difference between this number and the official estimate of 5 to 6 million is effectively zero. Irving put forward his latest theory, that Himmler hid the Holocaust from Hitler, with a few telegrams which appeared to back it up. I think this is rather unlikely, to put it mildly. But remember that president Carter didn't know what the CIA were doing in Central America. Carter was responsible for crimes committed on his watch, and so was Hitler. Irving agreed with me when I asked him about this. So he's not trying to exonerate Hitler. Several times, he cited Himmler and other Nazis writing about "Endlösung der Judenfrage" (Final Solution of the Jewish Question). Apparently, this isn't enough for his critics; just because you say something happened, doesn't mean you aren't denying it. Don't believe me? Read the next paragraph. What about the Jews? Yes, Irving does say things about 'the Jews'. I think he goes too far with talk of the Jews taking our money and running the media, and so on, but such talk is no danger to anyone today. Much more harmful is the campaign to undermine people who are trying to understand America's relationship to Israel. The occasional not-quite-pc remark some of them might make is no big deal. Anti-Racist Action (the Anarchist Defamation League), calls us 'fascist collaborators'. When one of the people they have tried to drive out of his job and community wrote "I don't deny the horrors of World War II including the Holocaust", the antifascists informed us "This itself is a classic Holocaust-denial strategy". Since the meeting, the 'anti' fascists have carried on their cowardly campaign, publishing people's photos, names, emails, phone numbers and addresses. The creator of the site <a href="http://ifamericansknew.org">ifamericansknew.org</a>, which is based in Portland and critical of Israel, has had a death threat from Zionists, so publishing people's details and calling them anti-semitic is irresponsible, to say the least. Irving finished with another example of why he has been a positive influence on me, despite out wildly differing politics. He read out an intercept of Japan's desperate attempt to surrender, on July 12 1945, with one condition: the emperor stays on the throne, a condition America agreed to a month later. The allies ignored the peace offer, condemning thousands of their own soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians during the remaining month of the war. The idea that the atom bombs were necessary to save the lives of American servicemen in an invasion is a lie. That's why they hate him. Who do I mean by 'they'? Well, here's two articles about Irving's US tour, one from a Zionist site with an Israeli flag, and one from a radical activist site: 1. David Irving’s holocaust-denial speaking tour - the show that must be stopped: <a href="http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/struggle/41181/USA-DavidIrving’sholocaust-denialspeakingtour-theshowthatmustbestopped">www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/struggle/41181/USA-DavidIrving’sholocaust-denialspeakingtour-theshowthatmustbestopped</a> 2. David Irving’s Holocaust-Denial Speaking Tour: The Show that Must Not Go On: <a href="http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/07/392426.shtml">portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/07/392426.shtml</a> I wonder if, by any chance, they might be related? Indymedia changed the title slightly, but left the following sentence in its uncritical copy of propaganda put out by an organization which endorses ethnic cleansing and apartheid: "The exact location of Irving's talk in each city has not been made public, due to Irving's fear of encountering the opposition he so richly deserves". The American left make much less effort to conceal their illogical position, against all racism except Jewish racism, than do their equivalents in Europe. When Irving spoke in Eugene last year, I asked a lefty protestor outside how you could oppose racism alongside pro-Israel racist Jews. She didn't understand the problem. Irving, who sometimes expresses racial prejudices in his personal opinions, is seen as more dangerous than the organized forces of Jewish racism which really kill people. David Irving in Portland

2009-09-16T16:08:12-04:00

200

2009-07-23T23:31:04-04:00

231 29 israel-flag-in-bin.jpg 2     Portland Indymedia helps the 'antifa' by publishing comments supporting them and deleting those that criticize them - and it's getting worse. I put this in the Indymedia discussion after Sunday's David Irving meeting, and they deleted it. As you can see, it contains nothing which breaks Indymedia's guidelines. It is not racist in any way :->     The Jewish Holocaust is remote history. Nearly all of those who lived through it are dead, and now their decendants are perpetrating yet another Holocaust against  the Palestinians, and for exactly the same reason that the Nazis perpetrated genocide against the Jews -- the Israelis are motivated by greed to steal the Palestinians' land and property, and out of Jewish supremacist racism and hatred for all nonJews.       Fifty highly-organized members of the Rose City Antifa showed up with banners and matching bandana masks to protest the appearance  of the little-known David Irving, which was attended by barely more than two dozen people. What was the Rose City Antifa's real agenda in drawing so much attention to the marginal nobody David Irving?        Where  will the Rose City Antifa members be when the next rally is held in Portland to protest the racist Israeli Apartheid? Will they attend, more than fifty strong, carrying banners and wearing bandana masks, shouting "Down with Israeli Apartheid?" Since the Rose City Antifa members are terrified of being identified as individuals, I advise them to wear their bandana masks, since Mossad and ADL agents will probably be photographing the anti-Israeli protest.       The Jewish Holocaust happened a long time ago and it is no longer relevant to current affairs. Ignore David Irving and he will remain anonymous. Ignore the Israeli Holocaust against the Palestinians and its genocide will continue. Rose City Antifa, will you be there, fifty strong at the next anti-Israel Apartheid rally in Portland? Never Forget the Israeli Holocaust against the Palestinians! -- pdx4truth, Portland   Indymedia censors fair, non-racist criticism of Israel

2009-08-28T11:11:19-04:00

200

2009-07-26T10:48:00-04:00

96 30 julian-troops-imm.jpg 2 One of Julian's stickers Julian Lee, a resident of North West Portland, has been harrassed by Anti-Racist Action, who describe him on the web and on posters near his home as 'Nazi Trash', and encourage his neighbors to physically attack him, because he posts stickers in his neighborhood which oppose illegal immigration. My point is not to defend Lee's politics, but stopping Mexicans crossing the border isn't Nazism. Anti-racists only see three categories. There are Nazis, Anti-racists who combat the Nazis, and Liberals, who believe in pathetic ideas like freedom of speech, and so are incapable of combatting the Nazis. Oh, and 'Nazi-enablers'. I'm one of those, apparently.   <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iAFfwCeEc0">www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iAFfwCeEc0</a> Look at this youtube video. I like how Julian stands up to the Antifa bullies. In dealing with bullies I have found the best method is to stand up and not back down Most bullies are cowards and because of that they respect people with courage.    I remember when I was about 10 years old being taught by my mother to not let people push me around. Stand your ground and fight back. At the time she said this I did not know what to make of it because I was in a peaceful school and neighborhood. Everything was cool. What was more weird was it was coming from my mom who was a peaceful Christian lady and I am sure she had never even been close to being in a fight in her life being that she grew up in rural Minnesota.    We moved to outside Chicago when I was in the 7th grade. I was very short and about 85 pounds. I was picked on by one bully that pushed me into the wall. I stood my ground and fought him back. My mom told me to fight back but she never instructed me on how to fight. As a result I ended up with two black eyes. However: I did get the respect of the bully and he never bothered me again. I was in a few more fights with other bullies and some I won and even if I lost I had their respect.    I do not know if the Antifa has even a high of a mental quality of an 8th grade bully. Maybe they do not but I am sure not going to give an inch to them.         Defying anti-fascist harrassment

2009-07-26T12:29:06-04:00

200

2009-08-28T09:24:06-04:00

298 34 Nazi_Irving_200.jpg 1 <a href="http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Anti-fascism-isn-t-working">http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Anti-fascism-isn-t-working</a> These anti-fascists are more subtle that their counterparts in the North Western USA. At least they recognize that     'Marching into an area that you do not know and have no continuing interest in and shouting what’s right for that area is alienating and counter-productive. People do not like being told what’s best for them and will kick back against or simply ignore this sort of activity.' This recognizes something the German left group Wildcat argued about twenty years ago regarding anti-fascists marching into poor areas: 'a punitive expedition of people with a superior morality'. <a href="http://f.acetio.us/wildcat/w16-bomberharris-afa.html">http://f.acetio.us/wildcat/w16-bomberharris-afa.html</a> If you really want to oppose extreme right-wing ideas, it's no good shouting insults and threats: you have to engage those who believe these ideas in dialog. You have to be prepared to listen. Anti-fascism isn't working

2009-12-17T00:22:15-05:00

200

2009-08-29T11:30:03-04:00

167 37 bogside.jpeg 1 Well OK, <a href="http://devlin-mcaliskey.blogspot.com">http://devlin-mcaliskey.blogspot.com</a> isn't really written by Bernadette McAliskey (née Devlin), one-time firebrand of the Bogside and bane of the Brits. Well I remember her feisty interventions on behalf of the oppressed Catholic people of Northern Ireland, physically attacking complacent politicians inside Britain's parliament. The author of this blog, Tom, isn't physically attacking anyone, or even advocating it, unlike some of the lefties in Oregon, who are trying to suppress freedom of speech, on behalf of the Israel Lobby <a href="http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/08/12/trial-by-indymedia">http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/08/12/trial-by-indymedia</a> He makes savage criticisms of Pacifica Forum, but that's fine. I intend to continue discussing the issue of Israel and anti-semitism with him as long as he is prepared to do so. Watch this space. And this one: <a href="http://devlin-mcaliskey.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-on-israel-and-anti-semitism.html">http://devlin-mcaliskey.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-on-israel-and-anti-semitism.html</a>   <hr /> Tom gets off to a bad start. He cites the Southern Poverty Law Center as if it were a reliable source of information. In fact, it is a campaign to undermine freedom by exaggerating hate crimes, as an article Harper's Magazine made clear. Harper's readers were among the SPLC's biggest contributors before this explosive exposée: <a href="http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html">http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/ChurchofMorrisDees001100.html</a> Even the FBI has warned its branches not to believe what the SPLC says. In any case, the police cannot use it, because there is no law against 'hate' in America. The SPLC, and its Jewish counterpart, the ADL, try to recruit university staff to support attacks on freedom - and sometimes succeed. Their local supporters tried to get Pacifica Forum, a discussion group, expelled from the University of Oregon on the grounds that its 'hate speech' contributes to 'hate crimes'. They try to suppress criticism of Israel using the right against the left, and the left against the right. They recruited the Jewish Society against sociology professor William Robinson at UC Santa Cruz, and the Women's Studies Department against right-winger Kevin MacDonald at Cal State Long Beach. Even genuine academic departments joined the witch-hunt. See <a href="http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Beirich.htm">http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Beirich.htm</a> and <a href="http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/25/18603971.php">http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/25/18603971.php</a> The above page on Indymedia contains links to articles about a broad range of people victimized by the ADL and the SPLC, including black separatists. But Indymedia has helped the SPLC vicimize white separatists, and even people who listen to them. This is short-sighted. Tom answers my arguments in a touchy-feely way. Like many on the left, he confuses descriptive (what is) with prescriptive (what ought to be). When I say something, I expect it to be evaluated on the basis of whether it is true or false, not how it makes you feel, or what effect it is supposed to have. I try to put forward tests for my ideas, and ask people to attempt to falsify them. When I state the inconvenient truth that a rise in anti-Jewish prejudice might turn some people against support for Israel (on the grounds that they identify Israel with Jews), I mean just that. Unlike Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, my inconvenient truth is a) inconvenient, and b) true. It is not a 'tactic' for recruiting 'fascists'. It is not 'aimed at getting supporters of the Palestinians to be anti-semitic'. You couldn't persuade someone to be racially prejudiced on the grounds that it's effective, even if you wanted to! Only a leftist could suspect me of this. If I were thinking about 'tactics' for 'winning people over', I would not publish such uncomfortable ideas. Tom is however correct in noting that my writing 'could easily be interpreted as hoping for an upsurge in incidents' - indeed it has been interpreted in just this way by dishonest readers. The latest comment from Tom quotes a contributor to this site, S Smith, referring to the ideas of Gilad Atzmon, <a href="../23">http://pacificaforum.org/posts/23</a>: 'I suppose the main point he's making is that if you want to oppose Zionism then you have to oppose Jewish identity'. Tom's response to this summary of one of Atzmon's views is that S Smith is a 'bigot who is trying to accomplish something else in addition to genocide'. It's only a report of someone else's opinion, Tom! We don't go around telling people to stop identifying with their identity. Atzmon is more audacious. He knows Israel and the worldwide Jewish community well, and he is a savage critic of both. We don't claim that everything he says is right. A key indicator of Tom's paranoia is his allegation that I 'attack' Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein because they are all Jewish. In fact, I criticize Chomsky because I believe that his analysis of the relationship between America and Israel is false and unhelpful to the campaign for boycotts, sanctions and divestment from the apartheid state. The most important critic of Chomsky I cite is Jeffrey Blankfort: <a href="http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-blankfort.html">http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-blankfort.html</a>. I also quote Michael Neumann against the idea that the USA supports Israel because it is in its interests. And Gilad Atzmon. All three are Jewish. I also laud Jewish journalist Elinor Langer. It is Tom's paranoia about anti-semitism that leads him to miss these facts. Tom accuses me of 'making all sorts of excuses' for the death of an Ethiopian at the hands of skinheads in 1988, in 'The Mass Psychology of Anti-Fascism' <a href="../../mass/4">http://pacificaforum.org/mass/4</a>. If he'd looked at my references, he would see that all my information about this tragedy comes from a book by Nation journalist Elinor Langer, who lived in Portland at the time. It is she who told me that it wasn't a planned lynching, and that the SPLC coached people to allege right-wing nut Tom Metzger sent them to Oregon with instructions to commit racist violence. It was a civil prosecution - it would have stood no chance in a proper criminal court. Unlike most left-wing hacks, she rises above her feelings to tell the truth. During the campaign against South African apartheid, did anyone worry for a moment that they might be anti-white, or anti-Afrikaaner? There was a small party which wanted to ethnically cleanse South Africa of white people. Its representatives were welcome in Western anti-apartheid circles. It was not an issue. When I met one of these people, I didn't call him 'racist', though that would have been technically true. This party was no danger to me, nor to anyone in South Africa. It's the same today with people who rant about 'the Jews'. As a leftist, Tom is surely aware of the concept of 'privilege'. I don't mean this in a hand-wringing pc way - I just mean that sometimes you can get the better of someone else because of your race, sex, etc.. Back in the day, a white man working on a construction site in Britain could move to South Africa and instead of working, have twenty black men working for him. That's privilege. Some people took advantage of it. But even those who didn't, had the privilege anyway. It's the same with Jews and Israel. So it's not surprising that many Jews support Israel. Like most leftists, you make a point of remarking how many Jews you know who are 'critical' of Israel. Why the knee-jerk reaction - Palestinians get bombed, and our first concern is to defend Jews?!!?!! Gilad Atzmon explains this better than I can: <a href="http://palestinethinktank.com/author/gilad-atzmon/">http://palestinethinktank.com/author/gilad-atzmon/</a>. He is a merciless critic of Jews Against Zionism, who pat themselves on the back, sit on the fence, and try to have it both ways. Their vicious reaction - slandering him, trying to get him barred from meetings and Indymedia - shows he has a point. I should know. Tom is adamant that anti-semitism doesn't help the Palestinian cause. One of the reasons is that it makes it more difficult to win people to that cause. But this is a circular argument. If people didn't give two hoots about anti-semitism, it wouldn't make it more difficult at all. And people who are worried about anti-semitism when Palestinian kids are dying are useless anyway. It is true that the allegation of 'anti-semitism' has paralyzed the so-called Palestinian solidarity movement. But this allegation has been completely effective, despite being a pack of lies. How on earth could the allegations be more effective if they were true? For an opponent of Zionism to be concerned about anti-semitism is ridiculous. Jews are the most powerful ethnic group in the world. No other minority has anywhere near this influence - the power to make the world's richest countries donate vast quantities of treasure, and small amounts of blood, to support its interests. The reaction to me and my comrades' fair, balanced arguments have been censorship, abuse, attempts to get people fired, and threats of violence. We listen to a couple of right-wing speakers, and suddenly we're the new SS. If it wasn't for the involvement of the Zionist Jewish Federation on top of persecution by the left-wing thought police, it would be funny. Any concern about the bogeyman of anti-semitism can only weaken the struggle to save the Palestinians from genocide. It is easy to show that the Western countries do not support Israel for right-wing reasons: oil, geo-strategic hegemony, whatever. What is harder to demonstrate is that they support it for a left-wing reason: white guilt. It is easy to see this in the case of Germany - <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6263103.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6263103.stm</a> - what is bizarre is that it is also true of other Western countries. That's what I and others are trying to work out, and I thank Tom for clearly illustrating the problem. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6263103.stm"></a> <hr /> If I get run out of Oregon by the anarcho-zionists, I think I'll move to Colorado. They aren't quite so dictatorial in this freedom-loving cowboy state. When I posted on Colorado Indymedia about harrassment in Oregon, they didn't delete it! The lady who responded to me did say I am 'either a liar or a fool' but compared with calling me 'Nazi-enabling scum' who should be beaten until I give up 'racism sexism homophobia able-ism class-ism patriarchy heterosexism and male violence', that's quite a welcome: <a href="http://colorado.indymedia.org/node/1857 ">http://colorado.indymedia.org/node/1857</a> True, Tom Devlin-McAliskey (no relation) does address me 'LISTEN, FUCK-FACE', but that's probably just his way of saying 'Hello'. Here is Tom's response to my reply to his retort to my rant - he has convinced me I need to explain my views more carefully and less sarcastically: <a href="http://devlin-mcaliskey.blogspot.com/2009/08/even-more-on-israel-and-anti-semitism.html">http://devlin-mcaliskey.blogspot.com/2009/08/even-more- on-israel-and-anti-semitism.html</a> And of course, I could be wrong. One of the reasons for having civilized discussion rather than threatening behavior is it is less likely to drive your opponent into a corner. When people are subject to intimidation, they are less able to admit it if discover they are in error, because it seems like a capitulation to violence, which encourages it, which is worse than continuing to defend one's original views, even if they are wrong! One example where I could be mistaken is when I argued above that anti-white racism in South Africa is not an issue, but a white South African has successfully applied for refuge in Canada from racism in South Africa: <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article6818096.ece">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article6818096.ece</a> Debate with Bernadette Devlin

2009-09-06T10:49:31-04:00

200

2009-09-06T21:37:05-04:00

165 38 britrightzioflag.jpg 1 <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-holocaust-ku-klux-klan-and-other-claims-put-to-the-test-1808396.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-holocaust-ku-klux-klan-and-other-claims-put-to-the-test-1808396.html</a> 10-24-09: Nick Griffin, leader of the far-right British National Party, appeared on the BBC. The media is attacking him. Here is his defense: "I have brought the BNP from being, frankly, an anti-semitic and racist organisation into being the only political party which, in the clashes between Israel and Gaza, stood full square behind Israel's right to deal with Hamas terrorists." This is what I argued in my '<a href="../mass">Mass Psychology</a>' pamphlet of a year ago the extreme right in Britain became fervent supporters of Israel when they GAVE UP anti-semitism, and became anti-Muslim instead. Here is an attempt to discredit Griffin:   'In 1996, he accused British airmen of "mass murder" in the bombing of Nazi Germany'. Griffin has now abandoned this obvious, but inconvenient, position. He no longer accuses the Allies of mass murder, and he enthusiastically supports Jews killing children. The abandonment of anti-semitism has hardly been an improvement.  The left's attempts to avoid such inconvenient truths are triumphs of ingenuity:   <a href="http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/09/equating-nazis-and-zionists-continued.html">http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/09/equating-nazis-and-zionists-continued.html</a> This site is one of the most articulate defenders of the view that Jews shouldn't support Zionism because it is somehow anti-semitic. The fact that these right-wing white hooligans are waving the flag of Israel is supposedly evidence of this. I've tried to argue this point in the comments on their site - my comments, however moderately written, always get deleted. Mary at <a href="http://palestinethinktank.com">http://palestinethinktank.com</a> tells me they always delete her comments too and subject her to abuse. We touch raw nerves.   PS. My post at Jews Sans Frontieres is still deleted, but they have explained why they deleted it: I don't know who deleted your comment, but I sure don't have a problem with that and will continue to delete your white supremacist cant. The post you "criticized" has links and quotes to African American activists, who, unlike you, understand that there's more to the world's problems than Jews. It was published in Pambazuka, a Pan African liberation website, that, again unlike you, understand that Durban was not primarily about Israel. I am sorry that it hurts so much, but you are white. Glad that you found a way to avoid taking responsibility for white domination by blaming "the Jews". These 'Jews Against Zionism' play nearly every race card in the deck. They claim, as support for their views, that some black people agree with them. They say I am wrong because I am white. The only ethnicity missing is their own. Gilad Atzmon is so right about the 'anti-Zionist' Jewish left. They had me fooled. Not any more.     British extreme right supports Israel

2009-10-24T12:21:45-04:00

200

2009-09-13T13:22:51-04:00

In the 19th. century, the church was Charles Darwin's chief opponent. Many people were shocked at the idea that human beings are descended from - in fact, are - animals, and expressed their disbelief in terms of their belief. During the 20th. century, the political left emerged as another opponent of Darwin's theory of evolution. While accepting that evolution applied to animals and plants, people influenced by left wing ideas balked at the notion that much of what is human can be explained in this way. The words 'reductionist' and 'determinist', and in some cases, buckets of water, were thrown at men trying to apply evolution to human society. The more extreme opponents of human evolution said that everything is 'socially constructed', including heterosexuality. Their aims were in some ways laudable - for example, they wanted to prevent biology being used to justify marginalizing gays and lesbians. However, some of them were so driven by these good intentions they resorted to dishonest methods against scientists trying to integrate the social and physical sciences. A new movie about Darwin, 'Creation', cannot find a US distributer. The influential Christian site <a href="http://www.movieguide.org">http://www.movieguide.org</a> describes Darwin as 'a racist, a bigot and 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder'. Godbotherers borrow lefty language to slander science.   The church and the left against Darwin

2009-09-13T13:22:51-04:00

2009-10-08T16:48:35-04:00

153 43 GazaConflictWeb.jpg 6 The following two pages illustrate my contention that we need freedom of speech and should not be afraid of being accused of anti-semitism. The fact that I've been banned from a couple of sites for saying this also illustrates it, in my opinion. The first article, from <a href="http://palestinethinktank.com">Palestine Think Tank</a>, is an examination of the role of Jews in one of the great disasters caused by the Soviet government in the nineteen-thirties - the Ukrainian famine. I always believed it was the Bolsheviks trying to seize food to feed the cities, and the kulaks (relatively well-off peasants) destroying their produce rather than hand it over, plus botched collectivization, which explained the disaster - a materialist explanation. There are writers who beg to differ. They say ethnic conflict had something to do with it too. Bravo, Palestine Think Tank, for publishing a 'dodgy' article, and running the risk of being denounced as anti-semitic. I still lean toward my original materialist position - but no hypothesis is final. To paraphrase James Watson, science and history do not exist to give us a warm fuzzy feeling. <a href="http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/05/24/holocaust-and-holodomor-origins-of-anti-semitism">http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/05/24/holocaust-and-holodomor-origins-of-anti-semitism</a> The second page is a reply to the above, and although it yells 'Nazi propaganda', and gets quite heated, it contains some coherent comments: <a href="http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/anti-zionist-site-posts-nazi-propaganda">http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/anti-zionist-site-posts-nazi-propaganda</a>   Freedom of speech and anti-semitism

2009-12-17T22:25:57-05:00

200

2009-10-15T17:37:17-04:00

324 45 quds-swede.png 6 <a href="http://lassewilhelmson.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/liberate-al-quds-and-palestine/">http://lassewilhelmson.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/liberate-al-quds-and-palestine/</a> This is big. A Swedish anti-Zionist activist claims that Sweden's Anti Fascist Action physically attacked him and others while they were demonstrating for Palestinian rights. This sounds all too familiar to we anti-Zionists here in Oregon. But unlike our opponents, we should take care to use the word 'alleged' where appropriate. Watch this space... <a href="http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/10/14/lasse-wilhelmson-liberate-al-quds-and-palestine-and-the-public-attacks-the-speaker/">http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/10/14/lasse-wilhelms</a><a href="http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/10/14/lasse-wilhelmson-liberate-al-quds-and-palestine-and-the-public-attacks-the-speaker/">on-liberate-al-quds-and-palestine-and-the-public-attacks-the-speaker/</a> Anti-fascists in Sweden allegedly attack anti-Zionists

2009-10-15T17:57:57-04:00

200

2009-10-30T12:19:38-04:00

<a href="http://counterpunch.org/neumann10292009.html">http://counterpunch.org/neumann10292009.html</a> Michael Neumann is a great influence. His 'The Palestinians and the Party Line' <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann11182005.html">http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann11182005.html</a> of 2005 first woke me up to the argument that the USA's unconditional support of Israeli war crimes is not a product of capitalist interests. So I started to look elsewhere for an explanation. I reached some controversial conclusions.   <hr /> Neumann starts by saying Israel's defenders are increasingly besieged. If only. Neumann lives in Canada, the one country which is more pro-Israel than the USA: <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/engler10132009.html">http://www.counterpunch.org/engler10132009.html</a> Canada also has a far more extensive set of laws against hate speech than the US. These facts - the Zionism and the laws against freedom - might be related. So for Neumann to worry about holocaust revisionists hiding in the left, massing for its final assault on the last bastion of Zionism, shows a misplaced perspective. Perhaps he's feeling the pressure to conform, but his strategy for dealing with 'anti-semites' is at least non-violent - he thinks we should 'unmask' them. We should point to the fact that their sympathy for the Palestinians is an afterthought, not a priority. I am tempted to ask "well, isn't that better than nothing?". How would you 'unmask' a 'anti-semite'? "That wicked fellow - he likes Palestinians, but he doesn't like Jews!"? Somehow, it doesn't sound as effective as the normal leftist approach of shouting 'Nazi' at everything that moves. Seriously, Neumann asks us to distinguish anti-semites from 'real' opponents of Israeli crimes by asking of them "Did they rail against Jews in some other context, perhaps with dark references to Jewish ascendancy 'in Hollywood', or 'in the banks'?". The problem with this approach has been well exploited by the Israel Lobby: where do you draw the line? Sorry, Michael, but I think Jewish ascendancy in Hollywood has got something to do with America's immoral and irrational enthusiasm for the Jewish State. Another day, another Holocaust movie... Now, I didn't say this before I became interested in the Palestine question, so I guess that makes me OK. Should we really divide people on the basis of the order in which they adopted their views? Neumann has moved some way toward the traditional leftist view that critics of Israel have to be extra-careful about the danger of 'anti-semites' lurking in their midst In fact, he expresses this fear more dramatically than usual, comparing these people to pedophiles pretending to be good child care workers. If they are so dangerous, he should give us a good method for detecting them. The term 'anti-semitism' is vaguer than 'pedophilia' - definitions range all the way from 'mild criticism of Israel' to 'hatred of all members of an ethnic group'. (The term 'pedophilia' is also subject to a creeping redefinition, amalgamating normal feelings with extremely abnormal ones - but this essay is controversial enough already without going there...). The only examples of anti-semitism Neumann gives are holocaust revisionists Ernst Zundel and David Irving. And the site Stormfront, whose content the reader can probably guess (I won't link to it, or I'll be accused of 'having links' with it!). But what Neumann says about this site undermines his argument: 'It espoused antisemitism long before it became pro-Palestinian'. Ah. So it is pro-Palestinian then. Neumann attempts to argue that, if someone or something was anti-Jewish before it became pro-Palestinian, we should avoid it like we avoid pedophiles. I'm sorry, but I can't see why. If anti-semitism is one route to defending children (Palestinian ones), I don't see how it can be compared to harming them.  Seriously, I don't think Stormfronters would make good allies in opposing Zionism. But this is not because this would enable Zionists to call us 'anti-semitic' - they do that anyway. Their method is unable to distinguish David Duke from Desmond Tutu. It's a tactical matter. This statement brings out fear and loathing among traditional leftists, who are normally good at opportunism in single-issue politics. As usual, I have to say what I'm NOT saying. I'm not saying less than five million Jews were killed by the Nazis. I'm not denying it was the worst crime in history. I'm not arguing for a united front with the extreme right. I am arguing for a less hysterical attitude to their ideas. I believe the left's obsession with 'white privilege' is worse than useless when it comes to opposing Jewish racism. Back in 2002, Neumann was closer to my current position: "We should almost never take antisemitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it. I think it is particularly unimportant to the Israel-Palestine conflict, except perhaps as a diversion from the real issues." <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html">http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html</a> In this essay, he pointed out that the over-use of the term 'anti-semite' to denounce all critics of Israel, cheapens the currency, rendering the term meaningless. I agree, but unlike Neumann, I don't care. 'Having fun with it' for me means provoking Zionists and left-wing anti-racists into showing how close they are. I went to see David Irving with some friends. He's nowhere near as bad as they make out. He's certainly not a Nazi. I have no reason to believe his protestations of support for the Palestinians are insincere. The politically-correct left united with supporters of the Israeli Defense Forces to scream 'Nazi' at us. We have invited our anti-racist critics to join us on protests against Israel, but they apparently have better things to do - like sending threatening letters, spreading slander on the radio and threats on the internet, 'calling us out' as anti-semitic, trying to get us fired, etc.. <a href="http://wweek.com/editorial/3546/13087">http://wweek.com/editorial/3546/13087</a> I think Zundel is 'worse' than Irving, meaning his politics are even further from mine. But I believe that, like all revisionists, he should be defended against imprisonment for his ideas. It is obvious that Zionist supporters start by persecuting unpopular right-wingers, then move on to their left-wing and Muslim opponents. Isn't it? It's a classic case of 'first they came for the...' except in this case it's not communists and Jews, but holocaust revisionists. Revision is the normal procedure in historical research, with one exception. 'The' Holocaust is treated like a religion - it's a clear case of Jewish exceptionalism, of discrimination. Challenging that discrimination will help undermine the grip of Zionism and save the Palestinians from genocide. Neumann has a much better understanding of the facts of the holocaust than I do - his father was one of its leading historians. I'm not arguing about the facts - I'm arguing that the way the holocaust is presented encourages discrimination in favor of Jewish interests, in favor of Israel. I don't believe in defending revisionists because I think they've got the facts right. I believe in defending them because Zionists hate our freedoms. They hate them because they will eventually enable us to free ourselves from Zionism. My response to Michael Neumann on anti-semitism

2009-11-10T16:02:11-05:00

2009-11-16T23:18:43-05:00

Someone supposedly drew a swastika in a bathroom at Lewis and Clark College in Portland. A furore ensued. The student newspaper at rival college Reed pretended to hype up the danger of Holocaust denial. An outraged commentator said jokes like this can lead to genocide. The students parodied the furore brilliantly in their newspaper <a href="http://pamphlette.wordpress.com/ ">http://pamphlette.wordpress.com/</a> in an article claiming that the staff of the paper murdered all the Jews on campus. Some say this goes too far <a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/15/reed">www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/15/reed</a> but the students are standing their ground: 'One editor, answering for the group, said that the intent of the article was to satirize a column in Reed's student newspaper that "argued that satirical Holocaust denial enables real genocide. We found this claim ridiculous, and that the goal of our article was to satirize this notion by driving it to its logical extreme"' A parody of the outrage was posted on Indymedia, none of whose readers noticed it was a parody: <a href="http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/11/395430.shtml?discuss">http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/11/395430.shtml?discuss</a> Another parody: <a href="http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/12/396090.shtml?discuss">http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/12/396090.shtml?discuss</a> Portland students mock paranoia about anti-semitism

2009-12-11T22:29:50-05:00

2009-11-29T17:40:11-05:00

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/29/washington.police.shooting/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/29/washington.police.shooting/index.html</a> Another four-cop shooting - this time in Tacoma

2009-11-29T17:40:11-05:00

2009-12-07T12:26:26-05:00

200 53 wordsthatwound.jpg 6 First, please ignore my pretentious title. This isn't going to be as academically serious as the work it criticizes. It's polemical. That's my excuse for any mistakes. My interest in the ideas known as 'Critical Race Theory' was sparked off by a presentation at the Pacifica Forum in Eugene by a right-wing theorist called Valdas Anelauskas. Unlike his critics, Valdas is fair to those with whom he disagrees. Far from being a 'gutter bigot' as the President of the University of Oregon alleged, in a cowardly attempt to disassociate the University from the Forum, he is a genuine intellectual. Despite his aversion to the left, he cited the work of leading anti-racist theorists so honestly that I found myself agreeing with them! I often disagree with Valdas - for example on racial separatism (he's for, I'm against). But I stand with him on freedom of speech. Valdas's critique of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Words-That-Wound-Assaultive-Perspectives/dp/0813384281/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260206962&sr=1-1">Words That Wound -- Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment</a>, is different to mine. I'm not so much interested in directly opposing the politically correct left as in pointing out its contradictions. Well, one contradiction in particular. It gives Zionism a free pass. I wish I'd read the critical race theorists before writing my pamphlet <a href="../../mass">The Mass Psychology of Anti-Fascism</a> because they give ammunition to my complaint that some of the left, especially in America, is so obsessed with white racism, they hardly notice the much stronger phenomenon of Jewish racism. Instead of sarcastically putting down anti-racists as 'pc wankers', I should have taken on their best arguments first. This is where the authors of Words That Wound, Mari Matsuda, Charles Lawrence, Richard Delgado and others come in. Unlike the gutter bigots of Anti-Racist Action, they make valid points, and I'm going to take their arguments seriously, though they do occasionally fall into polemical tricks, like claiming that their opponents complain of being 'oppressed' by members of minorities, and embarrassing errors like taking Catharine MacKinnon seriously. I won't stoop to using this to discredit them. Not yet, anyway. Matsuda and her colleagues aren't just critical of a too-literal interpretation of the First Amendment. They also fail to appreciate another great Anglo-Saxon achievement, presumption of innocence. Many political factions have a crime for which they believe alleged perpetrators should not be presumed innocent. For Republicans, its purported terrorists who don't deserve a fair trial. For some feminists, its alleged sexual offenders. For critical race theorists, its anyone accused of saying nasty things to black people. "Listen first to the voice of the victims of hate speech" (page 9) But the presumption of innocence excludes listening first to the alleged victims of alleged crimes. This is true of real crimes like assault and murder, not just the nebulous new offences being dreamt up in left-wing law schools. Even where the offence is real, the prosecution has to bear the burden of proof all the way up a steep hill. I was happy when OJ Simpson was acquitted. I'm glad I live in a country where the prosecution has to prove its case. "Listening first to the victims" is a dangerous error, which has led to miscarriages of justice. Instead of looking for evidence, the anti-racist left says 'our voices must be heard'. This is much more insidious than postmodernists babbling about narratives, because it sounds fair, and appeals to our bleeding hearts. It is difficult to say no to the softly-spoken spokespeople of the pc left. Claiming that listening to certain ideas 'diminishes our sense of safety and diversity' doesn't sound like Stalinism, but it is. We must stick to hard evidence, freedom of speech and the presumption of innocence. A related problem with listening to 'stories' of racial harrassment is that many of them are just that - stories. I give a dozen or so examples of hate crimes which were proven to be fake in <a href="../../mass">my pamphlet</a>. However, there are of course real hate crimes, such as lynchings, and there is a genuine issue with whether leaving a Ku Klux Klan 'calling card' should be protected speech. This outrage just happened again this year in Kennett, Missouri, during the trial of a black woman who was assaulted by police during an argument in a Wal-Mart store. These cards allegedly said "You have been paid a social visit by the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. The next visit will not be social". A reasonable African-American, reading one of these cards, could well conclude he or she was being threatened with violence. There is already a law covering this crime - it's called 'assault'. If that law was applied correctly, those who left that card in Kennett would be arrested. If the police are failing to apply it, undermining the First Amendment with vague proscriptions against 'hate speech' isn't going to help. Left-wing anti-racism doesn't do much to really help the advancement of black people. It has another agenda. The 'listening to stories' method of academic research violates yet another basic principle of our society. It leads to collecting just the evidence for your hypothesis, rather than trying to disprove it, which is the scientific approach. Matsuda doesn't look for evidence that contradicts her argument, evidence that the current political atmosphere encourages people to make false claims that they are the victims of hate crimes. She and the rest of the pc academic left have helped create this atmosphere. It's bad enough when a black person sets fire to a cross in their own front yard. But when Jews scratch swastikas on their car or claim to have been assaulted by Muslims on the Paris metro, its even more serious - it adds to the victimology which encourages uncritical Western support for the Jewish state. Like their fellow alarmists in the ADL and the SPLC, the critical race theorists exaggerate not only the extent of racism, but the direction in which it is trending. "Racist hate messages are rapidly increasing" (page 24) In fact,  white racism has been declining since the abolition of slavery in 1864. It was the Supreme Court and the 101st Airborne which ended segregation in southern schools, not the Civil Rights movement. You may think the election of Barrack Obama would be a setback for anti-racist scaremongers. If the white Republican candidate had beaten Obama, they would have attributed it to racism. But Obama won. So how to spread paranoia and white guilt? Easy - the reaction to Obama's victory is racist. Regardless of events in the real world, anti-racism can make out racism is getting worse. "A marked rise of racial harrassment, hate speech, and racially-motivated violence marks the beginning of the 1990's" (page 44) They said the same in the 1960's. In the mid 90's, the anti-racists stirred up fear of a white movement called 'the militias', which didn't exist. Today, `“We see a mainstreaming of white nationalism that we haven’t seen previously,” says Eric Ward, national field director for the Center for New Community, an anti-racism nonprofit in Chicago... saying white nationalists may now be infiltrating the environmental movement and other progressive causes` - <a href="http://wweek.com/editorial/3546/13087">http://wweek.com/editorial/3546/13087</a> Occasionally, anti-racists accidentally say something truthful: "Victims of vicious hate propaganda experience physiological symptoms and emotional distress..." (page 24) Indeed. One of my comrades has experienced considerable distress as a result of a campaign of slander against him by anti-racist hate mongers. When anti-fascists post on the internet saying things like "If an average person should kick one of their asses, we should applaud... These scum don't deserve to exist", this is a genuine threat of violence written in a way which may just avoid breaking the law. There again, it may not. If we followed the logic of Words That Wound, we would be trying to get Indymedia banned for publishing these threats. Jewish blackmail is particularly effective at giving us emotional distress. It's difficult to say 'Jewish supremacy' but easy to criticize 'white supremacy'. The authors of Words That Wound haven't noticed this. I explain why below. Charles Lawrence is a lawyer. He argues, in Words That Wound, that the 1954 ban on segregation in schools was in effect a ban on a type of speech - segregation is a kind of speech, as in "don't bring your child to this school". So all that is needed, he argues, is to extend existing law to cover speech as speech as well as segregation as speech. But if racist speech is banned, as Lawrence argues, the powers-that-be will decide what is racist. The powers-that-be include Zionists, the most powerful racists in the country. They will use anti-racism to suppress opposition to Jewish racism. It's easy to predict this, because the US government boycotts international bodies which condemn Jewish racism as racist, though it supported the defeat of white apartheid. Lawrence overlooks this. He ingeniously argues "The purpose of the First Amendment is to further the greatest amount of speech. Racist insults disserve this purpose" (page 68) but the same applies to falsely calling someone a fascist, a Nazi or a racist, which happens all the time. This insults are designed to shut down debate, so according to Lawrence's logic, they should be made illegal! Lawrence isn't just a lawyer, he's an activist. He supports vigils at fraternity houses whose humor has gotten out of hand.The Duke University alleged rape case of 2006 is one of the most dramatic examples of an attempt to apply the principles outlined in Words That Wound. The case was tailor-made for the left: rich white frat boys were accused of rape by poor black women. Activists immediately organized noisy vigils outside the frat house, on the basis that “the daily violence of racism/white supremacy, sexism/transphobia/patriarchy, classism/capitalism, and homophobia/heterosexism are the intersecting sources of sexual violence". But the students were innocent. The understanding of the nature of American society peddled by the left makes it difficult to believe that the North Carolina police would conspire with an elite southern university's hospital to slander a group of white men. But that is what happened. This means the left's analysis is wrong. An important aspect of the anti-racist campaign against freedom is the use of civil law. The Southern Poverty Law Center cleverly used Oregon civil law to convict a neo-Nazi of organizing racist skinheads to commit violent crimes. He couldn't be prosecuted in a criminal court, because of lack of evidence. The man convicted really does publish statements which can fairly be described as 'hate', so most people accepted the verdict with relief. This is short-sighted - the SPLC picked on him first because he is unpopular. The case set a precedent where people can be prosecuted if their opinions appear to cause violence. A contributor to Words That Wound, Richard Delgado, cites various legal actions against alleged racists, most of them civil. It is possible to be convicted in a civil court of violating someone's civil rights even when you have been acquitted of murdering them. This is double jeopardy, a violation of a basic legal right. The "victims' voices must be heard" argument is well suited to the gradual undermining of this legal principle. The campaign against hate speech has a hidden agenda. Academics who defend some racially-based ideas have come under sustained attack by Zionists, anti-racists and feminists no matter how vigorously they reject hateful speech, the advocacy of violence, the use of racial epithets, etc.. 'Racism' is a broad enough category to attack freedom by amalgamating hate with serious scholarship. The critical race theorists dismiss allegations that their work has been abused to suppress freedom on campus. The reaction against their theory and its legal implications is not as Masuda asserts disguised racism, but a genuine attempt to defend academic standards against an assault on some of the achievements of Western culture - science, logic and freedom. They talk about a backlash: "Academic freedom and intellectual pursuit are alleged to be threatened by 'leftist speech police'" (page 14) Academic freedom is threatened by leftist speech police. It is also threatened by rightist speech police. What the two wings of speech police have in common is Zionism. There are many examples. I will cite just two. William Robinson, a sociology professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz, was investigated by his employer after pressure from the Anti-Defamation League, a Zionist outfit. <a href="http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/25/18603971.php">http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/25/18603971.php</a> A psychologist at California State University at Long Beach was similarly harrassed as an 'anti-semite' by the Southern Poverty Law Center, with the assistance of the Department of Women's Studies, and some genuine, but cowardly, academics. He was barred from teaching about the link between intelligence and race. The world's greatest living biologist, James Watson, was fired because he said there might be such a link. It doesn't matter what you or I think about this issue, or how envious you may be of the cushy life of a tenured academic - what matters is that academic freedom from political interference is how we know what we know about the world. It should be defended. I figured out some time ago that Zionists have expertly appropriated the thought policing methods of the pc left. The processes pioneered by Matsuda and her colleagues, rather than reducing racial oppression, have been utilized to reinforce the USA's support for one of the most egregious examples of racial oppression in the world, by suppressing criticism of this irrational and inhumane policy. I was aware of this blind spot in the American left. What I didn't realize was how conscious the leaders of academic anti-racism were in supporting special pleading for Jewish racists. "South Africa is alone in its official policy of apartheid" (page 37) When Matsuda wrote these words, they were not true, and the Western countries only acted to abolish white, not Jewish, apartheid. Critical Race Theory has an anti-white, pro-Jewish bias. To prove this, I will quote Matsuda at length: "I reject the sweeping charge that Zionism is racism and argue instead for a highly contextualized consideration of Zionist speech. To the extent that any racial hostility expressed within a Zionist context is a reaction to historical persecution, it is protected under the doctrinal scheme suggested in this chapter. Should Zionists ever lose this historically based privilege? If Zionist speakers are white, do hateful, race-bound expressions of theirs necessarily reinforce historical conditions of white dominance over brown and black people? The analysis must turn on the particular context. If a Zionist's expression of anger includes a statement of generic white supremacy and persecution, the speaker chooses to ally with a larger, historically dominant group, and the privilege should not apply. On the other hand, angry, survivalist expression, arising out of the Jewish experience of persecution and without resort to the rhetoric of generic white supremacy, is protected under the contextualized approach. Again, it is important to add that the various subordinated communities are best equipped to analyze and condemn hate speech arising within their midst." (page 40) This is a smoking gun, and the smoke is white phosphorus. Critical race theory helps the interests of the most powerful ethnic group in America! Matsuda seriously expects us to accept that Jewish supremacy is only racist if it is allied to white racism - but 'survivalist' Zionism should be protected. And the tragedy is, much of the left has accepted it. The US government certainly rejects 'the sweeping charge that Zionism is racism'. Until that changes,  Palestinians will die. Naturally, Matsuda wants to criminalize Holocaust revisionism because of how it makes Jews feel (page 42). An aside: Mari Matsuda describes racial slurs and violence against her fellow Japanese Americans. She mentions the internment camps, and the bombing of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But these crimes were carried out by the anti-fascist side during World War II. Was the bombing of Dresden racist too? No, it was carried out by Anglo-Saxons, against Saxons, in Saxony. More ethnic identity might have prevented this and other war crimes. My point is simply that racism can cause violence, but so can anti-racism, both on the scale of a world war, and in our communities today. I don't see why I have to decide which is worse, a KKK calling card, or a false accusation of rape. Matsuda et. al. support the dominant ideas, which keep white people guilty and Israel strong. They don't write the 'N' word (Nazi) on the workplaces of other leftists and send threatening letters to those with whom they disagree.  Perhaps they would distance themselves from Anti-Racist Action trying to attack the First Amendment with violence rather than clever arguments and emotional blackmail. We are always open to debate. <hr /> PS. Jan 17 2010 - a summary of the American Civil Liberties Union's views on 'hate speech', which mostly disagree with the critical race theorists: <a href="http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus">http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus</a> Critical Race Theory - a Critique

2010-01-17T23:36:28-05:00

200

2010-01-04T11:53:50-05:00

200 56 245c7ep.jpg 1 Originally the post below was deleted for hate and illiteracy, but after a bit of discussion, we decided to repost it together with Barbara's reply - it doesn't contain threats of violence, and we believe in freedom of speech. Commie red,homo gay Antifa A.R.A by SkullspitterPortlands own Antifa.Commie red homo gay mostly jewish.Groups like them and them self are backed by the money and information of the A.D.L.There recruits are homo jew leftist.Strate women that date or are with homosexal gay men.These women run there websites and monitore extremist or anti jew ,pro white or anti gay people on the right.When some one says something  they dont like ,they use there code words to attack them.Call your employer,flyer your neighborhood.The fagwhore women behind there computores use jew commie anarchist street druggies for the zionist fascistsism.Real men are not afraid of the light.The truth is with them.And it doesnt have fellow ship with darkness.They are the rats that flee in the dark ,when the light cometh.These  bunch of fag whore commie leftist are the lowist form of filth.Worth thing that could happen to them would be for them to repent and be saved!God is a awesome God! Jesus is Lord! To the previous writer: by barbaraWith all respect, please learn some decent English grammar and other basic writing skills.  Also, if you intend to attack groups of people, I suggest you be able to document your comments.  At the moment, all I find myself reading is a rant that gives substance to Antifa's complaints.   A critique of anti-fascism and a reply

2010-01-04T11:53:50-05:00

200

2010-01-10T12:17:19-05:00

138 57 2fingers4pacifica.jpeg 6 On 8th January 2010, the Forum held a meeting entitled 'Everything you wanted to know about Pacifica Forum but were afraid to ask'. The aim was to defend the Forum against the allegation that it is a Nazi front, and stand up against attempts by local Zionists and lefties to evict it from the University of Oregon. It was a lively meeting. Here is an article in the Register-Guard about it: <a href="http://registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/cityregion/24334073-41/forum-pacifica-campus-talk-group.csp">http://registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/cityregion/24334073-41/forum-pacifica-campus-talk-group.csp</a> The following week, January 15, the Forum held another meeting on 'The Symbolism of the Swastika' (the point being that the swastika is a symbol in diverse cultures, not just Nazism).  By this time, Facebook had been employed to spread disinformation about the Forum, and hundreds turned out to protest. As the main speaker, Billy Rojas, persevered, more and more demonstrators realized that they had not been told the truth. The other speaker, Jimmy Marr, left the meeting, and here he explains why: <a href="../../Marr.html">http://pacificaforum.org/Marr.html</a> “This is scholarly? This is academic?” said the leader of the protestors (pictured). Meanwhile, real scholars and academics were holding a conference on the Japanese cartoon figure, Hello Kitty. <a href="http://www.dailyemerald.com/uber-cute-hello-kitty-gets-an-academic-look-1.1007220">http://www.dailyemerald.com/uber-cute-hello-kitty-gets-an-academic-look-1.1007220</a> This  of course is scholarly and academic - it was organized by University of Oregon Center for the Study of Women in Society and addressed by anthropology professor Kristine Yano: '"A classic icon of the Japanese cute trend, Yano argued that Hello Kitty is an “evocative object, a companion to emotional lives” that has morphed into a “transborder fetish” by defying traditional categories and boundaries.'   An evening to remember

2010-01-18T11:55:24-05:00

200

2010-01-18T08:02:55-05:00

138 58 MW2fingers.jpg 8 <a href="http://www.facebook.com/notes/michael-williams/a-salute-to-departing-nazis/258002655797">http://www.facebook.com/notes/michael-williams/a-salute-to-departing-nazis/258002655797</a>#<a href="../../data/2fingers4pacifica.jpeg"></a> <div class="photo photo_none"> <div class="photo_img"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=929338&op=1&view=all&subj=258002655797&aid=-1&auser=0&oid=258002655797&id=1031899018"></a></div> </div> <div class="clear_none"> Last Friday’s lecturer is circulating this photo of me. (Also some pretty good photoshopped versions –see my photos page.) With his usual accuracy and attention to detail, he describes it as “Williams …. expressing his views about a symbol that is sacred to half the population of the entire world.” If Billy had bothered to look at the picture, he would have noticed I am facing the rear door, not toward his irrelevant display of swastikas. If Billy had been paying attention during his lecture, he would have seen that I am saluting Marr and his big friend as they exit Agate Hall. A couple weeks ago a Pacifica Forum Person tried to demonstrate that ancient arm gestures can be inoffensive. This arm gesture was not meant to be inoffensive. The better part of me would like to open a window to understand what in a person’s life needs Nazism to fulfill it? to become complete? A window into a soul so very different than mine that might yet let me know more not only about the Other, but also about myself. But a SIEGHEIL slams that window shut pretty hard. Words can fail in the visceral reaction, The Twin Bird was the strongest non-violent statement I could make. “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Billy mentions I am a Quaker, and says “His professed values … are just about the opposite of his behavior at the Pacifica Forum meeting.” No, not even close. The doctrines persistently espoused by Pacifica Forum’s representative speakers are the opposite of my values as a human being. I have no desire to take spiritual counsel from an apologist who excuses all excesses by saying “It’s just free speech.” If my behavior was sufficiently unQuakerly, I will be eldered by Friends and we will discern together whether flipping off siegheiling Nazis is an appropriate way to speak Truth to [white] power. I think today I am more in the mold of George Fox than John Woolman, although not possessing Fox’s clarity and measure of Light. I did the Woolman thing of patient witness for a long time, although a good bit of George would peek through. I am not at all sure that being more like George now is a spiritual benefit. This 6 ½ year experience has been morally corrosive, making it harder for me to see that of the Divine in “those people.” Over the years Pacifica Forum’s warm nurturing environment for bigotry enabled more outspoken expressions and culminates in applause for a self described racialist white separatist who admittedly hates Jews and speaks of women “too ugly to rape.” What kind of people applaud a man like that? And how can I scrape the scales from my eyes to see that in the deepest best part of those people there is That which is also in the deepest best part of me. George Fox could do that. At one time I could. I have lost something in this process that I hope to recover one day.</div>       --- Michael Williams A salute to departing nazis

2010-01-18T13:52:47-05:00

200

2010-01-18T08:39:23-05:00

298 59 smashswazi.jpg 9 I just read this comment directly off of Pacifica's website: "By this time, Facebook had been employed to spread disinformation about the Forum, and hundreds turned out to protest. As the main speaker, Billy Rojas, persevered, more and more demonstrators realized that they had not been told the truth." Apparently the Forum is desperately trying to tell themselves that we aren't serious about our protesting. That we are a misinformed bunch of juveniles who don't know truth from fiction. They think we went to their meeting and somehow "saw the light" and suddenly realized how awesomely inclusive and nice they are. I think the sieg heils and yelling of "white power" from Forum members was enough to further prove to ourselves that we are right--we know exactly what type of group this is, hiding behind a mask of "free speech." I vote we show them just how serious we are by getting even more people to show up to the next protest.      -- Devon <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=287466056216&ref=nf">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=287466056216&ref=nf</a> Since its MLK Day tomorrow, i thought I'd post this article that was written about a Pacifica Forum meeting in which Jimmy Marr called Martin Luther King Jr. a "moral leper and communist dupe." <a href="http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/01/20/pf-lecturer-calls-mlk-moral-leper-and-communist-dupe/">http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2008/01/20/pf-lecturer-calls-mlk-moral-leper-and-communist-dupe/</a> UofO students and community members against the Pacifica Forum

2010-01-28T22:42:14-05:00

200

2010-01-18T12:24:48-05:00

307 60 Yuliya.jpg 8 The Pacifica Forum has shown its dedication to free speech in several ways, and in the face of considerable opposition. Whereas we are not allowed to post on the Facebook page you link to, nor on Indymedia, we have allowed Zionists, sorry, anti-fascists, to post on our site. <a href="57">http://pacificaforum.org/posts/57</a>   <a href="58">http://pacificaforum.org/posts/58</a> The most misleading aspect of the Anti-Hate Task Force's presentation of its own history of undermining the First Amendment and academic freedom in Eugene is the order in which it happened. Briefly, the Force started dissing the Forum BEFORE any right-wing speakers had been invited. It started being 'concerned' about 'anti-semitism' - it showed part of the left being easy tools of Zionism, defending Jewish racism by falsely alleging white European racism. At this point, most US liberal anti-war groups would have apologized, had a speaker from the $PLC, wrung their hands, worn sackcloth and ashes, and promised not to do it again. Not the Forum. The Forum responded to the Zio/lefty attack by inviting right-wing (but not Nazi) speakers to talk about the Israel Lobby. When speakers didn't conform to the AHTF's description, it either a. ignored them b. lied about them c. used weasel words to give a misleading impression - my favorite was 'diminishes our sense of safety and diversity' in an AHTF leaflet handed out outside the David Irving meeting in 2008 To summarize: Q. Does freedom of speech mean allowing a speaker to defend Nazism? A. Yes Q. Have any speakers at the Pacifica Forum been Nazis? A. No If you think you are an opponent of Israeli Apartheid, and have not been called 'anti-semitic', you probably aren't. May the Force be against you. JK Brief reply to Argo of the 'Anti' Hate Task Force

2010-01-19T01:26:29-05:00

200

2010-01-18T13:45:09-05:00

Pacifica Forum has started to attract some attention: <a href="../posts/57">http://pacificaforum.org/posts/57</a>. I have been a participant (not 'member' - we don't have members) for many years. Williams has acted as DisInformation Central for the jewish-activist groups for many years. He 'HAS TO' DISTORT and misrepresent the Forum; his whole identity (and reputation) hinges on his success in the AHTF/$PLC's "Target Pacifica" Campaign. His "opinions" have been the basis of each attempt to discredit our political discussion group--the Folks at CALC admitted as much. His above post OOZES with slime and inaccuracies, yet when compared with the Truth, provides much insight into how the Lobby operates. - Dawn Reply to Michael WIlliams of the Eugene AHTF

2010-01-18T13:53:49-05:00

2010-01-18T14:40:23-05:00

Reply to Devon's post <a href="../posts/59">http://pacificaforum.org/posts/59</a>  Dear Devon, Missing from CJ's Commentator piece was the fact that for many years in a row, we'd offered presentations touting MLK and his contributions to society, on or around this date. But (as was explained at that meeting) Orval is aware of the Hidden History regarding this era, and he agreed to host a rendition of the darker side of the King story, provided he was able to first recite his telling of first-hand impressions of those times. Hence the provocative title. The first 45 minutes of this Forum, were dedicated to honoring King. The next 20 or so, were delivered by Jimmy, based on Valdas' research of information released in the early 90's, when the Soviet archives were opened. The remaining few minutes were Q&A, and ALL of us understood that the "report" was somewhat volatile, but were able to discuss our various impressions, as adults. Many who were present at that Forum, provided FIRST HAND insights, including members of the Jewish Community, who worked in the Civil Rights Movement. People were not offended, given the context of the whole. It even ran on CTV and they did not receive any complaints. CJ's rendition is deliberately mocking and incomplete. It is "a blog" after all. But this is also the same time period when MW recognized the utility of encouraging the Commentator to accept his false rendition of what actually took place at that MLK forum. (Posted at the next commentator entry on PF, I believe.) Michael William’s widely bellowed rendition of what went on in that Forum are provable inaccurate. Following the slime trail of how the CALC-group used Michael Williams' FALSE CLAIMS, in order to incite folks, far and wide, against the Pacifica Forum is very revealing. You don't know who it is you are working for, via your well-meaning efforts. You're on the wrong side. Always happy to offer clarity, Devon. Please consider verifying my telling, and then spread the (correct) word. I bet you'll be good at that. - Dawn Reply to Devon regarding MLK Forum Accusations

2010-01-19T11:00:05-05:00

2010-01-18T21:59:40-05:00

136 65 b29s.jpg 9 UPDATE, 4 Feb... I have been barred from editing the Wikipedia page for Pacifica Forum, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifica_forum">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifica_forum</a>. At this point, some people I know would become paranoid, start muttering about 'Ziopedia', and claim you just can't win. It's not as simple as that. I have appealed. Let's see what happens before claiming that it's all one big conspiracy. Well, after several appeals, I still can't edit the Pacifica Forum page. The editors are discussing whether to keep me barred from editing this page, but allowing me to edit less controversial pages, like, I dunno, Israel or something: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xeugene&diff=cur">http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xeugene&diff=cur</a>   One of my critics in the Wikipedia talk pages, Stonemason89, did exactly what he or she accuses me of - namely repasting one's own version of the page over someone else's - but Stonemason89 got away with it. He or she didn't even keep my correction of the name of the President of the University of Oregon, just wrote all over my careful corrections. I refused to accept the Zionist term 'Holocaust Denier' for people who merely underestimate the widely-accepted figure. However, I have appealed. Let's see what happens before claiming that it's all one big conspiracy.   <table style="padding-left: 30px;" border="1" cellspacing="1" width="90%"> <tbody> <tr> <td> <div style="text-align:right;"><a class="external text" rel="nofollow"> <div style="width: 100%; margin: auto; text-align: center;"> <div style="font-size:140%;">You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.</div> You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, change, or create them. </div> <div style="margin: auto; width: 70%;"> <div style="text-align:justify;"> Editing from Xeugene has been disabled by <tt><a title="User:Tedder" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tedder">Tedder</a></tt> for the following reason(s): <div style="margin:1em; padding:5px; border:3px #666 double;"><a class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:Edit war" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war">Edit warring</a>: POV, ongoing insertion of content without discussion</div> This block has been set to expire: indefinite. Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your <a title="Special:MyTalk" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyTalk">user talk page</a> and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail. Note: Please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information. Please note: While this block may be upsetting or unexpected, abuse of appeal processes, repeatedly using the unblock template when denied, <a title="Wikipedia:No personal attacks" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks">personal attacks</a>, or <a title="Wikipedia:Civility" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility">impolite conduct</a> may lead to the removal of your ability to edit your talk page.   </div> </div> </a></div> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> The latest addition to the reasons for my ban goes like this: "You're not going to get very far attempting to whitewash Holocaust deniers, so you may as well give up on that completely. (Read the archives at Talk:Holocaust denial and you'll see this is a long-settled policy on Wikipedia.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:49, 20 January 2010" Here is my reply: <address style="padding-left: 30px;">`"You're not going to get very far attempting to whitewash Holocaust deniers" - is that the reason I was banned? I have never questioned the figure of 5-6 million Jews - I have simply argued about the meaning of the word 'denial'. When I said David Irving underestimates the true figure, how is that 'whitewashing' him? The phrase "you're not going to get very far" doesn't sound like a fair-minded editorial comment, more like a political diktat. I have read the archives at [[Talk:Holocaust denial]]... I didn't start this page, but when it started, it was incredibly biased. For example, when Pacifica Forum had a meeting on Martin Luther King, most of the meeting was taken up with saying how great he was...`</address><address style="padding-left: 30px;"> </address> Well, it's Jan 21, three days after I appealed, and no word. Meanwhile, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gavia_immer">Gavia immer</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katr67">Katr67</a> continue to edit the page in their fair-minded, neutral, Wikipedian way.   -- Xeugene     Here's the story of how Wikipedia was hijacked by the global warming greenshirts: <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/">blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/</a>       Banned from Wikipedia

2010-02-04T10:42:42-05:00

200

2010-01-19T05:08:03-05:00

79 67 Jan8Walnutrm.jpg 11 iReport —  <a href="http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-395567">http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-395567</a> <div class="jive-rendered-content"> Pacifica Forum, labeled a hate organization, by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), is a community forum on the University of Oregon campus. Their meetings this week have been disrupted, by students who claim they are a hate group. One organization, who helped organize the protest said in a Press release that Pacifica Forum's free speech may be an exersize in hate... Hate group Disrupted -- CNN iReport

2010-01-19T05:11:50-05:00

200

2010-01-20T19:55:46-05:00

<div class="signature">Wed Jan 20 2010 02:03</div> <div class="body">It's a bit ironic that this "Black Tea Society" feels comfortable lecturing people on "fascist action," given that their tactics of disruption are disturbingly similar to the tactics of the Sturmabteilungen in the early 1930's: disrupting the meetings and gatherings of political opponents in undisguised efforts to menace and silence them. Then again, no one has ever expected a bunch of preening antifa poseurs to evince even the barest indication that they're aware of historical precedent. Their sneering attitude toward free speech, moreover, is far more revealing than they're probably aware. The Pacifica Forum is a nasty, disgusting group of attention-craving white power freaks led by some dusty old mummy in a wheelchair. For their part, these "Black Tea Society" kids amount to little more than a smug and self-righteous pack of bandwagon jumpers who fancy themselves "revolutionary" and who don't give a whit about the Bill of Rights when it doesn't suit them and evidently have no problem emulating the time-tested tactics of the very Nazis they're ostensibly opposed to. ASUO to prepare response to Pacifica <a href="http://www.dailyemerald.com/asuo-to-prepare-response-to-pacifica-1.1078140">http://www.dailyemerald.com/asuo-to-prepare-response-to-pacifica-1.1078140</a> </div> Harry Haller's Records (For Madmen Only)...

2010-01-20T19:55:46-05:00

2010-01-21T04:01:41-05:00

Harry Haller posted someone's picture saying "can anybody identify him?" - this site is not like Facebook - you cannot use it to spy on people ... Who is this guy ? Not a Pacifica Forum member. Can anybody identify him ? "White Power !" guy

2010-01-21T04:04:20-05:00

2010-01-21T12:16:30-05:00

"The Pacifica Forum is a nasty, disgusting group of attention-craving white power freaks led by some dusty old mummy in a wheelchair" says Harry - <a href="70">http://pacificaforum.org/posts/70</a> You won't hear Pacifica Forum regulars complaining that the above comment is ablist or ageist, or makes them feel unsafe. That's because they have thick skins, can take a joke, and are honest. The pc left, on the other hand, use fake sensitivity to shut down debate: 'institutionalized racism sexism homophobia able-ism class-ism patriarchy heterosexism and white male nationalist conditioning' (actual quote from Indymedia). Just one correction - nobody has ever advocated 'white power' at a Forum meeting. Reply to Harry from attention-craving freaks led by man in wheelchair

2010-01-21T12:16:30-05:00

2010-01-21T13:48:22-05:00

<a href="http://www.mishmishrestaurant.com/tramadol">tramadol</a> dgzc <a href="http://www.elrodeoofdurham.com/aciphex">aciphex</a> 90558 <a href="http://www.khaledkem.com/life_insurance.html">life insurance</a> 484121 <a href="http://www.granvillepolice.org/phentermine.htm">phentermine without prescription</a> >:OOO <a href="http://www.kosherhibachi.com/">car insurance</a> %OOO <a href="http://www.khaledkem.com/home_insurance.html">homeowners insurance</a> :-PP <a href="http://www.thekochfamilyblog.com/aciphex.html">usage of aciphex</a> :[[ <a href="http://www.khaledkem.com/auto_insurance.html">auto insurance</a> %PP Response to article in 'Inside Higher Ed' about Pacifica Forum

2010-02-08T17:45:08-05:00

2010

2010-01-21T13:51:58-05:00

Object of Scorn Pacifica Forum seeks to silence its critics by Michael Williams <a href="http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2010/01/21/views2.html">http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2010/01/21/views2.html</a> 'Billy Rojas, “free speech” advocate, threatens to sue me for criticizing Pacifica Forum (PF) programs (Viewpoint, 1/14). The irony could sink a cruise ship....' <hr />   Yeah - and the chutzpah could kill a lot of Palestinians kids, Michael Lefties like you are why the Lobby goes unchallenged. What happened to the anti-Vietnam war generation? We need a new American Left, without the feminazis, the race-baiters, the liars who claim they don't feel safe because a few older people want to sit around and discuss the Israel Lobby. You and your 'Anti' Hate mongers started attacking the Forum when it discussed the Lobby from a LIBERAL point of view, when it consisted of old ladies and Quakers in tie-die t-shirts. Unfortunately, liberals tend to run when attacked, so they left the floor to more, er, conservative point of view. (I totally disagree with these points of view, btw, but defend their right to speak because of freedom of speech, because they give me a platform and don't threaten to make me unemployed, homeless or worse because of my opinions, like your scurvy crew do). Fuck you, and fuck your lying, hate-mongering, freedom-hating anarchist friends...   (PS. I cut the Eugene Weekly article because Harry posted a whole article - it's not necessary, just need to publish the link - thanks, Supreme Commander, Pacifica Forum) Pacifica Forum seeks to silence its critics, says Michael Williams

2010-01-21T23:09:31-05:00

2010-01-21T13:55:06-05:00

<div class="textWrap"> <h3><a href="http://dailyemerald.com/officials-no-forum-in-emu-for-rest-of-year-1.1080012">Officials: No Forum in EMU for rest of year</a></h3> <a href="http://www.dailyemerald.com">http://www.dailyemerald.com</a> The Pacifica Forum will not meet in the EMU for the rest of the 2009-10 school year, University officials declared at the ASUO Senate’s Wednesday night meeting. “It’s really, really disturbing to me that some students are not feeling safe,” said Vice President for Student Affairs Robin Holmes. “You’re here to get an education and nothing else.” The Pacifica Forum has been the subject of protests this term after the group invited speakers who have denied the existence of the Holocaust and espoused anti-Semitic viewpoints. </div> editorial comment - you can't parody the pc left, can you? <div class="textWrap"> <a href="../../officials-no-forum-in-emu-for-rest-of-year-1.1080012"> </a> </div> Oregon Daily Emerald - Jan 21, 2010

2010-01-23T11:01:27-05:00

2010-01-22T01:33:54-05:00

57 76 birthright-israel.gif 15 The Anti-Hate Task Force claims it are just trying to make it pay for rooms, or that it's a 'safety' issue. It's about freedom of speech. Its supporters shout down Pacifica speakers shouting "Fuck Freedom of Speech!". One of its supporters writes, on a page accessible to the whole world:        "Violence has been incited and individuals have been both explicitly threatened and harassed. Those stories were shared during a personal testimony period in the Senate meeting last night and several Senators were moved to tears. Violence is happening--its just that the majority of the student body isn't aware of it...but they also weren't aware of the Forum's existence until very recently even though they've been here for years"... A long-time Pacifica Forum regular communicated respectfully to you on this site, after you banned her from yours... "You don't know who it is you are working for, via your well-meaning efforts. You're on the wrong side. Always happy to offer clarity...." But you haven't responded. Perhaps you believe the author is a helpless woman, programmed to passively channel an agenda. Not at all like you... Talking of passivity, do you know what the 'passive voice' is? Do you know what happened to president Nixon when he tried to use it to avoid responsibility? 'Violence has been incited'... 'individuals have been threatened'... 'violence is happening'... Despite the passive voice, these are serious charges. But the only examples of violence being incited and individuals being threatened have been by anti-fascists against friends of Pacifica Forum. They sent a threatening letter to someone's home. They published statements on the internet threatening to beat people unconscious. They wrote graffiti that someone is a Nazi, and produced stickers stating "Wake up Nazi, it's time to die" (actually, the guy's a leftist). If you have concrete examples of threats from the people at Pacifica, bring charges. You don't, do you? It's not true, is it?  You can still change. Admit you were wrong. Ask the Forum if you can talk to them. And stop lying... 'The reason we are protesting is entirely due to safety reasons. They have openly and explicitly threatened students, harassed students, and they have brought in NSM members who have openly attacked people.' <hr /> Editor's comment - this post was changed because someone requested that we not mention names. We listen. It will be a fine day when our political opponents are as principled as we are.   Please stop lying

2010-01-25T20:52:38-05:00

200

2010-01-23T11:51:26-05:00

<h2>EDITORIAL: Don’t pump up Pacifica</h2> <h2>A move feeds group’s sense of persecution</h2> Appeared in print: Saturday, Jan 23, 2010 <h5><a href="http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/sevendays/24383318-35/pacifica-forum-group-participants-campus.csp">http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/sevendays/24383318-35/pacifica-forum-group-participants-campus.csp</a></h5> Persecution feeds group's sense of persecution... More incisive, cutting-edge political analysis from the Register-Guard about MLK day: 'After some opening choir numbers, University of Oregon President Richard Lariviere addressed student and community reaction to people who “spoke of hate” last week on the UO campus — a reference to the Pacifica Forum, a discussion group that has espoused pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic rhetoric': <a href="http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/cityregion/24368722-41/king-award-rights-civil-community.csp">http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/news/cityregion/24368722-41/king-award-rights-civil-community.csp</a> This is just the level of intellectual ice-breaking one would expect from the premier journal in the city which houses our state's leading university. How does one 'espouse' 'rhetoric' fergodsake? Eugene Register-Guard editorial: "Don’t pump up Pacifica"

2010-02-03T12:06:27-05:00

2010-01-23T19:03:32-05:00

>>>editor's comment - there's no need to paste whole articles, just the urls <<< Daily Emerald - Jan 22 <h1>ASUO to determine its stance on Pacifica</h1> <h2>ASUO Senate will decide whether or not to ask the group to leave in next week's resolution</h2> <a href="http://www.dailyemerald.com/asuo-to-determine-its-stance-on-pacifica-1.1081210">http://www.dailyemerald.com/asuo-to-determine-its-stance-on-pacifica-1.1081210</a>   sorry - the deletion was an error     Please stop deleting my posts and editing my comments

2010-01-23T19:42:52-05:00

2010-01-23T22:11:50-05:00

Another day, another Holocaust thought crime - this time it's NEGATIONISM - see this <a href="http://antigerman.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/more-notes-on-ultra-leftism-and-softcore-negationism/">http://antigerman.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/more-notes-on-ultra-leftism-and-softcore-negationism/</a> and this <a href="http://contested-terrain.net/the-french-ultra-left-and-holocaust-negationism/">http://contested-terrain.net/the-french-ultra-left-and-holocaust-negationism/</a> The first of these sites published my comment straight away, but the second didn't. Here it is: <address style="padding-left: 30px">"There is no qualitative difference between different forms of bourgeois statehood" - the ultra-left critique of anti-fascism does say something like that. It's to do with what states do to the working class - basically recruit it for war and bomb it. They have a point. How was the bombing of Tokyo more humane than the bombing of London? What difference was there between the two sides at the Battle of the Bulge, from a working class, or from a human, point of view? </address><address style="padding-left: 30px"> </address><address style="padding-left: 30px">But that's history. It doesn't matter that much to the winners of World War II if everybody starts agreeing that there was nothing to choose between the two sides. It does matter to Israel, though, and that's why anti-fascism is still strong. Zionists like left-wing anti-fascists. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but that's how it is. I've been doing a little experiment. I put forward this argument, to see how anti-fascists responded. As expected, they responded violently - not to fascism, but to my critique of anti-fascism. Not violently enough to stop me, but violently enough to make the average person say "anti-fascists are really fascists". </address><address style="padding-left: 30px"> </address><address style="padding-left: 30px">The Southern Poverty Law Center is notoriously dishonest in its campaign to suppress freedom of speech to help Zionism in the USA. Unfortunately, much of the American left, in particular, anarchists, are too dumb to realize this, or too chickenshit to act on it.</address>  Perhaps I was a little blunt. I don't suffer fools gladly. Particularly violent ones. A new thought crime

2010-02-02T18:48:58-05:00

2010-01-24T00:15:01-05:00

<a href="http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4161267">http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4161267</a> The 'Anti' Hate Task Force on video

2010-01-24T00:15:01-05:00

2010-01-25T17:51:39-05:00

<a href="http://www.arrestblair.org/">http://www.arrestblair.org/</a> - when will America follow suit? Movement in Britain to arrest Tony Blair for war crimes

2010-01-25T17:51:39-05:00

2010-01-28T12:12:51-05:00

133 83 asuo.jpg 17 Early in the morning on February 4th, the Universiy of Oregon Student Union Senate passed a vague anti-Pacifica resolution. <a href="http://www.oregoncommentator.com/">Oregon Commentator</a> is the best source for information. The resolution says, among other things: 'Whereas, recent comments and actions by members of the Pacifica Forum have degraded many students on this campus... encourages students to stand in solidarity against the views and actions of members of the Pacifica Forum...' Unfortunately, the resolution doesn't specify which 'comments and actions' students are supposed to stand in solidarity against, not what 'degraded' means. The Pacifica Forum doesn't have members, but it does have some regular attendees and speakers. Students are encouraged to 'stand in solidarity' against these individuals' 'views and actions'. It's like they want to attack academic freedom, but don't have the temerity to do so. A typical, meaningless compromise. <hr /> Late at night on 27 January 2010, the Senate voted down a resolution to ask Pacifica Forum to leave the campus. For the time being, academic freedom has been upheld, but you know what they say about eternal vigilance. The pc lefty mob will be back with their lies about not feeling safe... Examples of these lies are all over the place, but here is a particularly egregious example: <a href="http://www.dailyemerald.com/opinion/community-must-work-to-oust-pacifica-forum-1.1090486">www.dailyemerald.com/opinion/community-must-work-to-oust-pacifica-forum-1.1090486</a> 'We need to demonstrate to the Forum the seriousness of their rape threats' - doesn't it occur to these <a href="http://revcom.us/a/v20/960-69/966/redgrd.htm">red guards</a> how serious some of their allegations are? "A white supremacist walked up to a female protester and threatened her by saying, `You women better watch out because you’re all weak. You better not go out at night anymore.`" - the falsehood that the Forum is 'white supremacist' is implied, but those making these claims have been unwilling to provide evidence, and have not reported them to the Eugene police. Worst of all, one of the student leaders "has had blogs posted with her full name on Pacifica’s Web site" - true - but as soon as it was requested, her name was REMOVED from this site. They complain that friends of the Forum are taking their pictures, and claim this endangers them. But it is anti-fascists who have published their critics' names and photographs (left-wing critics, not 'white supremacists'), made statements like "If an average person should kick one of their asses, we should applaud" - <a href="http://palestinethinktank.com/2008/05/22/the-mass-psychology-of-anti-fascism/#comment-10657">palestinethinktank.com/2008/05/22/the-mass-psychology-of-anti-fascism/#comment-10657</a> - and deleted our attempts to defend ourselves. We, on the other hand, respond to requests, allow our critics to write on this blog, and link even to the $PLC, so free-speechy are we. The chutzpah of our opponents is breathtaking. It goes on. America has a long history of student politicians using left-wing 'theory' to attack the First Amendment, which was, after all, written by white slave-owners (actual argument used in the debate - see <a href="http://www.oregoncommentator.com">www.oregoncommentator.com</a>). A critique of some of this theory can be found here: <a href="53">pacificaforum.org/posts/53</a>. Many people, include the older Pacifica Forum regulars, find it hard to understand the depths of dishonesty and hypocrisy of their persecutors. The best way I can explain it, is imagine if Mao Zedong had married Golda Meir. These are their children. Forum's foes' fictions fail: fight for freedom forges forward (update)

2010-02-04T21:53:18-05:00

200

2010-02-05T14:11:16-05:00

Just a post to connect a few dots.  In the fall of 2009 while attacks on the Pacifica forum continued, wierd psyop events were happening at Lewis and Clark College and Reed College in Portland.  Specifically, early in the fall term a Reed student alternate paper the "Pamphlette" published a farcical article about European Jews, this produced an outraged response in the student newspaper the "Quest", the Pamphlette followed up by actually escalating the controversy and dragging Lewis and Clark College into it.  In October 2009 the Pamphlette ran the headline "LC Students Kill Jewish People".  Next thing you know, a "swastika" is found in a stall of the second floor of the Lewis and Clark Library mens bathroom.  This provokes forums, articles in the Pioneer Log, hand wringing etc..  These (Manufactured?) scandals go on for the entire fall term on both campuses.  Noticably absent on both campuses were any efforts at Palestinian Solidarity which had actually gained some traction in the past (Reed College hosted a Free Gaza event raising money to break the blockade against Gaza, the very ship that Cynthia McKinney was on when she was put in an Israili jail.).  Now there is more breaking news this time at PSU.  Portland State University has been an interesting place regarding Palistinian Solidarity Work.  On one hand, many Muslim students attend including Palistinians who have literally felt the boot of Israili aparthied.  Recently there have been events including raising money to send to PSU students on the Free Gaza Convoy, that was by and large stopped at the Egyption Gaza border by the Aparthied state and its supporters (the US and Mubarik, dictator of Egypt.)  There has been absolutely no Portland mainstream coverage of this and absolutely no coverage by even one of the three PSU student publications.  Now just this week, (first week of Febuary 2010) news has broken in the PSU Vanguard <a href="http://www.dailyvanguard.com/professor-banned-from-teaching-following-verbal-confrontation-1.2138623">http://www.dailyvanguard.com/professor-banned-from-teaching-following-verbal-confrontation-1.2138623</a> about a well respected 25 year veteran professor, accusing a student of being an Israili agent, whom had access to guns and this professor feared was soon to do violence (terrorism)  The professor has been suspended, the "student" now has a fancy lawyer.  The student admitted being a sniper with the Israili army, but said he didn't work for the FBI.  The Vanguard is totally spinning the story to make the professor look crazy, no other media has picked up the story as of now.(2/5/2010)  I bring these things up because I sense a pattern that is unfortunately being coordinated.  I fear for more false flags and in the end all freedom loving people are "Gazan".  We must prepare for even greater assualts, and not take the bait of hating Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, Jews, Palestibnians, Christians or any group for who they are rather than what they do.  "Know them by their fruits".   Zionist actions accross Oregon campuses.

2010-02-06T20:29:42-05:00