Why the Pacifica Forum? by Jay Knott (03/14/10) ⇌ (The Mass Psychology Pamphlet)
I thought '3rd Position' was a page in the Kama Sutra til I discovered Pacifica Forum...
It began in 2008 when I saw an ad for a meeting addressed by David Irving, the controversial historian, in the online edition of The Oregonian newspaper. The ad was disappeared after a few minutes.
Apparently, The Oregonian treated Mearsheimer and Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby, similarly. Whether right-wing or liberal, the issue is your attitude to Israel.
I went to Eugene to see Irving at Pacifica Forum. This group had been meeting at the University for several years. It was founded by a pacifist, Orval Etter, and had several liberal anti-war activists involved in it. Then it started to discuss the Palestine question. Predictably, the local Zionists and their left-liberal front group, the Anti-Hate Task Force, accused the Forum of tolerating anti-Semitism. In fact, it was avoiding racial discrimination, treating war crimes by Jews the same way as it treated war crimes by white Europeans or anyone else. However, in the USA, you are supposed to discriminate in favor of Jews.
I thought 'Volksfront' was a Volkswagen with the engine at the front til I discovered Pacifica Forum...
Almost all left-leaning peace groups respond to Zio pressure by capitulating, by trying to meet the Jewish racist lobby half-way, by accepting some of the criticism. Indeed, some of the Forum's attendees did just that, running for the hills and claiming they had heard 'anti-Semitism' in Forum meetings. But a hardcore, including the nonagenarian founder, stayed on. And some from the far right did become interested, in particular Valdas Anelauskas, a Lithuanian who claims that, in the terrible events in Eastern Europe in the first half of the twentieth century, Jews were not just victims.
As if this were not enough, Pacifica Forum started to invite speakers like David Irving and Mark Weber, both of whom have been recorded claiming the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews was exaggerated. It has to be said that neither of their talks were about the Holocaust, but facts are of no interest to the Forum's Zionist and left-wing opponents.
I gave my talk on The Mass Psychology of Anti-Fascism just after the election in November 2008, and followed it up with a talk about harassment of anti-Zionist activists in Portland by an organization with the misleading name 'Anti-Racist Action'. In fact, this group supports Jewish racism by trying to stir up paranoia about 'fascist collaborators', meaning people like me who merely listen politely to the likes of Irving and Anelauskas without necessarily agreeing with them, and who are particularly concerned about the power of Zionism in the US and other Western nations.
In 2010, the Forum started to get even more controversial, culminating in a talk entitled 'Treblinka was not a death camp - here's why'.
People like me who have generally left or ultra-left views on most things may wonder what I am doing running a site which advertises meetings addressed by people who underestimate the Holocaust. The answer is fairly simple - it's the logical consequence of supporting freedom of speech in order to oppose Zionism.
I thought 'NO ZOG' was something to do with Albania til I discovered Pacifica Forum...
The Forum's opponents use whatever means they can to try to shut the Forum down. They claim it's a question of 'safety', then when that doesn't work, they say it's 'unscholarly'. On the academic left, it is common to hear that David Irving is a 'fraudulent historian' from people who have no problem with the postmodern notion that truth itself is never more than a self-serving narrative. The local Indymedia website, which has published thinly-veiled threats against me and other comrades whom they call 'Nazi-enabling scum', has a whole section claiming that the atrocities of September 11th, 2001, were carried out by the US Government - '9/11 was an inside job'. To me, this is preposterous - more unlikely than the idea that the Holocaust was exaggerated by fifty percent. Nevertheless, I would have no hesitation in helping organize a meeting where the '9/11 Truthers' could put forward their ideas. So why would I object to a Holocaust revisionist meeting?
At this point, my critics change positions again. It's not that Holocaust revisionism causes people to turn into lampshades, nor that it is illogical, but that it offends people. Lefties are open to conspiracy theories about the US government, especially when the Republicans are in charge. But a conspiracy theory which hurts Jewish feelings is ruled out a priori.
For me, that won't do. If I allow stuff I think is ridiculous and gives liberals a warm fuzzy feeling, I cannot disallow stuff I think is ridiculous and makes them feel uncomfortable.
Besides, to my amazement, I have found that a small part of the far right put forward arguments which cannot easily be dismissed. Naturally, this quote will be distorted. I didn't say most of the far right. I didn't say most of its beliefs. But I challenge any critic to read Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique trilogy and say it should be set aside lightly. It is a thorough investigation of Jewish culture and anti-Semitism through the ages which is useful to anyone who wants to see peace in the Middle East. It's impossible to say "I'm smart enough to tell which ideas I'm too dumb to read".