Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:29 | #

The transcript of Taylor’s pre-empted speech is the best thing I have seen from him.  It’s the kind of thing that can be emailed around to not just anyone, but at least to all those struggling in the right direction.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:40 | #

“Canadians have a ‘lewd curiosity’ about racism, says Karen Mock, former executive director of the CCRF.”

Karen Mock has an aggressively misanthropic Jewish husband who polices the Usenet much as other Tribesmen police Halifax, New Scotland.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:42 | #

This has been a bit of a propaganda bonanza.  Look at the photos:  a Negro and a Nazi-caricature of a Jew assaulting Taylor in one, Taylor looking utterly civilized in another.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:07 | #

“In its reaction to Mr. Taylor’s brief visit last week, Halifax failed on almost every measure. Prof. Divine did not check his background before agreeing to debate him as an intellectual peer.”

What inanity!  What insanity!

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:22 | #

“The trouble is that Mr. Taylor is too smart to be anything more than half-honest. He did not want to state all of his views, only the legally acceptable ones. His script was self-censored to conform to Canadian hate speech law and standards of civil discourse….”

This Brean is a lunatic.  He criticizes Taylor for the tyranny that the evil Brean imposes on Canadians.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 03:25 | #

“For his part, Prof. Divine was ‘horrified’ to learn what he had scheduled.”

He was horrofied to learn that his debating opponent disagreed with him?

This is surreal.

Posted by JB on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 04:10 | #

guess who that skinhead tattoo expert is

Dr. Karen R. Mock

Executive Director, Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Dr. Karen R. Mock is the former national director of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. A registered psychologist, she specialises in human development, interpersonal communication, multiculturalism, and race relations.

Dr. Mock has worked as a consultant and in teacher education at the University of Toronto, Ryerson Polytechnical University, and York University. She is the past president of the Ontario Multicultural Association, a former member of the board of the Urban Alliance on Race Relations, and past chair of the Canadian Multiculturalism Advisory Committee. Dr Mock served as chair of the Advisory Committee on Canada’s preparations for the United Nations World Conference on Racism.

“I meet people through antiracism who are fighting for the equality of their people and they don’t realize they’re anti-Semites,” she said.

oy vey! I keep meeting anti-racist idiotz who think jews are whites. Vat am I going to do ?!

Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:01 | #

Isnt this Mock Yid also President of the Israeli Multicultural Association, a former member of the board of the Jewish Ethno-State Alliance on Racialist Relations and past chair of the Israeli Multiculturalism Advisory Committee (the latter body being affiliated to the US Black Caucus Committee for the Prevention of Inter-Racial Rape)?

Posted by Matra on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:07 | #

For those who are unaware the National Post is Canada’s “right wing” national paper. It leans heavily to the neocon side with a number of libertarian-conservatives and is owned by the late Israel Asper’s CanWest group.

Posted by Retew on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:31 | #

OK Svy, here’s a question. Why is it “lunatic” to believe that you WNs are thinking something other than you say? I have a young friend, for instance, who’s convinced that the WNs she debates (or used to) want to see her dead because she’s Jewish.

How is she (or am I) to know for certain that that isn’t the case, for at least some? If they did wish to kill Jews, they’re hardly likely to admit it if they’ve got any aspirations of gaining power.

I’ll take the heat out of this by saying I always trust you to say what you actually think, both here and on SF; I wouldn’t be debating here if I didn’t.

But since Watergate in your country, and at least the Gulf War in ours, trust in politics has been a very scarce commodity indeed and unfortunately that applies to you as well.

Posted by retewey brute on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:53 | #

“But since Watergate in your country, and at least the Gulf War in ours, trust in politics has been a very scarce commodity indeed and unfortunately that applies to you as well.”

Gee, doesn’t that apply to you and your Jewish friend as well?  How do we know that, for example, your Jewish friend doesn’t really have real intentions to destroy the white race through mass immigration and miscegenation?  How do we know that’s not YOUR real intentions?  Are you two genocidal lunatics?  How do we know?

Since Watergate, we have to be very suspicious of those in power, and it are the anti-racist globalists, and not the WNS, who now hold the reigns of power.

Indeed, the antics of those in power in the USA, Canada, Europe, etc. look very much like people who want to race replace whites.

Is it “lunatic” to think that?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:42 | #

It is rational and perfectly normal to conclude that conflicting ethnic interests may lead to extreme dangers for one party to the conflict.  Jews think that.  We think that.  It happens, and that’s the reason why stable mono-ethnic states or polities are the most secure form of human organisation.  It’s the reason Israel exists, for example, and the reason WNs tend to support its existence.

Why then, in the absence of a quid pro quo from Jewry, shouldn’t WNs perceive in Jews like Mock - and, for that matter, Jews generally - a rampant desire to advance their own ethnic interests over the bodies of our people?  Why, given the demographic, political and moral disaster befalling us and the creative Jewish role in this, should we give a damn what Jews think about our intentions.  We should care for ourselves first, second and last.

Part of that is our own respect for self, which is a good protector against ethnic competitiors, ie it enhances our fitness.  So we do ourselves harm when we harm others ... that’s your protection, Tewey, and all you deserve from anyone.

Posted by mock brute on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:55 | #

I wonder if our liberal friend Retew would like to comment on the tactics of Comrade Mock.

These tactics can be summarized as follows.  Alternative, controversial, dissident ideologies can only be discussed – and in purely negative terms of course – by excluding from the discussion those people who actually believe in that ideology.

What is the justification of such a manifestly unfair and ludicrous requirement, which is completely alien to western ideals of debate and argumentation?  Simple – the dissident viewpoint is to be criminalized (literally in the case of “hate speech”) and those who believe in the ideology are to be equated to “drug dealers” and the like. 

Of course, the actual “crime” of these dissidents is to simply articulate an alternative opinion on how to structure society.  Where have we seen that before?  Yes, in the Soviet Union and in Mao’s China.  After all, how does the criminalization of alternative political and historical viewpoints in the “west” today differ from that imposed on the subject populations under communism?  Isn’t today’s “anti-racist” hysteria similar to the “Cultural Revolution?”  Aren’t the “anti-racist” and “anti-fascist” “activists” of today strikingly similar to the Red Guards?  Yes, indeed, similarities abound, and the cause is the same: the ruling ideology is objectively indefensible and can be maintained only by force, by coercion.  The dissident ideology cannot be debated and must be suppressed because the ruling elites cannot answer the dissidents’ points, because the dissidents are correct.  Is this “freedom and democracy?”  Is Canada a “free and democratic nation?” 

Mock’s crowing about the two-thirds of Canadians who support multiculturalism is laughable; this number not only includes minorities who directly benefit from the multiculturalism, but – more to the point – if dissent is silenced and criminalized why should one be surprised that the masses scurry lemming-like toward the approved message?  Is that something to be proud of?

And then there is Carol Swain, labeling Jared Taylor as a “wasted person.”  Wow, what an effective argument.  Can Swain actually refute Taylor’s ideas, or is such a request on our part beyond the capabilities of an affirmative action “academian?”

Then I question Retew with respect to the “Jewish friend debating the WNs”: who may these WNs be?  The neo-nutzis of Stormfront?  Who?  If you persist in debating the lowest levels of WN “thought”, why be surprised if you uncover some who may actually wish your friend ill?  But of course, you laud the intellectual content of Stormfront’s posters while using them as some sort of representative of what “WNs really believe.”

Posted by Retew on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:15 | #

I’ve not heard of Comrade Mock as you call him. If as you say he or she believes that people who actually believe in an ideology should be excluded from a debate concerning it, that is indeed silly.

But as for Jewish ethnic interests, I was going to answer Svy on this but the trouble is that as is so often the case, more and more issues get opened up and I find myself having to defend myself on several fronts.

What you call “Jewish ethnic interests” make sense if; 1 /  you accept the view of the great majority of normative historians that the Holocaust did occur as described and there was indeed an Endlosung, and 2 / you realise that the Jewish peopl;e worldwide number less than 20 million.

Even with those provisos in place, what the Jews seek for themselves is less onerous than what WNs are asking for.

Arabs can and do seek and obtain citizenship in Israel, for instance (Israel regularly admits refugees from neighbouring Arab states who are fleeing persecution for being gay), and in reform and secular Jewish families it is now commonplace for people to “marry out,” i.e. marry a non-Jew.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:28 | #

Retew, WNs seek to be free from Jewish influence.  You mention the Holycaust, and that’s a clear case in point.  I don’t give a damn what happened or didn’t happen in Germany between 1941/45. It’s irrelevant to me, as it is to all the Englishmen, Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Rhodesians, Free French, Free Polish, Czechs et al who fought for the Allies, and their children, and their grand-children.  Likewise it is irrelevant to all those generations of continental Europeans who were not even born in 1945.

So why does my 14 year old, very English daughter have to swallow the Holything propaganda at school (she doesn’t give a damn either, but that’s beside the point)?  Well, I will tell you.  Because despite their small numbers Jews are wealthy, powerful and self-interested enough to ram this crap down her throat.

I am not a WN.  But I sure as hell want my girl to be free from this sort of alien influence.

Am I justified, Tewey?

Posted by retweeeey brutey on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:29 | #

“Even with those provisos in place, what the Jews seek for themselves is less onerous than what WNs are asking for.”

First, irrelevant.  What another people “ask for” should not constrain what is in the interests of European-derived peoples.

Second, what do you think WNs are asking for, and why is it so bad?

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:46 | #

Third, whatever WN’s are “asking for”, how can it possibly be objectively worse than the genocide that the Jewish community is already well on the way to accomplishing?

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:47 | #

Fourth, what’s with the double standard?

Posted by boisei on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:58 | #

http://nhmag.com/master.html?http://nhmag.com/0207/0207_feature.html

Going through the inner city, you can certainly see a healthy number of boisei types.  Are they really extinct?

Or are they examples of the archaic Africans who contributed 5+% to the modern African population?

Posted by Retew on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:29 | #

Guessed_worker wrote;

QUOTE

Retew, WNs seek to be free from Jewish influence.  You mention the Holycaust, and that’s a clear case in point.  I don’t give a damn what happened or didn’t happen in Germany between 1941/45. It’s irrelevant to me, as it is to all the Englishmen, Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Rhodesians, Free French, Free Polish, Czechs et al who fought for the Allies, and their children, and their grand-children.  Likewise it is irrelevant to all those generations of continental Europeans who were not even born in 1945.

So why does my 14 year old, very English daughter have to swallow the Holything propaganda at school (she doesn’t give a damn either, but that’s beside the point)?  Well, I will tell you.  Because despite their small numbers Jews are wealthy, powerful and self-interested enough to ram this crap down her throat.

I am not a WN.  But I sure as hell want my girl to be free from this sort of alien influence.

Am I justified, Tewey?

========================================

I suppose you should have the right to contact your daughter’s headmaster and withdraw her from history lessons on grounds of conscience, in the same way as, for example, children could be excused from Religious Studies if their parents object to it.

But what I would prefer happened is that she was encouraged to speak up in class and say why she thought this was a waste of her time, or state her own point of view if she thought the one she was being presented with was faulty or represented a sectional interest.

I recall boys in my class at school asking the history teacher why they had to be taught about English history (and the teacher storming out for about ten minutes after giving the response that we couldn’t divorce ourselves from the past of our country), so I don’t see why your daughter shouldn’t be able to do the same.

Incidentally, I don’t accept that what happened in 1940s Germany is irrelevant to today’s Europeans, any more than, say, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are to today’s Japanese or the potato famine of the 1840s is to today’s Irishmen.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:55 | #

Incidentally, I don’t accept that what happened in 1940s Germany is irrelevant to today’s Europeans, any more than, say, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are to today’s Japanese or the potato famine of the 1840s is to today’s Irishmen.

That’s twisted.

Either it reads,

“Incidentally, I don’t accept that what happened in 1940s Germany is irrelevant to today’s Jews, any more than, say, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are to today’s Japanese or the potato famine of the 1840s is to today’s Irishmen.”

or it reads,

“Incidentally, I don’t accept that what happened in 1940s Germany is irrelevant to today’s Europeans, any more than, say, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are to today’s Europeans or the potato famine of the 1840s is to today’s Europeans.”

Either wise it makes little sense.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:56 | #

s/b Other not Either

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:03 | #

Retew, she does not have the right, as you well know.  Our rights have been abbrogated because, as I have stated elsewhere, the interests of the modern power elite and of (Organised) Jewry are congruent: namely to place a heavy moral weight on the expression of our ethnic interests.

The fate of the Jews in the camps, whatever it was, didn’t interest the Allied High Command during the war, didn’t deflect Bomber Command and USAAF 8th Airforce from their set tasks, and certainly need not interest us now.

It did not do so, of course, through the first twenty-years or more of my life.  Then in the 1970s it began to appear in full technicolour before our unknowing eyes.

That it has grown into the giant Morality Industry it is today is indeed something that we need to study and understand, so that it can never happen again.

Posted by Andy Wooster on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:08 | #

Third, whatever WN’s are “asking for”, how can it possibly be objectively worse than the genocide that the Jewish community is already well on the way to accomplishing?

  Yes, do tell.

Posted by Retew on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:24 | #

Desmond, what happened in Germany in the 1940s didn’t just affect Jews, it also affected Communists, homosexuals and gypsies who were also interned in the concentration camps as well as other Germans in their day to day lives who had to contend with the plethora of rules and diktats imposed upon them by a totalitarian state. In any event, none of us can divorce ourselves from the past.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:34 | #

It is also most entirely bizarre that the most liberal of entities in 1930s & 40s Canada, the United Church of Canada, whose spokesman, the Reverend Claris Silcox,  the “most vigorous and effective foe of anti-Semitism,” supporting “the admission of Jewish refugees from Nazi Europe, at a time when this stance was highly unpopular in Canada,” stated in 1941 that Canadians were justified in seeking to keep their country ‘dominantly and overwhelmingly European.’

And now Jewish professors of history, so chuffed by their absolute and complete victory over Anglo Protestantism, proudly proclaim their premier role in the victory.

“As we shall see, African Canadians, Japanese Canadians, and especially Jews led the struggle against discrimination in Canada.”

We beat you spineless, stupid Anglo bastards into total submission and now we are so sure of our complete and utter victory that we yell it from the belltowers of your most learned institutions. However, demographics is destiny and as more vigorous, moral peoples migrate to this land of the somnambulent suicidal Saxon, the tide will turn.

“Former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu cancelled a speech at Concordia University in Montreal after several hundred demonstrators managed to get into a university building.

“There’s no free speech for hate speech,” said Palestinian activist David Battistuzzi.”

Posted by Retew on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:35 | #

Guessedworker wrote;

QUOTE

“
Retew, she does not have the right, as you well know.  Our rights have been abrogated because, as I have stated elsewhere, the interests of the modern power elite and of (Organised) Jewry are congruent: namely to place a heavy moral weight on the expression of our ethnic interests.”

Have either of you tried though? Rather than make an ethnic issue of it, simply ask why she’s only getting one point of view or why it’s being overemphasised (if it is) over and above other historical events.

“The fate of the Jews in the camps, whatever it was, didn’t interest the Allied High Command during the war, didn’t deflect Bomber Command and USAAF 8th Airforce from their set tasks, and certainly need not interest us now”.

No, because we didn’t know about it then. We only discovered the full horror of it once the camps had been opened up following the Allies’ occupation of Germany and Poland. And in any case, I don’t think the bombing of German cities was defensible, especially when there were no munitions factories in the vicinity.

“It did not do so, of course, through the first twenty-years or more of my life.  Then in the 1970s it began to appear in full technicolour before our unknowing eyes.

That it has grown into the giant Morality Industry it is today is indeed something that we need to study and understand, so that it can never happen again”.

I certainly agree that we need to study how holocausts can come about (such as Rwanda) in order to prevent their happening again.
Someone’s already done that for me;

http://www.genocidewatch.org/8stages.htm

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:05 | #

Retew,

There were many representations from Jewry to the Allies to bomb the railway lines to the camps in Poland.  Arthur Harris resolutely refused to expend his heavy bomber crews’ lives on a non-strategic objective.

In fairness to you, he also objected to having to take time off from his Area Offensive to bomb the V-Weapon sites.  But that was a political necessity, and it was done to full effect and - being only penetrations into occupied territory - with relatively light losses.  Night bombing the lines in the East would have been operationally difficult and very hazardous indeed.

I write very little about the events in the camps because I lack the knowledge to evaluate the critiques and counter-critiques that flash across the skies.  So I don’t “deny” the official version.  I disdain its repressive and dishonest usage, and the industrial nature of that.

My point about ensuring that “it can never happen again” referred, therefore, to the Holo Publicity Business.  I don’t want future generations of English children to have their heads stuffed full of eternal Jewish victimology and the bastardisation of our natural rights and interests.  It is deeply offensive to even a nominally free people.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:17 | #

Retew’s link refers to “mass killing legally called ‘genocide.’”  Yet genocide has no necessary connection with mass killing, either conceptually or under international law.  It is the killing of a group, and the killing of a group can be accomplished without the killing of a single person—through sterilization, for example.

For this reason, stages 6 and 7 do not necessarily line up with what we see in practice.  Nonetheless, the genocide of Europeans has progressed into the equivalent of step 7.  Why is Retew so untroubled by this?

Posted by Rnl on Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:28 | #

Dr. Mock said the best polling on racism in Canada suggests two-thirds of us are pleased with and supportive of official multicultural policy. Between 12% and 15% are bigots, and unlikely to change their minds. That leaves about one person in six unaccounted for.

“And that’s the group that can go either way,” she said.

They are the undecideds, the swing voters of racial harmony, and because of their disinterest, they are the most vulnerable to propaganda about the evils of different races. Should they ever go to the bigots, Dr. Mock says, together they would make up roughly the portion of Germans who elected Hitler.

The Realist should take a good look at Dr. Mock’s arithmetic. As many as fifteen percent of Canadians - and of course she means White Canadians - are hardcore bigots. How does she know that they’re hardcore bigots? Well, they don’t support “official multicultural policy.” If these bigots, opponents of multiculturalism, can double their numbers, they’ll have a real nazi party: “together they [i.e. the bigots plus the undecided potential bigots] would make up roughly the portion of Germans who elected Hitler.” The magic number is one third, the percentage of Reichstag seats the NSDAP won in 1933. So Canadian bigots - i.e. Canadians who oppose official multicultural policy - are within striking distance of success, in Mock’s eyes. Double fifteen percent and add a few more and there will be a dangerous Hitlerite movement in Canada.

She is not measuring nazi-like anti-Semitism. She is not even talking about anti-Semitism. Jared Taylor is not an anti-Semite, as both Auster and the Realist acknowledge. For Mock naziism and opposition to multiculturalism are synonymous. Now I don’t find that especially outrageous, because I don’t think of German National Socialism as the worst evil in world history. But Mock does. When she fights for multiculturalism she is fighting against nazi mass murder.

Let’s recall Earl Raab’s disgusting but honest comments:

“The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible - and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

The Israeli ethnostate that Mock and Raab passionately support - an ethnostate that they don’t consider the least bit nazi-like - is not located on a south sea island in the middle of nowhere. It is an explicitly Jewish state built in the Holy Land on top of another people’s country, a state whose existence provokes great anger in the Muslim world. Perhaps Muslim anger is justified. Perhaps it isn’t. But the anger is an undeniable fact of modern life. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed planned and organized the 9/11 attacks because of it. His nephew, Ramzi Yousef, bombed the WTC in 1993 because of it. Muslim anger at Western support of Israel causes us serious problems, to put it mildly.

Jews like Mock and Raab demand that Whites acquiesce in our own dispossession, resistance to which is synonymous in their minds with Hitlerism, while we support their explicitly Jewish state and incur much anger - often lethal anger - from the Muslim world as a result. That’s a bad bargain, as the Realist will concede, if philo-Semitism hasn’t wrecked his brain. 

***

As I wrote in my article, “Why Jews Welcome Moslems,” Jewish organizations and a significant number of American Jews are passionately devoted to the cause of large-scale Third-World immigration and the resulting ongoing disappearance of America’s historic cultural and national identity, the ultimate effect of which will be to transform America truly and completely into what so many Jews have always wanted it to be: a majority-less collection of unrelated peoples forever divorced from its actual history as a nation and held together by nothing but an abstract belief in democracy and a desire for the good life.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005391.html

Posted by Bo Sears on Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:40 | #

Ben Tillman on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 05:47 PM, asked, “Fourth, what’s with the double standard?”

This might be a side issue, but we have addressed the issue of the “double standard” argument, and come up with another way of looking at the concept. Here are the opening paragraphs in our essay:

“European Americans are astonishingly gullible when it comes to recognizing Big Lies by the corporate entertainment culture and the dominant media culture.

For example, when European Americans hear an appeal to universal (i.e., global monocultural) values like “end all war crimes,” they think it means that the speaker truly wants to end all war crimes. Then when the speaker thereafter supports some war crimes by certain regimes, European Americans charge the speaker with having a double standard. But it isn’t an accurate charge. The dominant media culture and the corporate entertainment culture in American society hold a single standard on any given issue.

And the single standard is always based on the benefits accorded to the members of one or another particular group, ranked along the lines of religion, gender, ethnicity, national origin, continental origin, and race.

That there is a hierarchy of groups in American society that is recognized and protected by the entertainment business and the media culture can hardly be denied. The reader can determine the hierarchy of groups for himself or herself by simply counting references in public discourse to four categories of events.”

In our syllabus, we then analyse the issue in four contexts:

(1) Suffering Mentions
(2) Public Squabbles
(3) Who Slurs
(4) Publicity About Slurs

You can read the entire essay at:

http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/g4.htm

Dumping the “double standard” claim, critique, or argument has a two-fold benefit. First, it conforms to hard, cold reality. Second, opposing its use is part of our effort to undermine the entire concept of “universalism” upon which the “double standard” complaint or analysis is necessarily based.

This might sound a little theoretical, but we think that any trace of “universalism” in our arguments and theories is damaging to the cause.

Posted by Rnl on Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:44 | #

JB wrote:

I keep meeting anti-racist idiotz who think jews are whites.

It’s also possible Mock bumped into some criticism of Israel among her anti-racist allies. Anti-racism is great for attacking Western nations. It’s not so great for defending Israel. An anti-racist Zionist is an oxymoron, and some of Mock’s small-brained multiracialist friends may have finally caught on. They may, like the anti-racist protesters she encountered at Durban, have trespassed into the forbidden terrain called anti-Semitism, which for Zionists includes denying Israel’s right to exist as an apartheid Jewish ethnostate. Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism but rather a form of anti-racism.

“They [i.e. anti-racists hostile to Israel] came in and tried to shout down the speaker,” said Karen Mock, co-chair of the international Jewish caucus. Wielding the gavel, Mock called for a recess, “and during the break there was almost a riot. They wanted their issues on the agenda of the commission.”

Mock at Durban
http://www.cjnews.com/pastIssues/01/sept6-01/front1.asp

Karen Mock will fight racism in a new venue
http://www.cjnews.com/pastIssues/01/oct4-01/front1.asp

You’ve learned in school about the heroism of the freedom riders, you’ve marched in the transsexual parade against heterosexism, your heart flutters at the least sign of “racism,” you’re concerned that George Bush may be dangerously intolerant. What, if that’s your political orientation, is your attitude toward Israel? Israelis will seem like intolerant nazis in the eyes of a well-informed anti-racist. Freepers wouldn’t care, but your average left-wing anti-racist would. He believes in majority prostration before minority demands. He can spot “racism” at twenty paces. He can’t do much else, but he can do that.

The more degraded we become, the more likely we are to be morally outraged by Israeli behavior _insofar as it is racialist_. That should worry American Zionists, but they seem incapable of understanding it, probably because they hate us so much.

***

Israel’s Dark Future
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=10359

Joseph Massad: An Anti-Racist Jews Really Hate
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/745/op2.htm
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/623/op33.htm

***

There is an enormous difference between “recognizing Israel’s existence” and “recognizing Israel’s right to exist”. From a Palestinian perspective, the difference is in the same league as the difference between asking a Jew to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and asking him to acknowledge that it was “right” that the Holocaust happened - that the Holocaust (or, in the Palestinian case, the Nakba) was morally justified.

To demand that Palestinians recognize “Israel’s right to exist” is to demand that a people who have for almost 60 years been treated, and continue to be treated, as sub-humans publicly proclaim that they ARE sub-humans - and, at least implicitly, that they deserve what has been done, and continues to be done, to them. Even 19th century U.S. governments did not require the surviving Native Americans to publicly proclaim the “rightness” of their ethnic cleansing by the Pale Faces as a condition precedent to even discussing what reservation might be set aside for them - under economic blockade and threat of starvation until they shed whatever pride they had left and conceded the point.

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitbeck12212006.html

Could Karen Mock defeat Massad or Whitbeck in a debate? She couldn’t if the audience were all anti-racists.

Posted by PF on Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:53 | #

quoting Retew: Incidentally, I don’t accept that what happened in 1940s Germany is irrelevant to today’s Europeans, any more than, say, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are to today’s Japanese or the potato famine of the 1840s is to today’s Irishmen.

All historical events have relevance, to a greater or lesser degree. Who controls references to the past has power. The fact that this utterly boring historical episode has become the centerpiece for the common folks understanding of history, and that it has been recasted as the ultimate morality play, means that whoever created this vision of history had enough power and influence to propagate it to the exclusion of all other things. Formative moments in the history of Europe receive a passing mention. The founding of Rome, Plato’s Lyceum, Charlemange’s division of his Kingdom—these are no longer a part of our culture. Yet I dare you to find one educated person -not too educated, but average - whose understanding of history does not hinge on Munich 1939/Auschwitz. You are lucky to be Jewish or part Jewish, because you can feign naivete and at the same time fullfill your deepest ethnic imperatives. If we are naive, the abyss waits on us.

Quoting Retew:
But what I would prefer happened is that she was encouraged to speak up in class and say why she thought this was a waste of her time, or state her own point of view if she thought the one she was being presented with was faulty or represented a sectional interest.

Is it up to lone individuals operating by themselves to counteract this reworking of history- when the undertaking to construct this reworking was the concerted effort of an elite tightly-united tribe? Is it GWs daughter against the whole group of those who propound this? Truth is not a hard currency that is recognized in society because at any one time half of society is still learning how to think and the other half is trying to teach them, in our case with very much deceptive and malevolent intent. Whoever can repeat his message most, whoever gets most circulation, wins. It is naive of you to still believe in truthful debate after society has changed so much. The truth is certainly not going to win with such stupid people (New york Times) feeding crippled supine intellectualism that cannot escape its crib or walk upright- intellectualism that should have been strangled at birth. It would be delicious to be able to acquiesce in good conscience to a widely-accepted social lie and at the same time support the ethnic survival of one’s people. This bliss is only possible for some.

quoting Retew: Desmond, what happened in Germany in the 1940s didn’t just affect Jews, it also affected Communists, homosexuals and gypsies who were also interned in the concentration camps as well as other Germans in their day to day lives who had to contend with the plethora of rules and diktats imposed upon them by a totalitarian state. In any event, none of us can divorce ourselves from the past.

Yes, but being not one of the effected groups, I wonder why a person who I do not know is asserting the importance of a historical event to me, someone who they do not know. We can divorce ourselves fromm the past, inasfar as we deny ourselves the knowledge of it, we cant be free from its results. History is too big to be known in its entirety, but whoever decides what gets emphasized has true power. Human attention is extremely limited and it is a precious commodity. No one knows anything about the decolonization of Africa and post colonial Africa. Modern intellectuals feel themselves justified in ignoring African history - why? The real question is not ‘what is the relevance of this historical event to people today’ - only 5% of people even think seriously about history in any case - the question is, whom does this knowledge of history empower?

Posted by Rnl on Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:00 | #

Retew wrote:

Arabs can and do seek and obtain citizenship in Israel, for instance (Israel regularly admits refugees from neighbouring Arab states who are fleeing persecution for being gay)

I’d like to see a URL for this. I suspect the numbers are tiny. But even if it is true, let’s not forget that homosexuals rarely procreate. Arabs who do procreate, even Palestinian Arabs who have legal title to land illegally taken from their families in Palestine, are not allowed to return to their homes, in violation of UN resolutions.

Talk about the demographic threat to the Jewish state’s existence as an ethnostate is routine in Israel, both on the Left and the Right. Non-Jews in Israel are explicitly discussed as a growing demographic problem, not as an asset, and they are by definition second-class citizens in a state devoted to the preservation and advancement of a single Volk.

Israel is a racialist state with a race-based immigration policy that discriminates in favor of Jews and against Palestinians. I have no philosophical objection to that. You apparently do, which is your prerogative. But don’t tell us that Israel is a pluralist liberal democracy that eagerly welcomes non-Jews, because it isn’t.