Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

29849Talkin' Jews (was: drugs, lifestyles, and the Holocaust)

Expand Messages
  • Tarjei Straume
    Dec 3 10:48 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      I wrote:

      >I've been listening to half a dozen interviews
      >with Holocaust survivor and 1986 Nobel Peace
      >Prize laureate Eli Wiesel at the Open Mind
      >program with Richard Hefner, where he talks
      >about the anatomy of hate, the Holcaust,
      >anti-Semitism and related issues. You may also
      >have seen that program with Oprah Winfrey, where
      >she and Wiesel take a cold winter's day alk
      >around Auschwitz, the factory of death, where
      >Wiesel survived miraclulously, and to himself
      >incomprehensibly, at the tender age of 15. They
      >look at all the evidence, the gas hambers and
      >the gas cannisters, all the clothes and shoes
      >left behind by rich and poor, young and old, and
      >the tons and tons of hair cut off the victims
      >intended to be used for anufacturing something
      >useful. A factory of death with Eli Wiesel and
      >many others as closeup eyewitnesses.

      Uncle Taz continueth:

      I've done some thinking around the topic of
      anti-Semitism and arguments presented here by
      previous contributors against Jews collectively,
      such as "Christ-rejection", decadent and
      atavistic monotheism, fuelling the brutal
      shadow-side of Israel's politics through Zionists
      in Israel itself and the Jewish lobby in the US,
      being responsible for all wars and arms
      productions - these allegations against Jews in
      general go on and on and amount to something
      where Peter Staudenmaier has a valid point for a
      change, namely the phenomenon of anti-Semitism
      from the political left in the light of justified
      increasing criticism against Israel's politics.
      And it's precisely because this anti-Semitism
      comes from the left, that Mr. Lightsearcher jumps
      in and showers me with praise for opposing it. He
      wouldn't have been so fast on that trigger of his
      if it had been easier for me to make certain
      points on this issue that the time in question.
      This was very difficult, however, in the face of
      so much weird stuff that was being written about
      the Jews here by certain individuals.

      Before I get to those points, it should be made
      clear, however, that Israeli political
      propagandists have been abusing history, the
      Holocaust, and the charge of anti-Semitism for
      many decades in an endeavor to silence criticism
      against Israel. The claim that anti-Semitism is
      on the rise today, also in the West, is pure
      propaganda not based on fact. Norman G.
      Finkelstein has written some books on this issue:
      "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the
      Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" and "Beyond
      Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History."

      Finkelstein has frequently criticized the
      Anti-Defamation League as an organization
      dedicated not to defend against anti-Semitism,
      but to defamation of critics of Israel.
      Ultimately, he argues, the ADL trivializes real
      anti-Semitism by "crying wolf" with fraudulent
      allegations of Holocaust denial and "New anti-Semitism".

      In a letter to Georgetown University, the ADL
      referred to Finkelstein as a "known Holocaust
      denier". This is very ironic indeed when we take
      into account that not only is Finkelstein Jewish;
      his parents were Polish Auschwitz survivors. And
      by accusing Finkelstein of Holocaust denial, the ADL prove him right:

      Finkelstein has routinely dismissed this charge
      as spurious, pointing to his various descriptions
      of the Holocaust as an indisputable fact, and
      referring mockingly to "each of the many
      occasions that ADL has slandered this writer as a
      'well-known Holocaust denier.'" More recently,
      the Washington Post said of the ADL's allegation
      against Finkelstein that it "proved baseless."

      In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy
      Now, Finkelstein argued that in the eyes of the
      ADL "anyone who's a critic of Israel becomes an
      anti-Semite. And the truth of the matter is, the
      real anti-Semites, they don't really care about
      -- or the real Holocaust deniers, which is their
      other favorite epithet to hurl at people or
      expectorate at people who are critical of
      Israel." In that same interview, Finkelstein went
      on to say that genuine instances of Holocaust
      denial – such as Mahmoud Abbas's doctoral
      dissertation (which claimed that less than a
      million Jews were killed by the Nazis) or Silvio
      Berlusconi's claim that Mussolini was a "benign
      dictator" who "never killed anyone" (thousands of
      Italian Jews were sent to their deaths under
      Fascism) – are routinely downplayed by the ADL if
      the perpetrator is regarded an ally of the U.S. and Israel.

      In other words, Robert Mason is safe from
      criticism by the ADL, in spite of his *real*
      Holocaust revisionism, if he only proclaims support of Israel.

      The accusation of Holocaust denial and Holocaust
      revisionism against Finkelstein have been
      periodically echoed by other writers, including
      Phyllis Chesler, David Hornik, and Steven Plaut,
      all writing in Front Page Magazine, Martin
      Peretz, the Publisher of The New Republic, and
      Marc Fisher in the Washington Post. After several
      exchanges of letters and phone calls with
      Finkelstein, the Washington Post issued a
      retraction, in which Fisher wrote "Finkelstein
      has never denied the existence of the Holocaust,
      and I did not intend to suggest that."

      Finkelstein says that he relies on the work of
      Raul Hilberg for historical facts about the
      Holocaust, and cites as authoritative Hilberg's
      figures for the numbers of Holocaust Jewish
      victims killed (5.1 million). He has also written
      that "no rational person disputes that the Nazis
      systematically exterminated 5-6 million Jews" and
      "whether the actual figure was closer to 5 rather
      than 6 million might have historical significance
      [...] but zero moral significance". In The
      Holocaust Industry Finkelstein took issue with
      the numbers of Holocaust survivors as quoted by
      groups seeking Holocaust reparations. Finkelstein
      told an interviewer, "There's not a single word
      in the book that can be interpreted as Holocaust
      denial. Rather the contrary, I insist throughout
      the book that the conventional view of the Nazi
      holocaust - i.e, an assembly-line, industrialized
      killing of the Jews - is correct, and that the
      conventional figures on those killed are (more or less) correct."

      (Source: Wikipedia)

      And now I'll get to my point. It's very
      interesting to note - very interesting indeed! -
      that all the most radical, dangerous, fierce,
      analytical critics of Israel and of US foreign
      policy are Jews: Norman Finkelstein, Amy Goodman,
      Noam Chomsky (who was once an advisor to
      Mossad!), Seymor Hersh (who in addition to
      reporting The My Lai Massacre and exposing the
      sinister side of the current administration's
      policy with regard to Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon,
      has also written a myth-busting book about JFK,
      "The Dark Side of Camelot", which should interest
      Frank and others), professor Howard Zinn (the
      historian, social critic, and political scientist
      who wrote "A People's History of the United
      States"), innumerable ACLU lawyers, and the list
      goes on and on. The so-called radical left, which
      flirts with anarchist ideas, seeks to protect
      Latin America's turn to the left from US right
      wing intervention, defends Muslims against ethnic
      profiling and against meddling in Arab countries,
      stands up for Palestinians against Israeli
      brutality - this movement carries lots and lots and lots of Jews.

      What does this mean? It means a lot of things.
      For starters, what does it mean for Mr.
      Lightsearcher? It means when Mr. Lightsearcher
      defames and libels "liberals" and "leftists" with
      all kinds of moral character assassinations like
      cowardice, hypocrisy, criminality, fraud,
      untruthfulness and so on, he's defaming an awful
      lot of Jews. So although Mr. Lightsearcher is
      primarily interested in defaming Muslims and
      allegedly in defending Jews, he is hypocritical
      to a tee offering his support to my opposition to anti-Semitism.

      Secondly, what does this mean for Peter
      Staudenmaier? It means that he's facing a problem
      of contradictions, although he'll have little
      trouble acrobating himself around it through his
      well-knwn feat of juggling words and phrases with
      his usual sleight of hand. Peter S has pointed
      out that there's this phenomenon of anti-Semitism
      from the left, where criticism of Israel is
      conflated with criticism of all Jews collectively
      and of Judaism. In addition to this, whenever
      someone has pointed out to him that
      anthroposophists are close to Jews and that there
      are many Jewish anthroposophists, PS comes up
      with some phrases about philo-Semitic Anthros and
      anti-Semitic Semites. But what Peter S is doing
      when he starts rabbling about anti-Semitic
      Semites, is echoing certain false accusations,
      such as those of ADL against Norman Finkelstein.
      Even Noam Chomsky, whom Peter S seems to admire
      (they're both anarchists, more or less), would
      have to be a so-called anti-Semitic Semite
      according to such twisted definitions. And then
      Staudenmaier is left with his problem of old,
      once brilliantly pointed out by Bradford, namely
      how many anti-Semites he can squeeze into a VW bug.

      Thirdly, what does this mean for Robert Mason?
      He's busted, pure and simple. From the start. He
      has defended the views of even the most notorious
      Holocaust deniers with mean axes to grind against
      the Jews, people who are only featured in a
      positive light on neo-Nazi websites and similar
      far-right or bizarre anti-Jewish campaigns. And
      when I once asked him how he felt about Jews, he
      refused to answer, and this silence speaks
      volumes. He could have said something like, "It
      depends upon which Jews you're talking about," but he didn't. He's busted.

      Fourthly, what does all this mean for the legacy
      of Rudolf Steiner? For starters, Robert Mason
      exposing his true colors when challenged is a
      huge plus for this legacy, a smelly taint
      removed. The problem of Dan Dugan and Peter
      Staudenmaier, with quacking ducks like the
      thoroughly confused Diana Winters on their tail,
      is that when they're accusing Rudolf Steiner of
      anti-Semitism, they're guilty of the same
      intellectual dishonesty as the evangelical
      Religious Right, Mossad, and other one-sided
      defenders of Israel who say that any criticism of
      Israel or of anything associated with Jewish
      culture, is by definition anti-Semitic. So in
      order not to be an anti-Semite, one would have to
      utter nothing but praise of Israeli militarism or
      any other issue with Jewish connotations. Other
      than that, one would have to shut up.

      The Hole Dwellers have criticized Steiner
      severely for mentioning that a Jewish friend of
      his had "outgrown his Jewishness". This was
      supposed to be anti-Semitic. Have they ever tried
      to contemplate what the Doctor meant? To me, it
      looks fairly simple: To think outside one's
      ethnic, religious, or national box. (The opposite
      of this is patriotism, "My country right or
      wrong," which literally means, "My mother drunk
      or sober," which is ridiculous.)

      By this definition, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky,
      Norman Finkelstein, Seymor Hersh and all the
      others have "outgrown their Jewishness".
      Political opponents are prone to accuse them of
      self-hatred, treason, extremism, and every other
      derogatory and politically charged liberal-hating
      epitaph farted out by our very own Mr.
      Lightsearcher. Outgrowing one's ethnicity or
      nationality, becoming a homeless soul, has a
      price. You'll be attacked from the right by
      orthodox conservatives and from the left by the likes of Peter S.

      And Uncle Taz concludeth with a few final words of wisdom:

      They have to stop all this nonsense about
      left-wing and right-wing. It has no place in the
      21st century. Left and right wings belong on a
      bird or an airplane up in the sky, not on the
      ground, and certainly not in politics. By the
      same token, they have to stop talking about "the
      West Wing" and call it something else, like "the
      West Office" or something. The White House
      doesn't fly to the best of my knowledge.


    • Show all 15 messages in this topic