Anti-Imperialism & Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

[slimmouse]

Sounds like the kind of question Gilad Atzmon would be able to answer.

This is of course the kind of very dangerous question that isnt supposed to be asked, let alone answered - hence the ongoing facade, that in the eyes of AD and co constitutes a debate, and which by its very nature detracts from such vital analysis ;

WE define the boudaries of discourse - step beyond them and be damned.

The wandering who indeed. I have to say I find it incredible that people who proclaim to be about justice for all continue to form opinions based upon boundaries that bear zero relation to who and what humanity truly is. Or perhaps not. The lines were drawn the day we were born I guess, and continue to sharpen by the day.

Intuitively an informed humanity knows the answers, which makes it increasingly obvious to all but the intellectual village idiot where the problem lies. Define yourself as you will, but for fucks sake stop killing innocent people in defence of your (imposed) definitions. I regularly reflect upon how trapped I personally am in this consensus reality, but for all those failings at least Ive come to realise where and how such false borders ultimately shit upon us all.

FWIW , I only wish Mr Greenstein would make an appearance himself to defend his views. The copy and paste versions are failing so miserably I almost feel sorry for him, though I suspect the man himself would fare little better.

[barracuda]

What bull. Your analogy is totally inappropriate -- the whole point of the Tony Greenstein types is that THEY'RE the ones appointing themselves 'gate-keepers' and 'owners' of the Palestine solidarity movement and trying to stop OTHERS from helping -- especially those individuals whose contributions are much, much greater than theirs, like Gilad Atzmon, Ken O'Keefe and even Palestinians like Gill Kaffash and Nahida Izzat.

Oh. I thought Atzmon was opposing Jewish racial exclusivity with regard to Palestinian activist groups. Personally, I don't care much for Greenstein, from what I've read he seems like a jerk. I don't really agree with this "no-platform" approach or censorship. We don't have that here, thankfully, for the most part.

Are you willfully ignorant, or is it just that without straw men to attack, you have no argument? Atzmon is not the one trying to stop anybody from doing anything to help out the Palestinians -- it's the opposite.

Oh. I thought Atzmon was opposing Jewish racial exclusivity with regard to Palestinian activist groups.

In this, as in so many other things about me, your prejudice blinds you. I do know exactly what he meant. By openly writing in the university newspaper ** (see below) about Palestinian history and Israel's violations of the indigenous population's legal and human rights and by helping to organize a successful student visit to the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza, I'd made myself a target of vicious harassment, including explicit death threats.

Ah, I see. My apologies. It was, though, an honest mistake.

So you, barracuda, just keep self-righteously patting yourself on the back for your smug and clangingly hollow pseudo-morality, which comes for free, which happens to be neatly packed and wrapped and clearly labeled, complete with a stamp of approval from the Powers That Be.

Dear me, sorry once more, St. Alice. I'd forgotten again that you were the only person on the board who'd ever faced injustice.

That you can even make such an outrageous claim, given the fact that your views require no intellectual effort, no investigation, no moral courage and no need to do anything but read from pre-affixed labels, indeed, given the fact that your views just happen to align you with those who oppress and not the oppressed, with those who use force to silence dissent, rather than those who pay dearly for their right to speak out, is something that you might want to think about (though I doubt you will, or can).

I think it's perfectly possible to disagree with some of Atzmon's and your own opinions and at the same time look forward to a single state of Palestine with justice for all the inhabitants. It's not really an impossibly complex intellectual balancing act, truth be told. Hopefully there's not some requirement that I have to conform to what you see as acceptable personal views regarding that matter.

And I'm sort of hoping a moderator will step in and stop these personal attacks from continuing. It is completely uncalled for and, last time I checked, against posting guidelines. Knock it off, please.

Laodicean, should you feel in the pit of your stomach the fervent desire for moderation coming on, you need only push the little "alert" button [!] at the bottom right hand corner of the post in question. Then a dialog box will come up and you can report the post with commentary to the mods.

In my always humble opinion, and particularly within the context of this thread, it is not a personal attack to refer to individuals or their remarks as antisemitic, particularly if the assertion is plainly demonstrable. It's an integral part of the discussion to examine things in that light.

I don't see anything in the posting guidelines specifically mentioning antisemitism either way. And besides, according to Atzmon there's no such thing as antisemitism anyway, there's just xenophobia. So I fail to see how anyone's feelings might be hurt under this new consensus definition. I mean, "xenophobia"? Isn't that sort of like turning up your nose at Americans because they're poorly dressed?

There is this one guideline: "Propagation of fascist, neo-Nazi and "white pride" causes, including sympathetically linking to sites which advocate such, will not be permitted. This includes revisionist histories of the Holocaust." I guess we might as well toss that one out too, seeing as how the general feeling of the posters on this thread seems to agree with Atzmon that the sacrosanctity of the typical Holocaust narrative is nonsense, and that it should be open to discussion and interpretation, just alike any other event proposed by the suspect mainstream to have occurred.

You guys should really get together and petition Jeff to make these minor, minor rule changes.

- Antisemitism is merely a bit of harmless xenophobia under another, interchangeable name, and

- Discussions of the historicity of the Jewish "Holocaust" are permitted, nay, encouraged.

I look forward to the new, more open and inclusive board discussions resulting from such progressive changes. Might even encourage some of the lurkers to participate! Far less constricting.

Cuda, have you seen the film 'Defamation' I mentioned?

Oh yes, I watched it. It made for such an exciting evening's fare. Quite the yawnfest. Zionists are evil douchbag assholes, assholes teach their children to be assholes, what a revelation. They're right about one thing, though - people hate them.

This begs a question: why would anybody raise try to raise their children to identify with the victims of nazism, and at the same time raise them to be good ethnic cleansers and racist oppressors?

This is of course the kind of very dangerous question that isnt supposed to be asked, let alone answered

The answer is obvious if you've ever seen a beaten man raising his child to be a bully.

Define yourself as you will, but for fucks sake stop killing innocent people in defence of your (imposed) definitions.

Yep.

[yathrib]

Slimmouse: This is going to sound sarcastic, but could you work on a Slimmouse FAQ so that those of us who aren't tuned in will know WTF you're talking about? These mysterioso hints and insinuations are getting a tiny bit old. Maybe a Slimmouse Wiki?

EDIT: I know this sounds like a personal attack, but it's not. It's just that if I'm going to take someone seriously, they have to be able to say something more concrete than "If I told ya, I'd have to kill ya."

Sounds like the kind of question Gilad Atzmon would be able to answer.

This is of course the kind of very dangerous question that isnt supposed to be asked, let alone answered - hence the ongoing facade, that in the eyes of AD and co constitutes a debate, and which by its very nature detracts from such vital analysis ;

WE define the boudaries of discourse - step beyond them and be damned.

The wandering who indeed. I have to say I find it incredible that people who proclaim to be about justice for all continue to form opinions based upon boundaries that bear zero relation to who and what humanity truly is. Or perhaps not. The lines were drawn the day we were born I guess, and continue to sharpen by the day.

Intuitively an informed humanity knows the answers, which makes it increasingly obvious to all but the intellectual village idiot where the problem lies. Define yourself as you will, but for fucks sake stop killing innocent people in defence of your (imposed) definitions. I regularly reflect upon how trapped I personally am in this consensus reality, but for all those failings at least Ive come to realise where and how such false borders ultimately shit upon us all.

FWIW , I only wish Mr Greenstein would make an appearance himself to defend his views. The copy and paste versions are failing so miserably I almost feel sorry for him, though I suspect the man himself would fare little better.

[Searcher08]

Cuda, have you seen the film 'Defamation' I mentioned?

Oh yes, I watched it. It made for such an exciting evening's fare. Quite the yawnfest. Zionists are evil douchbag assholes, assholes teach their children to be assholes, what a revelation. They're right about one thing, though - people hate them.

ORLY? That was one of the worst reviews I've ever read.
Are there more?
Romeo and Juliet "Zzz. Anti-Semitic nonsense. Patriarchy in action and they all DIE"
Alien "Monsters eat people. Monsters are Bad. They all DIE . Anti-Semitic trash. Yawn."
Chariots of Fire "White guys in shorts chase Jewish guy in shorts -anti-Semetic tripe Zzzzz"

Personally, I found it did not treat ANYONE in it like an asshole. I came away from it with empathy for Abe Foxman and almost every one of the people in it, which certainly surprised me.
I thought it was a masterclass on what anti-Semitism has become, which seems to be rumors of people having issues getting off work and / or criticising Israel - and a emotional amplification and confabulation echo chamber, which has the people in it turning into simultaneous fear addict, fear dealer, fear cultivator - but also game players who use that in a calculated fashion to their advantage - as Foxman said himself - but also as enforcers against anyone who challenges this worldview and with added exceptionalism that perpetuates the whole bloody structure.

Pointing this out is what I see Atzmon is engaging in. The reactions against much of what he says I see as a full blown 'systemic' reaction to an extremely unwelcome new input, so the system seeks to get rid of it by tagging him as a hostile invader, seeking to identify with tags associated with others classified as invaders (i.e. thinking like Atzmon => rise of another Hitler).

[yathrib]

"Defamation" was a very interesting film, and I was taken aback by the weaponisation of (the accusation of) antisemitism. But it doesn't mean the real thing doesn't exist. Also, if they ever make an Israeli version of "Dawson's Creek" they should use some of those students.

[Searcher08]

"Defamation" was a very interesting film, and I was taken aback by the weaponisation of (the accusation of) antisemitism. But it doesn't mean the real thing doesn't exist. Also, if they ever make an Israeli version of "Dawson's Creek" they should use some of those students.

I thought there was a lot of food for thought: (vague language used to avoid spoilers )
Mr Foxman engaging the Ukrainian President
The Moscow Rabbis comments on anti-Semitism
The ADL folks on a personal level
Norman Finklestein (I wanted to make him some chicken soup and find a nice Jewish girl for him)
What the Anti-Semitism spreadsheet / database was actually tracking in those hundreds of incidents each month
and, as you say, the students, who I found sweet, intelligent, brattish, annoying, exasperating and charming in equal measure - the only thing I wish had been included in the film was a vignette of what the people who were in it, thought of it - as I think the open-minded response of the students and their teacher (mentioned above in the director's Guardian article) is a ray of hope.

On a different note, the whole outrage about Atzmon reminds me in some aspects of the outrage that greeted the film 'The Last Temptation Of Christ'.

[barracuda]

ORLY? That was one of the worst reviews I've ever read.
Are there more?
Romeo and Juliet "Zzz. Anti-Semitic nonsense. Patriarchy in action and they all DIE"
Alien "Monsters eat people. Monsters are Bad. They all DIE . Anti-Semitic trash. Yawn."
Chariots of Fire "White guys in shorts chase Jewish guy in shorts -anti-Semetic tripe Zzzzz"

Personally, I found it did not treat ANYONE in it like an asshole.

Really? Not even the girls accusing the old men of Jew hate? The entire system that attempts to move the children through an emotional catharsis they are reluctant or unable to enter, but pushing them til they were in tears? The ADL bureaucrats who can't even dredge up a good example of an antisemitic incident for the filmmaker? The woman yelling at David Hirsh?

I thought it was a masterclass on what anti-Semitism has become,

Maybe that's the very reason I found it boring: the most interesting or damning parts of the film were already known to me. I've already taken a master class on antisemitism and the Holocaust industry: I've been reading Alice's posts for five years.

But despite the ironic tone of the whole thing (nicely emphasized by the tuba-inflected oom-pa-pa of the soundtrack) or maybe because of it, I found it kind of silly. He wants to know what antisemitism is, so his idea is to follow Abe Foxman around and talk to Norman Finklestein? C'mon. It took all of ten minutes discussion with the guys on the street in Brooklyn Heights to hear the Protocols of the Elders of Zion quoted approvingly. If Yoav Shamir wanted to know what antisemitism looks like today, he should come out to California. If I had a dollar for every swastika spray painted on walls and fences around my neighborhood, or the occasional "Fuck the Kikes" scrawled around here, I could by a month's worth of groceries. It's a total commonplace. I cleaned a swastika off the sidewalk in front of my daughter's elementary school about a week ago. The kids learn right away the right symbol to draw and the right words to say. And it's no surprise that they do - the shop around the corner from me sells all kinds of Nazi themed merchandise, mostly scuttle helmets and SS badges and iron crosses for the local biker crews. But it's so deeply ingrained in the culture you don't even think about it. Oh my, the governor of California was photographed wearing a SS symbol on his belt buckle on the cover of Time magazine? Not really surprising - half the people on the street around here are wearing Totenkopfs too. They're ubiquitous.

To be fair, so are characterizations of blacks as niggers. I live in a highly charged, racist society. However, I have never - not once - seen or heard anti-arab, anti-muslim, anti-hindi racism voiced or graffitied around here. In the media, yes, but not on the street or in conversation. There's no paki-bashing here, or talk of "rag heads" that I'm aware of. And it's easy to imagine why - the Sikhs who wear the dastar around here are some of the toughest-looking mofos you'd ever want to meet.They carry kirpans - big ones. Don't fuck with 'em.

On the other hand, like the guy in the film says, the Jews are soft targets. Kids who wouldn't even know how to insult an Afghani learn to draw the swastika in infancy. It's so easy, a cross with little legs, second nature, and handy.

On the whole, I don't find the film to be remarkably supportive of the philosophies of Atzmon. There were plenty of examples of real racism encountered by the filmmaker along with the predictable message of the Holocaust industrialization. So, yeah, it's message was much more moderate than my characterization, but no less simplistic on some ways. It's a documentary filled with persons afflicted with and conflicted by tunnel vision on all sides, inextricably wrapped in their separate conceptions of the world. It certainly is not a hopeful picture.

I'd like to hear Alice's comments on it. I wonder if she'd empathize with Abe Foxman as you did.

[AlicetheKurious]

Atzmon is not the one trying to stop anybody from doing anything to help out the Palestinians -- it's the opposite.

Oh. I thought Atzmon was opposing Jewish racial exclusivity with regard to Palestinian activist groups.

Criticizing and pointing out their hypocrisy is hardly comparable to slandering, hounding and threatening people, and trying to have them and anybody who associates with them fired and boycotted and prevented from making a contribution to the Palestine solidarity movement. Atzmon is not trying to monopolize thought and discourse within the movement or even outside it, and silencing dissent. Can you really not tell the difference?

So you, barracuda, just keep self-righteously patting yourself on the back for your smug and clangingly hollow pseudo-morality, which comes for free, which happens to be neatly packed and wrapped and clearly labeled, complete with a stamp of approval from the Powers That Be.

Dear me, sorry once more, St. Alice. I'd forgotten again that you were the only person on the board who'd ever faced injustice.

This has nothing to do with me, and this thread is not even really about Gilad Atzmon. It's about what he's done: he's turned his analysis on them, the self-appointed thought police, on the thuggish methods they use to silence and frighten people, and he's written about what their methods reveal about them and their agenda. Like Israel Shahak, Jeffrey Blankfort, Ilan Pappe and other 'self-haters', he's broken the code of silence about the rationale, the ideology that justifies such actions. That's what he's being 'punished' for: there are people who stand behind a bullhorn and a spotlight, designating this or that individual as the new Enemy, and then exhorting their minions to attack, but they don't want anybody asking uncomfortable questions about who they are, what their moral framework really is and what, exactly, qualifies them to decide for the rest of us what is permissible to think and say.

I don't see anything in the posting guidelines specifically mentioning antisemitism either way. And besides, according to Atzmon there's no such thing as antisemitism anyway, there's just xenophobia. So I fail to see how anyone's feelings might be hurt under this new consensus definition. I mean, "xenophobia"? Isn't that sort of like turning up your nose at Americans because they're poorly dressed?

You should really ask yourself why, if you have a valid argument to make, you feel compelled to keep setting up straw men (making stuff up), and ignoring people's responses. A few pages ago, I explained in detail why Gilad Atzmon has helped me to realize that the term "antisemitism" is not synonymous with "racism" and why it's inaccurate, in many cases even immoral, to use the two terms interchangeably. Here's an excerpt:

"Like murder, theft, child abuse, slavery and other insults to humanity, it must be held to one standard and one definition. To create a special category of racism, idiosyncratically and opportunistically defined, which differentiates between some "victims" and others, is to aggravate the insult. That is why I will never again use the term "antisemitism" when I mean racism."

There is this one guideline: "Propagation of fascist, neo-Nazi and "white pride" causes, including sympathetically linking to sites which advocate such, will not be permitted. This includes revisionist histories of the Holocaust." I guess we might as well toss that one out too, seeing as how the general feeling of the posters on this thread seems to agree with Atzmon that the sacrosanctity of the typical Holocaust narrative is nonsense, and that it should be open to discussion and interpretation, just alike any other event proposed by the suspect mainstream to have occurred.

We've discussed this before as well: historical events do not have "sacrosanctity". It is not only permissible, it is essential to subject historical events to revision and reinterpretation according to empirical evidence, logic and the introduction of multiple perspectives. Otherwise they become religious narratives, or dogmas.

Religious narratives are unchanging and impervious to all these things; they must be accepted on faith.

Even so, the Holocaust is unique among religious narratives in many Western countries, where other forms of atheism are legal, but atheism or even agnosticism with regard to the Holocaust is a prosecutable crime.

As we've seen in the case of Gill Kaffash, it is not even necessary to "deny the Holocaust" to be labeled a "Holocaust denier" and fired and hounded; it's enough just to say what she did in 2005:

There is no doubt that a great number of Jews along with other victims of the Nazi army were killed by Hitler. However, historical phenomena need to be further examined to uncover the truth. Therefore banning opposition to the theses termed as `invariable reality` is irrational.

There was no attempt to prove Gill Kaffash wrong, to show that indeed it is rational to ban opposition to the theses termed "invariable reality" when it comes to historical phenomena. A small group of Jewish "activists" led by Tony Greenstein slapped her with a label and chased her, a Palestinian whose dedication and real contributions to the Palestinian cause are not in question, out of the UK's most important Palestine solidarity organization. Maybe that's the kind of thing you're ok with, but I find it outrageous.

As for this board, if the Holocaust is the officially sanctioned religion here, then members must respect that; it's just good manners. What I will not do, however, is deny that there is a difference between historical and religious narratives. That would be dishonest.

This begs a question: why would anybody raise try to raise their children to identify with the victims of nazism, and at the same time raise them to be good ethnic cleansers and racist oppressors?

The answer is obvious if you've ever seen a beaten man raising his child to be a bully.

How did he raise his child to be a bully? What beliefs did he instill in his child? What did he teach him about others to make him into a bully? What kind of man was his father? What was his relationship with those who beat him prior to the beating? Why do some people who have been beaten raise their children to stand up to bullies, while others raise their children to bully others? And what about his other children who are raised to be bullies who reject their upbringing and instead identify with their own brothers' victims?

Again, Gilad Atzmon is well-qualified to answer these questions, from personal experience and his studies.

This is of course the kind of very dangerous question that isnt supposed to be asked, let alone answered

Evidently.

[barracuda]

Criticizing and pointing out their hypocrisy is hardly comparable to slandering, hounding and threatening people, and trying to have them and anybody who associates with them fired and boycotted and prevented from making a contribution to the Palestine solidarity movement. Atzmon is not trying to monopolize thought and discourse within the movement or even outside it, and silencing dissent. Can you really not tell the difference?

Sure I can tell the difference, which is why I don't believe Atzmon ought to be censored. My support for his freedom to say what he wants shouldn't be confused, though, with supporting his ideas.

You should really ask yourself why, if you have a valid argument to make, you feel compelled to keep setting up straw men (making stuff up), and ignoring people's responses. A few pages ago, I explained in detail why Gilad Atzmon has helped me to realize that the term "antisemitism" is not synonymous with "racism" and why it's inaccurate, in many cases even immoral, to use the two terms interchangeably. Here's an excerpt:

"Like murder, theft, child abuse, slavery and other insults to humanity, it must be held to one standard and one definition. To create a special category of racism, idiosyncratically and opportunistically defined, which differentiates between some "victims" and others, is to aggravate the insult. That is why I will never again use the term "antisemitism" when I mean racism."

I was being sarcastic, my sarcasm occasioned by Atzmon's statement of the equivalency of antisemitism and xenophobia as found at the link I provided:

At this point some Zionists would try to revise their argument and claim that real anti-Semitism is in fact a form of blind hatred towards Jews regardless of their politics and misdoings. They would say that a Jew is hated just for being a Jew. My response would be that though such hatred might exist it needn't be labelled 'anti-Semitism'. It is xenophobia, defined by the Oxford Dictionary as an 'intense dislike or fear of foreigners or strangers'.

So Atzmon defines antisemitism as even less than racism. To him it doesn't really exist.

As for this board, if the Holocaust is the officially sanctioned religion here, then members must respect that; it's just good manners. What I will not do, however, is deny that there is a difference between historical and religious narratives. That would be dishonest.

How gracious of you to curb your actual feelings about the matter in order not to break the house rules.

How did he raise his child to be a bully? What beliefs did he instill in his child? What did he teach him about others to make him into a bully? What kind of man was his father? What was his relationship with those who beat him prior to the beating? Why do some people who have been beaten raise their children to stand up to bullies, while others raise their children to bully others? And what about his other children who are raised to be bullies who reject their upbringing and instead identify with their own brothers' victims?

There's a wide variety of responses to abuse though, aren't there? Is every Israeli a bully? Every Jew? Every Arab? No, they're not.

Every state? Yes.

[yathrib]

What everyone forgets is that the terms "antisemite" and "antisemitism" were not coined by Jews. They were created by nineteenth century European racialists who liked that it sounded more "scientific" than "jewhater." Draw your own conclusions.

[AlicetheKurious]

He wants to know what antisemitism is, so his idea is to follow Abe Foxman around and talk to Norman Finklestein? C'mon. It took all of ten minutes discussion with the guys on the street in Brooklyn Heights to hear the Protocols of the Elders of Zion quoted approvingly. If Yoav Shamir wanted to know what antisemitism looks like today, he should come out to California. If I had a dollar for every swastika spray painted on walls and fences around my neighborhood, or the occasional "Fuck the Kikes" scrawled around here, I could by a month's worth of groceries. It's a total commonplace. I cleaned a swastika off the sidewalk in front of my daughter's elementary school about a week ago. The kids learn right away the right symbol to draw and the right words to say. And it's no surprise that they do - the shop around the corner from me sells all kinds of Nazi themed merchandise, mostly scuttle helmets and SS badges and iron crosses for the local biker crews. But it's so deeply ingrained in the culture you don't even think about it. Oh my, the governor of California was photographed wearing a SS symbol on his belt buckle on the cover of Time magazine? Not really surprising - half the people on the street around here are wearing Totenkopfs too. They're ubiquitous.

Oh, my. I had no idea that Jews were so oppressed in California. Other than your, no doubt objective and realistic assessment, would you happen to know how the persecuted Jewish population compares to that of their oppressors, the Protocols-quoting blacks, in terms of average income, employment opportunities, access to education and health care, decent housing, life expectancy, treatment by law enforcement officials, vulnerability to violent crime, political influence, etc? This is fascinating, I can't wait to learn more about how black Americans are oppressing Jewish Americans.

However, I have never - not once - seen or heard anti-arab, anti-muslim, anti-hindi racism voiced or graffitied around here. In the media, yes, but not on the street or in conversation. There's no paki-bashing here, or talk of "rag heads" that I'm aware of. And it's easy to imagine why - the Sikhs who wear the dastar around here are some of the toughest-looking mofos you'd ever want to meet.They carry kirpans - big ones. Don't fuck with 'em.

On the other hand, like the guy in the film says, the Jews are soft targets. Kids who wouldn't even know how to insult an Afghani learn to draw the swastika in infancy. It's so easy, a cross with little legs, second nature, and handy.

Hmm. Your credibility just shot up, like, 100% Here's what state-sanctioned xenophobia looks like (you know, the xenophobia you describe as "harmless"):

The ugly face of Islamophobia in Orange County, California

A profoundly depressing video of protesters hurling abuse at attendees at an Islamic fundraising event in Orange County

Thursday 3 March 2011 21.05 GMT guardian.co.uk



The Southern California chapter of the Islamic Circle of North America Relief USA organised a fundraising dinner in Orange County, last month. But guess who also turned up? A motley collection of protesters who can be seen here chanting in the above video distributed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations civil rights group:

As the video shows, the rhetoric of the protesters became increasingly venomous toward the families and children who came to attend the ICNA Relief fundraising dinner. Protesters shouted invective statements such as "Go home terrorist," "Muhammad is a pervert, Muhammad is a child molester," "Go home and beat your wife, she needs a good beating," at the event-goers.

One of the protesters' guest speakers, seen in the video, is a local councilwoman who denounces the event as "pure, unadulterated evil," and continues:

I know quite a few Marines who would be very happy to help these terrorists to an early meeting in paradise.

The local paper, the Orange County Register, noted the signs saying "No Sharia law" but added: "In the afternoon, the event had the atmosphere of a July 4 picnic."

Two Republican congressmen also attended the protest rally, including one, Ed Royce, who spoke of how "multiculturalism" was paralysing America.

And the fundraising? For disaster relief, women's shelters, halal food banks, according to the Islamic Circle of North America. Link

Surely it's not as objective and accurate as your assessment, but you might want to check out the study Islamophobia and Its Impact in the United States January 2009-December 2010; on pages 50-51, you'll find a chart: "Violence, Islamophobic Rhetoric and Violence Targeting Mosques" by location. According to this chart, California has the highest incidence of such attacks among all the states. Weird, given that you've never, not once, seen any. Huh.

I know, you'll find the whole study very boring, just like my posts in this thread, the documentary film Defamation and anything else that doesn't confirm your prejudices. In the section on "Anti-Muslim Discrimination," a few boring incidents are listed, like these:

June 4, 2009 - A Cyprus, Calif., mosque was vandalized in the early morning of July 4, 2009. Graffiti was sprawled across the side of the building with statements such as “we’re going to kill you” and “US military is going to kill you all.” This crime was reported in the hours prior to President Obama’s Cairo speech.144
...

August 25, 2010 - A mosque in California was vandalized with a brick and hate signs, some of which referred to the controversy over the proposed Park 51 Project. Vandals left signs at a Madera, California Islamic center.
The signs read “Wake up America, the Enemy is here. ANB,” No Temple for the God of terrorism at Ground Zero ANB” and “American Nationalist Brotherhood.151
...
August 29, 2010 - A mock pig inscribed with anti-Islam rhetoric was left at a Calif. Islamic center. The pig was left in the mailbox of the mosque and was inscribed with “No Mosque in NYC,” “Remember 9/11” and “MO HAM MED the Pig.”153
...

Not that it's specifically about California, more of a nation-wide thing, but I found this to be an odd activity for a "Museum of Tolerance" to engage in, but maybe they have different definitions of "tolerance":

MEDIA
May 20, 2009 - The Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Museum of Tolerance held a screening of the film The Third Jihad, which purportedly uncovers a Muslim American plot to kill all Americans. The film was produced by the Clarion Fund, an ultra-right wing group. The Clarion Fund produced Obsession: Radical Islam’s War with the West and distributed it to voters in 14 swing states just before the 2008 presidential election in an apparent attempt to influence voters.98

Mind you, it's very important to distinguish between two kinds of racism: individual and institutional. The first is terrible, and can even include incidents of vandalism and violence up to murder, but its impact on society as a whole is very limited, and is best dealt with as a criminal matter, preferably with the help of mental health experts. Far more dangerous on a whole other scale is institutional racism, especially when it's backed by the power of the state and is financed by wealthy individuals and corporations. Which, in a way, brings us back to the Holocaust, because one thing that's often glossed over in the Holocaust narrative is the fact that Hitler and the Nazis could never have taken over Germany by themselves. It took the support of Germany's wealthiest corporations, as well as other prominent elements of the religious and state Establishment in Germany (and other Western countries) to catapult this relatively marginal group to power and unleash it against the world.

In the US, the individual instances of mosque-burning or vandalism, and even beatings and murders, are more than just horrible crimes arising from individual racism or spontaneous xenophobia. These particular crimes occur in the context of widespread and shrill institutionalized racism against Arabs and Muslim that pervades the corporate media, including both 'news' and 'entertainment', which itself only serves to justify state and judicial persecution of Arab and Muslim citizens of the US, for the purpose of hyping the "threat" posed by Arab and Muslim people. This, in turn, is used to justify the ongoing mass murder and dispossession of millions of Arabs and Muslims in other countries. In other words, it is meaningless and dishonest to view each of these elements in isolation, when in fact, they can only be properly understood as inter-related aspects of a coherent - and deadly - strategy with global implications.

New reports document discriminatory government treatment of Muslims in America

Guest blogger: Amna Akbar, Senior Research Scholar & Advocacy Fellow at the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU School of Law, and co-author of both reports mentioned below.

Cross-posted from Rights Working Group.

There are visible and less visible ways the government has targeted Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians since September 11, 2001. With the death of Osama bin Laden, however, mainstream pundits, commentators, and lawmakers have attempted to push us to forget the damage and the grief this “war on terror” has brought to our communities—and to immigrant communities and communities of color more broadly.

The “war on terror” has provided a rationale and an argument for an augmentation of state power. As in prior historical moments, the brunt of increased state power has fallen on vulnerable communities.

But it is important to remember and account for the ways in which our families and communities have been marked and have suffered. To grieve for the ways in which we have had to change.

This past month, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) has released two reports documenting, remembering, and memorializing. Both reports raise serious human rights concerns.

Under the Radar: Muslims Deported, Detained, and Denied on Unsubstantiated Terrorism Allegations– which we released with the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF)– draws on interviews with attorneys and community-based groups, court documents, and media accounts to identify five key under-documented patterns of how the U.S. government has discriminatorily abused the immigration legal system against Muslim immigrants. The patterns we document include the U.S. government’s use of unsubstantiated terrorism-related allegations without bringing official charges in cases involving ordinary immigration violations. These practices prejudice the immigration judge and place the Muslim immigrant in a precarious situation where he is unable to defend himself against the allegations. As a result, he is often pressured to self-deport.

Another pattern we document is the U.S. government’s use of flimsy immigration charges. For example, the government often uses false statement charges for failure to disclose tenuous ties to Muslim charitable organizations in a way that seems to target Muslim immigrants for religious and political activities and affiliations.

The overall effect of these practices is that religious, cultural, and political affiliations and lawful activities of Muslims are being construed as dangerous terrorism-related factors to justify detention, deportation, and denial of immigration benefits. The government seems to be targeting Muslim immigrants not for any particular acts, but on the basis of unsubstantiated innuendo drawing largely on their religious and ethnic identities, political views, employment histories, and ties to their home countries.

The patterns outlined in Under the Radar seem to be guided by racial and religious stereotypes, in a way that constitutes discrimination in violation of U.S. obligations under international human rights law. The patterns also suggest the United States is failing to uphold its international human rights obligations to guarantee the rights to due process; liberty and security of person; freedom of religion; freedom of expression and opinion; and the right to privacy and family. CHRGJ and AALDEF call on the government to put an immediate stop to the discriminatory targeting of Muslims through the immigration system, to provide greater transparency and accountability for immigration policies and enforcement.

Targeted and Entrapped: Manufacturing the ‘Homegrown Threat’ critically examines three high-profile domestic terrorism prosecutions and raises serious questions about the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the New York City Police Department (NYPD) in constructing the specter of “homegrown” terrorism through the deployment of paid informants to encourage terrorist plots in Muslim communities. Focusing on the government’s cases against the Newburgh Four, the Fort Dix Five, and Shahawar Matin Siraj, the report relies on court documents, media accounts, and interviews with family members of the defendants to critically assess the government’s practices. The report also, lays bare the devastating toll these practices have had on the families involved.

In the cases we examined, the government sent paid informants into Muslim communities, without any basis for suspicion of criminal activity. The government’s informants introduced, cultivated, and then aggressively pushed ideas about violent jihad, encouraging the defendants to believe that it was their duty to take action against the United States. The informants also selected or encouraged the proposed locations that the defendants would later be accused of targeting, and provided the defendants with—or encouraged the defendants to acquire—material evidence, such as weaponry or violent videos, which would later be used to convict them. The defendants in these cases have all been convicted and currently face prison sentences ranging from 25 years to life.

The families caught up in these abusive government practices have been torn apart. As a result of these prosecutions, they have lost their loved ones to prison, but they have also been branded as families of terrorists. They have lost jobs, family, and friends. Though many of them are organizing for change, the devastating impacts cannot be overestimated.

A number of cases around the country, raising similar concerns, suggest that these practices are illustrative of larger patterns of law enforcement activities targeting Muslim communities. The report considers key trends in counterterrorism law enforcement policies that have facilitated these practices, including the government’s promulgation of so-called radicalization theories that justify the abusive targeting of entire communities based on the unsubstantiated notion that Muslims in the U.S. are “radicalizing.” The prosecutions that result from these practices are central to the government’s claim that the country faces a “homegrown threat” of terrorism, and have bolstered calls for the continued use of informants in Muslim communities.

These practices are violative of U.S. obligations to guarantee, without discrimination, the rights to: a fair trial, religion, expression, and opinion; and effective remedy. The report calls on the government to stop discriminating against Muslims in counterterrorism investigations; to hold hearings on the impacts that current law enforcement practices are having on Muslim communities; and to revise the guidelines that currently govern FBI and NYPD activities and allow for such abusive practices to go unchecked.

Both reports raise serious concerns about the ways in which the U.S. government is marking Muslims and Muslim communities as particularly dangerous. These practices have taken profound tolls on our communities. The need to remember, and to remain vigilant, remains. Link[/b]

[AlicetheKurious]

What everyone forgets is that the terms "antisemite" and "antisemitism" were not coined by Jews. They were created by nineteenth century European racialists who liked that it sounded more "scientific" than "jewhater." Draw your own conclusions.

There you go: yet another reason not to use the term, when we mean racism.

On Edit: actually, it was to designate hatred of Jews on a racial, rather than a religious basis. At the time, mind you, the belief that Jews constituted a race was quite widespread among European Jews and non-Jews, and "racism" was not necessarily viewed as a bad thing, in fact it was quite respectable, even in lofty 'scientific' circles.

[American Dream]

...The Jewish nationalist would rob Palestine in the name of the right of self-determination, the Jewish progressive is there to rob the ruling class and even international capital in the name of world working class revolution.6

... Were Jewish Marxists and cosmopolitans open to the notion of brotherhood, they would have given up on their unique, exclusive banners and become ordinary human beings like the rest of us.7 ...

... Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, and Jewishness is, sadly enough, inherently intolerant; indeed, it may be argued that Jewish intolerance is as old as the Jews themselves.9

... The endless trail of Jewish collective tragedies is there to teach us that Jews always pay eventually (and heavily) for Jewish power exercises. Yet, surprisingly (and tragically) enough, Jews somehow consistently fail to internalise and learn from that very lesson.

... The remarkable fact is they don't understand why the world is beginning to stand against them in the same way they didn't understand why the Europeans stood against them in the 1930s. Instead of asking why we are hated they continue to toss accusations on others.

... I have hardly seen any Israelis or Jews attempt to understand the circumstances that led to the clear resentment of Europeans towards their Jewish neighbors in the 1920's-40's.

OK- time to start building a master list.

More points regarding Atzmon that some here continue to rigorously ignore:


Atzmon has gone out of his way to support and associated with those who declare themselves ‘proud’ to deny the holocaust. People like Paul Eisen, whose purpose is to ‘contextualize and re-humanize the person of Adolf Hitler, the National Socialist regime, and, indeed, the German people….’


Anti-Semitism is no longer a danger to Jews. It is dangerous for Palestinians. Not only does it threaten to misdirect the movement onto false targets, but it plays into the Zionists’ hands by racialising the struggle. Zionists constantly attack anti-Zionists as ‘anti-Semitic’ when they are no such thing. There is nothing more that the Zionist leadership desires than an upsurge in traditional anti-Semitism. Without anti-Semitism there are no Jewish immigrants to Israel and without immigration there can be no Zionism. It is the lack of such immigrants today, more Jews leave than go to live in Israel, which is, in part, responsible for the political crisis of Zionism.


Palestinians have faced two centuries of orientalist, colonialist and imperialist domination of our native lands. And so as Palestinians, we see such language as immoral and completely outside the core foundations of humanism, equality and justice, on which the struggle for Palestine and its national movement rests. As countless Palestinian activists and organizers, their parties, associations and campaigns, have attested throughout the last century, our struggle was never, and will never be, with Jews, or Judaism, no matter how much Zionism insists that our enemies are the Jews. Rather, our struggle is with Zionism, a modern European settler colonial movement, similar to movements in many other parts of the world that aim to displace indigenous people and build new European societies on their lands.


Challenging Zionism, including the illegitimate power of institutions that support the oppression of Palestinians, and the illegitimate use of Jewish identities to protect and legitimize oppression, must never become an attack on Jewish identities, nor the demeaning and denial of Jewish histories in all their diversity.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34135&start=270

More points regarding Atzmon that some here continue to rigorously ignore:


]A Guide to the Sayings of Gilad Atzmon, the anti-Semitic jazzman




Excerpted from:
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/03/guid ... -anti.html

‘The J’s are the ultimate chameleons, they can be whatever they like as long as it serves as some expedient. As soon as you criticise their expansionist militant national beliefs (Zionism) you hurt them as a race (Semites),… When you condemn their racist tendencies, they are transformed immediately into an innocent cultural identity… when it was right to be a Socialist they were right there in the forefront of the Bolshevik revolution, now when it is hard capitalism that sets the tone, you read about them in the Wall Street Journal, they are the new prophets from Manhattan. Life is never boring for ‘J’ people.’ It’s one never ending (Jewish) conspiracy.

'I am not a Holocaust scholar nor am I a historian. My primary interest is not the story of Auschwitz nor the destruction of European Jewry…. I do not wish to enter the debate regarding the truth of the Holocaust….

'Most of the scholars are themselves orthodox observants. Though they may be critical of different aspects of the exploitation of the Holocaust, they all accept the validity of the Nazi Judeocide and its mainstream interpretations and implications. Most of the scholars, if not all of them, do not challenge the Zionist narrative, namely Nazi Judeocide, yet, more than a few are critical of the way Jewish and Zionist institutes employ the Holocaust…. no one goes as far as revisionism, not a single Holocaust religion scholar dares engage in a dialogue with the so-called 'deniers' to discuss their vision of the events or any other revisionist scholarship’.

’

…. Holocaust religion was well established a long time before the Final Solution (1942)…. The Holocaust religion is probably as old as the Jews.’

‘If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war?’ ‘If the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? ‘We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative...’ ‘Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next-door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East.’

‘To regard Hitler as the ultimate evil is nothing but surrendering to the Zio-centric discourse. To regard Hitler as the wickedest man and the Third Reich as the embodiment of evilness is to let Israel off the hook... Hitler has never flattened a country for no reason at all, and this is exactly what the Israelis have been doing in Lebanon for four weeks already and in Gaza for years and years….

If a comparison is to be made, then it is the Israelis who win the championship of ruthlessness and the reasons are obvious. Nazi Germany was a tyranny, Israel is a democracy led by a centre-left national unity government.’…

Nazis were indeed proper expansionists, they were trying to take towns and land intact. Carpet bombing and total erasure of populated areas that is so trendy amongst Israeli military and politicians (as well as Anglo-Americans) has never been a Nazi tactic or strategy.’

'I am suggesting that the only way to internalise the meaning of the Jewish Holocaust is to teach Jews how to start looking in the mirror, to teach Jews to ask themselves why conflicts with others happen to them time after time. Rather than blaming the Goyim, the Germans, the Muslims, the Arabs, it is about time the Jewish subject learns to ask the 6 million $ question: “why do they pick on me?”

posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=453203

Even More points regarding Atzmon that some here continue to rigorously ignore:

http://socialistworker.org/2010/07/15/n ... zmon-at-sw


Gilad Atzmon has revealed time and time again in his writings that he is less interested in being a part of a genuine anti-racist mass movement for the liberation of Palestine against Zionism than he is in trying to prove that there is something "inherently Jewish" about Zionist atrocities, attacking anti-Zionist Jews in England as "undercover Zionists" and, in the case of founder of the revolutionary anti-Zionist Israeli Socialist Organization, Moshe Machover, a "Judeo Marxist."

Atzmon has declared Machover to be worse than British neo-Nazi Nick Griffin, and in criticizing the printing of a speech by Moshe Machover in the International Socialist Review urged "Socialists and Marxists to save themselves from the Judeo political grip" and "consider liberating themselves of their tribal infiltrators." (If Moshe Machover's politics make him a "Judeo Marxist," then I am proud to identify as one--a Muslim Judeo-Marxist. Let's see how Atzmon tries to figure that one out.)

In addition to that, Atzmon has been known to circulate Holocaust denial literature and to associate with known fascists like the notorious racist Russian-Swede Israel Shamir, an open admirer of Hitler, David Duke, Jean-Marie Le Pen and Nick Griffin and the neo-Nazi British National Party (although apparently being very disappointed that the BNP isn't doing more these days to attack Jews). Israel Shamir has said of Atzmon: "Gilad takes up the tools of modern philosophical discourse...to explain our position: why we are against domination by Judaic spirit."

Atzmon also has previously been condemned by Palestine solidarity activists Ali Abunimah and Hussein Ibish. Atzmon's pseudo-philosophical writings include quotes like this: "In the light of Israeli brutality, the conviction of gross swindler Madoff and the latest images of Rabbis being taken away by FBI agents, it is about time we stop discussing the rise of anti-Semitism and start to elaborate on the rise of Jewish Crime."

To quote from a statement put out by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign against any legitimacy in the movement for Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir:

Anybody who insists that Jews must give up their Jewishness, or Catholics their Catholicism, before being allowed to join the anti-Zionist movement, or even line up alongside the vast army of critics of Israeli murder, is not just an idiot, but is a menace to the Palestinians...

Palestinians need mass support--it won't come by associating ourselves with extreme-right sympathizers who miss no opportunity to spew their racist bile into a movement for human and national rights for the Palestinian people. For the Palestinians are groaning under Zionism, which is armed and sustained by Western imperialism. Not a Jewish world conspiracy. One of these ideas is the natural discourse of the left and liberal center: one is a blind cul-de-sac propagated by the extreme right.



viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34135

[AlicetheKurious]

A great example of how the new, purged, Palestine solidarity movement in Britain is "helping" Palestinians:

A comment on BDS and Ashtar Theatre from Ramallah
Friday, April 27, 2012 at 8:11AM Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

In recent weeks we have seen a massive BDS campaign against Israeli Habima Theatre’s participation in the Shakespeare's Festival at the Shakespeare's Globe, London.

For days British intellectuals and celebrities argued whether it is morally ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to invite the Israeli national Theatre to Britain. The outcome was obvious and predictable. Habima’s London shows sold out within hours. As it happens, the futile BDS campaign, provided Habima with the necessary public attention. At the end of the day, every reasonable thinking being would be happy to spare a few pounds and watch how the Israelis and Jews deal with The Merchant of Venice.

However, I have also learned tonight that Ashtar Theatre from Ramallah is also participating in the same London festival. Ashtar will perform Richard II but, for some reason, no one really knows anything about it. Pro-Palestinian BDS activists, so enthusiastic to ban the Israeli theatre company, did nothing to promote or support the Palestinian theatre. Consequently, Ashtar Theatre hardly sold any tickets for its London shows.

I guess that time is ripe to challenge BDS strategy. As much as I support BDS in principle, I am puzzled by the fact that a UK pro-Palestinian organization went out of its way to boycott an Israeli act -yet it did nothing to promote or help a Palestinian company visiting this country for the first time.

As an artist I find it stupid. Painful and even perhaps, sinister.


To read more about the the Globe Theatre BDS Scandal visit http://www.deliberation.info

Richard II at the Globe
Palestinian Shakespeare at the Globe.

Friday afternoon 4th May (2pm)
Saturday night 5th May (7pm)

Ticket and directions to the Globe Theatre London.

[yathrib]

I don't think you're saying much that's different from my original statement. They believed racism had a "scientific" basis, while religious prejudice was mere superstition. Were they cynically trying to claim the prestige of science as I imply? A judgment call, I guess. Anyway, I'm quite certain that mainstream thought in the assimilated European Jewish community at the time was that Jews were just Europeans of a different religion. If you're trying to say that there was a "Semitism" that "Antisemites" were "anti," I'm not sure I can go there with you.

What everyone forgets is that the terms "antisemite" and "antisemitism" were not coined by Jews. They were created by nineteenth century European racialists who liked that it sounded more "scientific" than "jewhater." Draw your own conclusions.

There you go: yet another reason not to use the term, when we mean racism.

On Edit: actually, it was to designate hatred of Jews on a racial, rather than a religious basis. At the time, mind you, the belief that Jews constituted a race was quite widespread among European Jews and non-Jews, and "racism" was not necessarily viewed as a bad thing, in fact it was quite respectable, even in lofty 'scientific' circles.