“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”
A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
April 19th, 2008
1) The secular-pagan roots of Passover: Tis a Jewish holiday which means it is the season to find the ‘true’ roots of Judaism in some pagan religion. This time its Passover which it turns out, according to secular ‘scholars’, is actually stolen from the Greeks and Romans. Passover predates the Roman occupation of 61 B.C. No matter. Modern day Romans don’t eat the type of food found at the Passover seder. So are the Jews the last remaining link to what Rome was really like?
2) Who knew? The Economist’s forecast of Doom for Israel: The Economist’s recent Special Report included 14 pages describing the most doom and gloom prophecies against the nation of Israel since the time of Jeremiah. Who knew for instance the Israel’s economy is ‘strong’ but built on ‘weak’ fundamentals. Only Europeans and especially the English, whose country lacks a constitution and uses proportional representation could criticize Israel for the exact same things. But whose economy has the ‘weak fundamentals’? Israel is writing down billions of dollars in losses from the housing crises.
3) The Great Disgrace: Jimmy Carter in the age of terror: Jimmy Carter told the press this week that speaking with dictators is easier than dealing with democracies because you only have to speak to one person and he “speaks for all the people.” Only an arrogant former American president and post-humanist could speak so highly of a dictatorship and condemn democracies for having a diversity of opinion.
4) The frontlines of Liberalistic racism: double talking jive: A whole slew of idiocratic statements on race have come out of late. We hear that ‘blacks can’t be racist’ in reference to Rev. Wright and that in an Oregon town where athletes are converging to practice for the Olympics the people are being sensitized to know what types of food black people eat so restaurants can have appropriate tolerance oriented menus (surely all blacks throughout the world eat the same cuisine and they all can’t be bothered to try anything else?). And someone has coined a new term for Barak Obama: ‘mixed-race, multi-ethnic, African-American’. Who comes up with these ridiculous ideas?
The secular-pagan roots of Passover
Seth J. Frantzman
April 19th, 2008
It is Passover. So it is the season for archeologists, scientists, historians and leftists to heap scorn on the Jewish holiday by shedding light on its non-Jewish roots in order to show how the Jews stole their religion and their ritual from other sources. Ronit Vered writes in Haaretz magazine (‘Why is this night different April 18th 2008) about ‘What the Passover seder owes to the Greek and Roman banquet and how the rabbis adapted it to Judaism. According to the author “some claim that the Jewish seder is closely tied to the Greek feast and the Roman banquet…some of the characteristics of the seder meal are suspiciously similar to demonstratively different, i.e. the same, only the opposite of the Greek and Roman customs.” The article mentions the well known hellenization that took place in the Middle East after Alexander’s invasion. The author notes how the Jews invented their tradition “whoever wanted to fight these harmful influences [of Hellenization] was compelled to put together a clever and scrupulously different plan for the holiday meal, that would alternatively adopt and reject the temptations and influences of the spirit of the time.” The author implores the secular reader to “enjoy this thing known as the seder night and reflect upon how the seder is connected to the history of festive meals.”
Vered tells us that when the Temple was destroyed the Jews “had to find an individual and family substitute for the impressive and educations affect of pilgrimage and the influence of the Passover sacrifice.” The author tells us that the Greeks celebrated holidays with meals and Greek meals only included men and that they did not include more than 10 diners. So the Jews did the opposite, they included the women and children, but they borrowed the idea of having a meal during a holiday. Instead of 10 diners they allowed the number to be unlimited. This is obvious because no other culture in the world celebrates religious holidays with meals. Chinese people don’t. Do they? Hindus don’t? Do they? It turns out almost all cultures celebrate holidays with meals and when a holiday isn’t celebrated with a meal it can be interpreted to be ‘demonstratively different’ and thus the opposite. So by Vered’s logic all of the cultures in the world stole from the Greeks. But one might wonder how the Aztecs got their culture from the Greeks. What of the Ancient Egyptians? They had meals too and they lived before the Greeks. So how did they take from the Greeks? No matter.
The Greeks reclined on sofas during meals a custom Vered tells us “they copied from the Phoenicians and Assyrians and subsequently bequeathed to the Romans.” The author reminds us that while the Greeks each got their own sofa the Romans crowded together but in both cases they meals were followed with orgies. The author tells us that “in first century Palestine [because even in the 1st century it was Palestine, certainly not Judea] meals were generally eastern Mediterranean style…but for festive meals they followed the Roman custom, as for example at Jesus’ Last Supper.” The Roman occupation of the Holy Land dates from 61 B.C. So we are to believe that in this short period, by the time of Jesus in 30 A.D, the Jews had already stolen from the Romans. After all, the Jews never had a culture to themselves, they were like sponges.
Vered tells us that the food itself is ‘evidence’ of the influence. “Believers in the theory that the Passover seder is closely related to the Roman meal point to the recipe for the haroset, the matza sandwich, the herbs and ingredients like a hard boiled egg as the opening course as common Roman customs…the attempt to achieve a balance of flavors, the bitter herbs versus the sweet haroset…is also typical of Roman principles of nutrition.” The same author has contradicted herself in the article by noting that “the eating of matzot and the Passover sacrifice in the Temple have older origins.” So where did that matza sandwich come from? A balance in the types of food eaten is ‘evidence’ of Roman influence? But other cultures have such ‘balance’ in their diet. Are we to assume that India and China stole from the Romans as well? And why has the Roman tradition not survived in Europe but only among the Jews? Modern Italians don’t eat all these things so popular to eat on Passover. They are eating Italian food. So the descendants of the Romans don’t eat Roman food, but the Jews, alone among the world’s peoples, stole their traditions from the Romans and have kept them ever since, not borrowing from other cultures afterward. Thus the Jews opened up from the period 61 B.C to 30 AD and absorbed the cultures of others for Passover, and never before invented anything original and have never since borrowed?
The boozing that is tied up with Passover is also Greek inspired. Vered tells us that “Greeks and Romans made a clear separation between the meal and the drinking that came afterward…wine was diluted with water, a custom that differentiated barbarians from civilized types.” Thus the Jews, choosing to be barbarian, chose to drink their wine full bodied?
Vered wraps up with the observation that “the Passover Haggadah can be viewed as a theatrical work…all meant to keep the audience attentive in the name of preserving tradition….the Greek symposium, a post-banquet party, often concluded with a public celebration or even an orgy…in order to prevent these despicable customs from infiltrating Judaism, the custom was converted into the eating of the Afikoman, and the Haggadah strictly instructs that this shall be the final act of the evening.”
It is amazing how leftists seek to pervert Jewish tradition and religion in order to make it merely a copy of the traditions of others. Jews are said to have been Pagans, stealing their religion from either the Egyptians or the Babylonians. For every Jewish tradition and holiday and part of the Bible the ‘biblical scholar’ finds a parallel with other religions and thus assumes the Jews borrowed, never that others borrowed from the Jews or that the traditions arose in different places for different reasons, independent of eachother. In order to explain the Jews hatred of pork or mixing milk and meat the ‘scholar’ decides that this is an ‘opposite’ so that the Jews stole this too by doing the opposite. Thus while a ‘scholar’ studying the Mayans will read a Mayan religious inscription and accept it at face value and believe that it reflects Mayan history the same scholar on reading the Jewish Bible finds in it different authors and foreign influences. Needless to say the Mayan religion is unique, the Jewish religion is not. If a leftist comes upon a Sioux Sun Dance or some other Native-American festival he will marvel at its colorful diversity. When he comes upon Passover he finds Greeks and Romans.
It is not a coincidence that leftist secular people can’t find anything to love in Passover. It is not a surprise that they can only enjoy it when reminding themselves of its Pagan-leftist-secular roots. If it’s Greek and full of gaiety then it is positive. If its archaic and Jewish then it is un-interesting.
But if Jews wanted to do the opposite of the heathen Greeks why did the Jews eat anything at all. The opposite of a banquet meal is to not have a meal and starve oneself. The scholar cannot explain how and why the Jews picked and choose certain things to copy, certain things to throw out and certain things to do the opposite. This is the problem. All religious festivals from Japan to Patagonia have things in common and things that are different. That doesn’t mean they influenced eachother. It merely shows that people are both similar and diverse. Why can’t leftist Jews ever celebrate their own religion and find diversity within it. Why can’t they appreciate it the way they appreciate a Sufi festival or an Apache dance? Why must they always find that it ‘secretly’ is borrowed from others and come up with the most complicated, bizarre and random explanations for how it was stolen. It merely shows the secular hatred for tradition, the great secular hypocrisy, to love in others what one hates in their own society.
Who knew? The Economist’s forecast of Doom for Israel
Seth J. Frantzman
April 15th, 2008
The Economist recently published a 14 page special report on Israel. Although it was subtitled ‘the Next Generation’ it seemed to argue that this next generation would most likely live outside Israel. Eight articles spelled out its view of Israel. In ‘Fenced in’ it argued that the Security Fence had failed, that Israel is responsible for the economy of the West Bank (“if allows the West Bank’s economy to thrive”), that Israel was providing martyrs by killing Palestinians (“the very workings Israeli security doom the plan to failure.”), that Palestinians serve prison terms in Israeli jails on ‘dubious’ charges, that the ‘collective punishment’ of Gaza is “crude…cynical, unethical and prohibited by international law”, that $5.4 billion is required to get the Palestinian “forces up to scratch”, that Hamas won elections in 2006 “because Israel had spent years sidelining Fatah’s leader”, that Fatah “backed by Israel and America tried to de-stabilize the Hamas government” and led to Hamas’s takeover of Gaza, that Israel created Hassan Nasrallah and Hizbullah and that Israel assassinated “centrist Hamas leaders Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi” and boycotts “another centrist, Ismail Haniyeh” (centrist in this case refers to three Hamas leaders who have presided over the murder of 250 Israeli civilians, the firing of 9,000 rockets at a civilian city, the bombing of countless churches in Gaza, the imposition of Islamic law, the discrimination against women and gays, and the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier. If those are the centrists who are the radicals?)
In ‘to Fight, Perchance to die’ the Economist argues that the IDF’s ‘soul’ has been eroded because some people get out of service through medical exams and mental health problems. The accompanying graph however shows that these “medically unfit” people have remained almost the same percent of the total exemptions since 1979, only the number of religious exemptions have grown.
In another graph entitled “an unequal struggle” the Economist seems to imply that because more Palestinians have been killed in the war between Israel and the Palestinians that therefore something is unfair.
In the article ‘Miracles and mirages’ the subtitle sums up Israel’s economy as “a strong economy built on weak fundamentals.” The article then ‘proves’ this assertion by showing that there is greater income inequality, something all nations face and a strange reason to forecast economic doom.
In ‘A house of many mansions’ the article details how Israeli Jews are becoming more diverse and more tolerant of eachother. The article primarily examines the role of the religious Jews in society and how they present problems due to their being right wing and religious.
In a box entitled ‘hanging on’ the article describes how Palestinians recall their past through visiting ruined villages and how religious Jewish settlers “resemble the Palestinians more than they do their fellow Jews in their near fetishistic attachment to particular bits of land.” This is a strange argument given the fact that many of the world’s peoples, such as the Tibetans or Black South Africans were not condemned for a ‘fetishistic’ attachment to their land.
In ‘how the other fifth lives’ the article decries how “Arab-Israelis are increasingly treated as the enemy within” but does not reveal the fact that the Arab-Israelis rioted in 2000 in support of Arafat and protested the recent siege of Gaza by comparing Israeli actions to Nazism and that a leading Arab member of the Knesset, Azmi Bishara, fled the country after it turned out he was aiding Hizbullah. Perhaps the author of the article has forgotten that between 1948 and 1967 the Israeli-Arabs were under a military government in their villages and towns because of the real fear that they were the enemy within.
In ‘A systematic problem’ the article notes that “many of Israel’s problems stem from its political system.” The article condemns Israel for not having a constitution, something the U.K lacks as well. Odd that the Economist forgot that its own home country has this in common with the pariah Israel. The article then condemns Israel for having a “pure proportional model” of representation that is says was born of Israel’s focusing on other manners at her founding and “it had no time to devise an appropriate political model.” Once again the European edited Economist seems to forget that it was European democracies that instituted proportional representation in the 20th century and that Israel only learned from them. The complaint apparently is that Israel has too much diversity in its political parties, an ironic critique coming from the European continent where diversity is a sort of god.
In ‘The Next Zionist Revolution’ the article notes that outside Israel Jews are “questioning all the traditional Zionist assumptions” and that “traditional forms of Jewish support for Israel are changing.” The article notes with frustration that “like it or not, Zionism is Israel’s official ideology and will probably remain so as long as Jews are in the majority there…Can Zionism evolve enough to allow Israel’s non-Jewish citizens to feel truly part of the country?” Once again, odd questions coming from Europe where millions of Muslims immigrants up to the third generation still do not feel part of their host countries. Odd historically considering the fact that up until the 1980s most Jews were not Zionists n the Diaspora and religious Jewish groups had a deep antipathy towards Zionism. Rather than the world’s Jews suddenly questioning Zionism it is rather the other way around.
What can one make of this vitriolic critique. The Economist seems to think of Israel as its personal grind stone. It is so familiar with Israel that it scolds the country like a child and hates it like a brother. It is a deep scorn bred of deep European contempt that comes through. No other country profiled by the Economist has ever come in for such a deep criticism that assaults the very heart of the country. The Economist would never lament the fact that Ireland was Irish the way it laments the fact that Jews are a majority in Israel. It would never challenge a democracy so deeply and assault every piece of its democratic model, calling it an outright failure. But what is worse is that the Economist invents whole ideologies in Israel that most Israelis are unaware exist. The Economist speaks of the new Hardal movement of religious Zionists who are becoming Haredi. This must be something an Economist reported picked up at Café Joe (also mentioned in the text as new glass building no one would have thought possible during the Intifada. What he means is no European reporter based in Jerusalem would have thought such a thing possible) while talking to some cerebral professor who has never been to the settlements or men religious Jews. The Economist claims that 15% of Israelis will leave the country if Iran gets the bomb. Its graphs don’t bear out any of its claims. For instance the Economist condemns the check-points but then claims the security fence doesn’t work and that “most bombers are caught or deterred by over 550 checkpoints and roadblocks.” Well which is it? Is the fence good or are the checkpoints a good system? The graph on the same page shows clearly that the number of Israeli casualties have fallen 90% since the fence was completed in many parts of the country and contrary to forecasts from the Economist at the time it runs along the Green line and does not create ‘bantustans’. The Economist is angry that “Israel’s new wealth is highly concentrated.” Well isn’t that true in the U.K as well? Isn’t that usually the case with ‘new money’? At least its concentrated in new hands rather than in the old aristocracy which Europeans are so familiar with.
The worst aspect of the article in the Economist is that it deems every choice of the Palestinians to have been orchestrated by Israel, as if they have no cultural undercurrents of their own. It claims the rise of Hamas is entirely because of Israel. But perhaps the Palestinians themselves had something to do with this? Perhaps the rise of Islamism all throughout the Muslim world is part of this? It blames Israel for Hizbullah but doesn’t see the rise of Shiism as a revolutionary force from Iran to Lebanon as playing a part, as if the Shia are mere sheep commanded by Israel. How can it be that so much of what goes on in the Arab world is because of some reaction to what Israel has done first? This is the old argument that the Arab world lacks democracy because it needs dictatorship to fight Israel or that the Arab world is poor (which it isn’t) because it must spend its resources to fight Israel. The Economist’s own graph shows that hundreds of Palestinians died in 2007 in inter-Palestinian fighting and the civil war in Gaza. Far from being an attempt by Israel and Fatah to “de-stabilize” the Hamas government this infighting was a very real Civil War between Fatah and Hamas, just as Civil wars have taken place in Algeria, Lebanon and most recently in Iraq. How does the Economist ignore the Arab role in Arab affairs and not give the Arab agency to make his own decisions?
The Economist did get one thing right when it complained that “Jerusalem…the ancient city…is now populated mostly by Palestinians with Israeli residence permits, religious Jews of various kinds, aid workers and foreign journalists, and is one of the country’s poorest municipalities.” True enough. In this respect it is an ‘international’ city because, like Kosovo, East Timor and Haiti the U.N and the NGOs and Europeans have tried to colonize it. This colonization by the New International Class has not been successful but as the author notes, Jerusalem is a dumping ground for spoiled western children. Some of those spoiled children drink coffee at Café Joe, where the Economist journalists apparently hang out.
The Economist should not be ashamed of itself, the way Jimmy Carter should be for his ill begotten deeds in Syria, but it should shine the same harsh lens on the U.K as it has on Israel. If it were to do so it would find a virtual police state with 1 CCTV camera for every four citizens, with libel laws and censorship laws that pervert the free press and a viscous arrogance that churns out people like those at the Economist who complain about other democracies and multi-culturalism in other states without first learning about their own problems. No matter. The British will be boycotting the Olympics, perhaps forgetting about their own little occupation of a little place called Northern Ireland. Forgetting about the wealth gaps in their own society they will condemn others. Forgetting about their own lack of a constitution they will condemn others. That is what being a European is all about.
The Great Disgrace: Jimmy Carter in the age of terror
Seth J. Frantzman
April, 14th, 2008
Preaching "peace and justice" for the Arab states Jimmy Carter arrived in the Levant on April 13th for a week long odyssey that was scheduled to include meeting the dictators of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well as meeting the terrorist chief of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, in Damascus. Fresh off his book tour of Palestine: Peace not Apartheid and fresh off of making statements to the affect that Israel's occupation of the West Bank "perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa' Jimmy" Carter also spoke in high platitudes about the need to "Talk to someone who disagrees with you" and his desire to bring peace as a honest broker. Riding on his own coattails, he told the story, again and again, of how he had single handedly brought peace between Israel and Egypt.
According to Jimmy Carter "At Camp David I wrote every word of every proposal" and "when I was elected there was no pressure on me to even initiate a peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbors."
But Carter's high minded rhetoric disguises a deeply disturbing mentality. When questioned about the fact that the Prime Minister of Israel, the leader of the opposition and the leader of the Labor party had all refused to meet with Carter he responded that "When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people." Speaks for all the people? This is the Carter view. The Carter ideology supports dictatorship not only because he frequently meets with dictators but also because he believes that when he speaks to them that they represent "all the people". This is a startling comment for a former American president to make. Carter is insinuating that the trouble with democracies is that they have factions and opposition and that people don't all have to toe the party line. Carter admitted his close relationship with the Syrian regime when he noted "I have known the president of Syria since he was a college student." Basher Assad was born in 1965 and studied ophthalmology at Damascus University in 1988 and in 1992 transferred to London in 1992 to complete his studies. Apparently this is when he got to know Jimmy Carter. He did not assume the Presidency of Syria until 2000 which means Jimmy Carter had 8 years of a relationship with him in which to encourage him to adopt human rights reforms and democracy in Syria. The fact that Carter seems to have only befriended the dictator and was unable to have any positive impression on the college student is quite strange. Perhaps Bashar's knowledge that the famous human rights campaigner was a friend of his has made him feel that there is no need to reform his regime.
But Carter's comments became more disturbing when it became clear that he was not only speaking with Hamas but that he was speaking for them. "Hamas' position is that they are perfectly willing for Abu Mazen (the President of the Palestinian authority) to represent them in all direct negotiations with the Israelis." Carter has come to the point where instead of speaking about what Hamas claims to want he has actually become a spokesman for Hamas, representing their views to the press.
Jimmy Carter is simply a disgrace to America and a disgrace to democracy. His antics aside it has become clear that he has a deeply disturbing relationship with dictators and terrorists and that he not only accepts them but also supports them and speaks for them to the press. How could an American president sink so low? How can a former American president distance himself so much from the ideals of America, the ideals of democracy and equal rights for all? Jimmy Carter speaks of Apartheid. When he is driving in Saudi Arabia to his next meeting and he sees the signs near Mecca that direct all 'non-Muslims' to veer off the highway onto a separate road that skirts around the holy city while only Muslims are allowed to continue, lest the 'infidels' defile Mecca, one wonders if Jimmy Carter will be reminded of Apartheid. When he is chumming it up with the Saudis one wonders if he will speak of human rights and the fact that foreign workers are often imprisoned in Saudi Arabia and kept as slaves and beheaded when they rebel. One wonders if he will speak of the treatment of women in the Kingdom and the fact that they may not drive. Carter will not see these Apartheid aspects of Saudi. No, he will only see the dictator who 'speaks for all the people'. Perhaps it is another friend of his from his college days?
The frontlines of Liberalistic racism: double talking jive
Seth J. Frantzman
April 19th, 2008
On April 2nd, 2008 Larry Derfner, a leftist columnist for the Jerusalem Post finally put in writing what has been said time and again by leftists in an article entitled ‘If Obama were white’(which is, in itself, a funny title since Mr. Obama is half white and is thus as ‘white’ as he is ‘black’ leaving it to modern race theorists to determine what he ‘really’ is):
Speaking about Barack Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright, Larry Derfner said: “Still, he should not be equated with a white racist preacher. Wright may be bad news, but I wouldn't call him evil; a disseminator of white racism is evil. You can't equate black resentment of whites with white contempt for blacks. You can't equate the residual antagonism of history's victims with the residual cruelty of history's victimizers. If a Jew, even a rabbi in a synagogue, speaks bitterly about ‘the goyim,’ it's not the same as a gentile, let's say a preacher in church, speaking bitterly about ‘the Jews,’ is it?”
This is the essence of the post-humanistic, moral-relative leftist-liberal secular progressive thought that has perverted logic and is now used to justify the most extreme things. This is what differentiates the conservative from the leftist. This is where the difference becomes clear. This quote is the litmus test.
It is a quote that has been said time and again in different ways. On the simple minded shrill show The View the ‘white conservative’ panelist challenged Rev. Wright’s statements and also called him racist. Leaping up to defend Wright was the stand in for Rosie O’Donnel, another pudgy leftist. The leftist said “I took sociology in college and my professors explained to me that blacks cannot be racist because they are suppressed, they are the minority and I think that is the scientific definition of racism, Wright can’t be racist.” At Verde Valley high school in Sedona, Arizona a teacher named Ryan handed out a column to his students entitled ‘Abraham Lincoln: Honkie or Egalitarian.” This high school teach would never have handed out a similar pamphlet entitled ‘Malcolm X: Nigger or egalitarian’.
“Can’t be racist”. Imagine that world. Imagine the world where certain people, because of their skin color, couldn’t be racist. Its an interesting supposition that relies primarily on the stupidity of intellectuals and such pseudo-scientific definitions as can be invented in the field of ‘sociology’. There are two ways to challenge this assertion. The first is to assault the very idea of race and to draw out the basis of ‘racism’. Racism is based on the theory that people are better or worse or have certain qualities because of their race or skin color. Based on this theory some people are inferior or superior. Based on this fact the idea of racism can be present anywhere. It can exist in any society. The Japanese were racist against other Asian peoples during the Second World War. This is a fact. This definition of racism does not hang on anything more than its existence.
The second reason to condemn this theory is based on the shear immorality of it. Racism is, according to our society, a bad thing. By the logic that only certain peoples can be racist this implies that certain types of hate are therefore legitimate, acceptable, excusable and not to be condemned. This is an interesting problem historically. Suppose we said that the German people, due to the suppression of the Versailles treaty, could not be ‘racist’ because of their defeat in the war. Thus their hate that manifested itself later could be seen as a mere reaction and thus become acceptable. This is problematic.
This bring us to the last problem. Who decides which society is the one that cannot be ‘racist’? According to the ‘sociologist’ the dominant race is the only one that can be ‘racist’. According to Derfner it is up to him. He decides that a ‘white preacher’ can be racist while a non-white one cannot. This hangs on Mr. Derfner’s decision about who is white. For him the Jews are not ‘white’. For those that complain about Apartheid in Israel the Jews are very much ‘white’. Even the sociologist must necessarily re-define whiteness and dominance in order to satisfy himself. In the old days it was easy to blame racism on WASP culture. But WASPs make up an increasingly smaller percentage of America. Hispanics are increasing as a percentage and thus the sociologist now re-defines them as ‘white’. But this doesn’t jive with the theory that the ‘racist’ group must be the dominant one. Hispanics are not ‘dominant’ in America. The other newly white people, the Irish, Jews, Italians, Hindus and Asians, are also not dominant. But together, after being lumped in with the WASPs, they are a majority. Thus groups that have been traditionally discriminated against, including Jews, Catholics and Hispanics, all become ‘dominant’ and they become part of the ‘racist’ majority. This is not very fair to them. They have never been given the chance to be the ‘suppressed’ group and thus allow their ‘racism’ to be merely a ‘reaction’. The way in which Hispanics become arbitrarily ‘white’ could just have easily been applied to blacks. Thus who is a ‘racist’ is determined by a wealthy white race theorist, an intellectual, who ironically is not so far replaced from the original race theorists of the 19th century who were also celebrated academics practicing a pseudo-science.
When the Rwandans were slaughtering eachother and committing genocide it is good to know that they weren’t racist when they did so.
Gerad Sorin in a review of the book The End of the Jews remarked that Barak Obama was “a mixed-race, multi-ethnic African-American man.” How many descriptive terms is that. How can he be all three? Don’t they cancel eachother out? A mixed-race person is already ‘multi-ethnic’ because race is higher on the totem pole of difference than ethnicity. But how can someone be ‘mixed-race’ and ‘African-American’? Can someone be ‘mixed-race’ and ‘white’? Take Carol Channing, a famous American singer and actress, who revealed at age 81 that she had been living as a white person but was really an ‘African-American’ because one of her grandmothers was part black. This strange ‘one quarter’ scam is reminiscent of the pseudo-race-sciences that determined under Nazism who was a Jew. Society judges anyone who has the most miniscule amount of ‘black’ in them to be ‘African-America’ which benefits the recipient by allowing them to be a ‘minority’ but in reality is a scam that mirrors the way in which miscegenation laws and other racist laws defined multi-racial children as being products of the discriminated against race. By adding so many adjectives Mr. Sorin perpetuates idiocy and race-theory lunacy.
In Oregon recently it turned out that a large number of track athletes were going to be coming to town to train for the Olympic try outs. “When local representatives of Eugene, Oregon pitched Eugene to be the host, USA Track & Field officials expressed concern about Eugene’s racial demographics and whether athletes would feel welcome, said Angel Jones, Eugene city manager.” Diversity training will include “alerting visiting athletes to the kinds of restaurant foods, hair care salons or religious services that they might be accustomed to frequenting…not assuming every unfamiliar black person is an athlete… certain greetings might be appropriate in some instances between two black people, but less so if made by a white person to a black person.” Shawn Fincher, the race specialist, who heads the ‘Blacks on Track Team’ project notes the goal is to “educate Trials volunteers about the need for cultural sensitivity when greeting the hundreds of African-American athletes, fans and family members expected to land in Eugene next summer.” Angel Jones, the City Manager wants to make sure the blacks know the location of Papa’s Soul Food Kitchen so they will feel at home with their own type of food. Jones noted that “people who often are just trying to be nice can also be offensive.” Although Jones notes that she is concerned all the townspeople will mistake all blacks for athletes she also claims the townspeople might ‘shadow’ the blacks in stores and treat them suspiciously. One wonders. Are they all the same those blacks? Apparently they all eat the same food. Who is the racist here?