The American Kafir

2012/05/02

Studying Antisemitism on Campus

Studying Antisemitism on Campus

by Phyllis Chesler
Jewish Ledger

http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/1085/studying-antisemitism-on-campus

A very gallant Dr. Charles Asher Small just delivered an important lecture at the 92nd St Y. in New York. Yes, this is the same Dr. Small who, in 2004, founded the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), which he housed at Yale University from 2006-2011—until the Yale Corporation decided that the Center’s work on Islamic Judeophobia and specifically on Iranian genocidal Judeophobia threatened Yale’s “scholarly commitments” in the region.

Who could make this up?

This was the first time that Dr. Small spoke about this publicly.

Dr. Small is Canadian and grew up in Montreal. He speaks in a restrained and reasonable way about outrages and injustices. He is a gentleman and a scholar.

I was privileged to have met him in 2003 and to have worked with him while he was at Yale. I have also written about his work and its tragic demise at Yale.

This time, Dr. Small named names.

But, he first wondered why Israel, which is blamed for every conceivable wrong, is also to blame for whatever problems American Jews are having in terms of communal identity or renewal. He wondered how different American Jews and Jewish leaders are today when compared to the American Jewish leaders in the 1920s and 1930s, as economic problems worsened and a virulent antisemitism arose. “Sound familiar?”, he asked.

Dr. Small noted that antisemitism is different from all the other ‘isms’ such as racism and sexism. “It is inherently genocidal,” he said. It was “genocidal during the religious era when Jews were the wrong religion” and were accused of holding back the Messianic age by both “refusing to convert to Christianity” and for having committed “deicide.” And it is genocidal today. But there is a taboo today at work that impedes any rational search for the truth.

Small went on to say that no one is examining radical Islamic ideology No one is questioning the dominant world view. Instead, everyone is into postmodernism, cultural relativism and politically correct non-judgementalism. He defined anyone who has been formerly colonized as being a victim whose customs and traditions cannot be judged.

Charles and I agree on this new and clever form of racism and paternalism. Universal rights for me and thee – but not for the female victims of honor killing, forced child marriage, female genital mutilation, and forced veiling. Religious rights for Muslims in the West, but the lethal persecution of Christians, Hindus, and Jews in “Muslim lands.”

Meanwhile, Charles’ Institute at Yale was vibrant, dynamic and thriving. About 3 and a half years ago, a philanthropist offered Charles and his Institute five million dollars if Yale would raise 15-20 million dollars. Dr. Small delivered a strategic business plan. The development office said it was “wonderful.”

But the environment changed when the current Iranian regime suddenly listed Yale as an “enemy of the revolution.” Small and his Institute were blamed by some for having gotten Yale in trouble, resulting in Yale’s telling Small to stop dealing with radical Islam, radical Islamic Judeophobia, and Iran. Absent his dealing with those topics, he was told, he could enjoy a long and happy career at Yale.

But Radical Political Islam, not Islam the religion, not the Muslim people, but Radical Political Islam, the genocidal movement, is a key part of the irrational hatred against Jews and Israel in today’s world. When Charles convened in August of 2010, the largest academic world conference on global antisemitism to have ever been held, Radical Political Islam was part of the discussion. It couldn’t be ignored. It was not the focal point of the conference. It wasn’t even mentioned by most of the speakers. But it was included in some presentations by a few of the 107 speakers from 23 countries who made up the program.

What was to come was signalled when the assembled conference attendees were welcomed rather sourly by associate Yale Provost, Frances Rosenbluth. Before a word was spoken or paper presented, she warned that the scholarship to be presented needed be constrained and she pre-emptively labeled outcomes when she said presenters were “not to engage in Islamophobia.”

A young Palestinian actively blogged throughout the conference and in real time characterized speakers as “racists” and “Islamophobes.” Instead of measured analysis, dialogue and prudent deliberation, his name calling reverberated across the internet kicking off a firestorm which resulted, three days later, in the newly appointed PLO “ambassador” in D.C. writing to Yale President Levin charging Yale with “racism.”

Here’s the thing. Tell the truth about Radical Political Islamism and you will be branded a racist. Dare expose the Muslim practice of slavery, imperialism, colonialism, religious intolerance, and gender apartheid and you will find yourself branded a “conservative racist” and therefore demonized.

It happened to me early on, between 2003-2005.

It has happened to every single truth teller ever since, including Dr. Charles Small.

Small and his colleagues were attacked irrationally. National Public Radio chimed in and a Yale Professor accused the Institute of being similar to Black Panthers. The chorus grew and Yale had its excuse to end its relationship with the Institute and Charles Small. In so doing, Yale confiscated the film of the conference, framed a report which it marked ‘confidential’ (something they’d never done before in this kind of circumstance) and didn’t allow Charles Small or any of his colleagues at Yale to see it. These actions could hold the record for abruptness and lack of considered process extended when compared to all other departures. Adding insult to injury, with several week’s notice, Yale asked Charles Small to leave.

But it is now a year later and this quiet talk to a hushed audience at the 92nd St. Y marked the beginning of a new chapter in the struggle to tell the truth and expose the deception that is going on behind the curtain in academia today. The whole episode at Yale was instructive and underlines the urgent need for an independent institution that studies antisemitism in real time, and not merely as an historical artifact and novelty. Antisemtism is as virulent, threatening and genocidal as it has ever been and the need for a Charles Small and an organization like ISGAP, that is not afraid to seek the truth, is more pressing than it has ever been. If not now, when.

Advertisements

2012/03/25

In His Own Words- Dividing Not Uniting

In His Own Words- Dividing Not Uniting

Written By Walt Long

Over the years I have always expected  Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrahkan to pimp for media attention (Mainstream media is always glad to help) and their racist remarks thus stirring up hate and division in America. The Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrahkan‘s of the world have become the Judge and Executioner when someone is of a lighter skin does something to someone of the darker skin.  BUT, to come from the President of the United States really shows his bigotry for White America, and does nothing more than divide our great country. I have to ask where are Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrahkan and Barack Hussein Obama when Black Teens Douse 13 Year Old With Gasoline, Set Him on Fire Or this news item from Barack Hussein Obama, Jessee Jackson and Louis Farrakhan town of Chicago Total bloodbath in Chicago: 10 dead, 40 wounded, below is a video about the bloodbath and a picture of the little girl, but then maybe it is because she looks to white for all of these so called leaders, (Obama, Jackson, Sharpton and Farrakhan).

Photo of Aliyah Shell murdered by Chicago, IL Gangbangers

Video

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or * antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

This statement by Obama concerning rural America, small town people from the midwest and Pennsylvania are racist, by the definition of antipathy, most of the rural area of Pennsylvania and the Midwest are white. This statement clearly shows who really is the bigot, and it sure isn’t all of small town USA…

*an·tip·a·thy

[an-tip-uh-thee] Show IPA

noun, plural -thies.

1.

a natural, basic, or habitual repugnance; aversion.
2.

an instinctive contrariety or opposition in feeling.
3.

an object of natural aversion or habitual dislike.
Origin:
1595–1605;  < Latin antipathīa  < Greek antipátheia. See anti-, -pathy

Related forms

an·tip·a·thist, noun

Synonyms
1.  disgust, abhorrence, detestation, hatred.

After the arrest of Henry Louis Gates , a black professor and long time friend of Obama’s who verbally abused the police.

“Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home,”

Obama’s most recent comment concerning the Trayyon incident in Sanford FL

“When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids,” he said. “I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative to investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together – federal, state and local – to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened. But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin: If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon. And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are gonna take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

Related article’s Witness counters Trayvon Martin media narrative   and    Zimmerman was on the ground being punched when he shot Trayvon Martin

Just in case you think I am taking any of these atrocities lightly you are wrong, anytime there is murder they all should be looked at as equal and not what color of their skin was, as well as we should not allow the Trial by Media interfere with the TRUTH of the whole mishap in it entirety. Walt

2012/03/08

Vetting Barack Hussein Obama

Another America-Hating Racist in Barack Obama’s Orbit

By Discover The Networks

Twenty years ago at Harvard Law School, a 30-year-old Barack Obama urged his fellow law students to “open up your hearts and minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell,” a man who courageously spoke “the truth.” Central to that “truth” was the belief that white racism is a permanent, ineradicable aspect of American life, and that “slavery is, as an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do.”

Who Was Derrick Bell?

  • Professor at New York University School of Law
  • Proponent of “Critical Race Theory”
  • Supporter of race preferences favoring nonwhites in business and academia
  • Died in October 2011

Born in November 1930, Derrick Bell may be considered the founder, or at least the godfather, of “Critical Race Theory,” an academic tradition in which race plays the same role as class plays in the Marxist paradigm. In the mid-1970s Bell was a pioneer in this field. He was not only angered by what he viewed as the slow progress of racial reform in the United States, but he also held that the gains brought about by the civil rights laws of the 1960s were being eroded in the 1970s.

Bell believed then, as he did for the rest of his life, that whites would support civil rights protections for blacks only if those protections would also promote white self-interest and social status. Since Bell viewed racial minorities as a permanently oppressed caste — and he saw racism as a normal, permanent aspect of American life — he reasoned that equality before the law was unfair to blacks, whose moral claims were superior to those of whites. Bell endorsed a journal called Race Traitor, which is dedicated to the “abolition of whiteness,” and whose motto is “Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity.”

Professor Bell (and his fellow Critical Race theorists) held that existing legal structures are, like American society at large, racist in their very construction. Critical Race Theory suggests that to combat this “institutional racism,” oppressed racial groups have both the right and the duty to decide, for themselves, which laws are valid and are worth observing. Critical Race Theory also promotes the use of storytelling narratives in law-review articles to better reflect the “oral traditions” of black experience. Bell used the technique of placing legal and social commentary into the mouths of invented characters extensively in his writings. While acknowledging that this “style of storytelling” was “less rigorous than the doctrine-laden, citation-heavy law review pieces,” he employed it nonetheless.

Bell earned a bachelor’s degree from Duquesne University in 1952 and a law degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 1957. The first job of his legal career was in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department. He left that position after a short time to work as an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where he became a protégé of Thurgood Marshall.

In the immediate aftermath of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s 1968 assassination, members of Harvard University’s Black Law Students Association pressured their school to hire a minority professor; this led eventually to Bell’s hiring in 1971 as the first black faculty member in the law school’s history. From the very outset of his stay at Harvard, Bell was acutely aware of the fact that he lacked the qualifications that had traditionally been prerequisites for an appointment at Harvard: he had neither graduated with distinction from a prestigious law school, nor clerked for the Supreme Court, nor practiced law at a major firm. Yet he mocked such criteria as being nothing more than the exclusionary constructs of a racist white power structure that traditionally had sought to deny blacks an opportunity to teach at the nation’s elite schools.

In 1980 Professor Bell left Harvard to become the dean of the University of Oregon School of Law. He resigned from that position in 1985, ostensibly as an act of protest against the fact that the school had failed to grant tenure to an Asian female professor. A number of Professor Bell’s colleagues at Oregon, however, viewed this as a contrived, face-saving pretext for leaving a position from which he was about to be fired. They believed that Bell, who had largely become an “absentee dean” known for spending more time on the lecture circuit than at Oregon, was slated for imminent termination.

Bell joined the faculty of Stanford Law School in 1986 and immediately became a source of controversy. Many of his students there complained that he was not using his lecture time to teach principles of law, but rather as a platform from which to indoctrinate his captive audience to his leftwing theories and worldviews. Cognizant of Bell’s glaring deficiencies as a teacher but afraid to openly address them, Stanford quietly instituted a lecture series designed to help his students learn the course material that Professor Bell was not teaching them. Perceiving this as a racial affront, Bell left Stanford and returned to Harvard in the fall of 1986.

In April 1990 Professor Bell demanded that Harvard Law School hire a black woman — specifically the visiting professor Regina Austin (who was also an adherent of Critical Race Theory) — as a tenured faculty member. Though Harvard had a longstanding policy that forbade the hiring of visiting professors during the year of their residence at the school, Bell made Austin’s hiring a “non-negotiable demand.”

When the law school would not cave to Professor Bell’s pressure, he protested by taking a leave of absence from his $120,000-per-year teaching post. He explained that black female law students were in desperate need of “role models” with whom they could identify. Although 45 percent of Harvard Law’s faculty appointments since 1980 had gone to minorities and women, none of them were both black and female — hence Bell’s objection. But even if Harvard had agreed to grant tenure to Professor Austin, Bell would not have been satisfied. As he would later write in a law-review article condemning schools for hiring “token” minorities: “The hiring of a few minorities and women — particularly when a faculty is under pressure from students or civil rights agencies — is not a departure from … this power-preserving doctrine” of white male supremacy.

In 1990-91, Professor Bell taught a civil rights course at Harvard without pay, though he later acknowledged that he had gotten himself placed as a “consultant” on the payroll of a “major entertainment figure.” To express his displeasure with Harvard in definitive terms, in the spring of 1991 Bell announced that he would take a one-year visiting professor’s position at New York University Law School. He later extended this to two years, and later still announced that he would spend a third year at NYU. This third year would require not only NYU’s waiver of time limits on visiting professorships, but also Harvard’s waiver of its firm policy forbidding professors to be on leave for more than two years. Harvard dean Robert Clark stated that if Bell did not return to his post, the latter would lose his place on Harvard’s faculty. Bell refused to return and thus lost his job. After that, Bell continued to teach at NYU.

Bell was a passionate proponent of racial preferences as a means of minimizing what he viewed as the potentially disastrous effects of white Americans’ inherent racist impulses. He viewed black professors who did not enthusiastically embrace affirmative action as traitors to the black race; they “look black but think white,” said Bell.

A few of Professor Bell’s more notable quotes (all of them from his 1992 book Faces at the Bottom of the Well) on the subject of race include the following:

  • “Despite undeniable progress for many, no African Americans are insulated from incidents of racial discrimination. Our careers, even our lives, are threatened because of our color.”
  • “[T]he racism that made slavery feasible is far from dead . . . and the civil rights gains, so hard won, are being steadily eroded.”
  • “… few whites are ready to actively promote civil rights for blacks.”
  • “[D]iscrimination in the workplace is as vicious (if less obvious) than it was when employers posted signs ‘no negras need apply.'”
  • “We rise and fall less as a result of our efforts than in response to the needs of a white society that condemns all blacks to quasi citizenship as surely as it segregated our parents.”
  • “Slavery is, as an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do.”
  • “Black people will never gain full equality in this country. … African Americans must confront and conquer the otherwise deadening reality of our permanent subordinate status.”
  • “Tolerated in good times, despised when things go wrong, as a people we [blacks] are scapegoated and sacrificed as distraction or catalyst for compromise to facilitate resolution of political differences or relieve economic adversity.”

Bell authored several books on race and the law, including Silent Covenants: Brown V. Board of Education and the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform (2004); Ethical Ambition: Living a Life of Meaning and Worth (2002); Race, Racism, and American Law (2000); Constitutional Conflicts  (1997); Confronting Authority: Reflections of an Ardent Protester (1994); Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism (1992); And We Are Not Saved: The Elusive Quest for Racial Justice (1989); and Civil Rights: Leading Cases (1980).

Bell died of cancer on October 5, 2011.

Additional Material

Book:
The People v. Harvard Law
By Andrew Peyton Thomas
2005

Articles:
Academic Whoring for Ward Churchill
By Israel National News
July 19, 2007