Friday, January 15, 2010

A letter from Pacifica

Read this letter from a Pacifica Forum organizer... he hates Feminists, Muslims, Homosexuals and Racial Minorities...

With folks "defending" PF like this, they have no further need of reasonable criticism. As Frohnmayer said a couple years ago, they deserve "summary censure" and, I would add. community condemnation and opprobrium.

Read the whole letter and think of Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Long moral Arc... here is what is being arced over. This kind of hatred, can exist as long as free speech and assembly do, but so does everyone else's right to protest.

An Open Letter to Joe Lieberman

"In some respects the two of us see things the same way, which
presumably is the result of shared free speech values. And I respect
your work and general conscientiousness. I also agree with Valdas
to the effect that you have made a serious effort to be fair to Pacifica
and that you are doing what you can to bring objective information
to the community. Besides, you are a really nice person, well-intentioned,
and someone who makes a good friend. Unfortunately, however, there are
assumptions you make which are very, very questionable.

As a result, your Commentary article in the January 14, 2010 edition
of the Eugene Weekly includes I number of , I think,
rather misguided conclusions.

Assumption #1 is your view that the "only" reasonable outlook
in life is that of the political Left. To be sure, you have never said
this explicitly, but you do give this impression.

This is regrettable because that worldview has a number of serious
limitations that can result in making one mistake after another.

What completely amazed me was the apparent fact that you did
no research whatsoever to find out exactly what presentations
Pacifica Forum has sponsored in the past several months, and
then went on to characterize the "increasing irrelevance" of
our programs. How can you say any such thing when you
clearly have no knowledge of what PF's programs have
consisted of in the academic term just ended ?

What, for instance, is irrelevant about the vast environmental damages
caused by strip mining of coal ? I gave a presentation on this important
subject about a month ago, as thoroughly researched as was possible for me,
replete with about 50 visuals of mountain blown up, rivers horribly polluted,
and damages done to entire Appalachian communities . Similar devastation
is now widespread throughout the West. This doesn't matter ?

Valdas Anelauskas has also given lectures on subjects of serious concern
to just about everyone in any university community, from the false premises
of gender feminism to the Marxist basis of contemporary "liberal" popular
culture, something pioneered by Antonio Gramsci and heavily promoted
by Herbert Marcuse.

I might mention three other presentations I have made, one about comparative
holocausts ( besides WWII, those of Assyrians, Rwandans, Cambodians , etc ).
and a special program about the roughly 80 million Hindus killed in India during the
long years when that country was under Muslim rule, and a talk about the
psychopathological nature of homosexuality.

There have been presentations by others worth mention also, like a talk
by Orval Etter about Gandhi --during which favorable comments were made
about how Martin Luther King continued the mahatma's mission in America.

How do you justify calling such programs irrelevant ? Worse, in what respect
is your other assertion that such programs are "reckless" in any way objective ?

I don't think you can possibly justify your claim. You made it on the basis,
it seems obvious, of charges brought by Michael Williams, someone who has
a vested interest in attacking Pacifica Forum and who harbors a set of values
which are indistinguishable from multi-culturalist / Political Correctness standards.

Assumption # 2 is your reference to the Anti-Hate Task Force as some sort of
objective authority on what Pacifica is all about. Such an outlook is ill-advised
for several reasons.

Essentially Michael Williams takes the view that the "sins of Pacifica" of the past,
sins as he defines them anyway , characterize the Forum today. I have repeatedly tried
to encourage him to refer to Pacifica since mid 2008 as the best yardstick
to measure the group by . I have no direct knowledge of the group prior to
becoming part of it on August 1, 2008 and simply cannot comment adequately
on most events before that time. What I can tell you is that Mr Williams comments
about PF since mid 2008 are mostly off the deep end , viz, either false outright,
or very misleading.

The AHTF is objective about almost nothing and is Pacifica's self-professed enemy.
How you can turn to it as a "reliable" source of information about our group really
astounds me. Especially since, of any journalist in the community, you try to
be objective and fair.

Moreover, while Williams may have some legitimate grievances concerning some people
who attend the Forum, or who have attended in the past, the group is disparate by
intention since its basic value is free speech.

There are three identifiable sub groups in the forum, ( 1 ) those of us , like myself, who
are involved mostly because Pacifica provides a free speech opportunity for speaking about
neglected topics to an educated audience in a university setting, ( 2 ) anti-Zionists
who are very critical of the state of Israel for reasons which, depending on who
you are referring to, can be either Left or Right in their political orientation, but who
in all cases with the notable exception of Jimmy Marr, strongly deny allegations
of anti-Semitism, and ( 3 ) "other," a category for people who have private agendas
which defy categorization. The curious, or middle age folks now seeking meaning
in life and turned on by controversy, and so forth.

Michael Williams has, all along , tried to characterize all of Pacifica as an extension
of the anti-Zionists only, and lately to identify all anti-Zionists with someone who
is unique to himself and representative of only himself, Jimmy Marr. While Marr
was active in PF in past years, he was absent from the group from mid 2008 until
a brief return in the Spring of 2009, for one or two meetings, who then absented himself
until late Autumn , until just before his presentation in December. How this qualifies
his part in Pacifica as characterizing anything much completely mystifies me.
Yet you apparently take Mr Williams' view on this matter as if it was unarguable.

Assumption # 3 is your opinion that the Left-wing view of social issues
is the only valid outlook thinkable. With all due respect, this perspective is
indefensible and is sometimes morally wrong.

You listed the groups you believe, along with the Left generally, ought to be
regarded as deserving equal value and respect in the community. These are --

racial minorities

Hopefully the need for justice and fairness toward racial groups
is not even worth discussing. I don't know of anyone in Pacifica who is
racially bigoted, especially given the fact that, to the best of my knowledge,
most PF people voted for Obama. In other words, Williams' allegations
about the Forum on this matter are dishonest.

No-one that I know about ( except Marr ) in any way wishes to
oppose Jews as people. And almost no-one has bad things to say about
Judaism generally --although a few make comments which
I have heard elsewhere, for example among Atheists. Or in cases
among Jews who are anti-Zionists .Williams views, in other words,
are misleading.

About the other 3 groups, each , IMHO, deserve the strongest possible
criticism and censure --with an obvious qualification with respect to the
equity feminism of Christian Hoff Sommers in her book, "Who Stole Feminism ?"
Otherwise, for many well researched reasons , I agree with Valdas on most
points on this issue, namely, that feminism is a farce as an ideology and
not to recognize its dysfunctional character is to miss
what is most important about it.

Indeed, let me go so far as to say that anyone who has not read
Christina Sommers' book is essentially uniformed ( or misinformed )
about the entire feminist movement. This includes her disgust with
inflated rape claims, motivated by a desire to demonize an entire gender,
males, for the benefit of "lesbians" and their misogynist worldview.

Concerning homosexuals, you seem to be oblivious to the fact that, for instance,
all sorts of well respected "liberal" researchers of the recent past have been
strongly affirmative of the view that all relevant empirical evidence tells us
that homosexuality is a mental problem, a psychological illness , or a
personality disorder. After 5 years worth of research, including studies
of Masters and Johnson's "Homosexuality in Perspective," papers by
Karen Horney and Erich Fromm, et al, adding a number of vehement
professional condemnations of the American Psychiatric Association,
it is my opinion that the Leftist view on the issue is morally abhorrent
and based on flagrantly bad psychological studies produced
by self-interested homosexuals in the field.

As for Muslims, maybe you will concede that someone who has
taught Comparative Religion in past years has some claim to knowledge
on the subject. And not only me. Barry Sommer has educated himself
to the topic over the course of approximately a decade and hosts
a now long-running CTV program, Islam Today, based on up-to-date
research. We both take the view that Islam is essentially criminal
by most standards in the US Constitution, and that any other view
of the matter is based on wilful misrepresentation of the nature
or Muhammad's religion, or based on self delusion because of
commitment to an ideology that insists that all religions are equal.

Yes, we are both highly critical of Islam, a religion that advocates violence,
legal slavery, wife beating, discrimination against people of all other faiths
and much else that is reprehensible and morally diseased. But neither of us
are anti-Arab or anti-Iranian, et al, since the opposite is the truth.
And not incidentally, Valdas also takes a similar view but based on
mostly political grounds, which he also has researched in depth.
Yet Mr Williams tells one and all that Pacifica attacks all Muslims, as if
no-one at the Forum has good reason or has done any legitimate research.

We vehemently reject the Left wing view on these specific issues.

But this does NOT make us Right-wingers, or not in every case.
In the Fall term I also gave a presentation on the subject of Radical Centrism
which was neither irrelevant or reckless. Mr Williams did not attend that
meeting and, despite the fact that it was telecast on CTV no less than
4 times each week for the next 2 weeks, he did not bother to look and listen
to find out what RC is all about.

Which is not to say that PF and RC are the same thing; they are not.
But there is a common and crucial value shared by both.

We have every right --and responsibility-- to pick and choose from the
positions of both Left and Right ( and sometimes "Other ) when making
any political or values commitment. We both abhor party line outlooks
and philosophies . In short, we --most of us , anyway-- are Independents
and to characterize us as Rightists because we take exception to various
positions of the Democratic Party or some equivalent, is blatant ignorance
or even malicious falsification of our actual sentiments.

As nice a guy as he can be in person, it is a sad fact that Mr Williams
has persistently maligned Pacifica Forum and misrepresented us to
just about everyone --including yourself.

Next week I am scheduled to expose all of this nonsense for what it is,
in a talk I am preparing entitled :

Neo-Communism and the Anti-Hate Task Force

It might even be entitled "the neo-Communism OF the Anti-Hate Task Force"
I think you will find the talk informative.


This Insurgent believes in active journalism, I will be at that protest and I hope you will too. Neo-fascists, off our campus!

No comments: