Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Pacifica Forum Speaker Writes In Register Guard

Lies written by Valdas Anelauskas

After reading the Jan. 9 report about the latest controversy surrounding Pacifica Forum, in which I was repeatedly referred to, one could get the impression that I trivialize or even condone violence against women. Nothing can be further from the truth!

What was quoted about lesbian feminist Andrea Dworkin was actually paraphrased from what I also only quoted myself during one of my lectures. Anyone can watch videos of those three lectures — simply Google the Internet for “roots of radical feminism.”
In those videos one can also see that during my lectures I made it very clear that rape is always a horrible crime. Unfortunately, in today’s atmosphere of so-called “political correctness,” taboos and self-censorship, the media often choose to ignore some crimes, especially when it comes to interracial rape.[huh?...]

My opinion regarding the punishment for such crimes is that the only violence I condone is violence against violent criminals. That means I am a strong supporter and advocate of the death penalty not only for murderers but for rapists too. Retribution for anyone who commits such heinous crime should be death.

Although I suspect that the incident at Pacifica Forum, when a group of feminists came up to the speaker’s table, may have been staged by the Anti-Hate Task Force — it seemed just way too theatrical — if Katie’s feelings were hurt by my saying “you’re not ugly,” then my sincerest apology. [Saying you're not ugly immediately after mentioning there are some people too ugly to rape has terrible implications.] 

[Originally published in the Register Guard Letters to the Editor. http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/opinion/24300057-47/eugene-oregon-manager-pacifica-property.csp]

22 comments:

I-was-there said...

Another conspiracy? Everything that happens to those people is a conspiracy.

They walk around leaving bloody footprints behind, looking for a bloody footprint conspiracy, never asking why it is they keep shooting themselves in the foot.

Introspection is not their strong point.

Julian said...

@ "I-was-there"

So you're talking about abusive white men, right? Because they are the least self-aware, most violent irresponsible bunch, with the bloodiest footprints and the most structural power. And if you don't get that, please watch this:

See this for more:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6637396204037343133#

dc said...

I-was-there said...

Another conspiracy? Everything that happens to those people is a conspiracy.
~
Obviously you've just arrived at this movie and haven't done much research on the PF.

The local 'zionist' lobby targeted our political discussion group a long time ago.

Forum attendees have stood strong against their antics, though, and have learned much. They don't do well in the sunlight.

They prefer to work through other people, and that is why they've baited you guys, however indirectly. It's how the Lobby works.

What you think you know about Pacifica, is crafted by their hand, NOT out of your free will.

They ALWAYS make mistakes.

“A lobby is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.”
Steve Rosen (Former Top AIPAC Exec./Indicted Spy for Israel, Iraq invasion, +)

Anonymous said...

DC: Please respond directly to this quote from the story, without deflection or ducking.

"Saying you're not ugly immediately after immediately after mentioning there are some people too ugly to rape has horrible implication."

DON'T deflect or sidestep. Are you DENYING that what Valdas was implying is clear as day? Are you trying to say that his comment was appropriate?

Your duckery and sidesteppery makes you look a fool, and makes readers lose respect. I don't care about all the issues you spew about. I care about that SINGLE sentance that Valdas uttered last week: "You're not ugly."

The meaning is clear to me, and it's clear to any other sane minded individual who doesn't have their head stuck all the way up their ass. I didn't care about the forum until he uttered those words, and now I'll fight you until I have no breath left. I oppose you because you shelter and defend a man who uses the (clearly implied) threat of rape to support his ideas.

DON'T talk to me about a zionist conspiracy: I don't care. I just care about the SPECIFIC comments that I describe here. Do not sidestep. Do not pretend that you aren't intelligent enough to get what I'm saying.

dc said...

Hi. I just found this.

I'll do my best.

Remember that it was MICHAEL Williams that threw that into the mix, he was skewing a quote from a meeting many months ago, which was attended by a small group. When that forum took place, he did not object, because considering the context, it was absolutely viable/'defensible'. (Topic: "RADICAL Feminism") The quote was not actually even Valdas', it was from a series of journalist's and author's comments about Andrea Dworkin (sp) HER "obsession with rape"/ her obesity, etc. Not pretty maybe, but it was well sourced and fit with the Forum topic.

The way Williams bellowed it to the audience last Friday, was quite dramatic, but NOT accurate.

But that is his "M.O." and he had obviously been telling it around town and possibly even to some of the students, beforehand, which may be why Katie even attended.

Many of us would have liked to respond to MW when he did his little speel, but instead Katie started to speak (already visibly upset).

I admit Valdas inserting his "your not ugly", before she'd even said a full sentence, was awkward, ill timed, whatever, but HE NEVER IMPLIED WHAT YOU SUGGEST, he WANTED to hear what she was about to say--AND he made a stupid joke.

But that's when the mayhem and drama began and the thing never got ironed out until afterwards, when the exact quotes and context were published.

But as often happens, MW's accusation is what people remember.

Anonymous said...

That's a duck. That's a juke. The topic that brought it 'round is NOT my complaint. I'm fine with Valdas discussing Dworkin, espescially because an audience member quoted him.

I disagree strongly when you say that "HE NEVER IMPLIED WHAT YOU SUGGEST." Language is a tool, used for communication. Is is not as open to interpretation as you suggest here. His implication was very clear.

At best, your reply could be summed up as "Yeah, but they started it." You've willfully missed my point. I would suggest that you are unwilling to-...

Wait, what's that I hear?

They'll be meeting in Agate hall this week, not the student union?

Nevermind, DC. So long as you don't meet in the student union that my student fees pay for, you can all you F yourselves elsewhere all you want. Have a nice life! I don't even care enough to finish this post now that we've successfully thrown yu out on your ear.

Anonymous said...

Typo. Obviously, that was a "You."

dc said...

At best, your reply could be summed up as "Yeah, but they started it."

No, I never said "yeah". But if you ever take a look at our long history of combating their aggressive and slanderous attacks, you will note that the Pacifica Forum did not cave to zionist power.

PS We never wanted to be in the EMU, they moved PF here, "for our protection", stemming from the last time Michael Williams coordinated a bogus protest against us, about 2 years ago. Plus the "Israel at 60" committee wanted us out of McKenzie Hall.

Whether or not you support the Forum or Free Speech, I hope you at least take forward more caution with respect to becoming a tool for z-social control.

And maybe even point out some of the errors the Facebook kids are commiting, under Michael Williams 'guidance'.
Peace and War. Be healthy.

My deleted post from Facebook said...

Dear Devon
You are severely misinformed with regard to the Pacifica Forum. We have been meeting at UO WEEKLY for many years. I personally AM now a full time student, we are all tax payers and some of our regular attendees have kids who are alumni.

The forum has no beef with students. Our beef is with the "Anti-Hate Task Force" and Michael Williams who has been trying to shut down our weekly meetings since 2003. He is a paid shill and is at the center of the $PLC blacklisting us. You are FOOLS to play this game for him.

What you think you know about the Forum is based on the Hate Force's version of reality, nothing more.

They are deliberately inciting you students, USING you, and you NEED to think for YOURSELVES. Do some research/ don't operate on emotion and false information spoon fed to you!

http://www.splcreport.com/?gclid=CNqa7IXyoZ8CFQJaagodg0r9Ug For more on the $PLC/rock that your hallowed leader climbed out from underneath.

Anonymous said...

Thank you. I read the report and googled several others. I didn't know how controversial The Southern Poverty Law Center was or how much money they manage to pull in.

Anonymous said...

I have not been incited. I am judging you based on YOUR (your group's) words and MY morals.

How can I convince you that I am a free-thinking individual who is in opposition of your opinions? I feel like you aren't playing this debate game fairly. I assure you that I am not being manipulated, but you insist that I am.

Please provide me with criteria by which I might prove to you, TO YOUR SATISFACTION, that I disagree with you based on my OWN opinions? I have the impression that disagreement with the forum and free thought are mutually exclusive concepts to you. Please show me how to continue this conversation?

very tired dc said...

>>I have not been incited. I am judging you based on YOUR (your group's) words and MY morals.<<

1.) State: WHICH of the many trillions of "our groups" words, you take issue with.

2.) Consider: How many of those, are words that you yourself heard "our group" say.

3.) Is your portrayal accurate; Is more information necessary? If so, seek it. If not, form your judgment. It will be fairly "measured".

4.) Remain open to additional information, especially if you are reacting to your judgment of those words-- and especially if it involves taking actions against others.

5.) Ask yourself if your reactions, actions, and /or judgment IS IN PROPORTION TO the words that bothered you.

Is more information still necessary? Seek it. Simple objectivity is the best divining rod.

Of course "the source" is always the best place to seek it, if possible. If not, QUESTION your 'informant' in much the same way you questioned your self..

>>How can I convince you that I am a free-thinking individual who is in opposition of your opinions?<<

I can't imagine that you know enough of my opinions to form any viable judgment/or measured opposition; we really have just met.


Best life to you. & goodnight
Thank you for your time through this, I appreciate your depth. [what I can see of it :)

Anonymous said...

Those are steep criteria. Very steep. I'm looking back on your other posts, and I see that you are not following your own rules in your own assertions.

If I were to require these 5 items from you on every assertion before I took your words as YOUR words, every response that you've posted on this blogs comment threads would need to be thrown out.

This is my point. You do not listen to others, and you do not respect young people enough to hear them without placing the ideologies of others behind their words in your mind. This is the basis for my claim that the Pacifica Forum DOES NOT respect open debate or the exchange o ideas. The words of the young are dismissed at every turn at forum meetings and in internet dialogue as having been programmed in. This is why we do not want you on our campus: Our ideas are not welcomed or respected in your meetings. It is my belief that this is, ultimately, because we are all young and you are all old.

I ask, DC, that you watch for this at future meetings. If you see the words of the young being dismissed because they are YOUNG, I implore you to speak up on the behalf of the dismissed. If the thoughts of the young are not as welcome or respected at your meetings as the thoughts of the old, then I would suggest that your group consider finding a different venue.

Anonymous said...

To put it another way: I suspect that you are frustrated every time someone takes something that Valdas or Marr say, and assume that you are coming from the same belief set that they are. I see it in your writing: You very clearly state that you are a group of individuals with individual ideas about the world. It is just as frustrating to me to have you dismiss MY words as having been programmed in.

Also: Your #2 item means that the only people who have a right to criticize words of forum members and be heard by you are people who were PHYSICALLY AT a forum meeting (or perhaps watched an entire meeting's video) in which the words that are being critiqed were uttered. This is a confusing requirement to me. Does this logic extend to other areas of life? Can I not criticize something that a politician says unless I hear it with my own ears? Forum members often cite quotes from the people they are critical of, and they source these quotes from many places: Newspapers, bilbiographies, TV, etc. Are none of these legitimate sources for debate? (I'm examining your claim that you are scholarly here.) I also think this links back to my Young vs. Old line of thought in the preceeding post: If I were (hypothetically) to attend a forum event and were to try to take a position in opposition of a forum member over a topic covering events that occurred before I was born, but during the speaker's lifetime (See: WW2) are my thoughts and opinions thrown out because of your requirement #2?

dc said...

Some of our best conversations at the Forum have been with the young people that have attended.
Possibly my favorite, is with the young,former IDF man that came to check us out, having heard from Hillel how evil and uninformed we were. He was able to participate in the dialogue, as opposed to snorting and baseless name calling and we parted in mutual respect. Or when we hosted a rep of the Christian Peacekeeper's team, who had just returned from working in the occupied territory of Palestine though this man was later "roasted" by an arm of the z-lobby and UO was criticized for letting him speak of his first hand perceptions.

It is true that when certain of the young people have come to PF with an intention to disrupt, made evident by their actions and attitudes, they are not really well heard. And there is cause to wonder what may have incited their inability/choice to miss out on a meaningful exchange.

With regard to my posts, you are evaluating a flurry of week-long responses to critic's of Pacifica Forum many-pronged campaign to marginalize and ostracize us, going on since 2003. This last week's worth of posts have been an admittedly lame attempt toward damage 'control' and I do have life's work outside PF: I am sure you are correct that I have fallen short.

But plain and simple: you got 'here' very late in the game and are either sampling a very small piece of the picture or are operating on the incitement of PF critics, which would provide you a larger body of work, but is little more than the culmination of the 'era' of their propaganda. They are very desperate now and misstepping, right and left...

If what (you think) you know about the Pacifica Forum is not based on your own experience, yet you draw conclusions and resort to name calling and repetition of our critic's rhetoric, you are a tool, and are working on behalf of the very "fascists" you purport to despise.

They've been calling us "Nazi" for many years, leading one PF attendee to begin to explore what that might mean in this day and age.. The Dec 11th report on NSM is a product of that research. Your reaction to what you think you know was said there, cannot possibly be "measured" or "reasoned", unless you heard his words.

I WILL speak on behalf of the dismissed, as you request, at future meetings. RE today, I was half-thinking I would not attend, because I don't get out of class until 2:50. But now that Williams and Martinez have agitated the student body so, and now that my version of damage control (truth vs: AHTF rhetoric) may be beneficial, I'll do my best to be there. Thanks for your time, again.

Anonymous said...

About Michael Williams and the Anti-Hate Task Force---

I've only been to one meeting of Pacifica Forum in addition to the protest I went to.

But I did see the one event. Michael Williams and another guy from the Anti-Hate Task Force spoke at a Pacifica Forum meeting. I saw it on Community Access TV. Michael Williamss lecture was posted on-line for a long time, but it doesn't seem to be available now.

But here's one example from it:

Williams cited two Pacifica Forum lectures as examples of anti-Semitism. One lecture was about Alan Dershowitz's book, "The Case For Israel", and the fact that Norman Finkelstein had exposed it as being in part plagiarized from Joan Peters' book, "From Time Immemorial". Finklestien had exposed "From Time Immemorial" as a complete fraud when it came out in the 1980s.

"From Time Immemorial" claimed that Palestinians weren't really Palestinian. It claimed that Arabs flocked to Palestine only when European Jews began colonizing it and Arabs hoped to benefit from European superiority. At one point, the book quotes a 16th century Arab historian about Arab migration in the 1890s. This quote, Finkelstein proved, was plagiarized from a turn of the century Zionist tract.

Finkelstein had passed what he discovered about Peters' book to Noam Chomsky who passed it along to British book critics who, when it came out in Britain, ripped it apart.

Finklestein had since exposed Dershowitz's plagiarism, which prompted Dershowitz's camapign against Finklestein which resulted in his being denied tenure at DePaul University.

Michael Williams painted the two Pacifica Forum lectures as anti-Semitic by pretending they were unrelated. It seems obvious that you would talk about the plagiarism and then the fraudulent source that was plagiarized. Williams claimed that Pacifica Forum was attacking the authors only because they were Jewish.

He said he was sure that non-Jews has committed plagiarism before. Why didn't Pacifica Forum talk about any of them? And surely there were non-Jews who had made mistakes and done sloppy research in their books. He questioned why Pacifica Forum would attack Peters' book which had been out of print for years.

(By the way, Noam Chomsky doesn't think anyone named "Joan Peters" wrote the book; he thought it was produced by an intelligence agency.)

Take whatever stand you want. Just be aware of who you're dealing with. Be aware that Israel-supporters might come after you, too. After your attacks on Pacifica Forum, invoking the principle of free speech might be a bit awkward.

Michael Williams said...

I believe you are referring to a list PF programs during 2003-2006, along with my opinion whether particular programs contributed to an over-all anti-Jewish theme, and/or were specfically anti-Semitic in their content.

That paper described what I regarded as s PF's overwhelmingly anti-Semitic programming choices. In that paper I showed there were no programs that presented Jews or Jewish organizations favorably, Jews and Jewish organizations were always presented negatively, and that Jews were chosen as subjects when non-Jews would have served the supposed topic as well.(For instance, the only non-Jew accused of plagiarism in a PF lecture was Martin Lutehr King, but that was years later.)

The two discussions cited above are only 2 of the examples in that paper, which used specific presentations to establish what seemed a clearly anti-Jewish bias in choice and treatment of topic matter.

I can easily excuse your taking those examples out of context, because it took me a few minutes to recall the context myself.

Anonymous said...

Any example is taken "out of context" pretty much by definition. I would have provided a link to the full text of your paper, but it doesn't seem to be available.

But again you pretend that the only issue with the books by Peters and Dershowitz was plagiarism. They were both racist, historical frauds contrived to deny the rights of Palestinian people. Why do you think Chomsky and Finkelstein did the work they did to expose them?

Michael Williams said...

Chomsky, Finkelstein and you all have a good point worthy of discussion, a point which the PF presentations did not address, dealing only with the isolated issue of plagiarism.

Anonymous said...

Yes, and when Finkelstein discussed the book on Democracy Now, he focused only on the plagiarism, too. Do you think that was anti-Semitic?

You characterized this as a forum about plagiarism, then accused them of anti-Semitism for only mentioning Dershowitz as a plagarist. That's not what it was about.

It would be like characterizing a conference on the Holocaust as a conference on genocide, then calling it racist because they ignored all the other cases.

Michael Williams said...

Finkelstein does not have a pattern of saying only negative things about Jews.

The point of the critique was that these two sessions were part of a pattern where Jews and things Jewish were always(1) presented in a negative light. Topics were chosen with Jews as the transgressors where Anglos could equally well have been chosen. In this particular instance, the very valid discussion of the significance of these two books to understanding Israel-Palestine issues was *not* a part of the Pacifica Forum conversation.

This was a consistent pattern, not a one-off that can be explained away.

(1)The exception was a Good Friday lecture where Etter was very complimentary toward Jesus.

Anonymous said...

The two books have no significance to "understanding Israel-Palestine issues" because Peters' book was a fraud and Dershowitz' book repeated the fraud. This is a fact that's well worth pointing out since there are people who think Dershowitz' book is a legitimate source of information. To call someone anti-Semitic because they pointed out Dershowitz' lies instead of the lies of some "Anglo" is either idiotic or a smear.

The topic of the forum was the book and the fact that it was a fraud.

Pacifica Forum had a consistent pattern of criticizing Israel and its supporters. There's no need to explain it away.

Everything you've said confirms my point. Anyone who criticizes Israel is likely to be smeared by the Anti-Hate Task Force.

Part of your paper included a chart that you claimed prove that Pacifica Forum was anti-Semitic. It put the subjects of forums into a number of catagories. One was "Jews and Israel", another was "Palestine".

I don't know how you separate Israel and Palestine since all of Palestine has been under Israeli control for decades. And I consider putting "Jews and Israel" in the same catagory to be anti-Semitic and racist against Israeli citizens who are not Jewish. It's like talking about "Christians and Americans".

Most of the forums, according to you, were about "Jews and Israel". I'm sure that's true, since Etter said that he formed Pacifica Forum because he didn't like what Israel was doing.

Now the Student Insurgent has a reporter in Palestine. If their reports are consistently critical of Israel, they can reasonably expect to be your next target.