Collaborators in the War Against the Jews: Richard A. Falk – by Steven Plaut


falk

It is a bit of a shame that Richard A. Falk, professor emeritus of International Law and Practice from Princeton, cannot go back in time in some sort of time machine to right historic wrongs.  If he could, there is no doubt at all that he would revise and re-orchestrate the Nuremberg Trials conducted by the Allies after World War II so that the leaders of the United States and Britain were the ones indicted instead.  After all, from 1945 onwards the Allies were guilty of “occupation.” Earlier, they had even dared to use military force against German terrorism, had caused German civilian deaths in their earlier military incursions and air bombing campaigns, and then illegally colonized German territories.  If it were up to Falk, the Nuremberg trials would have been devoted to prosecuting the Jews of Europe for causing so much trouble for those poor innocent Germans.

Falk is not only one of the worst collaborators in the academic wars against the Jews, he is also America’s leading practitioner of the Orwellian inversion.  For Falk, America is a fascist monstrosity, while the world’s fascist and totalitarian monstrosities are democratic enclaves of freedom.  For him, Israel is a terrorist aggressor, while the Arab terrorist aggressors are innocent victims and peace-loving progressives.  For him, Israel is a Nazi-like country seeking genocide, while the genocidal Islamofascists of the Hamas and their backers are merely protesters against social inequality inside Israel.  For him, terrorist aggression against Jews is really the pursuit of peace, while self-defense by Israel is criminal, terrorist aggression and genocide.

So who exactly is Richard Falk?  He is basically an Ivy League version of Ward Churchill.  He has described himself as an “assimilationist Jewish with a virtual denial of even the ethnic side of Jewishness.”   According to Martin Peretz of the New Republic, “Yes, let me assure you, this hater of Israel is a Jew.  And, also yes, this hater of America is an American. “   Falk’s only interest in his Jewish origins is when he can use them as a bludgeon against Israel and other Jews.  According to one report, Falk may have converted to the Baha’i religion.  Falk’s wife is a Turkish Moslem.

And just what is Falk’s agenda?   When addressing an audience of supporters of the anti-Israel organization “Sabeel,” Falk thus spoke:  “During a question and answer period after remarks by Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, an audience member urged people to ‘vote the Jewish state out of existence.’  Enthusiastic applause erupted up and down the pews.”   For Falk, it goes without saying that Israel must be annihilated.  He cannot imagine any form of Middle East “peace” in which the Jews have not been driven into the sea.  In his words, “If we are to re-imagine peace, we have to stop thinking of the conventional two-state solution, this idea of two people living in separate states would be a disaster.”

But there is so much more! Falk is a conspiracy nut who is involved up to his hairline in the “911 Truth” conspiracy cult, which claims that the Bush Administration was actually behind the 911 attacks on the US.  Falk has repeated over and over his “suspicion” that high American officials, conniving with nefarious Jewish neo-conservatives, were the real culprits who organized the attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon.   Falk wrote a sycophantic foreword for a conspiracy “book” by one David Ray Griffin, “The New Pearl Harbor.”   Falk championed that “book” and helped get it a publisher.   Here is Falk’s take on 911:

“As far as I can tell, the real explanation is a widely shared fear of what sinister forces might lay beneath the unturned stones of a full and honest investigation of 9/11. Ever since the assassinations in the 1960s of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X there has been waged a powerful campaign against ‘conspiracy theory’ that has made anyone who dares question the official story to be branded as a kook or some kind of unhinged troublemaker.  In this climate of opinion, any political candidate for high office who dared raise doubts about the official version of 9/11 would immediately be branded as unfit, and would lose all political credibility.  It is impossible to compete in any public arena in the United States if a person comes across as a ‘9/11 doubter.’”

Writing a in the Middle East Quarterly (Winter 2002), “Professors of Palestine,” Martin Kramer observed that “extracting…ex cathedra rulings from Falk is easy business.”   Kramer added:  “I hadn’t seen Falk’s authority invoked so reverentially since my own student days at Princeton. Back then, he was the leading campus enthusiast of the Ayatollah Khomeini. ‘The depiction of Khomeini as fanatical, reactionary, and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false,’ he wrote in 1979. ‘Iran may yet provide us with a desperately-needed model of humane government for a third-world country.’ I well recall watching him preside over a ‘teach-in’ in support of the revolution, which was going to end human rights abuses in Iran. And I recall student groupies applauding fanatically, as if in a trance.”

Falk’s publication record is a one-sided indictment of everything Western and a one-sided exoneration of everything anti-Western.  He was an early sycophant of the Ayatollah Khomeini, publishing in the New York Times on February 16, 1979 a piece titles “Trusting Khomeini.”  The New Republic claims Falk considered the Ayatollah to be the Messiah.  Falk also was a cheerleader for the Khmer Rouge.  He regularly writes for viciously anti-American and anti-Semitic web sites such as “Counterpunch” and “Znet.”

Kramer adds, “Falk is famous for his one-size-fits-all definition of war crimes and crimes against humanity.”  So, “in 1998…he warned officials responsible for implementing the United Nations sanctions against Iraq of their ‘criminal accountability for complicity in the commission of crimes against humanity.’ The persistence of American leaders in carrying out the sanctions regime ‘subjects them to potential criminal responsibility.’”

Naturally, Falk also sees conspiracies being perpetrated by Neo-conservatives (meaning Jews) against far-leftist academics.  He opines: “There’s no doubt that there’s a concerted right-wing attempt to intimidate professors who advocate critical views, especially on Middle East issues and on the Bush presidency.”   To drive home his point, he served as a cheerleader and apologist for Ward Churchill when the latter dismissed the American victims of 9-11 as “little Eichmanns.”

Falk has been ferociously opposed to the Allied liberation of Iraq.  He described the invasion as a “war of aggression” by the United States and its allies, and – naturally –  also compares it to the crimes of German Nazis in World War II.  Orwellian inversions involving Nazis are Falk’s favorite metaphor, and he seems to compose several before breakfast each day.  Elsewhere he has stated, “It is not an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with the criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity.”   He compared Attorney General like John Ashcroft to the Nazi conspirators who set the Reichstag on fire.

Falk dismisses the Domestic Security Enhancement Act and the Patriot Act as “sweeping powers” that represent a “slide toward fascism.”  He routinely denounces America for being an imperialist power, an empire.  In 2003 he published a diatribe, “Will the Empire be Fascist?”   There he insists that terror warnings and threat assessments are tools used by the American government to frighten and control the public.  He has demanded that American sovereignty be constricted and subjected to a “Global Peoples’ Assembly,” a governing body whose members would “represent the worldwide voice of the people in action and decision making.”  You know, people like Hugo Chavez and Muammar Khaddafi, who would decide there what America can and cannot do.

But Falk’s special animosity is reserved for Israel.  He has been trying for decades to get Israel obliterated.  And that track record qualified him to serve as the special investigator into “Israeli war crimes” on behalf of the United Nations!   In 2007 Falk published, “Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust,” in which he wrote that it was not an “irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians (by Israel)” with the “criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity.”  His title is a thin plagiarism of the title of a book by Robert Bork, “Slouching Towards Gemorrah.”  The article may be Falk’s most openly anti-Semite diatribe.  In it, he accuses Israel of mistreating Palestinians on a scale comparable to the Nazi extermination of Jews.  He writes:

“Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not. The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty. The suggestion that this pattern of conduct is a holocaust-in-the-making represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently to prevent these current genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy. If ever the ethos of ‘a responsibility to protect,’ recently adopted by the UN Security Council  as the basis of ‘humanitarian intervention’ is applicable, it would be to act now to start protecting the people of Gaza from further pain and suffering.”

Falk then went on to argue that the plight of the Palestinians is worse than the victims of genocide in Rwanda:  “But Gaza is morally far worse (than Rwanda), although mass death has not yet resulted.”  That single sentence may be the most telling of all the inanities Falk has ever invented.

Jonathan Kay, writing in the Canadian National Post, dismissed Falk as an anti-Jewish bigot and as “an anti-Israel hit man:”

“Falk accuses Israel of having ‘genocidal tendencies,’ and calls the international response to the situation in Gaza “morally far worse” than its response to the 1994 Rwanda genocide (death toll: 800,000) and Srebrenica — despite the fact that there is not a single recorded instance of Israel implementing a program of deliberately killing civilians in Gaza, let alone mass murder.”

The article concludes by declaring, “To persist with [Israeli policies] is indeed genocidal, and risks destroying an entire Palestinian community that is an integral part of an ethnic whole.  It is this prospect that makes appropriate the warning of a Palestinian holocaust in the making, and should remind the world of the famous post-Nazi pledge of ‘never again.’   What a scandal to imagine that this ignorant ideologue is the expert in whom the UNHRC has entrusted its fact-finding in Gaza and the West Bank.  In fact, notwithstanding his shrill opinions, Falk clearly doesn’t actually know anything about Gaza and West Bank.”   No, Falk is not beneath commandeering every iota of Jewish suffering in history to demonize Israel, even the “Never Again” slogan coined following the Holocaust in World War II.

There is almost no distortion of the truth that Falk will not embrace when he jihads against Israel.  He defends the “election” of the Hamas in Gaza as a “fair election.”  His evidence?   Jimmy Carter said so.  He deliberately inverts history in the worst Orwellian manner.  The Hamas has been seeking ceasefires with Israel, but Israel keeps violating them, according to the learned oprofessor.  Israel and the US are all to blame for the rise of Hamas hegemony in Gaza, opines Falk, because Israel failed to capitulate sufficiently to the heads of the PLO and the US failed to coerce Israel to do so: “This latest turn in policy needs to be understood in the wider context of the Israeli refusal to reach a reasonable compromise with the Palestinian people since 1967.”  The reasonable compromise the Palestinians demand of course is Israel’s complete extermination.

In 2001, when he retired from Princeton, the misnamed U.N. Commission on Human Rights decided to send a biased “commission of inquiry” to bash Israel over its supposed violation of human rights.  Falk was one of three members chosen.  The other two were also anti-Israel:  John Dugard, a South African from Leiden University in the Netherlands who considers Israel a racist apartheid-like regime, and Kamal Hussein, former Bangladeshi foreign minister.  Alan Dershowitz dismissed Falk as a bigot and as someone who made up his mind long before he began any “investigation.”   In Dershowitz’ view, appointing Falk is comparable to the following: “Imagine the UN appointing David Duke to report on how Blacks are victimizing Whites, or Hugo Chavez to report on American foreign policy, or Mohammad Ahmadinejad to investigate whether the Holocaust occurred.”

In  2008 the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) officially appointed Falk to a six-year term as a “United Nations Special Rapporteur” on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.”  I guess Noam Chomsky wasn’t available.  US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton explained why Falk was selected: “He was picked for a reason, and the reason is not to have an objective assessment — the objective is to find more ammunition to go after Israel.”

This new commission reached its conclusions long before it was even convened.  In Falk’s words, the purpose of the commission was this: “The central issue is to ask whether Israel has used excessive force in responding to the Palestinian political demonstrations.”   Note that he and his sidekicks had no interest in the countless terrorist atrocities and rocket attacks against Israeli civilians launched by Palestinians.  In fact, Falk essentially came out in favor of Palestinian terrorism even before the commission began its work: “One is evaluating whether the conditions of occupation are such as to give the Palestinians some kind of right of resistance.  And if they have that right, then what are the limits to that right?”   The only difference between terrorism and “resistance” depends entirely on whether on not Falk endorses it.  Falk used the same opportunity to denounce Israel as a colonialist entity.

In May, 2008, and recalling his early campaigns against Israel on behalf of the UN, Israel refused to allow Falk to enter the country at all as a UN representative.   He tried to enter again in December, was detained for 30 hours in Tel Aviv airport and then given the bum’s rush out.  Falk joined the tiny club of anti-Semites so extreme that Israel refuses to allow them to enter the country.  Of “academics” barred from entering Israel, Falk shares that honor only with Neo-Nazi Norman Finkelstein, who was evicted from Israel thanks to Finkelstein’s intimate ties to the Hezb’Allah terrorists.  (Even Noam Chomsky and numerous other blatant anti-Semites enter Israel all the time with no problem, and many lecture at Israeli universities.  Israel only evicts the worst collaborators with terrorism!)

When Falk was evicted, the Israeli Ministry of the Interior explicitly cited Falk’s long record of anti-Israel hate propaganda in its decision to ban his entry.  Simona Halperin, the director of Israel’s International Organization and Human Rights department, called Falk “completely unobjective,” citing his comparisons of Israelis to Nazis and of Israel’s actions against the Palestinians to the Holocaust.  Writing in the Israeli daily Maariv, Uri Yablonka commented on the expulsion of Falk:  “It is not every day that the Foreign Ministry decides to ban a senior United Nations emissary from entering Israel, especially when the person involved is a Jewish academic. But in the case of Prof. Richard Falk from the United States, Israel made an exception. This was because in the past Falk voiced support for suicide attacks and compared Israel’s activity with that of the Nazis.”  The editor of Maariv dismissed Falk as a repulsive maniac.

When Israel launched its anti-terror campaign in Gaza in 2008, “Cast Lead,” Falk repeatedly and mechanically denounced all Israeli defense operations as “war crimes.”   Evidently the only form of Jewish self-defense against Hamas rockets that Falk is willing to approve is total capitulation.   Even grabbing ships full of arms bound for Islamofascist terrorists is “criminal,” according to Falk, and an abuse of Palestinian rights.   He repeatedly called for Nuremberg-style indictments of Israeli leaders for “war crimes.”  Falk is not above outright falsification when it comes to his prettifying the Hamas or demonizing Israel.

As for Falk’s other political associations, Kathy Shaidle lists some of these: “Falk is a prominent member of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, which the CIA once characterized as ‘one of the most useful Communist front organizations at the service of the Soviet Communist Party.’ Today Falk chairs the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, whose recommended strategy for combating terrorism is to increase U.S. aid to those countries that act as a breeding ground for terrorists.”  The New Republic’s Martin Peretz insists that he “finds human rights abuses Right and Left but on second thought only Right.”

Kathie Shaidle sums Falk up thus: “Were Falk simply an obscure crank, his views about the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 could be written off as the rantings of a sadly delusional individual.  However, Falk’s enthusiasm for conspiracy theories casts grave doubts about the levels of objectivity and competence he will bring to his new ‘investigative’ position at the United Nations.  Unlike the scientific method or other rational methods of deduction, conspiracy theories work backwards from frequently tenuous ‘evidence,’ in order to ‘prove’ the conspiracist’s pre-determined theories.  Richard Falk publicly has sided with radical Islam over America and Israel for three decades, with little consideration for facts and evidence.  Given that, and his gullible support for bizarre 9/11 ‘revelations,’ critics have good reason to suspect that, as a UN ‘investigator,’ Falk will leave a great deal to be desired.”

As the Hamas’ point man serving the UN commission, Falk did indeed deliver the goods, as expected.

Articles in Frontpage’s Collaborators series:

Sarah Roy

Howard Zinn

Joel Beinin

Mark LeVine

Neve Gordon

Norman Finkelstein

Tony Judt

Michael Lerner

Marc H. Ellis

  • Hymie Kowalski

    Not too late for Hollywood Jeff to sign up for a junior high school equivalency certificate!

  • hollywoodjeff

    Well it sure looks like I stunned up a whorenet's nest. Even the semi-literate have gotten into the action. Actually, I'm just kickin' it until the Florida-Alabama game, but I object to seeing a fine human being like Richard Falk being attacked by a bunch of racist slobs.

  • gertie

    Who says Falk is human? And we are curious about that tail and those fangs of yours too, Jeffie

  • hollywoodjeff

    Can you wait until I tell you about the Zionist-Nazi collaboration in the 30s, about how the mainstream Zionists sabotaged Jewish rescue efforts? Are you ready for that?

  • gertie

    How DARE frontpage Magazine embarass Richie Falk by citing word for word what the “professor” has written and said? Have you at FPM no shame?

  • gertie

    See that? Jeffie has been “reading” the web sites of Ernst Zundel, David Irving, and David Duke again.

  • hollywoodjeff

    Funny you didn't notice my horns.

  • hollywoodjeff

    Well David, if the folks on this thread realized how much you and they have in common they'd even share their matzoh balls with you. Well, maybe not their matzoh balls because those are probably the only balls they have, but maybe some bagels and lox. They'll meet you at Canter's down on Fairfax.

  • lonniekwartler

    If RA Falk believed in the conspiracy theory of 911 that he espouses, he would have expected to be murdered by the conspirators. His survival, without so much as an attempt on his life, is evidence that he knows he is a liar.

  • hollywoodjeff

    Are you recommending that I do that? Edward Black who wrote The Transfer Agreement was the son of Holocaust survivors and the letter from Yitzhak Shamir's Stern Gang addressed to Hitler, professing their support for Nazi ideology (volk, blut etc.) and offering to make an alliance with them against the British was published in the Israeli press. When Shamir was made PM on Begin's resignation, Holocaust survivors in Israel complained about this would be collaborator becoming PM of Israel. That's this morning's history lesson for you. I am sure you can find even more details by Googling. I suspect that you won't.

  • gloria

    You are a complete liar and Edward Black did not write anything of the sort. Shamir never expressed admiratioin for Nazis. You are a piece of filth.

  • gertie

    Gollyyou mean we can google and find Nazi web sites that say the same lies that Jeffie posts? What a surprise! That must prove that Jeffie is a scholar!

  • imbobzilla

    Very true. Also consider the number of folks it would take to pull-off something like 9-11, if the US government did it. DC can't manage the tax code, let alone anything like that. Plus, by now, don't you think someone would have taken the obvious bazillion dollar book/movie deal that would have come from spilling those beans? Nuts… all of them. And they attack us for not being nuts like them. I love it! I normally stay away from the comments page because it's like nailing jello to the wall, but sometimes I cannot pass for the stupidity.

  • imbobzilla

    Look who is talking! You my friend, are the racist. But then again, you already know that. Insults from a tree slug like you go by without intended hurt – and are quite funny to boot. It figures you insult by using stupid misspelled words you assume are clever and incorrect punctuation (ie. “whorenet's nest” – actually it would be “whorenets' nest” unless you are talking about a single nesting “whorenet” that is). But then again, you are the wise one. Not!

  • imbobzilla

    Another tactic of a libTard: obscure facts and lie about direct quotes then attack the messenger. Like who wrote this article makes any difference what a dirtbag Falk is. They do it all the time, but it isn't working so much anymore, as average folks are starting to pay attention. When that happens, liberalism is a done deal. Just goes to show that college ain't what it used to be and the degrees they hand out these days aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Jeff is living (however brain dead) proof of this.

  • hollywoodjeff

    “The Transfer Agreement: The Untold story of the secret agreement between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine,” by Edwin Black, Macmillan, 1984.
    I did have his first name wrong, that's all.

    “Edwin Black's research is striking in its dimension and scope..” Yoah Gelber, Yad Vashem.

    The check out this:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html

  • hollywoodjeff
  • hollywoodjeff

    PS: I happened to be in Jerusalem when Begin resigned and Shamir became PM. A group of Holocaust survivors (who would no doubt be labeled “self-haters” by the Jewish mutants on this thread) sent a letter to the government protesting that this would be collaborator with the Nazis was to become their country's PM. Their petition was ignored. That's a matter of FACT.

  • PAthena

    Of course, the Bible does not mention “Palestine.” The Roman Emperor Hadrian gave the name of “Palestina” to Judea (and outlawed Judaism) in 135 A.D. in order to forever eradicate the memory of Judea and the Jews, after he had defeated the last Jewish rebellion under Bar Kochba. Thereafter, “Palestine” became synonymous with “land of the Jews” or the “Holy Land” (since Jesus was a Jew), and “Palestinian” synonymous with “Jew.” Soviet propaganda led to calling Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, “Palestinian”, with phony history; the Soviet Union and Gamal Nasser invented the “Palestine Liberation Front” (P.L.O.) in Cairo in 1964.

  • Shukairy

    Ah so NOW we know what Hollywood Jeff's problems are with Dem Joos. He is a 911 conspiracy nut! Just like Herr Falk! That also explains all those obscene lies that “Jeff” has been telling about Zionists and Jews. He just got them from his 911 conspiracy-nazi web friends!

  • SHukairy

    Ah so NOW we know what Hollywood Jeff's problems are with Dem Joos. He is a 911 conspiracy nut! Just like Herr Falk! That also explains all those obscene lies that “Jeff” has been telling about Zionists and Jews. He just got them from his 911 conspiracy-nazi web friends!

  • Shukairy

    What a liar. Israel would never let a little nazi like “Jeff” come in.

  • http://bmartin01.blogspot.com Bob Martin

    Yerushalayim is mentioned 718 times

  • hollywoodjeff

    It is clear that this list has no minimum IQ requirements. Frankly, I expected better but then again, anyone who pays attention to what Steven Plaut (rhymes with Kraut) writes has what my old sergeant major would call “shit for brains.”

  • Steven Brady

    As someone who earned his PhD at Princeton in 1987, I can tell you without the slightest fear of contradiction that Princeton no longer has any shame.

    Falk would keep a bevy of psychologists busy for years, if such an event were to be made possible. I see him as a type of Gollum, constantly looking for his “preciousss”, and never finding it. But the only event that would correspond to Gollum's “preciousss” would be murder-in-the-mass against his own people.

    After it happened, Falk would nominate the murderers for the Nobel prize …

  • AsherJ

    As a hard-headed rationalist, atheist and staunch materialist, I am quickly coming to the realization that nothing short of total victory will end this conflict. The terms “ethics” and “morals” come from Greek and Latin roots, respectively, implying bases in widespread, substantive commonalities. So, morality is something that only arises in specific social contexts and is not some universally binding, timeless set of command that “just exists”. The Jews and the Palestinians have no shared common understanding of the world, so I am going to say something shocking …

    Time to eradicate them.

    I am going to say something else very shocking …

    The Nazis clearly lied about the Jews, but if what they had said about the Jews had been true the Holocaust would have been justified.

    What's so strange is how we got to the place where we submit to a seemingly absolute command where genocide is always taboo. A taboo that seems as if it descended from a timeless place on-high. In fact, the recent evolutionary history of our species IS a history of genocide, largely of more orderly and clever societies eliminating less orderly and less clever societies. I don't think it a stretch to claim that without genocide our species would not be what it is today.

    When God is dead everything is permitted. Regardless, of whether or not there is some actual God out “there”, God is functionally dead as a governing principle, and, so, everything is permitted.

  • AsherJ

    Ok, replying to my own comment …

    “Even if one believes that the Israeli military has overreacted to terrorist provocations, there is surely a difference between military actions taken in self defense, and the systematic policy of the Nazis to murder every Jewish man, woman and child living in Europe, though the Jews posed no danger to Germany”

    -Alan Dershowitz

    Now, look at that last bit “though the Jews posed no danger to Germany”, which implies that the Holocaust would have been less objectionable had European Jews posed a threat to Germany. Dershowitz and i agree on the facts, that Jews posed no threat to Germany, but I am flummoxed that Dershowitz cannot extrapolate from his premise that the Holocaust would have been justified, or at least less objectionable, had the facts been different.

    And can any reasonable person deny that the existence of Palestinian society, Arab society, in general, really, is a threat to Israeli Jewish existence?

    As an aside, I would point to the mammoth social problems Italy is currently having with their large and growing Gypsy population. If the Nazis had managed to get all the Gypsies then Italy would not be having such problems. The logic is impeccable.

  • davidlawrencephd

    Well said. Unfortunately, the leftist humanitarian academics have become
    the tight-assed fascists. I am glad the prejudiced, groupie Ivy League
    colleges turned me down for graduate school in the early 70's. At least by
    going to CUNY Graduate School I managed to maintain my freedom of mind rather
    than becoming a sycophantic follower of sophomoric socialistic ideas.

    In a message dated 12/6/2009 12:35:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
    writes:

    Steven Brady (unregistered) wrote, in response to davidlawrencephd:

    As someone who earned his PhD at Princeton in 1987, I can tell you without
    the slightest fear of contradiction that Princeton no longer has any
    shame.

    Falk would keep a bevy of psychologists busy for years, if such an event
    were to be made possible. I see him as a type of Gollum, constantly looking
    for his “preciousss”, and never finding it. But the only event that would
    correspond to Gollum's “preciousss” would be murder-in-the-mass against
    his own people.

    After it happened, Falk would nominate the murderers for the Nobel prize

    Link to comment: http://disq.us/54m6m

    —–

  • hollywoodjeff

    Well Asher J, by your comments rationalizing genocide and calling for the extermination of the Palestinians or perhaps all Arabs or perhaps all non-Jews (“them” being open to a very broad definition), you have clearly established yourself as a Judeo-Nazi. It is not the actions that necessarily fit the definition but the mindset. There is little question but that a substantial segment of Israeli society would lose no sleep or hesitate to actually participate in the extermination of the Palestinians and all Arabs who are not prepared to lick their jackboots. Actually, we Jews are no strangers to genocide as any reader of the Torah is well aware since the god that our ancestors created kept ordering the Jews of the time to wipe out one population after another, except, on occasion, keeping the good looking women. That mentality like a disease of the brain has firmly taken hold within the settler movement as well as inside the Green Line as it has in your fetid mind. It is in fact, like a spreading cancer that will one day, in the not too distant future, bring a timely dissolution of the Zionist project and the world will bring a sigh of relief.

  • hollywoodjeff

    Sorry folks, since I am well able to predict your emotional reactions, I couldn't resist posting this on the thread, figuring it just might ruin your day:

    (Guysen.International.News) http://www.guysen.com

    Unbeaten American Jewish boxer Dmitriy Salita was knocked out on Saturday by Muslim boxer Amir Khan, the former WBA light-welterweight champion, after only 76 seconds in the ring. Khan knocked Salita to the canvas after barely 10 seconds at Metro Radio Arena. Khan then hurt him with a left, forcing another count, and followed up with a lightning-quick combination to send the New York-based fighter down on one knee. Salita, who had a Star of David decorating his shorts, got up fast but was unsteady on the ropes, and the referee stopped the bout to give Khan his first defense of a title he won by beating Andreas Kotelnik of Ukraine in July. Khan, is a Muslim of Pakistani decent, while Salita is an Orthodox Jewish fighter of Ukrainian decent who currently lives in Brooklyn, New York.

  • AsherJ

    Well, I'm not Jewish, and my background is Scandanavian/British and Protestant, with my current status being staunchly atheist. Look, the value of individuals, and groups, is predicated on the value they provide to other individuals and groups. I see absolutely nothing of value coming from the Arab world, as opposed to the Jewish state of Israel, which possesses the single greatest quanta of technological advancement per capita.

    Agreed, that that the history of many peoples today, not just Jews, is a history of genocide, and we would not enjoy the lives we do today if that genocide had not occurred. The fact that people everywhere partake of the fruits of civilization is a tacit endorsement of genocide, hence, the return to nature movement in the post-modern left. Their reasoning goes that since civilization is a product of genocide, and genocide is absolutely immoral, the existence of civilization itself is immoral.

    You say that “a timely dissolution of the Zionist project and the world will bring a sigh of relief.”. And what then? Another small Arab country with honor killings, technological malaise, massive inbreeding and social mores akin to something 5000 years ago, although married to access to advanced modern technology. My question is how would that benefit me, living in Seattle, who currently benefits from all the massive technological developments that occur in Israel? Why is just one more worthless, pathetic Arab society a good thing?

    Morality is a practical tool that evolved to serve life, the specific types of lives of the various communities, groups and societies that develop those various moralities. There is no one, overarching morality that transcends time and place, and, thus, certainly no morality that can command the allegiance to the notion that genocide is everywhere and always impermissible. Any such notions will always be restricted to particular cultures, in this case Western ones, and such cultures will be conquered and eliminated by cultures who observe no such norm. Take China, which, right now, systematically committing genocide against Tibet. Who's going to stop them? No one, of course, and there is simply no power in the world that will stop the Chinese from completing the genocide of Tibet.

    But Israel is a different matter. Israel is a country founded by Jews of European descent, whites, and the post-modern leftists divide the world into two camps: whites who are moral autonomous agents, and non-whites whose actions are determined by “white privilege”. Of course, this mirrors any 18th century colonialist who also ascribed lack of moral autonomy to non-whites. The only difference between the post-modern leftist and the colonialist is that the first concludes that non-whites have no moral obligations to whites and the second concludes that whites have no moral obligations to non-whites.

    Bonus question: why is it that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion has a small but steady readership in Japan?!!!

    Yes, Japan, of all places. The answer, of course, is envy, an envy of achievement and success, the same motivation that precipitated the Holocaust. Or are you saying that Israeli Jews are envious of Arab success and achievement?

  • AsherJ

    How is one boxer beating another relevant to anything?

  • AsherJ

    As I pointed out, and you did not dispute, genocide is clearly a pretty common occurrence in our species, and we would certainly have a far different world today without it in our histories. You assert that I “rationalize” genocide. Something is rational if it is a means that produces a desired end. For example, the death penalty is rational in that it contributes to social order. Societies that reject killing as a normal part of human life are societies that will be conquered, end of story.

    Look, if I don't pay my taxes men with guns come for me, and if I resist they shoot me. This, of course, is not a “rationalization” to eliminate taxes or to enact violence, but it is an acknowledgment of the fact that we will always have violence with it and it is suicidal to pretend otherwise.

    You and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals, so, let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.

  • hollywoodjeff

    Your definition of rationalization was employed by the general who came up with the quote from the Vietnam war, “we had to destroy the village in order to save it.” As for the rationality of the death penalty, one would argue against the notion that it contributes to social order simply by observing the front page of our daily newspapers. In Europe where the death penalty no longer exists yet where societal problems are prevalent, there are far less homocides any way you measure it.

    As to the notion that China is committing genocide in Tibet, what evidence do you have to show for that? It is the same in Darfur where a terrible situation exists but genocide by any definition it isn't.

    As to why the Japanese read the Protocols, it is obviously to figure out how a tiny country like Israel which has been politically, financially and militarily dependent on the US can routinely humiliate one American president after another in public and getaway with it, and how it is able to maintain control over the US Congress year in and year out no matter who holds office. The answer of course is the unmatched dedication of the Zionists, their unmatched organization, and what is ultimately the game decider, unmatched amounts of money with which to buy or intimidate politicians.

    You are so casual with the destruction of human life, I am curious if you ever served in the military?

  • AsherJ

    The destruction of human life is not casual, it is inevitable. Seventy years from now, I will have ceased to exist, there will be no “me”. The only difference between me being killed now by a government for disobedience and dying of old age is a few years. I am inconsequential, as we all, ultimately, are in the material scheme of things. The universe is not a moral place, it cares nothing for either us as individuals or for our species as a whole. At some point, there will be no such thing as a human being, that is simply and inevitable matter of time and physics.

    Since we are an indistinguishable part of the amoral universe, we are at base, fundamentally amoral, and morality is something that is fleeting, local and contingent on human practice. It is not universal or ultimately commanding, since it is a tool that evolved to serve particular types of, as opposed to the mistaken view that life exists to serve morality.

    No, I have not served in the military as the long slow march of Political Correctness had already begun by the time I began considering joining. I was informed, by recently discharged members, that there was a crusade to change it from a tool serving US interests to a programme of universalist moralism, e.g. bringing democracy to the world. So, the US military will inevitably decline as an organization that inflicts death and destruction, becoming nothing more than a humanitarian body. At that point it will be vanquished by some other entity, sources would include those both internal and external to the US, or it will experience a coup, ala Augusto Pinochet.

  • AsherJ

    To be more precise, I am very casual about some human life and very serious about others, therefore, I make distinctions between someone like Anne Frank and someone like Maurice Clemmons. The problem with universalist moralism is that it cannot distinguish between different individuals and groups because it starts from the premise of equal moral worth of human beings. It calls things alike that are functionally distinct, and it does so by positing some hidden “true” value, apprehensible by some privileged moral elite, i.e. white leftists, evangelical christians, name your favorite group, etc.

    P.S. Maurice Clemmons was the man, here in Washington, who arbitrarily shot four police officers last weekend. But he's dead so he can't be punished. In a sane society, we would put his children to death. The problem with eschewing collective punishment is that collective punishment is the only thing that works in a community that does not foster notions of individualism, hence, the widespread effort to help Clemmons escape the police and keep killing others.

  • AsherJ

    Oh, yes, Europe has less homicide than the US because it has a much lower percentage of blacks and hispanics.

  • hollywoodjeff

    I suspected that you had not served in the military, or if you had, you wouldn't have produced what I must say is sophomoric pap, smartly laid out, but pap nontheless. It reminds of what another Seattle resident who was in my squad in the army some years back used to say but who changed his mind by the time we had finished basic training. If you had seen people who have been blown to bits or bodies stacked in the back of a freight truck, or been shot at–I have had all of those experiences–you might be more sensitive to the human condition

    I have a hunch you are close to 30,not more, have not traveled far from Seattle, that you have never been to Israel or to any Middle Eastern country, nor to Europe; at least for any length of time, that your life experiences are so limited that you can write as you do, proud of being an amoral man in a world that you project is an extension of yourself and of which you know so very little about.

    Humans, you should have been aware by now, are social animals who organize themselves in a variety of ways for their mutual benefit and they have been doing this for quite a long while and if they had been as anti-social or as amoral as you believe, we would have vanished as a species long ago. At the same time there has been and will always been within our species a certain percentage that is willing to pick up a sword, a spear, a bow and arrow, an M-16 or an AK-47, and go off and kill other human beings who have never done them any harm. We are still around because they do not represent the majority of our species. With all their problems and, no doubt having learned from their war time experiences, something which fortunately for us but not for the rest of the world, we know nothing about, the Europeans have grown reluctant to engage in war whether it be in Iraq or Afghanistan. This has led to the chickenhawks in Washington who never wore a uniform or set foot on a battlefield–who seem to be your soul mates–to refer to the Europeans as wimps. They are simply on a higher evolutionary plane than are most Americans.

    My solution for those who believe in our wars, let us say, the one the US is waging in Afghanistan, would be that those who support the war should be ones that fight it alongside those soldiers who want to be there. That would require all the men and women, regardless of their age and physical condition, wheelchair bound included, who believe the US should be fighting there, to go over there and do the fighting including the mothers and fathers who proudly are willing to sacrifice their sons. But we are nation of hypocrites and I don't expect that to happen. And BTW, the US did not go to either Iraq or Afghanistan to bring democracy to either country. Using that as an excuse for not signing up simply won't wash. Since I assume you support that war, that's where you should be, fighting it.

  • AsherJ

    Wow! It's almost like you're in a contest to commit as many logical fallacies in as little space as possible. The fact that I have not been to Israel is an ad hom fallacy, since it is unrelated to the issue at hand, which is the criteria for when we should or should not use violence. Also, I am 32, but even if were under 30 that is also irrelevant to the question of the application, in general, of violence, so, it is also an ad hom fallacy.

    Also, you seem to have a problem with basic reading comprehension by your repeatedly hilariously blatant misreading of my positions. First off, the simplest explanation, tends, usually, to be the best. And the best explanation for the fact of continued troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is to establish US-friendly, democratic regimes. Now it should be blatantly obvious from my comments that I find such an object to be a fool's errand, but it is clearly the theory that best fits the evidence. George W Bush foolishly thought he could go down in history as the glorious leader to bring the light of democracy to the benighted muslim world. Vanity is always the first motivation of the politician, of any stripe.

    Also, your comment is evidence as to why the “chickenhawk” argument by leftists is so disingenuous and throwaway. From an even cursory reading of my comments it should have been obvious that I opposed the war in Iraq and opposed any intrusion into Afganistan outside of killing as many AQ and Taliban as possible. The human beast is bred to kill the copious evidence from history clearly demonstrates this instinct. In fact, today, all over the world people are killing other people with little psychological repercussion. My suspicion is that entirely normal people, like the Nazis, are capable of doing this provided they are not laden down with decades of socialization of the “equality of man”. So, you avoid such fallout by utterly dehumanizing the enemy, as the Arabs do when they teach their children about Jews.

    You write:

    Humans, you should have been aware by now, are social animals who organize themselves in a variety of ways for their mutual benefit and they have been doing this for quite a long while and if they had been as anti-social or as amoral as you believe, we would have vanished as a species long ago

    In fact, you misunderstand that vast amounts of human cooperation has occurred in service of exterminating differing types of life by allying with more similar types of life. Genocide often IS cooperating and, thus, IS moral. So, in fact, our species has survived, thrived and progressed precisely due to the vast amount of genocide in our history, genocide committed by more docile and cooperative people's, think the Romans, against the more unruly and uncooperative, think the Gauls.

    Consider the following: black males, in every category of criminal violence far out-strip white males. If the US eliminated all black males, then violence would fall precipitously. That being said, I don't advocate such actions because there are sufficient quantities of non-violent black males to warrant some moral considerations.

    Okay, so the first objection I always hear is that the Nazis, too, considered the eradication of Jews a moral thing. But that confuses moral relativism and moral subjectivism. Going back to my earlier posts, whose premises you have largely not disputed, we see that morality is simply a tool that evolves in some circumstances to catalyze social order and cooperation. So, you have moral obligations to your neighbor that you don't have to someone living 10,000 miles away. But that doesn't mean you get to pick and choose, on a whim, your moral obligations. Because morality is both objective AND relative.

    The answer is that Jews had lived in Central Europe for millenia and had long been peaceful, law-abiding, hugely contributing members of European society. The same could not be said for the Gypsies. And the same cannot be said for the Arabs in relation to Israel. Germans, objectively had obligations to the Jews in their midst, by that criteria, but not to the Gypsies. And, by that same criteria, Jews have very little moral obligation, if any, to Arabs.

    Your moral worth in a particular social context rests on reciprocity, what you can do, and actually accomplish, for others.

    You also wrote:

    [Europeans} are simply on a higher evolutionary plane than are most Americans.

    Hilariously vacuous blather. There is no such thing as “higher evolutionary plane”, and your vulgar moralization of existence itself is in all it's pornographic display in this comment. Note, that I never talk about “higher evolution”, I merely talk to the intensification of specific traits such as cleverness and cooperation. Greater levels of cooperation in our species occurred BECAUSE of genocide, because groups with more efficient cooperation EXTERMINATED groups with less efficient and effective methods of cooperation. Again, cooperation in service of a particular group surviving and thriving, in service of moral (i.e. survival enhancing) violence, in service of genocide.

    You can bray all you want about the supposed superiority of Europe to the US, but in about 40 years countries across the continent will be Muslim dominated. They will be conquered, their women will be raped and their histories will be eradicated outside of books in US libraries. Vae victus!

    If the docile become too domesticated to implement violence against the unruly, what you see in many American inner cities today, then the unruly will conquer the domesticated and return our species to the stone age. You are incorrect about the small minority able to do violence, the vast, vast majority are capable of violence, and good thing too. The distinction is between the ruly violent, capable of being good soldiers, and the unruly violent, criminals.

    But you touch on the truth. I keep telling so-called conservatives that civilization's biggest foes are in the post-modern left residing within the boundaries of Western Civilization. The right needs to decapitate the elite-class lefties in the US, in a civil war the right would mop the floor with the left. After coming to power the right should crucify the leading 5000 or so feminist theorists and televise it on national TV, putting that heresy to rest for eternity.

  • elizabethwerner

    The Daed Sea Scrolls were written and preserved befoe 135 A.D. The WHOLE Book of Isiah was found among those Scrolls (kept 'untouched' – until 1947). So let me remind you havey….of an important prophecy given by Isaiah:

    Isa 14:31 Howl, O gate; cry, O city; thou, whole Palestina, art dissolved: for there shall come from the north a smoke, and none shall be alone in his appointed times.

    And even more interesting harvey….is the fact that Islam's 'holy' book menyions the name Israel – but not the name Palestine. I know the teachings of the Koran. It teaches that if the body has even a little defilement – then the whole body is defiled.

    You may not believe in a Creator harvey – but the 'radical' muslims do. And that fact, just mentioned, poses a great problem for them.

    The problem is – There are too many 'wise' folks who don't understand the perplexion (nor its importance) caused by that undeniable fact. But the 'radical' muslims do.

  • AsherJ

    I also noticed that your explanation of Japanese interest in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion stems from an interest in how to acquire power. This strongly implies the historical authenticity of the Protocols.

    Hilarious.

  • elizabethwerner

    hollywoodjeff 6 hours ago ….you siad (and i'll quote)….”Well Asher J, by your comments rationalizing genocide and calling for the extermination of the Palestinians or perhaps all Arabs or perhaps all non-Jews (“them” being open to a very broad definition), you have clearly established yourself as a Judeo-Nazi.”

    News for you hollywoodjeff…the Old Testament never ordered for the Israelites to FORCE Old Tesament Laws upon the WHOLE world as Islam's teachings do. Wanna see? for yourself?….here ya go:

    In the (your – obviously) Koran:

    004.094 O ye who believe! When ye go abroad in the cause of Allah, investigate carefully, and say not to any one who offers you a salutation: “Thou art none of a believer!” Therefore carefully investigate. {they are to keep their intentions hidden

    004.100 He who forsakes his home in the cause of Allah, finds in the earth Many a refuge, wide and spacious.

    004.101 When ye travel – through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear '''the unbelievers''' May attack you: For '''the Unbelievers''' are unto you open enemies.

    The Old Testament never taught such brazen teachings.

    And as far as those who blasphemy the Lord and are to be 'stoned' hollywoodjeff?…..Jesus id the Corner Stone and we (the true Christians) are the lively stones.

    Do even know what a stone is hollywoodjeff? according to the Holy Scriptures of the Bible?

    If a nation is not permitted to protect itself from a vicious enemy (according to you jeff) – why should you then be righteous in protecting your own family? – should you ever need to do so (God-forbid)

    Palestine attacks Israel because the palestinians are taught to do so – from the cradle – and they get it from their Koran.

    Here is a teaching that you might want to defend hollywoodjeff…..

    Rom 13:9 Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    It is true that we reap what we sow.

    Maybe the 'wise'….such as yourself….should be arguing for that teaching to be taught to all palestinains.

    But I would be interested in seeing you do so – from the streets of Palestine. I ask you jeff….how long do you believe you'll last? (keep the answer to yourself – i already know the answer)

    I've been taught – that you will know what is in the heart by the words that come from the mouth. (keep talking jeff)

  • EdwinS

    Wm. Butler Yeats first used the 'Slouching towards…' locution in a poem
    'Slouching towards Jerusalem' …?

  • EdwinS

    I suggest we leave Jeff to howl in the wilderness all by himself.
    He is a very needy person who craves all the attention he can get:
    responding to him strengthens his pathology…just leave him alone and he'll go away …

  • hollywoodjeff

    Elizabeth, you and Asher would make a perfect couple (of what I frankly can't say but you wouldn't find invitations to many civilized dinner tables). Both of you, sorry to say and for both of you, seem to be totally alienated from your fellow humans, as are most of those on this thread and who, for that matter, read FrontPage. At least Asher has the ability to write literate sentences even if their content is as contemptible as his real life experience is lacking.

  • davidhorowitz

    As we discuss Orwell, let's open up the floor to that wonderful phrase: “Enhanced Interrogations”. Ouch…

  • AsherJ

    I am alienated from raging mobs of illiterate, ulalating, inbred towelheads whose societies produce nothing but squalor and live through the grace of far more advanced civilizations who not only abstain from bringing their vast superior firepower to bear but also provide all sorts of advanced technologies, including life-saving ones.

    Yes, I am completely alienated from that segment of the species, and I make no apologies for it.

    As for invitations to civilized tables, um, I'm upper-middle class, living in high-tech coastal city. So, if the circles in which I run, I cannot think of anyone in my social circle without at least an undergrad degree, do not constitute “civilized” then pretty much nothing does. BTW, I say the sort of stuff in polite company and get very little opposition. The problem is that, as you so amply demonstrate, the only possible arguments against what I'm saying is a subjectively asserted universalist morality. Yes, I do get huffy, unsubstantiated denouncements, on occasion, but I am much more likely to get grudging approval, which is happening in social circumstances with almost all Democrats. The plurality response is “I'll think about it”.

    The civilized peoples, yes, even many who self-identify as liberals, of the world are slowly coming to grips without to deal with the barbarians.

  • hollywoodjeff

    I suspected that you are “upper middle class,” and, as such, have never wanted for anything that can be mentioned in polite company, but, as I still suspect, that your rage is against people here in the US and abroad that you only know from a distance, and moreover, don't want to know. I wrote earlier that I suspected that you had never traveled to Europe (for more than a quick holiday) and had not spent time there in any particular country and you never replied. I also suggested that you had never set foot in the Middle East, either in Israel or any Arab country. You replied that you had not been to Israel but did not mention any other country in the region so I gather that the answer was negative. It does make it easier to make judgments about people without ever having to experience them other than through a TV or computer monitor, but these judgments tend to be faulty and self-limiting and no amount of reading or advanced university degrees can compensate for those missing experiences.

    This is not to romanticize those “others” but to see them as fellow human beings, a term it seems you find repellent. I saw Arafat several times in Lebanon and Jordan in 1970 and thought him to be somewhat of a buffoon, but it turns out he was a crafty one as well as corrupt, so corrupt in fact that before the 2nd intifada he was on the Israeli payroll for $8 million a year (according to Natan Shransky who complained about it), but he was the face of Palestine to many around the world, probably, you, included. Every Palestinian friend of mine, here and there, shuddered when he went on TV, making a bigger clown of himself than before. He was still alive and the head of the PLO/PA because the Israelis, with or without his assistance, had killed off Palestinians who you never see on TV, who are as educated and sophisticated as any one you will find at your dinner table.

    I have been in their refugee camps and I have walked down the streets of Amman and Beirut as well as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, I have good friends in those cities and in various cities in Europe where I have lived which is not to brag but to say that it has given me a broader perspective on the inhabitants of the planet that we share than it is possible to find while living an upper middle class life in Seattle. That you are smugly satisfied with your life style and demonstrate no curiosity about what lies on the other side is truly sad, and I genuinely mean that.

  • hollywoodjeff

    Let me add this to the mix:
    http://bernardavishai.blogspot.com/

  • AsherJ

    From your website:

    The European Union, arguably the most important political achievement of our lifetime

    Do we even need to read any more? I mean we're talking about a bunch of solipsistic, dying societies that the times of history will have washed away by the end of the century.

    In 2100, the map will say UDSE – United Dhimmi States of Europe.