An email exchange with Raymond A. Franklin about the inclusion of The Jewish Tribal Review onto his web site entitled:
"The Hate Directory."
Dear Mr. Franklin,
You solicit corrections to your "hate list" and I have one. Your web site proclaims that your list include "internet sites of individuals and groups that, in the opinion of the author, advocate violence against, separation from, defamation of, deception of, or hostility toward others based upon race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation." With that as your stated criteria, I would like to ask why you have chosen to place Jewish Tribal Review on your list? We do not "advocate violence." We do not advocate "separation from anyone." We do not "defame" anyone (Is criticism based upon factual evidence "defamation?") We do not "deceive" anyone about anything. (All our facts are meticulously documented with bibliographic citations or online links). We do not "defame" anyone (unless, of course, you consider legitimate criticism "defamation," in which case you yourself are a chronic offender). We are "hostile" to no one based upon "race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation." We criticize a group for its documented ACTIONS, which we meticulously verify and document. We challenge you to itemize evidence of your accusations about our web site. Have you read any of it?
Given your own criteria, it seems that YOU represent a "hate" site. You have DEFAMED the Jewish Tribal Review. You DECEIVE anyone who stumbles across your list to believe that the Jewish Tribal Review "hates" anyone. And clearly you are HOSTILE to us. By your own inane criteria, you have created a virulent "hate site." In other words, your criteria for "hate" is so ridiculously broad and ludicrous that you yourself can easily be included in your own "hate" list. That you lump our web site together with Nazi sites and KKK web sites is morally reprehensible. You merit inclusion with the Ku Klux Klan as much as we do. We therefore challenge you to an online debate, starting now, the results of which we may both freely post at our respective web sites. If you decline this debate, we have no recourse but to recognize you as not merely mistaken about us, but actively FRAUDULENT in representing our motives at our web site.
Prove us wrong. How do you reply when challenged? Are you morally smug in spewing indictments but unwilling to engage in discussion about your ethical criteria? If you maintain the illusion that you are on higher moral ground than us -- by virtue of a collection of web sites you don't like (but obviously haven't inspected), the honorable man is duty-bound to illuminate the righteous moral path when given any opportunity. Here's your chance to change our ways if you can show us why we are wrong. We're listening. What do you say?
From: Raymond A Franklin firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:21:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: The Hate Directory
Thank you for your correspondence. At your request, I will review inclusion of the subject website. Please be advised that The Hate Directory represents my personal opinion regarding the content of the included website, according to my published criteria. It is my belief that the freedom of expression, including web publication of differing beliefs is critical to the maintenance of a free society and should not be abridged, absent criminal action. I encourage web browsers to carefully consider all web content and reach their own conclusions.
- Ray Franklin, The Hate Directory
Thanks, Mr. Franklin, for YOUR correspondence. We recognize that your web site is fairly obscure and it will not impact our endeavors, but this is a matter of principle. What's at stake to us is more than JTR posted at your web site, but popular convention that categorically deplores criticism of the Jewish/Zionist community's racism, exclusionism, chaunvinism, ad nauseum as, by definition, itself "hate." In the interests of morality, a genuinely free and open society, and democracy itself, if you DO decide to continue to cite the Jewish Tribal Review as a "hate site," then it is only honorable for you to engage us in a public online debate about this matter, which we will post at our web site.
From: "Raymond A Franklin"
Subject: Your inquiry
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:43:50 -0500 (EST)
JJ - How can you castigate an entire community as racist, chauvinist, exclusionist, etc.? Certainly, a Jew may be all these things, as may the member of any ethnic, religious, cultural or racial group. To prejudge an individual by virtue of such membership is the essence of prejudice.
You seem to be to be a highly intelligent and motivated individual; indeed the tremendous effort you have made is obvious. I know, because I have developed several very comprehensive sites. I just do not understand your dislike for Jews as a group. Your correspondence and website communicates a hostility toward Jews - not certain Jews - but Jews as a group. The title of your site, itself - plays on a concept of tribalism. The Jews are, of course, not a tribe. There is a Jewish religion, but not all adherents are of caucasian origin. There are several Jewish ethnicities, but adherence to the Jewish religion is not implied. A Jewish culture includes foods and language but implies nothing of race or religion. In short, there is nothing like a tribe, with its implication of common race, religion or singular ethnicity. I believe this is deceptive.
I don't consider this to be an online debate, but rather two individuals (of perhaps equal intelligence, ability and commitment) honestly discussing an issue. My challenge to you is to continue our discussion within this context. What do you think?
Mr. Franklin. I compliment you for your willingness to engage in a dialogue about this. And I'm sure it will be to both our benefits.
How can you castigate an entire community as racist, chauvinist, exclusionist, etc.?
First, I would take issue with you in your term of "castigate." Criticize, yes. Castigate, no. There's a distinction, and I think you'd be hard pressed to prove "castigation" in a court of law. But, beyond that, any "entire community" has perameters of self-definition, no? There is, in other words, a collective common denominator. If not, then how does one define that group? Per the Jewish community, the origin of Jewish identity is the "Chosen People" concept. True or false? And this "chosenness" concept endures today. And I submit to you, Sir, that this notion of "chosenness" is the epitomy of "prejudice," and profoundly influential in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. We have tons of material about it at our web site.
Just TODAY I ran across an online article by an Israeli, Gilad Atzmon. [at: http//www.gilad.co.uk/reflections.html] And here's what he says about the Jewish concept of "chosenness":
"I would like to address the concept of chosenness. I believe that 'chosenness' is one of the most fundmental characteristics of 'Jewish understanding.' One can remove a substantial amount of religious law and ritual from Jewish life (e.g., the Reform movement) and one can even remove the whole of religious practice without really affecting Jewish identity (as we know there are many secular Jews). But whenever one removes 'chosenness,' the Jew, in effect, becomes converted to something else (converted into Christianity or more, generally, into an ordinary human being). The concept of 'chosenness' is bound up with many Jewish concepts of self-alienation or even positive discrimination such as Kosher food, Minian as well as the process of conversion. These concepts share a common denominator that suppress any experience of social interaction with the Other ... Nowadays, this concept of love of the Other is rejected by many Jews and if I am wrong please explain to me why it is so difficult for a goy to convert to Judaism? Why in the Jewish state, after more than 35 years of invasion and oppression, is there hardly any Jewish voice calling for compassion to be shown to the Palestinian population?"
... And on and on. If you have time, you should read it. I have must to share with you about Jewish "chosenness," perhaps for another exchange.
Certainly, a Jew may be all these things, as may the member of any ethnic, religious, cultural or racial group.
This is obviously true.
To prejudge an individual by virtue of such membership is the essence of prejudice.
Mr. Franklin. You grossly oversimplify. We live in a very, very complex world and to render our entire web site into this short cliche is a profound intellectual and moral injustice. You are caricaturing. Let me reply to you this way: Let's say I was a "member" of a group called the Greenies. The origin of the Greenies (as we Greenies have always believed) was that the original Greenie was believed to have been told by God that all his progeny were more valued to Him than all other human beings. Over the centuries we developed a COLLECTIVE (not an individual) ideology of exclusionism, xenophobia, and racism (a genuine Greenie is one who is born to a Greenie mother, after all). We, the Greenies, hold ourselves to be superior to all others. And that is the FOUNDATION of our belief system and, yes, our very identity. (Indeed, today we even have an entire country that exemplifies these traits.) To reject this ideology was to be rendered a traitor to the group. Now, the Enlightenment comes along and this ideology -- religious in nature -- begins to erode. But, of course, not entirely. And, although the religious precepts and rituals are rejected by many Greenies, Greenie collectivism -- religious or secular -- endures. And prospers. Not only in land of our origin, but internationally. In the most benevolent portrayal of this, we all help each other. Right? Now, today we have a Jewish community that argues among itself whether it a religious entity, a racial entity, or an ethnic entity. BUT, again, the surest way to define a Jew (as JEWS define it!) is the old religious rule: a Jew is someone born of a Jewish mother.
This is merely the BEGINNING of my reply to your accusation of "prejudice." In our exchanges, if you endure them, I will prove for you that Jewish COLLECTIVE "prejudice" is something quite real and merits condemnation. (And it is NOT prejudicial to criticize an ethnic group that on one hand defines itself as a distinct entity and then, on the other hand, demands (like you) that this entity cannot be criticized because that's irrational "prejudice.") You, in turn, are poised to condemn and attack our critiques of Jewish prejudice as prejudice itself. It's a surreal loop, one from which the Jewish "prejudicial" collective world view is always summarily excused. And ignored. This, to use your word, is the "essence" of injustice. A dual standard of moral behavior.
Mr. Franklin. Do you think Jews don't "prejudge" Germans? Do they prejudge Poles? Do you think that all the surveys of American Jews who are certain of anti-Semitism in their non-Jewish neighbor (while all studies find anti-Semitism in America to be neglible) is not "prejudgement," "prejudice," or any other of the popular politically correct buzz words? When you wake up in the morning, do you "prejudge" anything as you find your way to the bathroom? What is life but anticipating what's going to happen based on learned knowledge and prior experience? You presume in me an uneducated, ignorant bias based upon irrational legends; but you will find, much to your chagrin, that this is not so. All my assertions to you I can back up with citations from (mostly) Jewish scholarship from our web site.
You call my intentions "prejudice." I tell you that, no, I am arguing for moral responsibility in the collective Jewish community. All and any ethnic groups have distinct histories and world views. The Jewish community (as a COMMUNITY) has been constantly active in holding ALL their neighbors in history responsible for the crime of "anti-Semitism." I say fine. That's the accusation. (Do I hear any alarms in you that this is a manifestation of some form of JEWISH prejudice. No. Of course not. Jewish conviction is rendered sacred, infallible. Only OTHERS can be bigots, racists, etc.) I say: Let's investigate all this. What's the truth in Jewish-Gentile relations? Let it be told. You call daring to investigate this subject "prejudice." And you categorically condemn such an investigation.
By the way. I have read a lot of works about "prejudice" -- Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder, Dynamics of Prejudice, The Authoritarian Personality, The Nature of Prejudice, etc. etc. And my conclusion is that 1) the Jewish community maintains an ardent dual moral standard on this subject, and 2) no human being on the planet can live without "prejudgement." That's called life. The blanket accusation of "prejudice" has become a political tool. And little else. Our current increasingly balkanized multicultural society is NOTHING but mutual "prejudice," from all and every party.
And, hey. If you were walking down a road in Mozambique and you saw someone walking towards you who looked, and dressed, something like you, would you not have a "prejudgement" about him? Conversely, if you got on a jet the day after the 9-11 attacks, and 14 young Arab men got on the plane ahead of you, the thought would cross your mind to keep an eye on them. Fair or not, given the context of recent events, that would be normal. And REASONABLE!. And if you declare yourself to be such a man to be above that inclination, I believe you are being disingenuous with me. Neither you or I are supra-human. Likewise, if a family with the surname of Franklin owned most of businesses in the village you lived, would you not have a valid "prejudgement" about any Franklins you met in that village, whether or not they actually had a stake in a store? In scientific terms, statistical terms, and so forth, there are tendencies. They are not absolutes. But they are real, whether we're talking about snow, fish, or social communities.
You seem to be to be a highly intelligent and motivated individual; indeed the tremendous effort you have made is obvious. I know, because I have developed several very comprehensive sites. I just do not understand your dislike for Jews as a group.
Kind Sir. I am motivated by an absolute outrage about chronic injustice. If you read all the material at our web site -- which is, I know, vast -- you would "understand" why we criticize the Jewish community as a group. It's all there. I don't know how many there is now, but a while back we had over 10,000 citations from over 4,000 bibliographic sources. Not to mention over 1,100 links to online articles. And it's ever growing. In other words, I know the material. And our aim is to bring this information to the public eye for discussion. What's wrong with that? How is that "hate?" How is that "prejudice?"
A good friend of mine (once active in Leftist circles) thought I'd become a Nazi or something when he heard the subject of the web site (we are all socialized to view Jews as chronic victims only) . He refused to read it, fearing the worse. It took a long time to convince him to read the material. After he read it, I demanded an apology from him. And he gave it to me. And he is CHANGED in his view about the subject. Our web site is intelligent, exhaustively researched, factual, ethical, and moral. When people like you blindly condemn it, in a sweeping judgment as "hate," "prejudice," etc. -- having read virtually nothing of it -- I am justifiably outraged. The Jewish community is the wealthiest in America. They are an economic elite in most of the world where they exist (South Africa, France, England, Jamaica, etc.). And massive Jewish communal support for the brutal, racist state of Israel is my foremost condemnation of the Jewish collective. All this is meticulously documented at our web site. And much, much more.
Your correspondence and website communicates a hostility toward Jews - not certain Jews - but Jews as a group.
What are you "hostile" to, Mr. Franklin? Apparently you are hostile to "haters." In our exchanges I would like to hear some elaboration about your use of that term, and how you distinguish your accusation from raw libel. Further, is not virtually any criticism "hostile" to its subject to some degree? Does, then, criticism itself merit inclusion as a criteria for inclusion at your "hate" list?
The title of your site, itself - plays on a concept of tribalism. The Jews are, of course, not a tribe.
Really? From The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993 Ed:
" Tribe: 1) A group of (esp. primitive) families claiming descent from a common ancestor, sharing a common culture, religion, dialects, etc and usually occupying a specific geographic area and having a recognized leader [the Jewish Diaspora complicates this, but it IS a tribe as the next Oxford citation emphasizes] Orig. spec. (Jewish history), each of the twelve divisions of the Israelites claiming descent fromt he twelve sons of Jacob."
In other words, Jews are such an obvious and well-known tribe they are highlighted as exemplary of the term in the Oxford dictionary. I also direct you to Zeev Chafet's book: Members of the Tribe. Or, as Jewish author Steven Silbiger notes:
"Unlike many religions, Judaism is more than simply a belief system that anyone can adopt. To become Jewish means enlisting in a tribe. The relationship or covenant is between God and the Jewish people, rather than between God and individual Jews. Judaism is a religion with a strong ancestral component." [SILBIGER, S., 2000, p. 11]
There is a Jewish religion, but not all adherents are of caucasian origin. There are several Jewish ethnicities, but adherence to >the Jewish religion is not implied. A Jewish culture includes foods and language but implies nothing of race or religion. In >short, there is nothing like a tribe, with its implication of common race, religion or singular ethnicity. I believe this is deceptive.
With all due respect, Sir, YOU are being deceptive. Please note my comment above. All your statements above are discussed at length at our web site. I know all about Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Chabad, the Hasids, Reconstructionism, etc. There are different foods, practices, traditions, etc. from throughout the Jewish Diaspora. But, ho! Question: What makes them all "Jews?" Not food. Not language. Not even race (even the Ethiopian Falasha, however controversial, are considered by many Jews to be Jews). The common denominator, Sir, is the legendary (originally religious) link to the twelve TRIBES of Israel: the ancestral link to the patriarch Abraham. As you surely know. (By the way. I suspect that you are Jewish. Whether you are or not, you will find there is little historical information that you can spring upon me that I don't know -- at least in overview). And -- this is politically astoundingly important -- Jewish identity has been enveloped by an international allegiance to modern Israel. The relatively few exceptions you'll probably point out, prove the rule).
I don't consider this to be an online debate, but rather two individuals (of perhaps equal intelligence, ability and >commitment) honestly discussing an issue. My challenge to you is to continue our discussion within this context. What do >you think? - RF
I would be pleased to continue. I requested it of you. It would be a very interesting exchange, for no other reason than my conviction of a correct, moral, factual, and intellectual path is -- I assume -- no less than yours. Indeed, I think it greater. Unless, of course, your interest in compiling your list of "hate" sites is merely part of some kind of exploitive politics or an academic career cottage industry of some kind. But I give you the benefit of the doubt. I am making the presumption that you are a good man, with a concern for human justice (no less than mine) to be the root of your interest in "hate groups." Good men respond to the truth and adjust accordingly. I must be frank and tell you that if, truly, you are an ethical person, with an open mind, you cannot help but come to "understand" the reasons for our web site. I guarantee that you will come to understand its existence more deeply than you can now imagine. Even if you're Jewish.
Thu, 14 Mar 2002
JJ - I recognize, and appreciate the time and effort you have expended in your recent communication. I hope you will not misinterpret the volume and comprehensiveness of my response as disrespect.
Firstly, I am at a loss regarding your identity. I cannot find your name in any of your correspondence or web content. Of course, you know who I am. I believe that honest and honorable people do not need to hide their identity. I still believe that you unfairly group all Jews together. Indeed, in your response you state that, "the origin of Jewish identity is the "Chosen People" concept." You still promote the concept of Jewish religious theology as a common thread. I must tell you that many, many people that perceive themselves to be Jewish do not follow the Jewish faith, let alone ascribe to the "chosenness" mythos. Of course, this mythos is advanced by many of Christian faith.
You also propose a Jewish "collective prejudice." This is prejudicial and unfair to countless individuals. You ask if I think that Jews don't prejudge Germans. I think that some Jews, and indeed some older Americans of various backgrounds do. They do as individuals. Yes, it is unfair. But do not condemn all Jews or all American WWII veterans because of group status.
I have perused your online book, _When Victims Rule: A Critique of Jewish Pre-eminence in America_. I assume you are the author, although, once again, the authorship is withheld. It states that, "People of Jewish heritage are irrefutably pre-eminent in America." This is a false statement. Jews do not control most banks, corporations, legislative bodies, industries, federal agencies or schools. There has never been a Jewish President of the United States. Jews, as individuals can, and do succeed in business, government, education, the arts and many other endeavors, but your general statement of pre-eminence is false and promotes prejudice. It also cites, "Jewry's relentless defamation of Ukrainians, African-Americans, ...." Once again, unfair to Jewish individuals who are innocent of these charges, and especially those who have actively contributed to the cause of human rights. It even states that, "Jewish identity categorically defines ALL non-Jews as, in varying degrees, 'anti-Semites'"...." This is not a religious tenet or generally held belief. The statement is defamatory and promotes hostility toward individual Jews by proposing that all Jews are prejudiced toward all others.
In your correspondence, you state that, "[T]he Jewish community is the wealthiest in America." Beyond proving (or qualifying) that incredible statement, you need to explain why I should prejudge an individual whose mother was Jewish because of it.
At the end of the day, we will still have our prejudices. Our challenge is to recognize them, and attempt to act rationally in spite of them. At the end of the day, you will still publish your site built around your troubling "tribal" perception of Jewry and your book falsely premised on "Jewish pre-eminence in America." And, at the end of the day, I will still cite your efforts according to my criteria in The Hate Directory. You're entitled. I'm entitled. Enough, already!
- Ray Franklin
JJ - I recognize, and appreciate the time and effort you have expended in your recent communication. I hope you will not misinterpret the volume and comprehensiveness of my response as disrespect.
First, Mr. Franklin, I thank you for your reply. Secondly, I think that categorizing someone a "hater" is MINIMALLY "disrespectful." Per your toying with the world "disrespect," in a just world people EARN respect. Per this respect, either you have made an error (posting the Jewish Tribal Review as a "hate" site) and will repair it, or you are someone who, when presented an avalanche of facts, will ignore them in fulfillment of some higher calling than truth. I confess that my "respect" for you is already low (although that could be remedied with an intelligent, informed, and honest exchange which resulted in your noble admission of your mistake). Your Hate Site has the effect of starting a rumor. It is also contagious like a rumor. The uninformed -- and misinformed -- may fall prey to your slander of our web site and spread your rumor further. Many people will see the Jewish Tribal Review posted at your "Hate Directory" (and you are presumed credible as a professor, after all), be too lazy to do any investigation of your charge, and mistakingly assume that you know what you are doing.
Firstly, I am at a loss regarding your identity. I cannot find your name in any of your correspondence or web content. Of course, you know who I am. I believe that honest and honorable people do not need to hide their identity.
Mr. Franklin. You are being disingenuous. History is laden with individuals who were "honest and honorable" who did not foreground their identity. In fact, the most noble are those who seek no credit for their accomplishments, but offer them -- anonymously, and sacrificially -- for free use by others in the world. Whether it was the early American revolutionaries who built this country (the fact that they did not foreground their identity for the King of England means they were not honorable?) or the many authors in literature who chose pseudonyms to avoid discrimination (the female author George Sand, for instance), their reasons for anonymity include wariness of harassment, bigoted treatment, and censorship of various kinds. You know this. You also know that the Anti-Defamation League and other such pro-Israel, Judeo-centric organizations function as institutional "punishers" to those who dare to ask uncomfortable questions about the Jewish/Zionist community. When my name is inevitably spread like seed throughout the Internet, it will not matter. For it is already too late for people like you. The facts we have submitted to cyberspace has already taken on its own life, and will endure. People who actually read the Jewish Tribal Review will understand the "honorable" perspective that our web site represents.
Meanwhile, whatever exchange between us here should be purely a gauging of truth, not respective identities. Do you presume that your credentials at a university impugn whatever I say as a plumber, a coal miner, or a cook? Our exchange should be about factual, documented information. And by the way, do you think that the origin of this discussion -- that you prescribe to me/my research the nomer of "hate" -- is "honorable" on your part? I think not, sir. If I had a list like your "hate list," and it was called the "Imbecile List," or "Monster List," or "List of the Corrupt," and you or your work were featured on it, what would you think about "honor" in beginning a dialogue with me? Worse, what if I posted you on a list of pedophiles, and you were NOT a pedophile? And then I said to you, Child Molester, it is honorable to for you to tell me more about yourself to begin a discussion of your child molesting.
Furthermore, in the spirit of your own Inquisitional mode, are you Jewish? Who funds your "hate directory?" What is your intent in posting your Hate Directory? Who/what entitles you to publicly decree what is and is not "hate?" Who are your associates? Jewish or not, what do you think of Israel? Any "hate" over there? How about a philosphical treatise of the concept of "hate?" What is it? How is "hate" different than "criticism?" How is "hate" different than "hostility?" How is "hate" different than "moral outrage?" How is "hate" different from listing unpleasant facts about a racist nation? How is "hate" different than examining a power elite that has influence over your life? OR are all these words/concepts the same for you? In other words, is "hate" for you EVERYTHING? If so, what does that say about you and your world view?
The personal questions to you are peripheral to the facts at hand, of course. And irrelevant to the facts themselves. I do not expect you to tell me your thoughts about Israel. But my questions are the tenor of your own ideas about "honor." Think about it.
I still believe that you unfairly group all Jews together. Indeed, in your response you state that, "the origin of Jewish identity is the "Chosen People" concept." You still promote the concept of Jewish religious theology as a common thread.
Jewish religious theology is the ORIGIN of Jewish identity, as I have already stated to you. Is this statement of mine true or false, sir? The ancestral (racial) component of "being Jewish" is quite deep. As you know. And as evidenced at our web site, this world view endures in the Jewish community today.
And, with all due respect, Sir, would not a legitimate "hate" collector like yourself find considerable interest in (and in fact be quite excited about) any ideology that could encompass an exact parallel to Aryan fascism? Ho! What could that be? I direct you to a British Jew, Emma Klein, who in a 1996 book wrote a book about Jewish identity. She led a section called "What Is It to Be Jewish?" with answers to the question by four young Jews who were grappling with the issue:
"It's two things," said Nichola, "It's a family thing and a thing that has been imposed on me through blood. It's a genetic thing, if you like." "It's something that has been imposed on me," said Claire, "It's a blood thing. I can't escape it." "I feel Jewish," said Sophia, "out of history, my blood, and it's just like a nationality.' [A young man named Guy summed up the common theme more ominously]: "Entertaining any idea about racial purity just stinks of Hitler but it is an issue. I feel all sorts of people have some pride in their roots and they feel racial mixing dilutes your heritage. I think I might feel that. It frightens me." [KLEIN, E., p. 191]
Mr. Franklin. These young Jews are not identified as being part of the far-right Kahane movement. As I gather from the context of the book, they are probably fairly normal members of the community. Do ALL Jews think like this? That is not the point. "Being Jewish" includes this realm as legitimate reflection. As you know. What about that, per your interest in "hate," and most assuredly where hate comes from?
I must tell you that many, many people that perceive themselves to be Jewish do not follow the Jewish faith, let alone ascribe to the "chosenness" mythos.
Kind Sir. I am well aware that the majority of Jews are secular. But I repeat to you: What is the common denominator that ensures that an Ethiopian Falasha, a Jewish atheist/communist,or Chabad's Rabbi Schneerson are all considered Jews BY Jews? Food? Ethnic dances? Religion? Please note again the interesting "ancestral" commentary cited above from Ms. Klein.
And again, you dissimulate as usual. The Chosen People concept is the origin of Jewish identity. You do not deny this. Am I correct? Would you like to go on record as denying this? The "religious theology" strand of the Chosen People endures today in some form in both secular and religious Jewish communities. In the political context, it is perhaps best expressed in today's Israel. You do not mention the link I provided for you about this subject by the Israeli author (nor a few other things). I have many, many more references about this subject for you. For simple purposes here, sir, if being a Jew has nothing to do with "chosenness," please explain for me what "being Jewish" IS anyway. Take your time. Get help.
But, of course, I do not mean to infer that "chosenness" is the ONLY glue in pan-Jewish identity. Overwhelmingly, Jewish identity today -- internationally -- is "support" for the modern state of Israel -- verifiably racist and brutal. We have the citations about Jewish scholarly studies about overwhelming Jewish American dedication to this Middle East appendage. Jewish conviction of a communal moral supremacy based upon a parallel conviction of chronic, historical victimhood is also part of the mix.
Of course, this mythos is advanced by many of Christian faith.
Sir, how can you blame "many of Christian faith" for the very essence/origin of Jewish identity? What other religious faith has "many" who "advance" this "mythos?" Since you are so evasive, I must ask you directly: Can you think of any? (Clue: the religion starts with a "J.") Likewise, per your own criteria about "prejudice," do I detect here in you a "prejudice" against the Christian faith? When you say "many," do you mean nearly "all?" What about the Christians who aren't part of this "many" you speak of? Are you defaming them in a gross, collective generalization? And are you also inferring that Christians are prone to belive in "mythos?" Mr. Franklin, I am affording you a taste of your own absurd semantic medicine, as you should well recognize -- which is your attempt to burden rationale discourse with inertia (the smokescreen that the "father" of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, called "noise.")
You also propose a Jewish "collective prejudice." This is prejudicial and unfair to countless individuals.
Mr. Franklin. Your vision is quite skewed, quite one-sided. Jews, as a group, have an ENORMOUS "collective prejudice" against non-Jews. And it is called the accusation of "anti-Semitism." Jewish convention decrees that anti-Semitism exists, as it always allegedly has, on massive scale. True or false? We document the vastness of the Jewish charge of a virtual omnipresent Gentile "anti-Semitism" at our web site. I would like you, please, to ruminate on the following quote by a Jewish academic researcher and tell me why the many contributors to the central Jewish community organization in San Francisco should not be considered CHRONICALLY (perhaps clinically) "prejudiced":
"San Francisco provides an example of how some Jews can totally ignore reality. Polls taken among contributors to the San Francisco Jewish Community Federation have found that one-third believe that a Jew cannot be elected to Congress from San Francisco. A poll reported such results in 1985 when all three members of Congress from contiguous districts in or adjacent to the city were Jewish, as were two state senators, the mayor and a considerable part of the city council." [LIPSET, p. 156]
If modern San Francisco is so wonderful for Jews, where does Jewish anti-Semitic paranoia there come from, San Francisco's anti-Semitic past? Hardly. Earl Raab, an assistant director of the San Francisco Jewish Relations Council wrote in 1950 that
"The Jewish community in San Francisco has been called, with reason, the wealthiest, per capita, in the country. There is, at the same time, a startling poverty of anti-Semitic tradition. San Francisco, for cities of its size, is the nation's 'white spot' of anti-Jewish prejudice ... At times Jewish citizens have concurrently held the presidencies of the Chamber of Commerce, the Community Chest, the Board of Education, Art, Fire, and Harbor Commissions, and many other appointive and elective posts; it is a situation that cannot be duplicated in any other city with a six percent Jewish concentration." [p. 230]
You ask if I think that Jews don't prejudge Germans. I think that some Jews, and indeed some older Americans of various backgrounds do. They do as individuals. Yes, it is unfair. But do not condemn all Jews or all American WWII veterans because of group status.
Mr. Franklin. "Some" Jews? I direct you to the following quote by Laurence Weinbaum, an official at the American Jewish Congress. And I remind you that it was not the Poles who were the Nazis:
"Over the last thirty years, much of world Jewry [Mr. Franklin, are you going to let ALL Jews off the hook because Mr. Weinbaum did not say every SINGLE Jew on the planet is part of this opinion?] has displayed a keener sense of hostility to Poland than to Germany itself. Poland, not Germany, is often seen as the ultimate place of evil ... Part of the hostility to Poland is based on the entirely false impression that Germans chose occupied Poland as the venue for the death camps because they could court Polish cooperation in carrying out the Final Solution. Although there is no historical evidence to support this contention, it has gained very wide currency and credence ... Careless references to 'Polish extermination camps,' rather than German or Nazi camps, also played a part in fostering this perception ... Popular literature, not always based on objective scholarship, has also played a leading role in shaping the popular image of Poland. Novels (and subsequent film adaptations) by popular writers such as Leon Uris (Exodus, Mila 18, QBVII), Gerald Green (Holocaust), and others have done much to influence the way we think about Poland, and the impression gained from these books has generally been negative. In such works Poles are often portrayed in a worse light than the Germans and it sometimes seems that the burden of guilt for the Holocaust has been shifted to the shoulders of the Poles." [WEINBAUM, p. 7]
This "popular literaure" cited by Weinbaum, as you know, is almost entirely Jewish-created. This example is merely the tip of the iceberg, and we have tons of follow-up about it at our web site. I invite you to read it.
I have perused your online book, _When Victims Rule: A Critique of Jewish Pre-eminence in America_. I assume you are the author, although, once again, the authorship is withheld. It states that, "People of Jewish heritage are irrefutably pre-eminent in America." This is a false statement.
First, I have done a "Find" search on my computer of my entire web site and could not find the citation you attribute to me: People of Jewish heritage are irrefutably pre-eminent in America. Then I did the search with only the word "irrefutably" and found nothing like your quote. What quote are you then referring to? If I have made a mistake of some kind in searching for your citation, please inform me. Otherwise, you have made a mistake. If it is not a mistake, I would ask you why do you present it as a quotation? Is that your scholarly norm? But, irregardless of that quote, the issue at stake is the word "pre-eminent," is it not? And this is a word, in its various permutations, that I do indeed use in reference to Jews. From the Oxford Dictionary: PRE-EMINENCE: "outstanding excellence, superiority; a quality present in a pre-eminent degree; a distinguishing priviledge. And PRE-EMINENT: tower above the rest, excel. Excelling others in a quality or in rank, authority, etc; outstandingly superior."
Mr. Franklin. Aside from the fact that such self-heralding is indigenous to Jewish identity (and we document a lot of it at our web site; Jewish delight in Jewish Nobel Prize winners, etc.), Jews are verifiably a pre-eminent caste in American society, as I will briefly illustrate for you in just a moment. Unfortunately, people like you and your "hate site" mitigate against open, honest scholarly investigation into this fact. That, Sir, is by DESIGN and is a POLITICAL action, not a moral one on your part.
Jews do not control most banks, corporations, legislative bodies, industries, federal agencies or schools.
You are being disingenuous. First of all, is "control" synonymous with "pre-eminent?" No. (Although people of Jewish heritage do indeed "control," to use your term [although, of course, one can argue the semantics of what verb to use regarding Jewish, say, "influence"] aspects of our society, as our web site illustrates). Secondly, there are influential Jews in the fields you note. But, thirdly, the brain and nerve center of any social system is its cultural and information web -- mass media, the arts, etc. Who runs a coal mine does not determine the direction of any society -- that reserve is, of course, for the likes of the mass media. And, ho! Jews are "irrefutably" pre-eminent in the mass media. Am I wrong? Prove me wrong. It is not enough just to say "It ain't so." What is your evidence that Jews are not pre-eminent in, say, Hollywood? Our meticulously researched argument is laid out in hundreds of pages. You are free to examine it. No one is forbidding you, unless someone like you gains more power than is good for democracy.
Likewise, American foreign policy has today, especially in the Clinton administration, become a kind of Jewish fiefdom. You object to this assessment? Fine. Read our two chapters entitled "Government." Then come back with something of substance to say besides "It ain't so."
But, for immediate purpose here, I refer you to the following brief overview -- merely to whet your appetite about the LACK (?!) of Jewish "pre-eminence" in America. I put the following Jewish "pre-eminence" scenario into the socio-political context of the present Middle East crisis:
Imagine that three individuals of Palestinian heritage built to power NBC, ABC, and CBS -- positions that were central in the shaping of American society. Imagine also that Palestinians ruled over virtually all Hollywood film studios, they still do, and today 4 of the top 5 mass media conglomerates (Viacom, Disney- ABC, Time-Warner-AOL, etc. are people of Palestinian heritage (no, Murdoch isn't one of them). (Imagine that Palestinians likewise founded three TV networks in England -- Associated- Rediffusion, Associated Television, and Granada).
Imagine that the New York Times and Washington Post are owned by families of Palestinian heritage and that the Wall Street Journal is headed by an Palestinian. Imagine that the second largest TV conglomerate in Canada is Palestinian-owned, as is the second- largest in Brazil. Imagine that 50-80% of Russia's economy is controlled by a handful of Palestinian oligarchs (some with both Russian and Palestinian citizenship), and two of the top three TV networks in that country are in their domain. Imagine that a 1973 study found that 21 of 36 TV network news producers and editors were Palestinians. Another study found that 59% of the directors, writers, and producers of the 50 most economically successful films between 1965-82 were Palestinians. Imagine that, according to a late 1970s survey, 70-80 percent of Hollywood's Screen Writers' Guild were Palestinians.
Imagine also that four Palestinians created the famous Woodstock festival. A Palestinian managed and built to fame the Beatles. Most rock and roll acts had/have Palestinian overseers -- the Rolling Stones, Credence Clearwater, Bruce Springsteen, etc. etc. Tin Pan Alley (the foundation of American popular music) was founded, and dominated, by Palestinians, and Palestinians predominate still in the music industry. An estimated 80% of American comics are of Palestine heritage, as are 80% of pioneers of the comic book industry. Palestinians dominate the theatre and classical music worlds (let alone the popular music scene).
Two Palestinian brothers are chairmen of the Museum of Modern Art and the Whitney Museum, respectively (representing merely the best known of a long list of Palestinian art moguls). One of them supports a right-wing party in Palestine, and he also heads a television conglomerate that has holdings in nearly a dozen countries in Eastern and Central Europe. Imagine that a Palestinian founded Intel and the man who has replaced Bill Gates to head Microsoft is "half-Palestinian" and a contributor to Palestinian causes. Palestinians have headed in recent years Compaq computers, Hewlett-Packard, and still Dell. The head of NASA (retiring this year) is of Palestinian heritage. Palestinians largely founded (with the Italian Mafia) Las Vegas, and an important role in its development was the head of the largest crime syndicate in American history, headed by a Palestinian. Palestinians also dominate at the upper echelons today's so- called "Russian Mafia," and this fact was underscored by a book -- and stated bluntly -- about the subject by a Palestinian reporter who worked at the Village Voice.
By the 1970s, Palestinians owned 80% of all businesses in New York, perhaps the greatest cultural nerve center in America, and the world. Imagine also that 5 of the last 8 American poet laureates are of Palestinian heritage, as were 15 of 21 "top American intellectuals," according to an early 1970s academic study (and that such intellectuals were promoted by journals like the New York Review of Books and Partisan Review, again, founded and edited by Palestinians. Imagine that Simon and Schuster, Alfred A.Knopf, Farrar Strauss and Giroux, to begin a long list of New York publishers, are Palestinian-founded and controlled.
Imagine that roughly half of the National Basketball teams are headed by Palestinians, and the Commissioner of the NBA, National Hockey League, and Professional Baseball are all of Palestinian heritage. Imagine that Palestinians dominate the agents for professional sports players. Imagine that 5 of the 8 Ivy League colleges are headed by Palestinians.
Imagine that in Bill Clinton's cabinet the following positions were filled by Palestinians: Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Agriculture, and Secretary of State. The Secretary of Defense had an Palestinian father. Clinton's two appointees for the Supreme Court were also Palestinians. Both of California's senators are of Palestinian heritage, and both are members of an activist pro- Palestine women's organization. Say also, that by 1996, as documented by a Palestinian newspaper, four of the seven CIA directorates were also headed by Palestinians, as was the head of the CIA (He was later pardoned by Bill Clinton for security violations before the investigation into his activity was complete).
Imagine that, as 2.5% of the population, in 1999, 45% of the wealthiest 40 Americans were of Palestinian heritage, and 23% of the top 400. In 2000, Palestinians represented at least 42 of the top 100 political contributors in American national elections; 4 of the first five were Palestinians and two were actually from Palestine. Imagine that Palestinians regularly donate half of the funds to the Democratic Party, "he that pays the piper calls the tune," and their foremost agenda is always U.S. foreign policy (per Palestine). Imagine that in 1997 the head of the foremost pro-Palestine political action committee became head of the National Democratic Party, and a few months later the Deputy Political Affairs officer at the Palestine lobbying group became the Financial Director for the Democratic Party.
Imagine that by the late 1990s, the head of the International Monetary Fund was a Palestinian as were the two top leaders at the World Bank. A Palestinian also heads the U.S. Federal Reserve and, for that matter, the Federal Trade Commission. Imagine that by 2001, a Palestinian "oligarchy," as documented by a Palestinian scholar, "controlled between 50 and 80 percent of the Russian economy." The second richest man in Australia is of Palestinian heritage and he owned one of the two leases to parts of the World Trade Center -- the second was held by a Palestinian from New York.
By the 1990s, the CEO of MacDonalds was a Palestinian, as was the CEO of Bank of America, United Airlines, to begin a very long list or corporate influence. Even the man that man that built ITT to power was "half-Palestinian."| A Palestinian scholar wrote a book about the Palestinian diamond "monopoly." Palestinians dominate the fashion industry (Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilger, Ralph Lauren, Donna Karan, Kenneth Cole, etc. are Palestinians).
Is this cultural pluralism? Is this "democracy" at its finest? And, per your concerns, is this irrelevant to Hollywood and your interest in gender/ethnicity fairness? And all this is just a mere small SAMPLING of the dimensions of widespread Palestinian cultural hegemony. Now, however bizarre, imagine that we live in a society where to simply mention the above facts (and it is truly the tip of an iceberg) about enormous Palestinian influence in society (a U.S. Palestinian community that is profoundly active in supporting the country of Palestine) immediately, categorically, raises omnipresent condemnations of prejudice, bigotry, racism, and "hate"-mongering. Imagine that in this society all its citizens are socialized to self-censor any recognition of the above facts of Palestinian cultural hegemony, for fear of being called an "anti-Palestinian," a slur that can (obviously) destroy your career -- certainly any one in the realm of popular culture.
Imagine too that there are actually organizations, each with budgets of tens of millions of dollars, whose main purpose is to police what anyone says about Palestinians, and make sure they are punished (defamed as "haters") for saying anything critical whatsoever about Palestinians. Imagine that those few who recognize the dimensions to this are actually afraid to speak out publicly about it. Imagine further that most people haven't got the slightest idea of the dimensions of the issue because the censorship about it is omnipresent.
Imagine further that in this society everyone is socialized -- throughout the mass media and educational apparatus -- to perceive Palestinians as history's great VICTIMS, solely, even as they are documented to be the wealthiest ethnic group per capita in America. Imagine that World War II is largely forgotten (where between 50- 64 million people died) and, thanks to Palestinian-centric interest in Hollywood, and everywhere else in popular culture, World War II has been reinvented as memorial to murdered Palestinian victims in that war.
Now, guess what? Obviously. Take the word "Palestinian" out of all the things above, and insert the word "Jew" and you have reality. (All these "allegations" are documented, complete with bibliographic sources, at our web site. And it's only a VERY, VERY small part of the story). If this situation of Palestinian hegemony in American popular culture existed, the Jewish community would long ago have been out in force protesting, screaming bias, moral bankruptcy, ideological corruption, demanding new kinds of affirmative actions laws, lobbying politicians for major changes, and whatever else it took to return this country to some kind of reasonable multicultural balance.
There has never been a Jewish President of the United States.
No, sir, but Jews have been dominant in national political fundraising -- particularly the Democratic Party. (See info above, and also see our web site's two chapters about GOVERNMENT). "He that pays the piper calls the tune." Also, as you well know, Joseph Lieberman isn't far from becoming the next U.S. president, despite the fact that the tenets of his Orthodox Judaism go against the very tenets of Western democracy and pan-human universalism, as we detail -- and document -- at our web site. If you think this is a lie, challenge me on it. Come back to debate/discuss it. But come back with something more than "It's prejudicial" on our part for us to dare to expose Jewish prejudice.
Jews, as individuals can, and do succeed in business, government, education, the arts and many other endeavors, but your general statement of pre-eminence is false and promotes prejudice.
Everything I have told you thus far in our exchanges is verifiable, and we cite documentation about it all at our web site. If there is anything that you know for a fact is incorrect, please provide evidence -- and, if our statement is wrong, we will correct it. You denounce as "prejudice" our catalogue of things that are true. Conversely, you throw web site links on a heap, offer no information about them except that you have decided they are "hate," and walk away whistling, flinging a yo-yo. Again, against our avalanche of documented information to prove all we state, you merely sit there, clipping your nails, and say, "No. You're being prejudiced. What you say is not so." And we, in turn, rest upon tens of thousands of facts that are documented with bibliographic references at our web cite. Who is the PREJUDICED one, if not that man who lives by a conviction that offers no facts whatsoever to back up his argument?
Mr. Franklin, is not your personal conviction (your "mythos") -- devoid of any associative evidence -- an important ingredient in someone genuinely "prejudiced?" You are profoundly prejudiced, sir, in resisting information you do not wish to hear. Or, more correctly as it appears, you are prejudiced in trying to steer OTHERS away from information you don't want publicly known.
It also cites, "Jewry's relentless defamation of Ukrainians, African-Americans, ...." Once again, unfair to Jewish individuals who are innocent of these charges, and especially those who have actively contributed to the cause of human rights.
Please note again my above reference to popular Jewish "hostility" against the Poles. I also direct you to citations at our web site about the word "schvartze" [Yiddish for "nigger," more or less] as an institution in the Jewish community. Jewish defamation of Ukrainians, African-Americans, and so many others is documented at our web site. (Jewish hostility -- and defamation -- of the Christian faith is a foundation of Jewish belief, is it not?) Jewish-sponsored studies have proclaimed, for example, that African-Americans are the most anti-Semitic ethnic group in America. Now, is that a scientific analysis of irrational bigotry (as decreed by Jewish lobbying groups and people like you) or is it a manifestation of socio-historical circumstances that Blacks have faced with Jewish slum lords, landlords, slum merchants, etc.? The bottom line is this: Jewish organizations have decreed that Blacks are this country's greatest bigots, per the Jewish issue. I think that's a defamation, because the assessment fails to take into account Jewish attitudes and actions TOWARDS Blacks, which we do at our web site. I invite you to read the material we have about all this. We also have a nice list of Yiddish terms for defamation of the Irish, Armenians, Prussians, Italians, and many others who were Jewish neighbors in history.
Per human rights. I direct you again to our web site, and the many citations there regarding the Jewish community's exploitation of the (largely) African-American civil rights movement towards Jewish ethnocentric (including Zionist) goals. It's all there. I can't force you to read what you insist upon avoiding. But you do not even have to get up out of your seat to read it.
It even states that, "Jewish identity categorically defines ALL non-Jews as, in varying degrees, 'anti-Semites'"...." This is not a religious tenet or generally held belief. The statement is defamatory and promotes hostility toward individual Jews by proposing that all Jews are prejudiced toward all others.
Mr. Franklin. First, I did a computer "FIND" search of the complete JTR web site and do not find the phrase that you attribute to us above: Jewish identity categorically ... (etc.) Are you again quoting something I didn't write? I thought quotes meant the cited author wrote what's quoted EXACTLY. Is your habit -- creating quotes attributed to others? If I have made a typographical error of some kind, please inform me. Perhaps it is my error. I am human. Otherwise, are you a scholar (?) who plays fast and loose with citations?
In any case, you are arguing that there is no such thing as a valid generalization. In other words, in your world view, you cannot generalize ANYTHING about Muslims, or Jews, or Catholics, or Serbs, or Senegalese because, alas, it is "prejudice." Is this also true about Republicans? There are, after all, Mr. Franklin, many kinds of Republicans. If I say that "Republicans are this or that," am I a prejudiced bigot? Must I make sure that every single Republican subscribes to the point in question? Mr. Franklin, come back to Earth. By your logic, is it unfair to define a Nazi in any way? I mean, there were millions of people in the Nazi party. They were not all clones, surely. But I have been under the impression that it is not immoral to make generalizations about them: per their collective identity, collective deeds, collective moral responsibility, etc. Perhaps in discussing the Nazis, I would need to go back in time and interrogate every single Nazi individual to make sure that he/she subscribed to every minutia of the totality of Nazi belief? Mr. Franklin, if you are going to be absurd, please be consistent about it. And sir, if you forbid me from generalizing anything about Jews, then I ask you: How is a Jew different than a piece of apple pie?
In your correspondence, you state that, "[T]he Jewish community is the wealthiest in America." Beyond proving (or qualifying) that incredible statement,
Very specifically, the Jewish American community is per capita the wealthiest ethnic community in America. This is what we address (per the subject at hand) at our web site. If the quote you refer to in our introductory exchanges is vague in this regard, it is a question of semantics and I correct it here for you, i.e. "The Jewish community is the wealthiest [ethnic] community in America [per capita]." Evidence for this can be found at our web site. The web site does not claim that Jews, as 2.5% of the population, have -- in total -- more money than other "groups" that are many, many, many times larger than them. If you read the material at the web site (which you deem "hate"), you would have no need to challenge something that the web site does not state.
An example of the issue at hand:
"The Jewish economic and social profile diverges dramatically from that of Gentile Americans," notes Edward Shapiro, "Jews are wealthier, more likely to be found in the professions, academia, and the upper ranks of business, and attend universities in greater numbers ... Jews in Canada, Central and South America, and Europe exhibit the same characteristics." [SHAPIRO, E., 1998]
We have an entire chapter about this. You are welcome to read it.
you need to explain why I should prejudge an individual whose mother was Jewish because of it.
Sir, the definition of a Jew that you use (a Jew is someone born of a Jewish mother) is a JEWISH invention, not mine. I do not prejudge anyone by who their mother was. Although Jews as a community DO; you may need to stand on the street and ask every Jew on the planet if they agree with this, looking for your 100% hit rate, but I'll accept Jewish scholarship and surveys about Jewish dogma. I judge people on their allegiance to ideas, in this case allegiance to a verifiably racist, chauvinist supremacy dogma and a racist foreign nation (Israel). I do not say that ALL people of Jewish heritage fit this mold. I say merely that it is a major strand of Jewish identity which cries out for public scrutiny. That is part of the reason for the Jewish Tribal Review. Your position effectively (intentionally?) screens such Jewish dogma from view.
We live in a strange socio-political world where self-decried Thought Police like you enforce a surreal situation where ethnic groups most decidedly exist, and function as social and often POLITICAL entities for their collective advancement, but are declared immune from scrutiny for their collective actions and expressions. This scenario is stolen from Alice in Wonderland, perhaps when the White Rabbit drifts in circles down the rabbit hole to the Ozone.
At the end of the day, we will still have our prejudices. Our challenge is to recognize them, and attempt to act rationally in spite of them.
Mr. Franklin. This is the reason for the Jewish Tribal Review. We are exposing the Jewish commuity's power and prejudices. We are acting "rationally" in doing so. It is very clear. It takes a very, very great effort on your part NOT to understand this.
At the end of the day, you will still publish your site built around your troubling "tribal" perception of Jewry and your book falsely premised on "Jewish pre-eminence in America."
I note your statement here clearly, and BOLDLY, that you apparently qualify The Jewish Tribal Review as a "hate site" based upon the two criteria you cite here :
1) a "tribal perception of Jewry" and
2) the "premise" of "Jewish pre-eminence in America."
And I request that every reader of this text do their homework --whether at our site or anywhere else -- to come to a reasoned sense of which of our sites -- yours or ours -- is closer to "hate," which site is "prejudicial," which site is fundamentally irrational, which site clearly defines what it is doing and why so, and which reflects a world view based upon no evidence whatsoever.
Per tribalism, I'm not going to do your homework for you, Mr. Franklin. You -- or anyone -- can do a FIND search (use "tribe," "tribal," etc.) in each chapter of our online book WHEN VICTIMS RULE and find the many Jewish scholars who have commented about the undeniable existence of Jewish tribalism. That you ascribe to our web site "hate" for merely quoting what Jewish scholars say about it confirms your stubborn, ignorant arrogance. Or are you purely a masked ideologue, hell-bent on screening Jewish tribalism from public view?
Jewish scholar Joel Kotkin, for example, has written an entire book about ethnic tribalism†and here's something intriguing that he says about the Jewish version of it:
"Certainly fate, often the prime genetrix of history, has played a critical part in assigning these groups their roles as global tribes† -- and then compelled them to play it. This is clearly evidenced in the case of the Jews, my own people, who in many ways represent the archetype of global tribalism." [KOTKIN, p. 6]
Kotkin doesn't say "religious" Jews. Nor is speaking of Jews of some distant past. He's talking about today. And, shock! On an international scale. (Perhaps Kotkin is a conspiracy theorist?) Do your homework, Mr. Franklin. So. I hereby request that you list Mr. Kotkin (his web sites?), and all the other Jewish scholars we cite who confirm Jewish tribalism, in your silly Hate Directory. Since you have just decreed that the assessment of Jewry as a tribe is part of your "hate" criteria, if you do not post these Jewish commentators as "haters," I -- and the viewing public -- would like to know why not. I eagerly await your reply.
Now, pre-eminence. Again, your Hate Directory should bloat full with Jewish scholars who likewise have something to say about what you deem "hate." For example here, from the constellation of Jewish commentators about this theme, I'll use W. D. Rubenstein:
"It is disingenuous to pretend, that since the end of the war there has not been a fundamental change in the status of Western Jewry ... Understandable reluctance to discuss Jewish socio-economic advantage in an explicit fashion has led to the neglect of an important trend: the steady rise of Western Jewry into the upper-middle class, together with the broadening of Jewish membership in the institutional elites of most Western countries ... The rise of Western Jewry to unparalleled affluence and high status has led to the near-disappearnace of a Jewish proletariat of any size: indeed, the Jews may become the first ethnic group in history without a working class of any size." [Rubenstein, p. 51]
Sounds like a "hater" to me, no? Or is it that the exact word
"pre-eminent" must be used to qualify as a bigot (or, rather,
"hater" -- let's be specific, right?) on your list? I expect
both Rubenstein and Kotkin to appear on your "hate" list within
the next week. If you need to find some web site that has their stuff
on it, I'll help you find it. As a matter of fact, if you're too busy,
I'd be happy to fill your Hate Directory with -- per your own criteria
-- Jewish members. But, if admission of people who admit the realities
of "tribe" and "pre-eminence" fits as criterioa, I
may need a few years ( full time work!) to finish the task.
†††† "Is it good to hate? ... Our tradition does not teach us that all hatred is
bad. The Bible is unambiguous on this point: We are clearly intended
to hate Amalek, whose memory we are instructed to wipe out ... The subject
is raised each year in the middle of the Passover seder ... In fact there
are few things that can be healthier than merited hatred ... Sitting in
a comfortable home today, it is easy to see barbarity in the words of
the Haggadah. When we do, we betray our history."
Mr. Franklin, YOU are a bigot -- the worse kind, somone who veils himself as a potentate of moral superiority. You are the kind of bigot who picks and chooses (based on your own biased and prejudicial "criteria") what genre of critic merits defamation of "hater." I defend no other web site on your list but our own, but I recognize that YOUR web site is a form of Thought Police whose purpose is to libel, smear, and defame any argument that offends your own self-protective fiat. You defame people and ideas without even explaining why (except for few lines of inanely, vague -- and completely arguable -- "criteria") and your sole intellectual force is to trot out a pile of lame politically corrrect platitudes and buzzwords. The word "prejudice" (so abused these days as a weapon for political purposes) in future generations is going to be looked at as an extension of "1984": George Orwell's famous book about totalitarian thinking. A man presents over 2,000 pages of documentation about a subject. He presents it to you. You glance at it's title, leaf through a couple pages. "Prejudice," you say. And the book is thrown into the fire. Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451?
The further you would dare to engage in discussion with me, the worse it would morally -- and factually -- get for you. You have stopped engaging in dialogue with me because you realize that you in deep with me -- way above your head. You cannot win any "discussion" with me, because you are ill-equipped to do so. Not only that, you are WRONG. Your ONLY source of argument (?) is a simple crutch: an accusation of "prejudice" -- in your mind the ultimate slammed door to any argument.
I was actually surprised that you dared to enter a dialogue with me. Were you, self-described as an "intelligent" man, that foolish? I knew all along that one of two things would happen, each in my ultimate favor: 1) you would see that you are in error in calling the Jewish Tribal Review a "hate" site, and take it off (this would be EXTREMELY unlikely, however, since that concession would impugn the very existence of your libelous web site -- that your criteria for inclusion as "hate" was completely arbitrary, and if you were wrong with us, you were certainly wrong with others), or 2) once you saw what you were up against with me, you would abandon the "discussion" as soon as you realized it was hopeless -- and embarrassing -- for you. Obviously, the longer you dare engage me in "discussion," the worse it gets for you. There is an entire warehouse of facts at my fingertips in defense of my moral position. You realized this very quickly. I congratulate you on that. Your accusation of "prejudice" could only be repeated once before you were really left with nothing say. This finally occurred to you.
In either case, our exchange gets posted at our web site. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE. If you are foolish enough, please post our exchange at your Hate Directory. (Perhaps I am a good specimen of what you call a "hater?" I think your students should read our exchange, to know the complexion of naked evil?) In any case, when people find a link to us at your noble site, they can come on over to visit our material, read this exchange (which will be featured), delve into our massive archive, glance back at your list of names only, and make up their own mind about things. I'm sorry, but the worst case scenario for you has happened: your link to our web site is going to be an advertisement not only for our material (which you haven't even read), but also for your own (and web sites like yours) prejudicial and dictatorial injustice. Visitors coming to our web site will see this exchange before they see anything else.
A confession: My interest in debating you really has little to do with your Hate Directory. We have no doubt that there will be other pro-Israel, Judeo-centric moral policeman like yourself who will slander us similarly. Our school systems are flooded with Anti-Defamation League-style propaganda and fake do-gooders like yourself championing a dual standard of morality and intent upon telling others what to think. The issue at hand here always was/is to expose you -- or, more correctly, the genre you represent -- as morally and factually bankrupt. In a free and Democratic society, there is no need for self-appointed Gate Keepers like yourself to decide for others what is "hate," what is true and what is false, what is red, what is green. You are the kind of person that seeks to limit free discourse. You are the person that would twist democracy into an ideological clone factory to your self-promotive liking. You are the kind of person who abandons ship mid-sentence when he realizes -- Emperor's New Clothes-style -- all is lost.
What is "hate," Mr. Franklin? I do not doubt that volumes could be written in analysis by intelligent men about the meaning of that word, and here you are, using it like a garbageman, picking things off the ground -- some not even garbage -- and throwing it all without a thought into your black truck. Another abducted object defamed, gleaned for your gross collection.
May the best man win in the struggle for truth.
And may a genuine moral justice for ALL people (is that too great a generalization for you?) be installed as the veritable religion of the planet.
Long live the Palestinian struggle for human rights and dignity.
From: "Raymond A Franklin" email@example.com
Subject: Your Email
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:50:22 -0500 (EST)
My mail file was corrupted today. I noted correspondence from you. Would you please resend? Thanks.
- Ray Franklin
Thank you for still responding to my messages. I understood your "Enough!" conclusion in your last email to be a final dismissal of me. You will find a link to our complete e-mail exchange, including this, posted on the opening page of the Jewish Tribal Review.
I invite you to continue the discussion.
And, in the interest of open and public discussion, democracy, free speech, morality (certainly the struggle against "hate"), justice, and your firm conviction that you are correct and honorable in our exchanges, I expect you to post our complete e-mail discussion prominently at your own web site. In other words, the posting of our exchanges at your web site will underscore that you are certain in your decision that the Jewish Tribal Review represents "hate."
If I am anywhere wrong in my assertion of facts, I am open to being corrected. Am I correct in presuming that you have the same policy?
I look forward to hearing further from you.
"Raymond A Franklin"
Subject: Your correspondence
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 12:24:37 -0500 (EST)
I do not wish to receive your further email, as you persist in concealing your identity. Further, I note from your previous message that you have unilaterally decided to publish our correspondence. As you will recall, I stated, "I don't consider this to be an online debate, but rather two individuals (of perhaps equal intelligence, ability and commitment) honestly discussing an issue. My challenge to you is to continue our discussion within this context." In my humble opinion, you have failed the challenge by publishing the thread.
By the way, both quotes that you deny, may be found at http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/thisbook.htm.
- Ray Franklin
I do not wish to receive your further email, as you persist in concealing your identity.
Mr. Franklin, of course I will send you a "further email," this, and of course you will look at it. My God. Why should anyone give you any credibility whatsoever when you reduce yourself to this level of childish absurdity ("I'm taking my marbles and going home. Don't ever again talk to me again.") You may or may not respond to my correspondence. That is your choice. But there is no reason at all why you will not read what I send to you. Mine is not the cartoon-like raving of a "hating" lunatic, as you would prefer, and you well recognize that it is in your best interest to keep updated about what kinds of rational arguments flow your way.
But, dear sir, the "identity" question is not why you wish to cease our exchange. My "respect" for your honesty and the integrity of the "Hate Directory" has plummeted. I explained adequately for you what is more than obvious per the identity question. What on earth does it matter who you are or I am, vis a vis the facts of the issue? And the issue we are addressing is "hate," not your name, your hobbies, your favorite coffee, your dog Spot, or your college degrees.
And I remind you, sir. I did not search out your "Hate Directory" to attack it. You defamed The Jewish Tribal Review, and I have merely responded to your act of insult, libel, and defamation..
Further, I note from your previous message that you have unilaterally decided to publish our correspondence. As you will recall, I stated, "I don't consider this to be an online debate, but rather two individuals (of perhaps equal intelligence, ability and commitment) honestly discussing an issue. My challenge to you is to continue our discussion within this context." In my humble opinion, you have failed the challenge by publishing the thread.
Kind sir, need I remind you that a PUBLIC exchange was the basis of our exchange as I proposed it? Why should we hide our correspondence? To whose advantage is that, I wonder? What is it that we need to say secretly to each other? Frankly, sir. Will you not confess the enormous moral, intellectual, and factual risk for you in any public examination of our discussion/dialogue/debate/exchange (or whatever you'd semantically call it)? In your latest response to me here, you focus upon the irrelevant. You are, again, evading all the issues of any importance, ENTIRELY. You ignore the facts of my huge rebuttal to your inane defamations of The Jewish Tribal Review, defamations which are the SUBJECT of our exchanges. Not what color shirt I am wearing.
I also suggest you reread our past exchange. You base now your trivial umbrage with me upon my reaction to this that you wrote:
"I don't consider this to be an online debate, but rather two individuals (of perhaps equal intelligence, ability and commitment) honestly discussing an issue. My challenge to you is to continue our discussion within this context."
Mr. Franklin, perhaps you may need to go back and take some English writing courses. Where in your statement does it say, or even infer, the equivilant of "I will continue the exchange with you only if it is private." You stated that you didn't "consider" it be an online debate. Fine, no debate -- you think it's a "discuss[ion]." As I VERY CLEARLY stated to you, that is not what I "considered" it to be.
Mr. Franklin, your accusation here that I broke some kind of behind-the-scenes, in the shadows, under the table, gentleman's agreement is fraudulent, and it appears to me that this is the current of your "Hate Directory," at least as it addresses the substantive realities of The Jewish Tribal Review.
As I have repeatedly stated to you, I am open to debate/discuss PUBLICLY your slanderous accusations at any time, with aim to point our that your position is clearly fallatious.
And as I have also repeated, the reading public can examine this exchange between us, investigate in depth our respective web sites, and decide which -- the "Hate Directory" or The Jewish Tribal Review -- represents the higher moral ground.
Frankly, Mr. Franklin (no pun intended), I did not think you would crumble before the facts so easily. Apparently, the "Hate Directory" is a house of straw, swept out to sea in the first wind.
And I "humbly" submit to you, sir, that your web site's fundamental flaws in its intellectual, moral, and factual foundation is confounded by your resistance to take open, public responsility for such flaws. An honorable man admits his mistakes, and changes them.
By the way, both quotes that you deny, may be found at http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/thisbook.htm.
- Ray Franklin
Of all the voluminous details I provided for you in dismantling your position -- morally, factually, and intellectually, this is all you have to say in your defense? Are you joking? You conclude our exchange with this desperate grasp at a trivial technicality, which has zero bearing on the subject at hand -- "hate" and your defamation of the Jewish Tribal Review.
I am stunned. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Aside from the fact these quotes you cite are from one of the short introductory pieces to our massive online volume of evidence (in other words, you have apparently read virtually nothing of it), I shall address here your complaint about the two quotes you mention. (I only "deny" what has falsely been attributed to me.) With your studious guidance, I have found the quotes in question. This is one of your two citations attributed to the Jewish Tribal Review:
"Jewish identity categorically defines ALL non-Jews as, in varying degrees, 'anti-Semites'"...."
The original citation, in full, reads as follows:
"Jewish identity in fact categorically defines ALL non-Jews as, in varying degrees, "anti-Semites," whether one responds with a curse for being cheated by a Jewish merchant in 16th century Poland, throws a stone at an Israeli tank, or merely goes to church on Sunday."
Your objection, I presume, is based upon the word "All." The statement refers to "Jewish identity" and not "all" people of Jewish heritage. My reasons for this accurate statement may be especially understood from the information in the chapters entitled "The Accusation of Anti-Semitism" in WHEN VICTIMS RULE. A CRITIQUE OF JEWISH PRE-EMINENCE IN AMERICA at the Jewish Tribal Review. Briefly, "anti-Semitism" is popularly understood in the Jewish community as a "mystifying disease" that transcends class, culture, language, and geography -- i.e., any Gentile anywhere may be infected by it. Per the clauses you omit in the citation: In "Jewish tradition," Poles are categorically considered to be anti-Semitic, Christianity is categorically considered to be anti-Semitic, and Arabs (so well fulfilled in the current Arab-Israeli conflict) are considered to be anti-Semitic. The Biblical brothers Jacob (understood to be a Jewish patriarch) and Esau (understood to be a Gentile partriarch) tradition also reinforces this, as do various aspects of Jewish lore. I do not say that every Jew believes that all non-Jews are "anti-Semitic." I say that Jewish identity enforces the notion of an omnipresent anti-Semitism that may rise up in the Gentile masses, anywhere and at any time. To technically nitpick about the word "all" (or whatever your complaint might be) evades the essential substance of the statement, which is true.
Nonetheless, our policy is that if something we state can be proven wrong, we will adjust it. You never try to prove anything whatsoever. Your apparent mode of operation is merely to slur, smear, and defame. Period.
This citation about antisemitism is one of two quotations you cite from the Jewish Tribal Review. Your rendition of the second quote attributed to us is "troubling," to use your word. I entitle anyone to make an honest mistake, but you blatantly misrepresent this other quote attributed to us. Your rendition, I'm sorry to say, appears to be DELIBERATE fraud on your part, not a mistake, since you've cited it twice now, even after I told you I couldn't find it as you represented it.
This is what is written (as so rendered throughout cyberspace for months now) at http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/thisbook.htm, per your referral, and the quote in question is easily verifiable for anyone who cares to hassle to search for it:
"People of Jewish heritage are irrefutably pre-eminent, and often dominant, in many crucial areas of American popular culture."
And that is a CORRECT statement, as our vast amount of research documents. You, however, QUOTE this statement as:
"People of Jewish heritage are irrefutably pre-eminent in America."
YOUR version of the quote (and you bracket your version in quotations) is NOT the original. It is in fact different; its meaning is not quite the same as the original. Of course I am quibbling as -- for lack of anything else offered to me in argument -- you quibble. But this is the only attempt at defense you hold up for me in your last exchange to deconstruct.
Mr. Franklin, I'm sorry to say this, but your rendition of the original statement is, it appears (given the fact you've had another chance to correct your error, and I would generally afford anyone -- including myself -- the opportunity to make amends for an honest mistake), to be a conscious misrepresentation.
Mr. Franklin, is it fair to assume that this example of a manipulative sleight-of-hand on your part, and reluctance to underscore accuracy (given second chances), is likewise part of your work at the "Hate Directory?" In other words, is it safe to assume that you configure the world to fit the narrow confines of your preconceptions ("prejudgment" is the favored term, I think, for guys like you) about what you are looking at? What do you think? What should a reasonable person presume?
Is this the behavioral norm in your defamation of numerous organizations and web sites, some (many?) perhaps innocent of the charge of "hate?" I understand well why you don't want any more e-mails from me, but moral conscience forces me send it to you anyway.
And in spite of your apparent promise not to read it, I eagerly await your response in clarification of so very, very much.
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT
PART OF ABOVE E-MAIL EXCHANGE,
BUT ADDED HERE AFTERWARDS:
"The primary function of Watchdog organizations seems to be
to call people names in the hope of defaming, discrediting,
marginalizing, stigmatizing or neutralizing them. What is particularly puzzling about this is that the Watchdog groups claim to be opposed to
this practice, as in their opposition to 'hate speech.' The choice
of the term 'anti-defamation' in the name of the Anti-Defamation
League is almost a joke, since most of the output of the ADL
is meticulously devoted to defaming its critics and carefully
cultivated opponents ... What I object to in the 'Watchdog'
organizations are their tactics, their often hidden agenda,
and their contempt for the rights of those who disagree
with them ... Watchdog groups are agenda-driven special-interest
groups, who interests are economic as well as ideological,
and not 'experts' in the sense of objective and disinterested
-- Laird Wilcox, p. 28, p. 39
"If you can't answer a man's arguments all is not lost;
you can still call him names."
-- Elbert G. Hubbard
[quoted by Wilcox, L., p. 40]
A Close Look at Anti-Racist 'Watchdog' Groups,
Editorial Research Service, Olathe, KS
"Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone
of hate--healthy, virile hate--for what the German personifies
and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would
be a betrayal of the dead."
Noel Prize winner and
popular Holocaust pundit,
Legends of our Time, by Elie Wiesel,
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York,
1968, p. 142
"Jews as individuals are great individuals -- talented, ambitious, intelligent, smart. As a people, I would not give them as high a
grade. Jews know how to hate."
Prime Minister of Israel,
Sharon Feels Flattened By Isaeli Critics,
Detroit News (from Los Angeles Times), February 2, 2002
See also the article, as sampling of the dimensions to this, "Hatred of Arabs is Common In Israel," by Larry Derfner. Baltimore Jewish Times, 1-8-93, p. 8
THE JEWISH TRIBAL REVIEW