Chris Belcher and/or his lackey gets exposed as defender of racism on DC Indymedia
In a par for the course article on DC Indymedia on how Israel is starving the Palestinians (and never blaming Chris Belcher's Holocaust denying Hamas amigos), CNI is one again cited as an honest source. http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/134397/index.php
This is pointed out by poster history who notes
"Oh look, a fact sheet by CNI... the group formed and fronted by a friend of holocaust denial groups. Shocking"
Then a DC Indymedia reader (probably Chris Belcher, who participates in CNI missions to pay tribute to Holocaust denying terrorists) states that Pete McCloskey is no longer on the board. Like this makes their Holocaust denying pandering ok!
Belcher or one of his followers then tries to post some lame Nation paragraph that they believe shows that IHR misquoted Mccloskey.
Belcher or his clone is then shown to be a true coward. Anon states
"#1 McCloskey still formally headed CNI at the time of the speech, yes? CNI certainly hasn't disavowed affiliation with McCloskey, yes?#2 If you were asked to speak at a KKK rally, would you accept the invitation under the rationalization that you celebrated their right and freedom to question the dominant views about racial equality? If you were cavalier about racism to accept the invitation to be the KKK event's keynote speaker, would you simply say, "I may not agree with you about everything I've heard today" and then just leave it at that and launch into your speech with no further admonishment of the racism the group was pushing? No, you wouldn't, not unless you were a racist or thought racism such an unimportant issue that you wouldn't stop it from you being connected with and participating with the group. And just to be clear, that's no stretched metaphor. The IHR group McCloskey chose to be the keynote speaker at is the premier holocaust denial group in the world--with all the fame and notoriety of the Klan. And that's not surprising--the founding leadership of IHR had strong ties with the National Alliance. McCloskey told you that he didn't question the existence of the holocaust or the murder of 6 million Jews. But the transcript of his speech shows he never made that point or argument at the event. (And it's a full transcript in the public record, not just a few notes.) So again, you're at a Klan rally... do you just say, in essence, 'well, I don't entirely agree with all your views, but I'm glad you're here ... ' and then never, not once, in your speech to them directly challenge their racist agenda? To me, it's enormously telling that you're willing to excuse and actively work to rationalize McCloskey's behavior. If he wasn't deeply anti-semitic, he should have never accepted that invite; if he did, he should have made his objection to the racist and anti-semitic agenda of the group he was speaking directly and forcefully; and failing that, CNI--and he was speaking there as the founder and leading figure in CNI--should have immediately renounced their connection with him and expressed, as an organization, its disappointment with his behavior and the anti-semitism it represented. So stop making straw man arguments. This isn't about McCloskey's criticism of Israel--the only one making that point is you. It's about a man uncritically accepting and delivering the keynote address at the world's most (in)famous holocaust denial group. It's about an organization that never starkly stood up and renounced affiliation with someone who would do that, and do it under their name. And it's about you being willing to make extreme stretches to try rationalize and defend it. Does criticizing Israel inherently make you or anyone else anti-semitic? No. But does making alliances and justifications and comfortable connections with holocaust denial groups make you anti-semtiic? Yes it does. Does trying to be an apologist and rationalizer for such blatantly racist behavior--as you are being--mean that you've got some serious introspection to do about your own racism? Yes it does. "
and
"Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center: "To show up at the address of the institution here in California, which by its very existence is a source of such unending pain to the victims of the Holocaust and the survivors who live in our community, and secondly, on top of it to make an appearance under the same tent as someone who's just been crowned the leading intellectual Jew hater in the world [Irving], I guess, speaks volumes … I'm sure there's a lot McCloskey achieved in Congress, but somewhere along the line he must have gotten his wires crossed, because standing under that tent, it basically confirms we're dealing with someone who's an anti-Semite."And here's how IHR describes it: "The former US Representative, ex-Marine and decorated combat veteran of the Korean War made it very clear that, as a man who has seriously studied history, as well as helped make it, he holds IHR's work and mission in high regard."And let's really get this record straight. It took McCloskey two years, TWO YEARS, after he gave the featured (and uncritical of IHR) speech at the IHR international conference to go so far as to send a "polite suggestion" (his words!) to the IHR that perhaps they should acknowledge the existence of the holocaust. Of course, if he really felt that way, then why speech at the world's most famous holocaust denial group? And if he felt that way, why make that argument in his speech? No, McCloskey got (rightfully) called out on his behavior and it eventually took two years for him to realize that maybe it was better for HIM to make his anti-semitism just a wee bit less overt. Look, McCloskey is yet another Strom Thurman. The overt racism eventually gets tucked under the rug out of expediency, but it's still there, and you better be mindful of the groups and agendas affiliated with them. (Actually, Strom offered more clear and forceful regret and denunciation of his early bad judgement than McCloskey ever has, though, like McCloskey, it clearly never left). Look, you want to criticize Israel and draw attention to misguided US funding that enables it? Wonderful. There are all sorts of terrific groups (eg Peace Now) that do that, and do it without CNI's racist baggage. But hey, if you really want to specialize in the "ok, maybe there's some racist baggage there, but let's not get distracted by that" agenda, I'm sure you can get some clients beyond CNI. While Strom is out of the picture, perhaps David Duke would appreciate your brand of support. "
Most of the rest of the responses are from a Holocaust denier with the id "prion". Joan Yoshiwara once again has failed to remove posts from a Holocaust denier, which is no surprise given her refusal to follow her own editorial rules.
This is pointed out by poster history who notes
"Oh look, a fact sheet by CNI... the group formed and fronted by a friend of holocaust denial groups. Shocking"
Then a DC Indymedia reader (probably Chris Belcher, who participates in CNI missions to pay tribute to Holocaust denying terrorists) states that Pete McCloskey is no longer on the board. Like this makes their Holocaust denying pandering ok!
Belcher or one of his followers then tries to post some lame Nation paragraph that they believe shows that IHR misquoted Mccloskey.
Belcher or his clone is then shown to be a true coward. Anon states
"#1 McCloskey still formally headed CNI at the time of the speech, yes? CNI certainly hasn't disavowed affiliation with McCloskey, yes?#2 If you were asked to speak at a KKK rally, would you accept the invitation under the rationalization that you celebrated their right and freedom to question the dominant views about racial equality? If you were cavalier about racism to accept the invitation to be the KKK event's keynote speaker, would you simply say, "I may not agree with you about everything I've heard today" and then just leave it at that and launch into your speech with no further admonishment of the racism the group was pushing? No, you wouldn't, not unless you were a racist or thought racism such an unimportant issue that you wouldn't stop it from you being connected with and participating with the group. And just to be clear, that's no stretched metaphor. The IHR group McCloskey chose to be the keynote speaker at is the premier holocaust denial group in the world--with all the fame and notoriety of the Klan. And that's not surprising--the founding leadership of IHR had strong ties with the National Alliance. McCloskey told you that he didn't question the existence of the holocaust or the murder of 6 million Jews. But the transcript of his speech shows he never made that point or argument at the event. (And it's a full transcript in the public record, not just a few notes.) So again, you're at a Klan rally... do you just say, in essence, 'well, I don't entirely agree with all your views, but I'm glad you're here ... ' and then never, not once, in your speech to them directly challenge their racist agenda? To me, it's enormously telling that you're willing to excuse and actively work to rationalize McCloskey's behavior. If he wasn't deeply anti-semitic, he should have never accepted that invite; if he did, he should have made his objection to the racist and anti-semitic agenda of the group he was speaking directly and forcefully; and failing that, CNI--and he was speaking there as the founder and leading figure in CNI--should have immediately renounced their connection with him and expressed, as an organization, its disappointment with his behavior and the anti-semitism it represented. So stop making straw man arguments. This isn't about McCloskey's criticism of Israel--the only one making that point is you. It's about a man uncritically accepting and delivering the keynote address at the world's most (in)famous holocaust denial group. It's about an organization that never starkly stood up and renounced affiliation with someone who would do that, and do it under their name. And it's about you being willing to make extreme stretches to try rationalize and defend it. Does criticizing Israel inherently make you or anyone else anti-semitic? No. But does making alliances and justifications and comfortable connections with holocaust denial groups make you anti-semtiic? Yes it does. Does trying to be an apologist and rationalizer for such blatantly racist behavior--as you are being--mean that you've got some serious introspection to do about your own racism? Yes it does. "
and
"Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center: "To show up at the address of the institution here in California, which by its very existence is a source of such unending pain to the victims of the Holocaust and the survivors who live in our community, and secondly, on top of it to make an appearance under the same tent as someone who's just been crowned the leading intellectual Jew hater in the world [Irving], I guess, speaks volumes … I'm sure there's a lot McCloskey achieved in Congress, but somewhere along the line he must have gotten his wires crossed, because standing under that tent, it basically confirms we're dealing with someone who's an anti-Semite."And here's how IHR describes it: "The former US Representative, ex-Marine and decorated combat veteran of the Korean War made it very clear that, as a man who has seriously studied history, as well as helped make it, he holds IHR's work and mission in high regard."And let's really get this record straight. It took McCloskey two years, TWO YEARS, after he gave the featured (and uncritical of IHR) speech at the IHR international conference to go so far as to send a "polite suggestion" (his words!) to the IHR that perhaps they should acknowledge the existence of the holocaust. Of course, if he really felt that way, then why speech at the world's most famous holocaust denial group? And if he felt that way, why make that argument in his speech? No, McCloskey got (rightfully) called out on his behavior and it eventually took two years for him to realize that maybe it was better for HIM to make his anti-semitism just a wee bit less overt. Look, McCloskey is yet another Strom Thurman. The overt racism eventually gets tucked under the rug out of expediency, but it's still there, and you better be mindful of the groups and agendas affiliated with them. (Actually, Strom offered more clear and forceful regret and denunciation of his early bad judgement than McCloskey ever has, though, like McCloskey, it clearly never left). Look, you want to criticize Israel and draw attention to misguided US funding that enables it? Wonderful. There are all sorts of terrific groups (eg Peace Now) that do that, and do it without CNI's racist baggage. But hey, if you really want to specialize in the "ok, maybe there's some racist baggage there, but let's not get distracted by that" agenda, I'm sure you can get some clients beyond CNI. While Strom is out of the picture, perhaps David Duke would appreciate your brand of support. "
Most of the rest of the responses are from a Holocaust denier with the id "prion". Joan Yoshiwara once again has failed to remove posts from a Holocaust denier, which is no surprise given her refusal to follow her own editorial rules.
posted by DC Indymedia Watch | 2:54 PM
<< Home