OMFG: Someone finds a way to make RAWA seem Jewish. Really.

[image of book cover is from here]

I'm not sure the face of anti-Semitism is changing, and I also haven't read Walter Laqueur's book. But I know this for sure: the anti-Semites I worry most about are white, Christian, and male. 

What follows is an expose, of sorts, of an anti-Semite who appears to be at least two of the three.

There really wasn't (and still isn't) any reason for me not to stand in solidarity with the women of RAWA. But there's now a stronger reason for me to stand in solidarity with RAWA against this person, a fundamentalist Christian anti-Semitic blogger with a post titled "Judeo-Satanic Feminists in Afghanistan". Seriously? If interested, here's the post. The blogger's name is Brian Akira. While his last name is Japanese, I'm not sure where he lives or whether or not he is of Japanese descent. He posts a fair amount on U.S. Mormonism and U.S. dominant politics, so I'm thinking he's an ultra-conservative U.S.er, regardless of ethnic heritage.

Heres' more by him, which endears me to him not at all. He's also virulently anti-lesbian and anti-feminist.

What follows is from here, in another blog's discussion of U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee of President Obama's, Elena Kagan. It's filled with vile bigoted things. It's not long, and it's a reminder to me that anti-Semitism, and antifeminism, and anti-lesbianism, and misogyny, are all alive and well in the U.S. Not that I've been having any serious doubts, but I don't tend to hang out in circles where this level of bigotry is exposed so unabashedly. I'm only thankful if he's not white and Western European-descended because at least he's not at the tippety top of the political hierarchy in this white, white supremacist country of ours.

brianakira said...

She looks like Mike Myers and Jon Lovitz's bastard son. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. I see that some people can't seem to understand that she should be opposed simply because she's a Jew! Yes, that's a good enough reason. All Jews should be opposed in all positions of influences unless they have proven, by their words and their deeds, that they have completely rejected Jewism, Judaism, Talmudism, Kabbalism and Zionism as Satanic devices. I couldn't much care if the court is 2/3 Roman Catholic, but if that's what it takes to wake up the comatose Protestant majority, then good. If they complin that 2/3 of the court represnts 1/3 of the population, then maybe they'll also start wondering how come 1/3 of the court represents 1/50 of the country. Of course they'll be told that each justice is appointed according to their merits, and that they don't represent their tribe or Church, but each of them is "unbiased". Still, perhaps even the dumber Protestants will start to wonder, "If they're all so unbiased, then how come we keep hearing ho important it is that there be women and minorities on the court? And is there really not one qualified Protestant in this entire country?" From last week: "Easy Prediction: Next U.S. Supreme Court Justice A Jew or Jewey" http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/easy-prediction-next-u-s-supreme-court-justice-a-jew-or-jewey/ At “What Do You Believe?”, we Name the Jew, for You. Puppet Obama’s short list for the next Supreme Court appointee, most likely to replace Justice Stevens who will be 90 years old on April 20th: 1. The Jewess Kagan. 2. The Shabbos Goy/Crypto-Jew/Convert Wood: First husband was the Jew Sufit. Dissenting opinion in Bloch v. Frischholz, 533 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2008): The majority of a panel of the Seventh Circuit held that a condominium associate could prohibit residents from putting objects on their doors without violating the Fair Housing Act. The result was that Jewish residents could not put mezuzot on their doorposts. Dissenting, Wood argued plaintiffs had established a claim for intentional religious discrimination under the Fair Housing Act because there was sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the rule was being applied in a way that would constitute a constructive eviction of observant Jews. The en banc Seventh Circuit reheard the case and unanimously reversed the panel majority in Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009), siding with Judge Wood’s position. Wood was able to rally the whole court around a position protective of religious freedom and practice. 3. The Shabbos Goy/Crypto-Jew/Convert Garland: Married to the Jewess Rosenbaum (granddaughter of Samuel Irving Rosenman; lawyer, judge, Democratic politician, and speech-writer and advisor to Puppets Roosevelt and Truman 1936-1948; the first official White House Counsel 1943-1946). Grew up in intensely Jewey Skokie, Illinois, the old hunting ground of the pedophile Jewish Nazi Frank Collin/Cohen (now the New Age quasi-Mormonite witch and pseudo-historian Frank Joseph).

April 11, 2010 9:00 AM

So this WHM guy--sorry, "pink" guy--named Jeff writes to me here about how he's not exactly a WHM (and he's not bi). This is what he says...

[image that illustrates the socially harmful power of white supremacy is from here]

Jeff has left a new comment on your post "To WHM who are dads: Make It A Happy Father's Day-...":

Wow! You have a very intense blog. I don't like your attitude (you sound just like any another jaded racist, but the message is clear. As a married "white" (who says I'm not a person of color!?? Actually I am a little bit pink) man, I am looking forward to being the kind of loving father you've described. I know what you are saying about the "WHM" thing, but my challenge to you is to not see it as systematized. That makes it sounds as if white men across the world have united to collude some global grab. This explanation is the easy way out and the easy way to explain why WHM have dominated modern times.

It is far more complex and, at the same time, much simpler to figure out. But I am not in your shoes and I cannot possibly understand what it is you think and feel. Attaining power is one thing, but I think what your referring to is the systems employed in order to try to keep the power.

*         *          *

I respond as follows (which has just a couple of additional points from my earlier reply at the post where his comment also appears):

Hi Jeff,

Intense is good, yes? :)

First, I do hope you are an awesome, caring, father who is fully supportive and respectful of the child's mother. I wish you all the best with that.

I assure you that my "attitude" has little to do with whites overtly or covertly dominating much of the world, or patriarchal atrocities existing, or gay men being beaten up by het men.

My question to you is by what means will white supremacy, male supremacy, and heterosexism end? What are the practices and perspectives that will accomplish this? What values? What methods of organising?

Your suggestion evades the question and helps ensure all those systems remain fundamentally in tact, so that the oppressive harm this blog centrally addresses will not be taken up by you.

This I know well: Western white het class-privileged men don't ever want to be seen "as a group". Identifying you as part of a group doesn't tell me much, really, about what sort of fellow you are personally--it doesn't tell me what your favorite color is or what your favorite foods and movies are, but it does tell me what privileges you have relative to those without them. And that constructs us, partly.

And, it tells me that I can put money on the fact that you haven't read these books: Yurugu, by Dr. Marimba Ani, and Sister Outsider, by Audre Lorde. Am I correct? Please tell me if I'm wrong.

I'm going to wager that most if not all of your favorite books and movies have a WHM lead character or author. Am I wrong?

You being a WHM tells me that you or many of the WHM you know probably hold mistaken negative views of radical feminism as being "too often anti-man", and of lesbianism as "hot" for all the wrong reasons. Am I right?

That construction of you, of "your people", with power and privileges acted out interpersonally and bolstered institutionally, which includes your social status and position relative to those you structurally oppress does "exist".

I'm not making it up to indulge myself in a fantasy world, I assure you.

WHM supremacy exists in the form of particular shared and acted out values, behaviors, attitudes, and philosophies. One of the behaviors is to believe you, Jeff, are in no way responsible for ending rape.

Do you think women, collectively, have that luxury to assume "The heterosexual men will stop raping us. We don't have to challenge them about it. They'll just stop on their own."???

Let me ask you: what have you done in your life, in close and organised collaboration with other men with accountability to women, to ensure that rapes don't happen among your group of het men--among the het men you know and call "friends"? What have you done to stop white supremacist violence and bigotry, or, even, to stop racist joke-telling among all the whites you encounter? (Or is that only the job of people of color to attend to, as individuals?)

What have you done to challenge heterosexism's privileges and power?

What political philosophies do you most admire? I'm going to make an assumption here and I welcome you to set me straight, so to speak. ;)

The philosophy most admired by white het men is one of liberal humanist individualism, which supports white het men to only be socially discussed and challenged "as individuals" and erases from reality the REALITY that you are a group, a politically active group, not in a way that means you're making mobile phone calls to each other before you go to bed. But in ways that require you to not interrupt certain things "your people" do, that are oppressive to those of us who are not in your group.

No one is only an individual, even while we also are all individuals, in some regard. But if you think being the only white person in a group that is predominantly of color, or, even, all white, doesn't manifest in some ways that ensures the maintenance of white supremacy, it's your privilege that allows you to not know exactly in how many ways you actions or inactions do exactly that.

If you think being a het man doesn't play itself out socially in "gendered" ways, you're also not in touch with what het male privilege does to a person's identity and humanity and social behavior.

I believe you are misinterpreting the political function of me identifying WHM a group. It isn't to promote bigotry.

It's so I can track the ways that you, Jeff--if you are white, het, and a man--are embued socially with many forms of status and worth, with value and attributes that make your people's lives, collectively, easier than that of poor lesbian women of color. And that "show up" including in the comment you left here above.

What you probably know, but may not admit, is that your group is the only one that thinks it ought not be seen as one. Your group--WHM--is the only one that actually has sufficient privileges and social power to resist being seen as one.

Think about it: "White gay men are [ ]"; African American men are [ ]"; "Latina women are [ ]". You can fill in the blanks with what you hear all the white het men around you say.

What do WHM you know put in the blank spaces? Promiscuous? Dangerous? Uppity? You tell me. I'd say it likely depends on where you live and what time period we're talking about.

And if you're liberal, you probably won't want to admit you all do that sort of stereotyping and likely feel "bad" if you do. And if you're conservative you are more likely to feel okay and even proud of doing so.

You tell me what you witness among the WHM you've known for years. And how often you come into contact with extremely harmful misperceptions of "your group". I mean EXTREMELY harmful and DEEPLY hurtful misperceptions, that leave you depressed, feeling despondent, feeling so wounded you cry.

NO Black woman I know can pass through even one day without being cast into a grossly stereotypical box, a harshly negative light, having a mind-spinningly distorted view of herself reflected back to her by whites and men, that ISN'T based on her individuality. She can't pass through ONE DAY in society with that luxury that you are proposing I dignify you with, that society already dignifies you with.

You suggest not seeing WHM supremacy as a members of a system that benefits you. Why? For whose liberation? People of color? Queer people? Women? Or yours?

My point is that just about everywhere you go, among whites, among heterosexuals, and among men--and that's likely a lot of people you encounter in your life--you will primarily be seen as "an individual" in ways women, people of color, and lesbians and gay men are not, by WHM.

Any WHM who knows I'm gay carries assumptions to me about what that means, and they are almost always wrong. Every African American person I know, and every Black person outside the U.S., carries assumptions about what it means that I'm a U.S. white guy, and those assumptions are usually right.

You're expressing to me some resistance to being put in a box. I say, "Feel what that's like, deeply, and realise you can go through life mostly not being in one."

That'd be lucky for you, except it has nothing at all to do with luck. Society is organised within and by systems and institutionalised beliefs about human nature, about what race is, about what gender is, about what our genitals mean and what we're supposed to do with them. And each and every one of those systems, institutions, and industries is run by actual human beings with values and attitudes about the "us" that isn't you and your people.

I don't believe one WHM group meets once a week in an office building or church basement--except to go to AA meetings.

I believe WHM meet casually and professionally all the time in ways that help reinforce WHM supremacy. And in ways that rarely challenge it, in part because you, Jeff, and so many other WHM, resist even thinking of yourself as "one of them".

See, you get to grow up and mostly not be "one of them". Mexicans in the U.S. have no such luxury (meaning, entitlement and privilege). Lesbians and gay men have no such luxury (entitlement and privilege).

It is more complex than one group of WHM meeting with the specific intention of preserving WHM supremacy, yes. But it's not so very complex that you are rendered ONLY an individual with no culpability, no responsibility, in the project of either enabling or eradicating WHM supremacy.

Does that make sense to you?

I'm not saying you are only a stereotype. I'm saying you're no less of one or more of one than anyone else. And therefore why should you get to be thought of qualitatively "different" than most of the world's population of poor people of color who never get portrayed in Western white media as "only individuals".

And I'm saying that WHM attitudes such as yours, here, contribute to reinforcing WHM privileges and oppressive power. That you've done that, here. With your one comment in ways you don't even recognise.

An attitude that contributes to the maintenance of WHM supremacist violence and discrimination is you feeling indignant when someone sees you as "one of them", and when anyone at all asks you to be responsible with the privileges and entitlements you have that you likely couldn't name for me right now. But prove me wrong: write back with fifty ways you are privileged by being a WHM. I love to be proven wrong by WHM. But when I've challenged WHM in the past, here, I never hear back from them. Is that a "group" behavior?

P.S. Oh, and on being "pink". Dude. Really. You have white privileges in a racist society, not "pink" ones. That makes you white. Sorry to bust your pink-self bubble.

Welcome to the world of raced identities. Tell me if you were in Apartheid South Africa--or, if you are currently in South Africa, does your nation divide people up based on how pink they are? I'm guessing not.

And I do welcome a reply.