Comical Politics

Purdue Social Justice Club has Gone Crazy Against Conservative Jew

The Purdue University Chronicle_03.19.12, a student newspaper, is almost exclusively devoted to me, lucky me.  In it, the Purdue Calumet Social Justice Club, has gotten beside itself because I named the wrong person as its advisor on this blog.  Correction: it is not currently Prof. Alan  Spector, instead it is his (to the best of my knowledge) protege, another Marxist, Akili Shakur.  This does not change the nature of the club nor who its real "in the background" adviser is.   By the way, when was the club not under the organziation of either Spector, DeFelice, or both?  These comments in the paper were written by the Treasurer of the SJC and is not a news story; but, a propaganda piece, oh excuse me, an opinion piece -- although it is not presented as such.  Could this be because many of those on the Chronicle staff are also SJC members?

I have talked to Marxists in West Lafayette when these two Professors, Spector and DeFelice, went down there in the 1980's to sell them on the  Progressive Labor Party, and its house organ The Challenge. That publication is about as over the top as one can get (if you have any doubt, just look at a copy of a recent Challenge.)   Keep in mind that DeFelice and Spector had their students actually subscribe to this rag and made the library subscribe to this piece of garbage.  Why is anyone suprised that the Chancellor picks on me?  I wonder if it is because I am Jewish as well as conservative ("oh say it isn't so, he must be silenced!").  No one ever bothered DeFelice or Spector in over forty years of berating and baiting students every single day.

As the Treasurer of the SJC presents, it is true that the Social Justice Club (SJC) and the Criminal Justice Club (CJC) have been at war and have had "bad blood" between them for probably ten years.  Though the SJC Treasurer has it completely wrong as to the reason why.  The reason is, Prof. Spector, through the Black Student Union, identified Prof. Nicky Jackson as a racist.  This was when she was a part of Criminal Justice/Sociology.  They called her a racist in a public gathering in the Student Union.   This reference was the central focus of the gathering.  In addition, Akili Shakur and friends filed a harasment complaint against Prof. Jackson for racism and anti-Black behavior in Jackson's classes.  This was fought for over three years by Prof. Jackson.  The only, and I mean only person on PUC's campus, who stood by Prof. Jackson was me.  It seemed at the time that I was the only one, except for Prof. Jackson who believed in free-speech.  Prof. Tobin also chimed in and called Prof. Jackson a racist in her class around the years 2004/5.  (My, how things change.) By the way, the only way Prof. Jackson won was to get a lawyer and go to court to sue the University's Board of Trustees for failure to protect her civil rights.  The University knew it did not have a leg to stand on and settled.  The final monetary settelment was not disclosed; but Spector and friends including the Administration had to back off.   That is the reason, part of the agreement, that Prof. Jackson is in the History and Polical Science Department, not in Sociology (even though her Ph.D. is in sociology).

By the way, the University administration, under Chancellors Yaeckel and Cohen, told Jackson there is nothing they could and would do because it was free speech.  The students who called her a racist and described her as delivering racist rantings were allowed to do that on campus because the University considered it free speech.  As a matter of fact, Prof. Jackson had to go back to court because even after her initial legal agreement with the University, the Administration and faculty continued to treat her as a racist.  Here is the official filing:  Jackson_complaint.   If anyone is interested in other people who filed on a free speech basis while calling the kettle black, here is Prof. DeFelice's filing:  Gene_defelice_complaint.

What is sad for me today, is to see how someone, Prof. Jackson, who called me practically every day for over two years, crying for reassurance that the University will do the right thing and that truth and civility will prevail, in spite of what it looked like then, has so willingly decided to go after me in quite the same way that others went after her.  I was the sole support person through all her hearings, her interviews, and her legal ideas and strategy.  What is hurtful, is that she never even gave me the benefit of a doubt to even contact me first to see what was going on.

Now we have a revisionist history being written by the Treasurer of the SJC, when it comes to the CJC and Prof. Nicky Jackson. The blog they mention, which I did put up, focused on the collusion of the Chancellor and the faculty as was shown by emails I obtained through a FOIA request (by the way, I am still awaiting more emails from other FOIA requests).  Not a single word showed up about this either in the Chronicle itself or in the SJC commentary.  Is this what the anonymous professor was afraid of commenting about?   He knows too much?   (Given the public shellacking I have been taking, it is hard to believe that anyone on this campus is fearful of me retaliating against them).  It truly was a plan to "get me."  I wonder why?   To this day, not a single independent piece of evidence has been presented to show that I have ever done anything.  Everything has either been part of free-speech and academic freedom debate on a university campus or it is just items that students and faculty keep repeating that it is so.  Continuous repetition does not make it true; only the perception of it becomes blurred.  The one time that Spector asked me; I emphatically told him no, it was not said. 

All this is ignored by everyone, the CJC, the SJC, Prof, Jackson, etc.  What seems to be important is to get me.  I wonder why?  Have any of you?

What Did the Tapes Really Show?

Ever since my attack by Purdue University and its PC police began, central to their argument has been a "recording" of my lecture.  Specifically what I supposedly "meant" on those tapes.  I will now try to explain these to those who still believe in the freedom of speech in the United States.

One, these tapes are completely anonymous.  I do not know who taped them, when they taped them, or how many "hands" it has been through.  It is obvious that they have been edited.  That is obvious by the "perfect" eight minute "edited" sections.  Some of what is on these tapes has clearly been "doctored" or "tampered".   Each lecture, from the class from which these tapes are alleged to have come from, was for 2 1/2 to 3 hours.  (By the way, there were 15 weeks, so that is 45 hours of lectures in total.)  Thus, what is heard is 8 minutes from either one lecture that was over 2 hours in length or multiple lectures each of which were over two hours in length.  To use an art term, there is no provenance for these recordings.  They are of no use as evidence (or even as a good example.)  All of this would be true of any "recordings" that would "pop-up."   Why not one from ten years ago, or five, or 20 etc. etc. etc.?

Two,  Not a single student from the class that these tapes were alleged to be from has ever filed a complaint.  They had 120 days into the summer to file a complaint with the Department Head, the Dean, or with the Chancellor.  Nothing, not a word, not an issue, until I came under attack this fall when it all of a sudden "surfaces."   Thus, no student who was actually in the class had any issue with my lectures.  That is the official and true record of events.

Three,  Some of the arguments that are presented come from the specific books I used in the class and addressed the topic of the class.  The best that I can tell, it is claimed that these came from a class entitiled: Introduction to Jewish Studies.  One may not like the arguments that were being made by these books, but they are legitimate subjects of debate. Two of the books that I used were: The Israel Test by George Gilder and Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin.  The first book argues that the root cause of modern anti-Semitism is envy of the Jew, be it in Israel or in other countries.  The second book makes the case that the Jewish condition is unique in relationship to all other groups.

Four. In continuation of two and three above, some quotes are simply taken out of context and are plain wrong.  Without knowing the books I used and the context within which some of this material was presented, one cannot possibly determine whether a statement is unacceptable or acceptable.  Not being in class, one cannot make judgements about what one has no idea about.  Live lectures have a physical interaction in them for meaning that cannot be captured on audio tape.  That is definitely lost in a doctored clip.  Clearly, those very students who were actually in the class and heard my lectures firsthand, did not have any objections.

FIRE's LETTER to PURDUE

  FIRE letter to Purdue U Calumet Chancellor Thomas L. Keon, January 24, 2012-3

This is the cease and desisit letter from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to Purdue.  There has been no answer from the Purdue Administrators, yet.

U.S. United Nations Ambassodor Susan Rice’s Embarrassing Anti-Israel Tirade.

What Was Susan Rice’s Embarrassing Anti-Israel Tirade Supposed to Accomplish?.

Why didn’t Susan Rice just get up and say, “I’m being forced to veto this condemnation of Israel because the Israel Lobby controls D.C., I’m bitterly resentful about it, and Stephen Walt will soon be explaining why”? It would have been less damaging than the spectacle we just witnessed, wherein, as John pointed out, the [...]

It is clear that Susan Rice was trying to make sure that there was literally no country who did not see Israel and the Jews as a pariah.  She did accomplish this for Obama and the leftist Democratic politicians.  They have waited a long time to be able to join the civil rights glitterati of the United Nations: Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, etc.  Now Obama and Rice feel invigorated at being able to join in action their fellow anti-Jewish leftists.  It has been awhile coming for them and it is as much a relief for them as it is for Coptic Christians to escape Egypt.

The United States has never, ever sunk so low as they have this week in their lack of support of human rights and the survivability of Jews.  All Jews should now realize that an holocaust is quite possible in America led by the likes of Rice and Obama.  Will it be as universal as the German one?  Probably not?  But it will be the same for Jews who do not see eye to eye with Obama.  It will also be an expanded Holocaust to include none Jews who do not see eye to eye with Rice and Obama on the World Stage.

Jews Who Won't Support Their Allies

This important piece on the American Thinker seriously outlines how the majority of American Jews are committing suicide through self-hatred.  This is not new, they did it before with Hitler and the Holocaust.  The Jewish people's only possibility of serious survival now is solely centered on Israel.

American Thinker: Jews Who Won't Support Their Allies.

When you look at Israel, the only support it has comes first from Israeli public (generally), secondly from the modern orthodox Jewish community, and finally (and in many ways the most strongly, from the Evangelical Protestant Christian community. 

Like it or not, that is it.  The old post Holocaust Jewish organizations are too old, corrupt, and liberal to have any consequences in today's political world.  You can forget them.   Especially with Obama in the White House, the Jews and Israel have become openly expendable. 

There are some Haredi communities that support Israel; but that is rare.  Rabbi Teitelbaum of Satmar will long be remembered as the destroyer of the Jewish people.  He and his followers have, and continue to do, everything to watch millions of Jews perish. 

As the opinion piece shows, Jews are their own worse enemies.  (The Temples destruction attest to that.)  Today nothing has changed, those who support them, Jews find excuses to reject, usually the holier than though syndrome.  We, as the Jewish people, may still survive in spite of ourselves and the excuses our relgious and secular leaders seem to always find to reject our friends.