Subject: my article that you quoted
hey, you posted a copy of my article on your site - http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/thisweek.htm im just wondering how you came to the conclusion that im a pretender on the left. i mean if youre gonna highlight kate ps im not jewish, so you can't argue my article represents the jewish lobby either. [Kate Raynes-Goldie] [See also excerpts from Raynes-Goldie's article below]

Hi! Sorry. We think you treated the adbusters fellow pretty shabbily. Say, how about this? If you'd care to debate us about your article (and the issues it raises) we'll feature our exchange at the JTR home page. Now, judging by your article, you seem to be trying to be an ethical person. That's good. Unfortunately, you don't know (no offense) what you're talking about. We do. So we offer you an open forum to show us the errors of our ways. What do you get? The opportunity to steer our readers over to your side, based upon your presentation of facts and moral argument. What do we get? I think I will win the debate/exchange and you will rethink your position (frankly, it's a dunk), along with others who happen to run across the exchange. What do you say? We both get to clarify our factual and moral positions. Cheers.

sorry, i dont want my name in any way associated with you. and you still didnt answer my question. its a bit hypocritical for you to say i treated him badly when you readily attacked my character without even knowing anything about me. at least i took the time to ask lasn about his point of view and published what he said. [KR-G]

OK. You're pretty standard. You drop by to complain about something, but when you're called to explain your world view, you evaporate. When challenged, you're not interested in defending your article about Adbusters' listing of Jewish neocons. Obviously because you can't defend it.

You have trashed the Adbusters editor for merely listing the Jews who make up about half the best known "neo-cons" guiding the Iraq war. You call his position "race baiting." But you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. The mere charge of "race baiting" subsumes you within the inane PC dictates of the Jewish Lobby. In other words, it is a social absolute for people like you that Jews, as a collective group (and this group is highly political) are held to be beyond the realm of criticism. You fall for this. You endorse it. And therefore you are a sychophant for the "Jewish Lobby." You are part of the ideological system that crushes free speech in the (hidden) name of Judeocentrism.

Doubt this? Switch all Lasn's itemized Jewish neo-con names into Palestinian ones, and then do the same name switiching with the vast Judeocentric and Zionist infrastructure throughout the West (mass media, advocacy groups, etc.) If half the major "neo-cons" weren't Jewish, but were instead Palestinians, and many of them had strong ties to Palestine (including dual USA-Palestine citizenship), and they had just been instrumental in fomenting an American invasion of Israel, you wouldn't even be declaring that listing Palestinian names of power in U.S. foreign policy was irrelevant, let alone that it was "race baiting." It would make perfect sense to make tics next to Palestinian names to understand what was socially and politically happening. Why not? Anything less would be to self-censor and ensure blindness so the (imaginary, in real life) Palestinian Lobby could function unhindered and unmolested.

You are a "pretender on the left" insofar as your endorsement of censorial Judeocentrism is so strong in you (evidenced by your attack upon Lasn's expose of distinctly Jewish elements in the "neo-con" faction that led the U.S. to war against Iraq). Both Judaism and Zionism as ideologies are intrinsically racist. In your protection of Jewish tribalism from critical inquiry, you are in the service of both Israeli apartheid and the Jewish Lobby in the West. It doesn't matter if you go to weekly Anti-Defamation League meetings or not. Whether intentionally or by default, you function as a Judeocentric censor in their disguised name.

Per your "publishing what Lasn said." We'd love to feature at this web site what you "say" about your Adbusters article, but, alas, you prefer to hide from public view your political and ideological basis for your attack. That, my dear, is "hypocrisy."

Ms. Raynes-Goldie's complaint is about the following comment that precedes an excerpt from her article:

["Out" the Jewish neo-con lock on American foreign policy, and you're a "race baiter." The Jewish Lobby aims to crucify another. Below, a pretender in the "Left" waves false flags to tell you the Middle East conflicts have nothing to do with Israel.]
RACE BAITING. ADBUSTERS' LISTING OF JEWISH NEO-CONS THE LATEST WACKO TWIST IN LEFTY MAG'S REMAKE,
BY KATE RAYNES-GOLDIE, Now Toronto, March 18-24, 2004
"Looks like adbusters has landed in the soup again – not with its corporate targets, alas, but with its own friends and allies. The latest eyebrow-raiser has to do with an article published in the March/April edition under the headline "Why won't anyone say they are Jewish?" The piece, written by Kalle Lasn, the magazine's founder and editor-in-chief, "draws attention" to powerful American neo-cons who are supporters of Israel's Likud government and suggests they are counselling the U.S. administration to favour foreign policy friendly to Israel. While these ideas are hardly controversial, the real shocker is that Lasn goes out of his way to identify these right-wing policy wonks as "Jewish." Purporting to be courageous by tackling "the issue head on," Lasn provides a list of 50 of the most influential neo-cons in the U.S. – and emphatically points out that "half of them are Jewish." This scary confusion of political leanings with ethnic and religious identity has generated a strong reaction from Adbusters' readers. Klaus Jahn, an anti-WTO activist and philosophy of history professor at U of T, finds the piece and the list that goes with it very alarming. "Whether listing physicians who perform abortions in pro-life tracts, gays and lesbians in office memos, Communists in government and the entertainment industry under McCarthy, Jews in Central Europe under Nazism and so on," he says, "such list-making has always produced pernicious consequences." And he points out that it "will only heighten the not-wholly-illegitimate hyper-sensitivities of defenders of Israel and make it that much easier for them to defend Israeli practices that are indefensible." Equally alarmed, Meredith Warren, a religious scholar and member of McGill Students Against War, says the article dangerously disguises the real dynamics of the Middle East situation. "The U.S. government has only an economic interest in having control over that region. It wants oil and stability – it has nothing to do with Jews or Judaism. Pointing out the various religious stances of those in power totally misses the point of the U.S. government's interest in Israel." So what was the point behind Lasn's piece? Lasn insists he isn't being anti-Semitic. "I suspect I have some Jewish blood," he tells me. Rather, he says his aim is to examine those in power. He is frustrated by the mainstream media's "avoidance of the issue," he explains, and believes it is important to put the issue up for debate. Up until Tuesday night, this debate took the form of an unmoderated free-for-all on an Adbusters' message board. The board and all the messages on it have since been taken down, to make way for, as Lasn puts it, a "more focused" and better controlled debate. But this was not the first change that Adbusters made to the message board. Initially the message board's topic read "Is this another Jewish conspiracy, or a truth people deny for fear of being labelled anti-Semitic?" It was then changed to "Read debate comments." Before it was shut down, the old message board was filled with outrage against the article plus a sprinkling of comments from people who would not fit the profile of the traditional Adbusters reader. "I don't usually agree with your magazine, but I'm glad that you are not afraid to show the Jews for what they really are. It's good to know that more people are speaking out against the Jews and the Negroes," wrote one man from New York. Another message from a woman in Budapest read: "Jews have always had a knack for turning the world against them.... During World War II, Jews got a serious (maybe too serious) warning to reconsider their [sic] way of life, to make themselves more acceptable for the rest of the world. Did they reconsider? No." When asked about the existence of messages like these on his message board, Lasn expresses surprise and says that in the new forum similar messages will be censored. Despite his call for debate, Lasn seems to have already made up his mind regarding the "Jewish influence" in American foreign policy, and says that if Palestinians were in the White House, there likely would have been no war in Iraq. Similarly, he sees no problem with conflating right-wing Zionism and Judaism. "There's a certain upbringing, a certain education, a certain set of values that comes with being Jewish," he says. "There's a lot of baggage that comes with it." Many who have followed the magazine say the Jewish neo-con piece is indicative of much larger changes at Adbusters, as its anti-consumerism and culture jamming mandate gives way to a focus on anti-imperialism ... Lasn himself says some stores carrying his magazine have been picketed since the article's release. However, Paul Rutherford, a history of advertising professor at U of T and author of Endless Propaganda: The Advertising Of Public Goods, says the real problem is less about anti-Semitism than bad journalism. "Adbusters has always been about sloppy journalism," he says. "Today the nice pictures are gone, the humour is gone, and the journalism is still sloppy. You'd think something would improve over time, but Adbusters hasn't."