Bouldin, my favorite Shabbos Goy, on the proposed Park Slope Food Coop boycott of Israel: 

‎"China is, step by little step, obliterating the existence of Tibet as a distinct entity within the People's Republic. 

Yet oddly enough, I'm unaware of any attempts to take Chinese products off any shelves.

The quintessence of anti-Semitism as it relates to the state of Israel is to single it out for treatment not afforded any other state."

From Wikipedia: A Shabbat goy, Shabbos goy or Shabbes goy (Yiddish: שבת גוי, shabbos goy Modern Hebrew: גוי של שבת goy shel shabat) is an individual who regularly assists a Jewish individual or organization by performing certain acts on the Biblical Sabbath which are forbidden to Jews within Jewish law. The phrase is a combination of the word "Shabbos" (שבת) meaning the Sabbath, and "Goy", which literally means "a nation" but colloquially and practically means a "non-Jew" (in Biblical Hebrew "goy" means simply "a nation", but in Mishnaic Hebrew it is used in the sense of "a non-national", i.e., "a non-Jew").

Judaism prohibits certain types of work on the Sabbath, known as "melakha". Within certain guidelines (as dictated by the Shulkhan Arukh, an authoritative Jewish code of law), a non-Jewish individual under certain circumstances may perform certain acts beneficial to Jews but may not be performed by Jews on the Sabbath. Generally speaking, a Jew should respect a non-Jew's right to rest on the Sabbath, and therefore may not explicitly ask a non-Jew to perform a service prohibited on the Sabbath by the Jewish law, nor may the Jew get benefit ("hana'a") from such a service. Nevertheless, a non-Jew is not expected to keep the Sabbath like a Jew. Hence a Jew may benefit from work performed by a goy if the goy performs this work for his own good and of his own free will. A borderline case is when a Jew hints to a non-Jew that he wants him to perform a certain service without explicitly asking him. These borderline cases are considered legitimate in most Jewish communities. Furthermore, in many Jewish communities it is considered legitimate to hire a non-Jewish worker to perform certain services on the Sabbath, providing that the non-Jew is paid in advance, so that the payment seems like a kind of gift rather than a salary. This way, the principle of the non-Jew performing the service of his own free will is still adhered to, at least formally. It is more appropriate if the non-Jew enjoys his own service in a way. For example, if his job is to take care of the heating system, it is more appropriate if this system also heats his own room or apartment, so that he enjoys it as well and not just the members of the Jewish community. 

It has not gone without notice that the number one piece on Room 8 is the 2nd post in about a week written by an admitted holocaust denier which blames the Jews for 9/11. Our glorious First Amendment requires the government not censor such despicable excretions, and I would also contribute to the ACLU to defend Vince Nunes’ right to March in Skokie (I would also donate to a fund to supply said residents with tomatoes to toss in his direction). But no one obligates the owner of a blog to permit such stuff on his site. Ben and Gur, both nice Jewish boys, have taken away Mr. Nunes’ front page privileges, but that has not stopped his audience from finding him here. There is apparently a large market for the crack Mr. Nunes is selling, and it has flocked to Room 8, turning it into a de facto hate site. I promised a while back to leave Room 8 for just that reason, and I want to assure all concerned that my web designer (Brooklyn Politics’ awesome Colin Campbell) and I are working on it.

Meanwhile I apologize to all for my presence helping to give visibility to such repugnant garbage.

I knew you couldn'r resist taking a cheap shot

Submitted by Vincenzo (not verified) on Sat, 09/03/2011 - 4:23pm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6nwZS5X7GA

Here's a roundtable discussion between Gordon Duff, editor of Veterans Today; James Fetzer, co-founder of Scholars For 9/11 Truth; and Richard

Gordon Duff's mother is Jewish - what do you have to say to that?

Nothing, I'm sure.

Jim Fetzer - any comment about him?

Once again...I'll posit that you got BUPKIS.

You're a charlatan, a crybaby and a punk.

Wait until I do my Jim Traficant piece...you better invest in Depends.

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

Dismiss the charges as "old news."

Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.