Tuesday, January 20, 1998

NIGHT OF THE NAZI by Chunk Wheeler

Frogue pal Michael Collins Piper of the anti-Semitic American
Free Press. Piper has cited the "work" of Fields and Kadar
[On this night, some pretty unsavory characters descended upon the board in defense of Frogue. Among them:

George Kadar: the founder of “Friends of Steven J. Frogue,” Orange County’s own George Kadar, is an avowed “white separatist”? (San Diego Union Tribune, 8/29/91) --He is also the founder of American Spring, an anti-immigration group that has staged protests at the Mexican border.

Joe Fields: a white separatist and Holocaust “revisionist,” who has said that Jews deserve “everything they get, even extermination”? (See Michael Novick’s White Lies, White Power)

James Scott: What he's quoted as saying below says it all: "there never was a holocaust."]


Evidently, the founder of “American Spring” is GEORGE KADAR. The organization is discussed below in an exerpt from Novick’s White Lies, White Power:

“American Spring at the Mexican Border,” held at the U.S.-Mexico border at San Ysidro in June 1992, and again in 1993, was a recent example in a series of racist mobilizations aimed at stirring up anti-immigrant hysteria and blaming immigrant workers for all the growing problems of our society. It can serve to illuminate several key aspects of the issue.

In front of the ten-foot border wall, the AMERICAN SPRING nazis raised the confederate battle flag and flashed the Hitler salute. The rally united an assortment of right wingers, open nazis, skinheads, and "White Nationalist" Richard Barrett. It resulted in physical attacks on Chicano-Mexican protesters and the stoning of migrant workers by the nazi boneheads. It was the outcome of a continuing unity of purpose between repressive agencies of the government, reactionary and demagogic politicians, and hard-core racist elements which pose as being anti-establishment, but actually work hand in glove with the state to maintain exploitation and oppression.

In 1994, American Spring attempted to attach itself to a border rally planned by Ross Perot's United We Stand America organization (UWSA). UWSA had provided most of the petition circulators for the so-called Save Our State ("S.O.S.") initiative, placed on the November 1994 state ballot. Proposition 187 aimed to deny all education, health, and social service benefits to the undocumented, and require teachers, health care practitioners, and social workers to report "suspicious persons" to the INS, including even the parents of U.S. citizen school-children.

More on Fields from Novick's book:

The head of the L.A. County chapter of the POPULISTS when [Bo] Gritz ran for President, also then a member of its national executive committee, was JOE FIELDS. One Joe Fields in national leadership is more than enough to discredit any political formation, and Fields is typical, not exceptional, in the ranks of the Populists. Fields has been a nazi activist of long standing in the L.A. Harbor area. He also became a national "footnote" to the story of David Duke's campaign for governor of Louisiana, after a tape-recorded interview with Fields and Duke was widely circulated. On the tape, made at a gathering of Carto's revisionist Institute for Historical Review, Fields openly asserted his nazi identity and beliefs, such as that the Jews deserve "everything they get, even extermination," while Duke admonished him to be more discreet.

It's ironic that Fields, who boasts on the tape that he would "never deny" he is a nazi, now is denying it, having taken Duke's advice to heart. Fields specifically opposes democracy on the tape, noting that it allows "anything that can claim to be human to vote." His interview is riddled with references to "kikes" and "niggers." Now Fields professes to be a supporter of the Bill of Rights, but on the tape he declares matter of factly that he would suppress any speech that he deems not in the interest of the white race. He ran for State Assembly in 1992 on the American Independent Party ticket (the group that achieved ballot status running George Wallace for president, and which gave its ballot line to Duke and the Populists in 1988). As this book is being prepared for printing, Fields is the American Independent Party candidate for U.S. Congress from the same vicinity.

* * * *

FROM THE VINE: 1/20/98

Originally entitled:


by Chunk Wheeler

Tuesday’s Board meeting will be remembered.

Public comments:


Buck Coe, chairman of the Committee to Recall Steven J. Frogue, read what appeared to be an affidavit by former Frogue student Emily E. Hoffman. According to Hoffman, Frogue taught that the Holocaust did not occur.

Ms. Hoffman also alleged that Mr. Frogue routinely told racially insensitive jokes. One joke, she said, asked why there are “red dots” on the the foreheads of Indian women. The answer had something to do with pointing at such spots and saying how “ugly” the women are.

As Mr. Coe read Ms. Hoffman’s words, Frogue affected bemusement and shook his head.


A man named Joe Fields spoke next. He seemed to praise what he took to be the board’s willingness to return to “Western civilization and Christianity.” He complained about the influence and “shrill...voice” of “Political Zionism,” and he reminded us that, just a few minutes earlier, we had all pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States, not “the flag of Israel.” In his mind, our Board should be praised for its stand against “ADL-sponsored garbage.” He concluded his remarks by exclaiming that certain people should “Go back to Israel!”

Fields’ remarks were poorly received by most in the audience, though he was applauded by the small group of like-minded individuals who had come, evidently, to defend Mr. Frogue. Most of this group had spoken in defense of Frogue during two earlier Board meetings (in the summer and fall). Among faculty who have witnessed the performances of these odd Frogueophiles, they are known--perhaps in jest--as “the Nazis.”

Oddly, neither Mr. Frogue nor his supporters among the Trustees commented on Fields’ remarks. One might think that they would anxiously distance themselves from people like Fields. Not so.

[What FIELDS actually said:

I have here before me something that appeared in your local paper, college paper. This is your example of free speech. All you politically correct people who want to attack Mr. Frogue here. It's a gentleman urinating into a urinal on top of the newspaper. Examples of things like this all over our society today. Anything that attacks western civilization or Christianity is OK--that is to be tolerated. However, the same people who tolerate that -- and I might add, it’s the shrill, shrieking voice of political Zionism -- is here tonight to attack Mr. Frogue and to push their agenda. It's a narrow agenda, an un-American agenda. We just said the pledge of allegience to the flag of the United States, not to the flag of lsrael. [I’m speaking to] Anyone here who's going to push this ADL sponsored garbage. And the ADL, I might add, is an illegally unregistered agent for the State of Israel. If you're here to push this nonsense and keep attacking this man because of your narrow agenda I might suggest you get off your butts and go back to Israel where you belong.]


Next, an elderly fellow named “Phil Trion” (?) spoke. He was angry, and he asked whether Frogue’s opponents on the Board had ever actually read Michael Collins “Pepper’s” Final Judgment. The Board responded with silence. (I would imagine they haven’t read Mein Kampf either. Does that mean they are not entitled to condemn the ideas of Adolf Hitler?)

You will recall that Michael Collins Piper--a reporter for Liberty Lobby’s notorious anti-Semitic newspaper, the Spotlight--was among the conspiratistas invited by Frogue to speak at his doomed JFK weekend Forum. In Final Judgment, Piper argues that Israel was directly involved in the assassination of JFK--a view uniformly ridiculed by respected scholars and historians. During the Board Meeting in which the Board Majority (including Frogue) voted to support the request for “JFK Forum” speaker funds, Frogue acknowledged that he had met with Piper during a trip to Washington, D.C. Frogue and Piper appear to be friends.

Mr. Trion(?) likened the Board (or the Board Minority) to Pavlovian dogs who salivate upon hearing the ADL’s ringing bell; these muts are, he added, “brainwashed pimps for the anti-American ADL.” “Who in hell,” asked Trion, “appointed the ADL as the thought police of this college?”

[What Tryon actually said:

My name is Phil Tryon. I'm a retired civil engineer, a citizen and taxpayer. Thank you. I want to say a few words about this ongoing farce here at Saddleback College. It all started when Mr. Frogue proposed to have a seminar on the Kennedy assassination, a very significant event in American history. And Mr. Frogue invited the author of Final Judgment, Mr. Michael Collins Piper, as one of the speakers. This is when it all started. Let me ask you how many of you board members who are trying to silence...Mr. Frogue have ever read this book? ...We have here a classic example of Pavalovian (sic) reflex. The hate mongering ADL rings a bell and the brainwashed Zombies start marching and nipping at Mr. Frogue's heels. It's hard to believe. I want to add: just who in the hell appointed the ADL as the thought police at this college? Are they to tell us what we can read and what we can hear? Are they telling us that we are unable to decide for ourselves on this issue? Or are they afraid that an open discussion on the Kennedy assassination with Mike Piper will prove that the Mossad, Israel's KGB, had a big hand in the assassination? So I say to you board members, have the seminar. Bring out the facts and let people make up their own minds. That is what you are getting paid for. You're not being paid to be brain-washed pimps for the anti-American, anti-free speech, criminal rabble in the ADL. Thank you.]


Next, Pam Bustamante, another former student of Frogue’s, read from her own affidavit. According to her statement, when asked why his lectures on World War II described Japanese internment camps but ignored the Holocaust, Frogue answered that the latter event was of questionable validity and significance. Bustamante also described the “atmosphere” of racial insensitivity in Frogue’s classroom.

Frogue shook his head and smiled sardonically.


A woman named Shirley Richards--apparently, an important leader in the OC African-American community--spoke passionately on behalf of Pauline Merry. She implored the Board to retain the services of Vice President Merry, whom she praised.

Prior to public comments, Board president Williams announced that, during the closed session, which had just been held, no actions were taken, and thus no action was taken on the controversial administrative contracts. Apparently, Trustee Hueter, who could not attend, requested a postponement on the contracts vote until her return.

I believe that Williams indicated that a decision on the contracts will be made during a special Feb. 11 meeting.


Next, a fellow named George Kador walked up to the mike. He denounced alleged acts of “censorship” against Trustee Frogue. Our district, he seemed to say, is no different from the former Soviet Union with respect to silencing opinions.

[What KADAR actually said:

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak...I view this whole controversial situation around Mr. Frogue as a question of censorship and nothing else. In my opinion, this society as a cornerstone has freedom of speech just as the Bolshevik empire, where I spent my first 20 years, had a cornerstone and that was a lack of freedom of speech. Then ADL and other organizations are permitted to look over on this basic human right in this country and they are given an opportunity and possibility to exercise this censorship of...(unintelligible word) to our lives. At that point I think we are heading into a source of degeneration that is totally unacceptable and undesirable, and I would like you to consider this basic idea. Thank you.]

(At about this point, Williams called for Anthony Garcia to speak. Evidently, Mr. Garcia was not in the room.)


Norman Doctorow, a familiar face at Board meetings, brought affidavits from several former students of Frogue’s. He was only able to read two of them before being cut off by time-keeper Mike Runyan. According to one student, Mr. Frogue denied the occurrence of the Holocaust and described Jews as “rude” and “big-nosed.” The Mormon Church, she wrote, was described by Frogue as a devilish cult.

Another student, who evidently took one of Frogue’s classes during the 94-5 school year, wrote of Frogue’s racial bias and discriminatory stance in the classroom.

Once again, Anthony Garcia’s name was called, but, apparently, the fellow was not in the room.

KIT (Kip?) KRUBA(?):

The next speaker was familiar. I recall that, during a Board meeting in August, she spoke in defense of Mr. Frogue. She held up odd books such as Jews for Guns, or some such title, though I seriously doubt that she is a member of that particular group, if it exists.

This night, Ms. Kruba held up and promoted two books that looked as though they had been published in Orange County in the early ‘60s. One was entitled Which Way to World Government? The other: The State of the World Forum. (I observed that she held yet another book; it was entitled Are We Communists?) Eventually, Ms. Kruba alerted us to the specter of a “world income tax” and then displayed a photograph depicting Ted Turner, M. Gorbechev, and “Hanoi Jane.” The significance of this photo seemed to escape many in the audience.


Mr. Deegan urged the Board to deal with the issue of the IVC President. President Mathur, he said, became President through an illegal process, for the search committee was prevented from excluding any applicant. This insured that the unqualified Mathur would survive the process to be selected by the Board (Majority). He explained that, owing to the cloud over Mathur’s Presidency--and his reputation on campus--little or no work is getting done at IVC. For instance, he said, our Courses Committee has not passed a single course this year; further, staff development and the “Weekend College”project are stymied, since no faculty member has come forward to organize this work, for “no one will stand behind this President.”

Deegan reminded the Board that, a few years ago, Mathur was censured for lying to the instructional council. (It is rumored that Mathur is a member of the “one thousand inch club” among repeat rhinoplastic patients.)

Perhaps for the third or fourth time, Williams called Tony Garcia’s name. This is odd, for, typically, the Board is disinclined to call the name of a speaker more than once. After his third or fourth call, Mr. Garcia awakened from his dogmatic slumber, and he walked up to the mike.


Mr. Garcia sought to attack the Board Majority’s opponents by attributing their efforts to a single, allegedly fiendish, individual--retired Trustee Harriett Walther. You will recall that, one or two months ago, the Faculty Association’s Newsletter contained a piece that presented an elaborate and idiotic scenario according to which Harriett Walther is the Professor Moriarty of the SOCCCD, for she brilliantly controls the press and orchestrates all opposition to the Board Majority, to Frogue, and to the faculty union’s leadership.

This scenario is, of course, a fantasy, and one wonders whether anyone is really stupid enough to suppose otherwise. The opposition to Mr. Frogue and his friends--especially in the last 15 months--has virtually nothing to do with Ms. Walther. It has been inspired and fueled by outrageous conduct perceived by various independent parties, some of whom (e.g., me) have no connection to Harriett Walther or her political activities.

Nevertheless, Tuesday night, Mr. Garcia referred to his opponents as the “Walthers [sic] group,” and he attempted to discredit Walther. Evidently, in Garcia’s mind, the illegitimacy of the opposition movement is established, as a matter of logic, by the alleged misconduct of Ms. Walther. (Not so, logic fans.) Apparently resurrecting a gambit from the union’s 1996 campaign playbook, he read a 1994 document, written by state investigators, that asserted that, in 1993, Ms. Walther had violated the “conflict of interest” provisions of the Political Reform Act by voting to support a contract for the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT), an organization for which she briefly worked as a telephone consultant within 12 months prior to the vote.

It is worth noting, however, that Mr. Garcia, like many of his equally unprincipled predecessors (Williams, Frogue, et al.), presented this document while suppressing important “mitigating” facts also in his possession. For the state’s investigation ultimately produced a “case closure memorandum” (5/3/95) that asserted

However, we have determined that prosecution for this violation is not warranted based on several mitigating factors which include: 1) the vote to approve the ACCT contract was unanimous and apparently would have been approved without Ms. Walther's vote; 2) it appears that Ms. Walther did not believe that she had a conflict of interest with regard to the ACCT contract, and had she known, it appears she would have abstained from the decision; 3) as a telephone research consultant, she did not stand to gain any commission or bonus as a result of the contract; 4) all other members of the SCCD involved in the ACCT contract were informed by Ms. Walther that she had been employed by ACCT, and 5) Ms. Walther has no prior enforcement history with the Commission.

You will recall that, during the ‘96 Trustees campaign, union leaders stated (in ads, fliers, and letters) that Ms. Walther “took conflict of interest money.” If, however, the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s final report can be believed, she did no such thing. Union leaders (and Trustees hostile to Walther) understood this, for, in their attacks on Ms. Walther, they quoted from the same document (namely, the 5/3/95 Case Closure Memorandum) in which the above passage appears.



Julie’s statement was undoubtedly the high point of the evening. Here it is in its entirety:

My name is Julie Ben-Yeoshua and I am presently a secretary at Irvine Valley College in the Office of Instruction. Although I have wanted to speak out in the past, I remained quiet out of fear of losing my job. But that is no longer the case since tomorrow is my last day of work and, quite frankly, I am relieved to be leaving. Although my decision to quit was a well thought-out decision, I am here tonight because I believe you, as the Board of Trustees, deserve to understand what motivated my decision to quit working at IVC.

When I was first employed here almost 3 years ago, IVC was a wonderful place to work. With more than 20 years experience in the secretarial field, this has been--by far--my most meaningful and rewarding position. I felt that everyone--whether they were an administrator, faculty member, or classified staff person--was proud of the college and went well beyond the call of duty to make IVC the best that it could be. Why? Because we were made to feel that our contributions were valued and that we--as people--were important to the institution.

But now that feeling is gone. Since you first appointed Raghu Mathur as the interim president, the atmosphere at IVC has changed drastically; morale is in the gutter; and it seems as though very few care to do more than what is absolutely required of them.

He tells everyone that everything is wonderful. It is not! His inability to tell the truth is so natural that I have come to gauge everything he says and writes by believing the complete opposite. One instance is when he wrote in the staff newsletter that his brown-bag luncheon was a complete success even though only two people attended. Yet his article led you to believe that the house was packed. He is not respected in any way and is the buttof considerable joking. We are so glad when he leaves that one day when he was out of town, we celebrated with a luncheon in honor of his absence.

My most wonderful job has turned--almost overnight--to a most miserable position. I have never worked in a more oppressive and hateful environment. Others I have spoken with--including faculty and administrators--are looking for other jobs or considering career changes, following the many who have already left. That is a disgrace since so many of them have spent years developing IVC’s fine reputation, a reputation that is gone since Raghu Mathur became president.

In closing, I would like to say that I am amazed that any one person could be allowed to do so much damage in only nine months. However, you, the Board of Trustees, have the power to do the one thing possible to begin the road to recovery and stop the rapid deterioration that IVC is experiencing: remove Raghu Mathur as president. If you don’t, you will have more people like me, standing before you to say that, regardless of the exceptional people I work with, I can no longer stand to be a part of what is happening and I refuse to spend any more time under his control.

Thank you.


Mr. Scott, the last public speaker, began his remarks by explaining to us that, in the course of his education, he discovered that history is written by the winners. In fact, said Scott, there “never was a Holocaust.” He referred to a Holocaust industry or “racket” involving “Communist cockroaches.” He informed us that, in the little time they had, the Nazis could not possibly burn six million bodies (or did he say “cock roaches”?). In the end, he shouted to Frogue: “Keep up the good work, Dr. Frogue! There never was a Holocaust!”

At this point, a Saddleback College (?) student named Antonio, who had been listening quietly to Scott, could take no more. He walked right up to Scott and shouted that he (Antonio) had lost relatives in the Holocaust. Mr. Scott, who was only inches away from the student, turned quite red and shouted back with equal ferocity, using a variety of curse words. (He may have spoken of “cockroaches” again.) The exchange continued for some seconds.

Luckily, campus cop Harry Parmer was standing only inches behind Mr. Scott, and perhaps only this prevented a skirmish or worse. Virtually everyone in the room was amazed or horrified. I fully expected a fight. But the situation was controlled fairly quickly. The student went to one side of the room, and Scott went to the other.

Remarkably, neither Frogue nor any of his friends on the Board immediately responded to this incident or to the ugly things that had been said on Frogue’s behalf by Scott and others.


SCOTT: Thanks a lot for letting me talk tonight. I'm going to get back to the main event which is the continuing sniping attacks on Mr. Frogue for having the intelligence to have something important to say -- contradict the political line. As a sixteen year victim of the public school system--Tustin High School, Orange Coast College. and Cal State Fullerton -- amazingly enough, in history yet. I found out that history was basically written by the winners. And there never was a holocaust. It's nothing but six milllion lies. It's become a racket. Everywhere you go, every time you pick up the paper, turn on the radio the TV, here's some Jew screaming about this and that and everything else. They're after the Swiss government, all the rest of the governments...

[interruption from a young man in the audience: "You are a sick son of a bitch! Sixty-nine of my ancestors died in the holocaust...!"]

[Shouted obscenities back and forth]

Scott: Get this guy out of my face!

Williams: This is out of order.

Woman from audience: Keep your filthy mouth shut over there with your name calling!

Scott: Aw, go to hell, you communist cockroach! Anyway, I will finish my talk right now. Garbage like this is not the way it's supposed to be here. Mr. Frogue has a right to an opinion. Not everybody's going for this holocaust monkey business. And if you bother talking to a mortician who cremates bodies all the time, look at the facts. Look at the logistics. A little tiny nation of Germany fighting a twelve-front war (end of tape) [could not have killed six million....] ...[beginning of other side of tape:] Thank you very much.

[The above was taken from a transcript of the board meeting apparently provided by D. Martin of the district.]

8-14: do you regret all the lying?

✅ Trump Encourages Racist Conspiracy Theory on Kamala Harris’s Eligibility to Be Vice President NYT ✅ Orange County Sees Overall Coronavirus...

Goals and Values and Twaddle

blather: long-winded talk with no real substance*
The whole concept of MSLOs [measurable student learning outcomes] as the latest fad in education is somewhat akin to the now discredited fad of the '90's, Total Quality Management, or TQM. Essentially, the ACCJC adopted MSLOs as the overarching basis for accrediting community colleges based on their faith in the theoretical treatises of a movement.... After repeated requests for research showing that such use of MSLOs is effective, none has been forthcoming from the ACCJC [accreditors]. Prior to large scale imposition of such a requirement at all institutions, research should be provided to establish that continuous monitoring of MSLOs has resulted in measurable improvements in student success at a given institution. No such research is forthcoming because there is none….
The Accountability Game…., Leon F. Marzillier (Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, October, 2002)
In the summer of ’13, I offered a critique of the awkward verbiage by which the district and colleges explain their values, goals, and objectives —aka SOCCCD'S G&V (goals and values) blather.
I wrote a post each for the district, Saddleback College, and Irvine Valley College efforts. (See the links below.)
This verbiage—stated in terms of “values,” “missions,” “goals,” “visions,” and whatnot—is often badly written. It is sometimes embarrassingly trite.
It occasionally communicates something worthwhile.
No doubt you are familiar with the usual objections to jargon. Higher education, too, has its jargon—an irony, given typical college-level instruction in writing, which urges jargon eschewery.
Sure enough, SOCCCD G&V blather is riddled with jargon and with terms misused and abused. For instance, in the case of the district’s dubious blather, the so-called “vision” is actually a purpose. Why didn't they just call it that?
As one slogs through this prattle, one finds that "visions" tend to be awfully similar to “missions,” with which they are distinguished. The latter in turn are awfully similar to “goals,” which must be distinguished from “objectives.” But aren't goals and objectives pretty much the same thing?
These perverse word games will surely perplex or annoy anyone armed with a command of the English language. In fact, readers will be perplexed to the degree that they are thus armed. Illiterates, of course, will be untroubled.
Here's a simple point: the district and colleges’ G&V blather tends to eschew good, plain English in favor of technical terms and trendy words and phrases (i.e., it tends to be bullshitty and vague). Thus, one encounters such trendy terminological turds as “dynamic,” “diversity,” “student success,” and “student-centered.” Even meretricious neologisms such as ISLOs and “persistence rates” pop up, unexplained, undefended.
Does anyone see a transparency problem with all of this? Shouldn't the public, or at least the well educated public, be able to comprehend statements of the colleges' goals and values?
In the case of the district, to its credit, all it really seems to want to say is that it wants to teach well and it wants students to succeed. Admirable!
So why all the ugly, common-sense defying, buzzword-encrusted claptrap?

Districtular poppycock: our “vision” and our “mission” and our tolerance of twaddle - July 31, 2013

THEY BUZZ: Saddleback College's "Mission, Vision, and Values" - August 4, 2013

IVC’s vision, mission, and goals: nonsense on stilts - August 5, 2013

THE IRVINE VALLEY CHRONICLES: no ideas, just clichés & buzzwords - Sep 30, 2013

*From my Apple laptop's dictionary