How Indymedia UK Lost Its Way and became a safe haven for Anti-Semitism

indymedia-1024×768.jpgGuest post by Tony Greenstein. 

Indymedia UK [IM] boasts that it is ‘a network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.’

When the issue of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism arose in October 2007, IM demonstrated that far from being an alternative, grassroots way of doing things, it behaved in exactly the same undemocratic, manipulative and bureaucratic way of the corporations that it criticises. In its Editorial Guidelines, there is a category ‘Hierarchy’  which states that ‘The newswire is designed to generate a news resource, not a notice-board for political parties or any other hierarchically structured organizations…’

It echoed the old criticism of anarchism and the tyranny of structurelessness (PDF) in Jo Freeman’s famous essay  which originated in a debate in the women’s movement about structures. It aimed to show that every group has structures and hierarchies and those which pretend otherwise simply have informal structures, usually less democratic than those where there is an openly defined structure, where power would move to an elite without any controls or accountability. It is a good way to describe the anarcho-libertarian group IM.

Although I was unaware of it at the time, there had been at least 2 trial runs over the issue of anti-Semitism and holocaust denial in March and April 2007. When an Atzmon article ‘From Esther to Aipac’ was posted  it provoked debate amongst the moderators, all of whom seemed unable to see what the fuss was about with Yossarian describing it as a ‘positive contribution’ The article is still there.

In April another IM moderator ftp (Roy Bard) defended holocaust denier Kurt Nimmo who had stated that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were ‘discredited’. A fellow moderator, Nim Chimpsky complained that ‘What has been becoming increasingly problematic is that not only are the offending posts allowed to stand, but any complaints will be hidden.’  The whole debate can be seen here   And a defence of Nimmo can be seen here.

Reading through the debates in April 2007 one gets a curious sense of déjà vu. The same use of ‘guidelines’ to ‘hide’ criticism of holocaust deniers and anti-Semites. It works something like this. FTP puts up an anti-Semitic post from Gilad Atzmon, someone complains and their article is hidden because complaints about the actions of Moderators are hidden. This is covered by the rule that ‘Concerns about editorial guidelines or queries about moderation are dealt with on the imc-uk-features list. These issues are not dealt with through the newswire, and newswire posts on these topics will be hidden.’ So if you disagree with the decision to put up a racist article the anti-racist response will always be hidden!!

But this is very like the way the Police enforce the law. Those laws they like, e.g. ancient bylaws which prevent an EDO camp in Brighton in the summer are enforced. However anti-fox hunting laws, or the Protection from Eviction Act are ignored. In this case the guideline under discrimination which states that posts using language, imagery, or other forms of communication promoting racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination’ may be hidden is simply ignored. Repeatedly anti-Semitic and racist articles have been posted on the grounds of ‘free speech’ whereas responses have routinely been hidden.

Through the Atzmon affair, this guideline has never even been referred to by the moderators. I was first alerted to an article on IM by Gilad Atzmon, ‘saying no to the hunters of Goliath’  by an Israeli anti-Zionist, Moshe Machover. In an e-mail of 17.10.07 he wrote that most of Atzmon’s article, about 2006 Lebanon war, was unobjectionable but hardly new either but that::

‘GA… packages it with his usual barely hidden anti-semitism… he tells us that “Within the Judaic worldview, history and ethics are often reduced into a banal single binary opposition principle.” This is a typical stereotypical generalization — as if there is such a thing as a ‘Judaic worldview’, apparently unchanging over centuries. Further; “The tendency to personalise and concretise history is rather common amongst Jews.” Really? But a real gem follows: “… the Jewish state and the sons of Israel are at least as unpopular in the Middle East as their grandparents were in Europe just six decades ago.

Seemingly, it is the personification of WW2 and the Holocaust that blinded the Israelis and their supporters from internalising the real meaning of the conditions and the events that led towards their destruction in the first place. Would the Zionists understand the real meaning of their Holocaust, the contemporary Israelite may be able to prevent the destruction that may be awaiting them in the future.”

Please read this carefully. He is comparing here the – perfectly justified — present hatred for Israel in the Middle East, with the “unpopularity” (!!!) from which European Jews suffered in the 1940s!

You, I and GA agree that if a destruction awaits Israel in the future, it will be a consequence of its present actions. What he is implying here is that the same is also true of the destruction of European Jewry six decades ago. This is not Holocaust denial; it is rather Holocaust justification! Or, at the very least, partly blaming it on the victims. Like Zionist propaganda, GA conflates anti-Zionism with Jew-baiting. Zionist propaganda does it in order to de-legitimize anti-Zionism; GA does it in order to legitimize his Judeophobia.’

I posted two responses to this article on 18th and 19th October, which unleashed a barrage abuse by Atzmon’s holocaust denier friend Knuckles aka Edna Spennato. The only sane posting was by a Tim Vanhoof: ‘Atzmon is a notorious anti-Semite. It is a mark of utter political confusion to not have deleted this racist crap immediately!’ However that was the last thing that a group of IM moderators, led by ftp wanted.

On 24th October I wrote to the IM collective, forwarding the e-mail from MM. I asked that the post be taken down and commented that whilst ‘On most occasions accusations of anti-Semitism, especially by Zionists against those supporting the Palestinians are a form of defamation. In this case they are unfortunately true.’

I cited an article from Atzmon that Knuckles posted. Atzmon wrote:

‘I clearly identify a line of ugliness that is stretched between Zionism, Neocons, and the Bund, a line of racially orientated discourse that is stretched between Jaz … and ADL . And what is Jewish identity?… it has nothing to do with racial category … but rather with racially-orientated politics.

I am suggesting that the only way to internalise the meaning of the Jewish Holocaust is to teach Jews how to start looking in the mirror, to teach Jews to ask themselves why conflicts with others happen to them time after time. Rather than blaming the Goyim, the Germans, the Muslims, the Arabs, it is about time the Jewish subject learns to ask the 6 million $ question: “why do they pick on me?”I received no reply and posted a reminder. This triggered off a heated debate among the moderators with others joining in. One mod, Startx, who called for the hiding of Atzmon’s post has now resigned. So has another mod, Yossarian, who a month previously had defended the Esther article as ‘a controversial article, which is somewhat on the edge but seemingly meant as a positive contribution.’ Having now read some of Atzmon’s other writings, not least his Wikipedia entry on Jewish conspiracy, on how it is ‘rational’ to blow up synagogues and how in comparison with the Nazis it is the Israelis who win the championship for ruthlessness, Yossarian did an about-turn and called for his post to be hidden.

However some of the mods, such as Chris Osmond, a Brighton Palestine solidarity activist, demonstrated that they still didn’t understand what racism is. ‘i’ve had a look at this briefly and it seems like the complaint against this post is more about the writers (Gilad Atzmon’s) reputation than the post’s content.’

On 30th October ‘freethepeeps’ ftp, entered the fray. ‘There are clear difficulties in calling someone who has served in the Israeli army an anti-semite’ whereas the opposite should surely be the case! And further, ‘I do not believe that Atzmon hates all Jews because they are Jewish.’ Which is certainly reassuring. Phunkee then intervened to say that ‘I don’t perceive it as anti-semitic as such, more provocative than anything else, but i’m no expert on these things.’ ftp replied to a further post by startx saying that anti-Semitism is ‘a device to stifle criticism of Israel(1), (and now it seems critics of anti-zionist jews.’ demonstrating a complete confusion between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Replying to ftp’s call for a network meeting, startx said that ‘i do not need a network meeting to call political bullshit what it is.’ Ftp countered by saying I wanted ‘censorship’, even though that is what the guidelines say should happen to racist posts! The irony is that ftp has proved the best censor of all!

The discussion continued into November. On November 2nd ftp demonstrated where his sympathies lay. Referring Atzmon’s essay ‘on anti-Semitism’ about how Jews control the US foreign policy, ftp stated that Atzmon ‘does back up his claims about control of foreign policy’ citing a list of Jews the Clinton government. Demonstrating his own total confusion, peeps asks rhetorically, concering Atzmon’s definition of 3 categories of Jew that ‘the 3 conclusions that you highlight, are conclusions about Zionism, not about Jews. I am sure it is not your claim that zionism is an embodiement of Jewishness. Atzmon most certainly is not.’

But this is exactly Atzmon’s argument. To fail to understand it is to fail to understand why Atzmon is anti-Semitic. He believes that any declaration that one is Jewish means that one is automatically a Zionist and this especially applies to anti-Zionist Jews. But the Zionists also argue that to be anti-Zionist is to be anti-Semitic because they consider being Jewish and Zionist is one and the same. For all his long-winded sophistry, Atzmon is merely repeating the arguments that Zionists make when accusing their opponents of anti-Semitism.

If ftp had read the essay, Not in my name he would learn that Atzmon make no distinction between anti-Zionist and Zionist Jews, apart from orthodox Jews and ex-Jews like himself. He makes this explicitly clear in other essays such as Dialectic of the Negation , and The 3rd Category and the Palestinian Solidarity Movement:

‘it is actually the sporadic rebels who criticise Zionism in the name of their Jewish secular identity who affirm the Zionist ‘totalitarian’ agenda…. Bizarrely enough, it is the Jewish Left which turns Zionism into the official voice of the Jewish people. … by fighting Zionism in the name of their Jewish identity they approve Zionism…. To resist Zionism as a secular Jew involves an acceptance of basic Zionist terminology, that is to say, a surrendering to Jewish racist and nationalist philosophy…. Jews cannot criticise Zionism in the name of their ethnic belonging because such an act is in itself an approval of Zionism… It is the ‘self-hater’ who serves as an inside enemy. It is he who will convert (to Zionism) in the next anti-Semitic wave.

It couldn’t be clearer. Atzmon asks ‘Why is this issue a major concern?’ And he answers his own question thus:

I frequently hear complaints that it is the Jewish Left which dominates the ‘Palestinian solidarity campaign’. …. A few days ago I attended a Palestinian solidarity event in London. It was pretty depressing to find that Hebrew was the most noticeable language in the theatre…. I learn from Palestinians and other supporters of the Palestinian cause that it is the Jewish and Israeli Left which defines the boundaries of the discussion. It is Jewish Left which decides what is right and what is wrong…. Jews and Zionists do not constitute a binary opposition. If anything they are complimentary categories. If left-wing Jews are genuine in their fight against Zionism, they should completely avoid the usage of Jewish identity as the pillar of their arguments. If they remain hidden behind their Jewish identity we must then suspect their call to be a form of a mild left-wing Zionism.

For Atzmon being Jewish is to be a Zionist and the more anti-Zionist one is the more Zionist one becomes! Yossarian replied that ‘Like I said, I find it creepy that this guy recapitulated every classic anti-semitic slur’ and others like Guidoreport agreed, writing that
‘Much of the the stuff being banded around in this discussion could have been directly drawn from “Mind Benders” a book written by Nick Griffen a few years ago.’ Mish raised ftp’s threat to ‘block’ the majority of other moderators who cleaerly disagreed with his position.

Ftp, as the leading opponent of hiding Atzmon’s articles moved nearer to an explicitly anti-Semitic position. He describes Jeff Blankfort, the US Director of the Deir Yassin Remembered organisation, a small anti-Semitic organisation within the Palestine solidarity movement that the PSC Executive has proscribed, as

‘an anti-zionist who argues that the left’s tendency to ignore the power of the Israel lobby, is one of the reasons for the failure of the anti-war movement’
‘Perhaps it is due to the awful gatekeeping around this issue, that the views of progressives such as Blankfort are not more widely known.’

Jeff Blankfort however is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist of the first rank. In an e-mail to me of 17.6.05., he tells me that

‘What kept me from examining the history of the Holocaust as I would any other period of history… was that I considered those challenging the official narrative as loathsome creatures, classic anti-semites who, in their efforts to whitewash Hitler and the 3rd Reich, were denying one of the most enormous crimes in human history.

It wasn’t until about four or five years ago… that I started reading the writings of Robert Faurisson, one of those loathsome creatures, on the internet, and found, to my displeasure, that some of the issues he raised had some merit or at least warranted discussion and further investigation, such as whether “The Final Solution” to the Jewish problem was mass extermination of the Jews. Had this, in fact, been the plan, it seemed, there would have been few, if any survivors, and as we know, there were many.

However, if one is only measuring the Holocaust by whether the Germans were successful in carrying out their plans, if those were indeed their plans… it would have to be explained why, according to an Israeli government report in 1997, there were between 834,000 and 960,000 survivors still alive.

Which is one of the classic arguments of holocaust deniers. When Yossarian replied asking Ftp a question he has consistently avoided, viz. ‘Are you endorsing the existence of a global Zionist conspiracy for world domination as posited by Atzmon (among others)? Or not? You do tend to ignore questions like this one, so please answer it straight.’ ftp of course ignored the question. Instead he announced that he was prepared to block the majority to protect Atzmon.

Despite the support of other moderators such as Ana, Guidoreports, Mick Fuzz and Ulla ftp was able to impose a block until the balance among the mods changed. Yoss meanwhile resigned. On November 8th I posted a response to Atzmon and Ftp, the great opponent of censorship, promptly hid it!

On 13th November, after his monkey Rizzo had posted to no good effect, the organ grinder himself posted.   Atzmon lost no time in explaining where he stood:

‘I think that you are now having a close range opportunity to learn about the world of aggressive Zionist lobbying. You are a subject to some major assault led by ethnic campaigner Mr. Tony Greenstein….
They did it to Jeff Blankfort, one of the prominent American Palestinian Solidarity activists,.. they did it to Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir, these people have managed to crush DYR, probably the most successful Palestinian gathering in this country. These people had tried to divert the Palestinian solidarity movement and to turn it into a Judeo centric witch-hunt crusade.’

Not only are we christ-killers but witch-hunters too. But his tribute to the holy trinity of Blankfort, Eisen and Shamir speaks volumes. Eisen is a clear and open holocaust denier. He has written that:

‘’the evidence for the use of homicidal gas-chambers is not good at all. The evidence against it is much, much stronger.’ and ‘In Clear Sight of Yad Vashem’ article makes his position explicitly clear:
‘Over the last fifty years, revisionist scholars have amassed a formidable body of substantial evidence, which runs in direct opposition to the traditional Holocaust narrative. “Where is the evidence,” they say, “for this alleged gargantuan mass-murder? Where are the documents? Where are the traces and remains? Where are the weapons of murder?”

Shamir too makes it clear what his views of Auschwitz are:
‘The camp was an internment facility, attended by the Red Cross (as opposed to the US internment centre in Guantanamo).… This idea of “bombing Auschwitz” makes sense only if one accepts the vision of “industrial extermination factory”, and it was formed only well after the war. Who Needs Holocaust?

These are Atzmon’s anti-Zionists!

Only Jackslusid agreed with ftp:  ‘I am in agreement with and in awe of the words of GA et al.’

But those moderators who were opposed to Atzmon were overwhelmed by the whole debate and the fact that ftp was by now part of the Rizzo/Atzmon anti-Semitic block and thus more organised and determined than them. Tiring of the debate the others agreed to shunt the whole debate onto a ‘wiki’ page where it would be allowed to die.

In response I wrote an article There are no gatekeepers – just anti-racists citing Atzmon’s belief that ‘all Jewish left activity is in practice not more than a form of left Zionism.’   I remarked that it ‘is a strange argument that says if Jewish people stand up and say they oppose Zionism, because they are Jews, they are actually Zionists!’ I also noted the contradiction with what Atzmon had himself written in viz. that

If Israel is the state of the Jewish people and the Jewish people themselves do not stand up collectively against the crimes that are committed on their behalf, then every Jewish person, Jewish symbol and Jewish object becomes an Israeli interest and a potential terrorist target. It is up to the Jewish people to take a stand against their Jewish state and to disassociate themselves from their zealous national movement.

If you stand up as a Jew to oppose Zionism that proves you are a Zionist but if Jews didn’t ‘disassociate themselves from their zealous national movement’ then you were a legitimate target for attack. You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t! Atzmon’s whole argument about ‘racial, ethnic activists’ is not only illogical and incoherent it says, that Jews are Zionists whatever they may feel and say, just as the Nazis held that Christians with two Jewish grandparents were racially Jewish.

IM set up a couple of blogs, where the anti-Atzmon  case and the pro-Atzmon case, run by ftp   are situated. The purpose of this was in essence to allow the rest of the moderators, who were unable to implement what was previously a nigh unanimous concensus to hide Atzmon’s articles, to evade further discussion of the issue.

In January the debate briefly flared up again on the threads   when ftp, now clearly having outmanouvred or got rid of those moderators who disagreed with him hid an article I had written exposing Atzmon as a full-blown holocaust denier  . His pretexts changed continuously: the article was a repeat (as were Atzmon’s of course, being posted to numerous conspiracy sites), that it was ‘inaccurate’, and ftp is the judge of accuracy, and it linked to far-right sites.

The latter involved a wonderful piece of Orwellian logic, almost kafkaesque. If in proving that Atzmon is a holocaust denier one refers to what fascists say about him on their sites then the article will be banned for linking to far-right sites! But hiding Atzmon would be outrageous censorship. But given the low political consciousness and demoralisation of his fellow mods and the fact that they have run the white flag up, ftp is now able to get away with the most outrageous positions without being challenged.

So we now have a situation on IM that whereas someone who is openly anti-Semitic and a holocaust denier is able to post articles without let or hindrance, if you should deign to criticise what he argues for then whatever you post will be censored!!

This is not the place to go into the reason for this state of affairs. Ten or fifteen years ago there was a higher level of political consciousness and very few of those who considered themselves on the left couldn’t distinguish between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. It is also a product of the lack of theory among anarchists and libertarians generally. But above all it is a tribute to the Zionist movement. For years Zionists have gone around labelling anyone they disagreed with as anti-Semitic. This has had the effect as Antony Lerman, of the Institute of Jewish Policy Research said, of ‘draining anti-Semitism of all meaning’.

Even grassroots, direct-action type anarcho sites like IM are increasingly falling for anti-Semitic and similar conspiracy theories. Of course if you reject a Marxist or socialist analysis of society then sooner or later you end up with the idea that small groups of people, hidden away and sharing certain common charactertistics like their Jewishness, are responsible for the ills of society. They used to say that anti-Semitism was the socialism of fools. Today it is the anti-capitalism of idiots.

104 comments on “How Indymedia UK Lost Its Way and became a safe haven for Anti-Semitism

  1. Sorry to see you repeating the old cliches about anarchism meaning lack of structure and opposition to organization. While there is an anarchist tendency of such nature, it is not, and has not been the dominant one. You should consider researching anarcho-syndicalism and Platformism . Both tendencies are highly organized and favor accountability. (Syndicalist unions such as the Spanish CGT with tens of thousands of members cannot be anything but organized!) To what extent is Indymedia “anarchist” other than in a vague way? Far better examples of anarchist media are A-Infos, Libcom and Anarkismo, none of which engage in anti-Semitism, and will not allow it. Furthermore, here in Canada at least, anarchists have been the ones criticizing those Indymedia outlets that allow anti-Semitic statements.

  2. goodwin sands on said:

    Indymedia UK clearly has a problem on its hands over their defense of the indefensible Atzmon and his Holocaust-denying cohorts Eisen and Shamir. They also, however, have a two-day all-UK meeting planned this weekend, and the Atzmon issue is on the agenda. It’s entirely possibly that, in the end, sanity will prevail, although if so it’s been entirely too long in coming.

  3. Tony Greenstein on said:

    Yes there’s a 2 day Indymedia network meeting in Nottingham. One of the mods, Chris Osmond from Brighton, conveyed my proposal to submit a page outlining the issues from my perspective, i.e. no anti-Semitic posts, and this was rubbished by ftp’s supporters. I’m not holding out a lot of hope given the way that the other moderators have caved in, but I live in hope.

    I take Larry’s point. I wasn’t meaning to say that all anarchists should be tarred with the IM brush, though the latter consider themselves some form of anarchist, which is the problem because anyone can and does appropriate this title. Having said that some of the best opponents of fascism and neo-Nazism are also anarchists and when Searchlight magazine in the 1980’s was calling for the expulsion of Class War from Anti-Fascist Action because they were anti-Semitic (Gerry Gable said that ‘Stop the City’ protests were aimed at Jewish businessmen – complete lie) I was opposed to this.

    The reason why I’ve made an issue of this, as have others, is because IM is used by all sorts of direct action activists and campaigners to highlight their campaigns. That is all to the good but it would be a pity if such a space were colonised now by those with another anti-Semitic agenda.

    And the reason why I think anti-Semitism, not just on IM but elsewhere on the left and in Palestine solidarity more generally is important is because anti-Semitic arguments are far more dangerous to Palestine solidarity than Jews. Jews are for the most part professionals and middle class in Britain. They are not the main targets of racism, quite the contrary ‘anti-Semitism’ is used by the ruling class to attack those who oppose their imperial adventures and interests. And that means in particular support for Israel.

    Those who peddle these anti-Semitic theories because they think they are supporting the Palestinians are doing the exact opposite. As Afif Sefiyah, the PLO ambassador to London, used to say, anti-Semitism is a danger to the Palestinians as well as the Jews. He was right then and it is right now.

    Tony

  4. goodwin sands on said:

    I just had a glance at Rizzo’s blog. The comments are astounding:

    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/6689112730057467959/

    “Jewish power is something that has to be looked at squarely. I’ve just been sickened by reading a Lenin’s Tomb article against the notion of an all-powerful Israel lobby; the comment posts are frankly appalling – to notice that Jews control the media, the Federal reserve, and international finance is antisemitic apparently!”

    Then:

    “cutter I thought you didn’t like to choke debate then why didn’t post my last comment? Is what you are saying is that you only like to post racist hate filled nonsense that is in agreement with your own racist hate filled ideology?”

    The last post is particularly troubling. If Mary Rizzo is indeed choosing which posts appear and which don’t, then she must take responsibility for having *chosen* to post the screed quoted above about “the Jews control the media.” She cannot have it both ways.

    Rizzo has a case to answer. Mary, why did you approve that obviously anti-semitic post?

  5. Doug #1

    Tony’s posts on this subject are closely argued, and not necessarily the most entertaining read.

    But when a Jew exposes anti-semitism you mock it. Would you mock a black person exposing racism?

  6. Lobby Ludd on said:

    Doug #1, you are not obliged to read posts or comments.

    Andy #6, I don’t think TG’s religious background was alluded to in the comment. And yes, it is possible to mock a black person exposing racism (not *for* exposing racism, but say, for the *manner* of doing so.)

  7. Lobby

    In fact Tony writes in the article referring to how Atzmon views Tony and other jews “Not only are we christ-killers but witch-hunters too. ”

    i.e even if you didn’t now Tony was Jewish, he told you in this article.

    Personaly i don’t think it is acceptable under any cimcumstances to mock the people affected by hatred and bigotry when they expose it

  8. Andy opined: “But when a Jew exposes anti-semitism you mock it.”

    Well, apparently such claims are usually false.

    Thats according to one Tony Greenstein:

    “On most occasions accusations of anti-Semitism, especially by Zionists against those supporting the Palestinians are a form of defamation.”
    http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-features/2007-October/1030-y9.html

    So, Andy, whats your line now? Its okay for people whose mum’s happened Jewish to mock people whose mum’s happened to be Jewish when they claim that something is anti-semitic, but its not okay, if their mums were from some other group?

    You carry an article saying that Atzmon is now “by his own words” an “open Holocaust denier”

    Yet after that Greenstein wrote:

    “Now my dear Peeps, I don’t take my cues from Gehrig. Atzmon won’t openly come out of course and say he’s a holocaust denier, not yet anyway, but it is clear that that is what he is about. How you reconcile it with your own, assume anarchist politics, is a matter for you.”

    and

    “iii. No Atzmon won’t come out and say that he’s a holocaust denier but he no longer denies it anyway, as the article makes clear. What is not in doubt is that he’s a virulent anti-Semite, by his own admission in this case. Peeps however is his little runner boy.”

    So, not ACTUALLY an “open holocaust denier” (YET!)”
    http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/UkModerationAtzmon

    and then he responds in the final comment on the last Atzmon that you opened up for him,

    “but I will respond to ftp’s one significant point, viz. that I didn’t always say that Atzmon was a holocaust denier. That’s true. I’ve changed my mind because of what he has latterly such as his support for the open holocaust denier ‘knuckles’. When events change my mind changes too.”

    In fact the comments I quoted were written after you posted up his false claim, and if he got it wrong there, how can you be sure he got it right elsewhere?

    Your comment about mocking exposure of anti-semitism by a Jew is really patronising and your continued support for his arrogant cyber-stalking campaign is well dodgy.

    Try reading Paul de Rooij’s comment that he railed against and see if you can understand what de Rooij is actually saying.

    I know Greenstein can’t, but then he has problems……

  9. goodwin sands on said:

    “Your comment about mocking exposure of anti-semitism by a Jew is really patronising and your continued support for his arrogant cyber-stalking campaign is well dodgy.”

    This would of course have been considerably more persuasive a statement if it hadn’t come from Indymedia UK’s foremost champion of the mayor of Dodgyborough himself, Gilad Atzmon.

  10. “This would of course have been considerably more persuasive a statement if it hadn’t come from Indymedia UK’s foremost champion of the mayor of Dodgyborough himself, Gilad Atzmon.”

    Yes, because you’re as well versed in the internal politics of Indymedia UK as Greenstein himself, right?

    1) Was the statement patronising, or not?

    2) In whose name is Greenstein running his cyber-stalking camapign?

    3) What do you understand by “No Platform” Mr. Sands?

    Pray tell 🙂

  11. Lobby Ludd on said:

    I read and re-read comments from ‘ftp’. They do not make sense.

    My easy guess is that ‘ftp’ is one of that small but strange group of GA’s supporters, or a pseudonym of the same. No substantive points are made, just a muddying swirl of nonsense.

    Accusations are made about Tony Greenstein’s bona fides. This is standard in such exchanges.

    What is unclear about Atzmon and his supporters is whether they peddle their approach because they are misguided, or because they wish deliberately to muddy the waters of rational debate.

    I tend to the latter view, given the consistency of approach. As to motive, I remain puzzled, but it doesn’t look like solidarity with the Palestinians to me.

  12. Tony Greenstein on said:

    Goodwin Sands (can you e-mail me by the way at tonygreenstein@yahoo.com) is quite rightly astounded by the open anti-semitism of the comments on the blog in question. However he has missed the following little gourmet dish, prepared by no less than FTP himself.

    One of the stratagems of holocaust deniers is to argue numbers. It wasn’t 6 million it was 5 or 4 or… In fact it is impossible to know how many were exterminated. For a whole hell of a lot of reasons and only holocaust deniers and their apologists raise this issue.

    The late Raul Hilberg, author of the Destruction of European Jewry and the acknowledged expert in the field estimated 5.1 million, Hannah Arendt thought it lower, Christopher Browning estimates it at around 6 million but given that there not accurate censuses, and those that were were out of date, it is simply impossible to know how many died. And only holocaust revisionists would make a point of this.

    E.g. between 1 and 2 million Jews were murdered by the Einsatzgruppen, Einsatskommandos and Order Police in Operation Barbarossa. It is impossible to know how many died, because as Gerald Reitlinger and Hilberg argue, we don’t know how many fled with the Russian Army. It may well have been over a million but we cannot know for certain.

    We cannot know how many were simply shot in the killing fields, buried in mass trenches and then a new batch were machine gunned on top of them. These bodies were later in the war often dug up and burnt and likewise at Auschwitz and the Action Reinhardt death camps. We can only estimate. There are real, valid differences of opinion. Rudolph Vrba, the escapee from Auschwitz puts it at over 2 million Jews, let alone others, exterminated. Hilberg thinks it is just over 1 million.

    I will be honest. I don’t think it matters. Millions were murdered, in gas chambers, in the killing fields, in the ghettoes etc. That is what is crucial, not how many. However many there were it was too many. So why does ftp think this is important? Does this shed any light on anything? It is a trivial approach to history at best and holocaust revisionism at worst.

    Given ftp is now a close buddy of holocaust revisionists I would suspect the latter. There are many, many arguments about the holocaust, not least the Zionist role in turning a blind eye to what was happening and worse. I have written about this as has Lenni Brenner and other historians. FTP is too ignorant to know anything of these debates or the debate between intentionalists and functionalists or indeed Marxists. He echoes the ‘debate’ of those who have already decided that noone deliberately died.

    As for Atzmon, I have pondered sometime as to whether he was a holocaust denier. When he denied it I was incline to accept his denial at face value. However the evidence in my article suggests he has now crossed the line. It is all a story and story lines change when you want them. He has lined up with open hd’ers like Knuckles. That ftp wants to cover for this is a demonstration of where he is heading. Down the road to holocaust denial.

    What I said and when is irrelevant. As I said I have thought about the matter and I am now convinced that Atzmon is a holocaust denier. Up till recently I wasn’t sure. It is interesting that in his one post in reply to my article Atzmon didn’t deny it. When I first accused him of HD he threatened a libel suit. Although I didn’t, as he claimed, back down I was prepared to accept his statement to the SWP at face value. I have no interest in increasing the number of HDers. But now it is impossible to ignore the evidence.

    The question is not whether Atzmon is a holocaust denier but whether FTP is now one. If not he is headed in that direction. I sincerely hope he pulls back.

    Tony G

    >>Why are you waiting? Does the number have some meaning for you?”
    Well, you’ve said that the holocaust is very well documented – I’d like to see the final and uncontested figure for myself.

    …. You being the person who knows how well documented it all is, can help me to find the final and exact figure and prove you wrong.

    You have come here to engage haven’t you wolfie?

    I thank you in advance.
    ftp | 02.04.08 – 10:38 am | #

  13. overseas on said:

    a – Given the distinctly consistent, erm, level of intelligence you’ve displayed through whatever discussion I’ve followed here and on Mary Rizzo’s honey-pot for anti-semites, I personally don’t think Andy yet cuts things into bits small enough for you to get your mind around. Although he certainly tries. Once again, your decision to become standard bearer for the Lord Mayor of Dodgyborough, and your fantastic insistence that Greenstein is a crypto-Zionist for having called Atzmon what he is – that is, an anti-Semite poisoning the Palestinian solidarity movement – don’t do a very good job pleading your case.

    b – As nearly as I can determine, Tony is running his campaign – which I do not agree is cyber-stalking and that I submit you’d best look to your libel law before claiming to be such, Mr Bard – in the name of all who agree that anti-semitism and Palestinian solidarity activism make a terrible mixture. This excludes Atzmon and his Holocaust-denying playmates. (You do agree that Atzmon’s pal Eisen is a Holocaust denier don’t you. Anyone with half the wit to lace his own shoes surely would, but in your case I find I am forced to ask.)

    c – One doesn’t pass one’s megaphone to Nick Griffin nor David Irving, Oxford Union notwithstanding; nor does one lend one’s megaphone to those who would do Griffin’s and Irving’s work. Indymedia UK is the megaphone you insist on giving over to Atzmon. And I must say that as an antiracist I don’t find much tangible practical difference between Greenstein’s claim – that Atzmon is a tacet Holocaust denier – and the more demonstrable reality that Atzmon is an apologist for Holocaust denial. Both of these positions are so far outside the acceptable and so deep within the borders of Dodgyborough it hardly matters which one is true, as either is enough to mark Atzmon out as someone no progressive should break bread with.

  14. goodwin sands on said:

    The previous post is mine, and I’m apparently up too late to be trusted with a keyboard. 🙂

  15. Is it a good idea to hand this blog over to people trying to split the PSC just before the GLA elections? I’m afraid Tony seems to have been overly wound-up by the weekly wrecker people and HOPI who are taking advantage of the demise of the SWP.

    Not only that but you seem to allow HP people free reign when they are in agreement with you but ban them when they are not.

    If anybody can wreck RR’s chances of getting something off the ground it is WW.

  16. See, when I read Greenstein’s surmising about myself, and when I see him take stuff I have said and wrench it out of context and twist it beyond all recognition, it re-inforces my belief that he cannot be trusted to interpret anyone elses writing.

    So, what he presents is PART of a comment which was itself PART of an ongoing ‘discussion’ with a troll going by the name of Jacob Wolf.

    Amongst the unsubstantiated claims made by this wolf were these:

    The holocaust museum discussion only dealt with the number killed at aushwitz, not the total which remains at 6 million.
    Jacob Wolf | 01.20.08 – 12:30 am | #

    The Holocaust is one of the most well documented atrocities of teh 20th century.
    Jacob Wolf | 01.27.08 – 4:52 pm | #

    Now, Greenstein has helpfully pointed out that actually, it isn’t that well documented. That in fact there is not conclusive evidence of the number of people that died.

    But, he says, “I don’t think it matters” and goes on to posit that anyone who thinks it does matter must be revisionists, or deniers, or worse. He is entitled to think that for himself, but where does he get the right to dictate what others may, or may not think matters?

    He still doesn’t get why it is wrong to call someone “by his own words” “an open Holocaust denier” when it is only in Greenstein’s head that Atzmon is a Holocaust denier – he cannot back it up with statements from Atzmon, not even with his out of context quotes from a comments section, along with a claim that someone else is Atzmon, when they are not. It is badly put together circumstantial evidence, which doesn’t bear up to any kind of scrutiny.

    On me he has this to say:

    “The question is not whether Atzmon is a holocaust denier but whether FTP is now one. If not he is headed in that direction. I sincerely hope he pulls back.”

    Testing out the claims of someone who is trolling a comments section reveals nothing whatsoever about my personal beliefs about anything. The troll further claimed that “western morality” is less “bloodthirsty” than “Islamic morality” – in the context of examining such a claim, it is obviously necessary to be sure that figures of deaths being quoted are accurate.

    Greenstein has run an obsessive campaign against Atzmon for years – he claims he is doing this to protect the Palestine solidarity movement from being associated with claims of anti-semitism and Holocaust Denial – but he has added more heat than light to the issue – and he is determined to force his own distorted view onto others. Regardless of Atzmon, there will always be zionists who believe that :Support for Palestinians = hatred of Jews.

    Greenstein attacks anyone who does not buy into his vitriolic tripe and it does seem to me that Andy is about the last source that takes him seriously anymore.

    The problem many have is with his tactics, which mirror those of fanatic zionists, and are intended to serve the same purpose, ie to force a view onto participants in a discussion. Some of us refuse to play.

    Some of us insist on making up our own minds, and looking at all the facts.

    For this we too get to be vindictively and maliciously attacked by Greenstein. Which re-inforces the belief that he is simply not to be trusted.

    Goodwin notes:

    “as an antiracist I don’t find much tangible practical difference between Greenstein’s claim – that Atzmon is a tacet Holocaust denier – and the more demonstrable reality that Atzmon is an apologist for Holocaust denial.”

    Greenstein did not claim Atzmon was a tacit Holocaust denier, he baldly claimed that Atzmon was an OPEN HD, “by his own words” and Andy printed that.

    Goodwin suggests I look at libel law. I suggest the claim that Greenstein is a cyber-stalker would be much easier to prove than Greenstein’s claims about Atzmon.

    You were out to insult MY intelligence weren’t you Goodwin?

  17. #17 FTP

    The holocaust museum discussion only dealt with the number killed at aushwitz, not the total which remains at 6 million.
    Jacob Wolf | 01.20.08 – 12:30 am | #

    The Holocaust is one of the most well documented atrocities of teh 20th century.
    Jacob Wolf | 01.27.08 – 4:52 pm | #

    Now, Greenstein has helpfully pointed out that actually, it isn’t that well documented. That in fact there is not conclusive evidence of the number of people that died.

    Wolf’s statements are completely unexceptional, and the fact that you label them as trolling speaks volumes about where you’re coming from. Yes, among historians we’d say that the total is generally believed by scholars to be somewhere in the region of six million, but saying that the total is six million is a perfectly acceptable simplification. Apart from anything else, it’s a lot closer to the truth than saying the total isn’t six million. As for documentation, Greenstein and Wolf aren’t contradicting each other: there is a ton of documentation on the Holocaust, but even the Nazis didn’t document every single killing.

    But, he says, “I don’t think it matters” and goes on to posit that anyone who thinks it does matter must be revisionists, or deniers, or worse.

    Open question: why do you think it does matter? You’re not a professional historian as far as I’m aware; I can’t see how anyone else would have a reasonable interest in casting doubt on the Nazis’ body-count.

  18. Phil:”Yes, among historians we’d say that the total is generally believed by scholars to be somewhere in the region of six million,”

    TG:”The late Raul Hilberg, author of the Destruction of European Jewry and the acknowledged expert in the field estimated 5.1 million, Hannah Arendt thought it lower, Christopher Browning estimates it at around 6 million but given that there not accurate censuses, and those that were were out of date, it is simply impossible to know how many died.”

    Phil:”Open question: why do you think it does matter? You’re not a professional historian as far as I’m aware; I can’t see how anyone else would have a reasonable interest in casting doubt on the Nazis’ body-count.”

    Where have I said that I think it matters?

    Is much of history ‘general belief’ in your opinion?

  19. Ooh my my – an MA!

    Is one genuflection enough for your ego?

    “I can’t see how anyone else would have a reasonable interest in casting doubt on the Nazis’ body-count.”

    Well, if I have read your learned post correctly, there is no certainty about the body count.

    It doesn’t seem unreasonable to have doubts about an uncertainty.

    Does it?

  20. I didn’t say anything about my qualifications, ftp, I was just curious about yours. Whoever you are.

    Well, if I have read your learned post correctly, there is no certainty about the body count.

    No, but – as you’ll know if you’ve read my learned post correctly – it is generally agreed that the body count was in the region of six million. Which makes it highly ‘unreasonable’ to describe Wolf’s completely uncontroversial statement as an ‘unsubstantiated claim’.

  21. Andy

    What doubt is that, and where did I express it?

    Phil

    If Hilberg or Arendt estimated correctly, then it would not be correct to say that ” the total is six million”, would it?

    Wolf says:
    “The Holocaust is one of the most well documented atrocities of teh 20th century.”

    which is a qualitative statement.

    You say:

    “there is a ton of documentation on the Holocaust”

    which would be a quantitive statement, no?

    On my lowly B.Sc course I was taught that these were not the same thing.

    Had I progressed to a masters it seems I would have had to re-educate myself.

    I’m rather glad I didn’t bother……..

  22. FTP in comment #21

    you say there is uncertinalty over the number killed,, and you say that it is not unreasonable to have doubts about an uncertainty.

    My questin to you is what is the point of this line of srgument from you.

    Do you regard it as a sensible line of enquiry to debate the precsie number, and if so why do you.

    Your silence on this is leading me to draw my own conclusions.

  23. Andy

    Tony Greenstein says there is uncertainty – he quotes 3 different sources with 3 different figures. Phil says it is ‘generally believed’ that the figure is ‘in the region of’ 6m.

    Draw whatever conclusions you like. They probably won’t be accurate, judging by the quality of article that gains your editorial approval.

    Jacob Wolf backed up his claim that ‘Islamic morality’ is more ‘bloodthirsty’ than ‘western morality’ with a claim of 1m dead in the Iran/Iraq war. I asked him if this was more, or less than the total number of Hitler’s vicitms. Can you see that it might well be relevant in such a discussion?

  24. If Hilberg or Arendt estimated correctly, then it would not be correct to say that ” the total is six million”, would it?

    If we knew an exact figure and it wasn’t six million, then it wouldn’t be correct to say that the exact figure was six million. But we don’t know an exact figure, and the scholarly consensus is that the figure’s somewhere in the region of six million. So, why did you say Wolf was making an ‘unsubstantiated claim’ when he repeated this completely uncontroversial figure?

    Wolf says:
    “The Holocaust is one of the most well documented atrocities of teh 20th century.”
    which is a qualitative statement.

    You say:
    “there is a ton of documentation on the Holocaust”
    which would be a quantitive statement, no?

    It is true that there is a ton of documentation on the Holocaust (as I said). It is also true that the death count isn’t fully documented (as Tony said). And it’s also true that the Holocaust is one of the best-documented atrocities of the 20th century (as Wolf said). None of these statements is incompatible with the others. I’ve no idea what point you’re making here.

  25. goodwin sands on said:

    Perhaps ftp can provide us an exact figure for the number of people within the London city limits at this instant. And if he cannot get it exactly to the last digit, then we must conclude that London is not ‘well documented’ after all and the whole thing may well be a historical myth in need of ‘revision’ – with the aid of Ernst Zündel and his lot.

    Does ftp know that he’s channeling the lunatic right on this – that historians have long been satisfied on the figure of six million, for many good reasons, while freely acknowledging that an exact figure is no more possible than establishing an absolute death count for Stalin’s Great Purge?

    Is he aware that Raul Hilberg’s estimate is generally considered by historians to be significantly too low, and is far from the only study ever done?

    Was the whole purpose of the Irving trial at the end of the day really only to embarrass Holocaust denial so badly on the right that it now aims for the left? If so, when later historians do their studies, they may well draw a clear line tracing the contamination from Ernst Zündel to Paul Eisen to Gilad Atzmon to Roy Bard to Indymedia UK.

    An ill wind indeed for Indymedia.

  26. Is it substantiated, or not?

    Wolf provided no source, and you say that its ‘in the region of’ 6m.
    There isn’t full documentation according to you, and there are competing claims according to Greenstein, which go under 5.1m.

    BTW Mr. Historian sah, you’ve been competely silent on Wolfie’s equally unsubstantiated claim that ‘islamic morality is more bloodthirsty than western morality’.

    Is he roughly correct on that one too?

  27. Hi goodwin

    Those later historians would be making the same wild assumptions that you, Greenstein and Andy seem addicted to. But after having the value of history explained to me by the highly educated Phil, that isn’t very surprising…….

    The opinions I have expressed are that Greenstein’s articles are rubbish, and that Andy’s editorial credentials suffer as a result of it.

    The rest of it has been an exploration of what is being said here.

    Have a nice day 🙂

  28. FTP

    You delibertaly skirt around the question of whether the numbers killed in the Holocaust are acurate or not, and then you refuse to answer questions of why you think this is important.

    To be hinest, i don’t really care what you as an individual think on this. but the fact that you exhibit the same line of argument as holocaust deniers should be of concern to Indymedia collective.

  29. goodwin sands on said:

    Having a look at Greenstein’s links about Kurt Nimmo, it seems that ftp is also willing to defend the assertion that the gas chambers of Auschwitz are ‘discredited’.

    Are the gas chambers of Auschwitz discredited Mr Bard? You argue that they can plausibly be labeled such.

  30. Andy

    Your urgent need to convict doesn’t surprise me in the least.

    You asked:

    “My questin to you is what is the point of this line of srgument from you.

    Do you regard it as a sensible line of enquiry to debate the precsie number, and if so why do you.”

    I replied:

    “Tony Greenstein says there is uncertainty – he quotes 3 different sources with 3 different figures. Phil says it is ‘generally believed’ that the figure is ‘in the region of’ 6m.

    Jacob Wolf backed up his claim that ‘Islamic morality’ is more ‘bloodthirsty’ than ‘western morality’ with a claim of 1m dead in the Iran/Iraq war. I asked him if this was more, or less than the total number of Hitler’s vicitms. Can you see that it might well be relevant in such a discussion?”

    Go figure….. perhaps if you read the whole conversation it will make more sense to you. Or perhaps you are blinded by some ideological/illogical difficulty.

    Start at comment 9, and work your way down, post by post…..

  31. #32

    “Having a look at Greenstein’s links about Kurt Nimmo, it seems that ftp is also willing to defend the assertion that the gas chambers of Auschwitz are ‘discredited’.”

    Is that right? I seem to recall that there were other statements by Nimmo about the holocaust. He has stated that there were 12m victims of Hitler, that there were death camps and gassings with zyklon-b and that many jews were killed under direct orders from Hitler. Furthermore he denies being a denier, and no-one has produced any subsequent statements from him which indicate that he is a Holocaust denier. He consistently uses the term nazi in a perjorative manner.

    Bearing all this in mind, it does not seem reasonable to call him a holocaust denier.

    Unless you’re poart of the Socialist Unity/Jaz/Plaut lynchmob that is…….

  32. goodwin sands on said:

    It would seem that Mr Nimmo has changed his mind about all that if he is now referring to ‘discredited gas chambers’.

    A quick glance at his blog – http://adereview.com/blog/ – shows many links to unabashedly antisemitic sites, including white supremacist and Holocaust denial sites. Given that awkward fact, it seems quite reasonable indeed to assume that he too has joined the Zündel parade.

    Perhaps like Irving Nimmo says one thing to one audience and another to another. However what he says elsewhere does not change the fact that he also said that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were now ‘discredited’.

    At any rate I cant imagine that Socialist Unity is deeply interested in the details about an obscure Holocaust denier / 9-11 ‘truther’ from the desert dunes of New Mexico. What’s germane here however is that, when people like Nimmo and Atzmon rush in to areas where angels fear to tread and begin chanting the mantras of the far right, your reflex is to defend them and their idiocies. I would imagine that cheers Holocaust deniers such as Paul Eisen considerably.

  33. goodwin sands on said:

    To repose the direct question which went unanswered – can the gas chambers of Auschwitz justifiably be labeled ‘discredited’ Mr Bard? One of your compatriots at Indymedia, in defending Nimmo, argues that they can. Would you be good enough to tell us whether you agree?

  34. Remind me exactly what Nimmo meant when he wrote that…. maybe then I can answer the question.

    I DO think Andy’s editorial judgement has been ‘discredited’ by carrying Greenstein’s rubbish if that helps at all.

    🙂

  35. FTP

    NImmo wrote in his own defence

    In a blog post (February 20th 2006), in regard to the conviction of David Irving, I wrote that the gas chambers were “discredited.” If you bother to use a dictionary, you will notice that “discredited”is defined as “cause to be doubted.”

    I cannot think of any context where using the word “discredited” about the existence of the Auschwitz gas chambers would not be denial. But it was not any old context, it was in the specific context (by Nimmo’s own admission) of Irving’s criminal conviction for holocaust denial.

    But FTP, what do you think? why so coy?

  36. goodwin sands on said:

    @37 “Remind me exactly what Nimmo meant when he wrote that…. maybe then I can answer the question.”

    I think youre quite aware of it and I think your feigned memory lapse is no more persuasive than Nimmo’s argument that the gas chambers of Auschwitz are ‘discredited’.

    Whats also discredited, apparently, is Indymedia itself as a institution, if it is looking to people like you to determine what is or int anti-Semitic and you cant even manage the moral wherewithal to reject the claim that the gas chambers of Auschwitz are ‘discredited’. Youre revealing more than you believe you are Mr Bard.

    Once again, to repose the direct question which went unanswered again, I am not asking what Nimmo thinks (for that is clear enough and reprehensible enough) but what you think.

    Can the gas chambers of Auschwitz justifiably be labeled ‘discredited’ Mr Bard? as Newman says, why so coy? Are you afraid your answer will speak for itself any louder than your now quite obvious silence does?

  37. Goodwin

    If I thought like you, I might also think that I knew what was in Nimmo’s head when he wrote that. I might also claim that “perhaps Nimmo says one thing to one audience and another to another.”

    But as it goes, I am not you, and I don’t think it is at all evident what was in the man’s head at the time, and I see no evidence that Nimmo says different things to different audiences.

    So …….. I can’t really help you until you enlighten me further.

  38. Andy

    First – What I think as an Indymedia moderator is clearly outlined in the discussion on the Indymedia list.

    Here I am me, an individual posting as an individual.

    Second) You appear to be referring to the wikipedia talk entry “seemingly by Nimmo”?

    Was it by him? Does ‘seemingly’ mean ‘definitely’ all of a sudden?

    What standard of proof do you think is necessary before denouncing a man as a Holocaust Denier and banishing him, threatening him and generally hounding him?

  39. Andy

    What standard of proof do you think is necessary before denouncing a man as a Holocaust Denier and banishing him, threatening him and generally hounding him?

  40. OK, now I want to know, too.

    ftp, step-up on the question regarding gas chambers at Auschwitz being “discredited”.

    I’m not asking in order to establish a standard of proof to denounce anyone. I’m asking based on gut instinct (that’s the best category I can think of right now).

  41. Battersea Power Station

    Its not a word I would have used.

    But on its own it is, in my view, insufficient to justify calling him a Holocaust denier.

    Especially in light of the fact that he made many other statements which are definitely not Holocaust Denial.

  42. goodwin sands on said:

    Yet Nimmo links to Holocaust denial sites on his blog.

    Just take a look at the last one on his links list, ‘Ziopedia’. The site is now password-protected but the Google cache makes clear what sort of thing goes on inside it. Here is a Ziopedia article called ‘The Zionist-Semitist Holocaust Story is Unfounded’.

    Excerpt: ‘In brief, this is elite Jewry`s holocaust hate speech cycle:

    1.    Jew elite tells the cosmic-sized Big Lie of the Holocaust.

    2.    Gentiles say, “Wait! Let us investigate that!”

    3.    Jewish elite protests, “What? You question Jewish suffering and eyewitness testimonies? You are engaging in hate speech.”

    4.    The Jewish controlled media then proceed to silence and defame the hapless Gentile or Jew who refuses to accept the holocaust blood libel.

    5.    If the Gentile persists, Jewish thugs like Rabbi Kahane`s JDL [Jewish Defense League] send him mail-bombs or Jewish assisted lightening burns down his house. These Jewish thugs are almost always protected by their co-tribalists in the judicial system and the useless police never bother to seriously investigate the crime.

    6.    If the holocaust skeptic persists, jewdiciaries bankrupt, deport, and imprison him.’

    Like that? Quite a bit more of it, all on a site Nimmo links to. And thats only one site.

    Now if this is the sort of site Nimmo links to on his own blog – and it is – I’d suggest you’re backing the wrong horse.

  43. 47. ftp, thanks for the answer.

    I agree with your avoidance of the term.

    Organically, whenever I see the word “discredited” and “Auschwitz” in the same sentence, paragraph, book or blog I run a mile. It’s beyond “clumsy” or “stylistic” error at this point.

  44. andrew r on said:

    “it would have to be explained why, according to an Israeli government report in 1997, there were between 834,000 and 960,000 survivors still alive.”

    Uh, is this Jeff Blankfort guy a retard? Was Robert Faurisson beaten on the skull by his schoolmaster? The Nazis were defeated by the Soviet Union in the middle of exterminating all the Jews. That’s why there were so many survivors.

    I hate Holocaust revisionism, but I hate Zionism, too.

  45. Like Larry I am one of those anarchists who believes in “organization”, and ,like him, I object to the assumption that more than a minority of anarchists are against organization per se.
    The people around Indymedia may or may not be “anarchists of a sort” in a vague lefty way. In actual fact this varies from location to location. If they do so descibe themselves they really have to do some serious thinking about what that word means. I would not be surprised to find that the SAME individuals were in favour of BOTH physically preventing fascists from speaking (REAL denial of “free speech”) while at the same time being in favour of putting out effort to give said fascists a platform for their views in the name of “free speech”. If I would give a name to this sort of contradictory behavior it would NOT be anarchism. It would be more like “trendy leftism” ie mindlessly following the crowd in closed circles and lacking the courage to object.
    As for myself I have been fighting and sniping for years now here in Winnipeg, Canada about how our local Indymedia is a playpen for neo-Nazi nuts. You can see some of this at my blog(Molly’s Blog-http://mollymew.blogspot.com ). This is ONE example of how at least ONE anarchist has hardly been silent on this matter. Some of my posts at the Indymedia have been deleted, presumably by the “moderators” (it’s one of the few, perhaps the ONLY, things they do- delete me), but the Nazis continue on, even if they post the same post 20 times.
    Over my time in dealing with this matter I have come to the conclusion that this sort of thing is rife on Indymedia sites. Some have been closed down because of threats of prosecution under hate crimes laws. In my opinion Indymedia sites have to do one of two things. EITHER they put a ban on ALL discusion from ALL sides of not just “Zionism” but the Middle East in general OR they begin by restricting their coverage to ONLY local, regional or, at the broadest,national events. This, after all, was supposed to be the whole idea behind Indymedia at the beginning, that it could serve as a self-managed news outlet for the people that actually MAKE the news ie local people. Aside from a few isolated examples Indymedias are NOT doing this today.

  46. Jock McTrousers on said:

    Andy’s article is just another piece of covert (and not very covert, at that) zionist propaganda, and part of a concerted effort to drive everyone but covert zionists out of the Palestine campaign, which is feeble enough already. He should be thrown out of Respect Renewal (correct me if I’m wrong that he’s in RR); not that it matters anyway since that organisation has absolutely no future, being a coalition of the muslim communalists with the league of jewish supremacists who post here.

    What’s all this about holocaust denial? Why would anyone need to deny the holocaust? At the moment it is illegal in many countries, and effectively so in the US and UK, to evaluate, assess, criticise the ‘evidence’ for the holocaust; evidence, by definition, is something that can be evaluated, assessed, criticised, so it is correct to say that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for the holocaust. It would be reasonable to assume that an awful lot of jews died under the nazi regime, but there is no reason to believe anything further.

    Why does Andy keep asking (loosely) ” what is the point of your questioning the holocaust? “?. Obviously, he’s trying to imply that anyone questioning the holocaust is trying to rehabilitate Hitler, and is therefore a nazi, and shouldn’t be allowed a platform. Pathetic! The holocaust is the lynchpin of the propaganda of ‘unique Jewish suffering’; that’s why they are so keen to keep it unassailable, but this just has the opposite effect – I don’t deny the holocaust, I just see no reason to believe it. Until the holocaust can be treated like any other happening in history, no-one should believe it – and if at some point, the restrictions are removed, the case is argued openly without fear of prosecution, and the holocaust is proven reasonably, then we will have to look back on the current situation as the worst dishonour heaped on the nazis victims by the zionists.

    Get the zionists out of the left and out of the Palestine solidarity movement!

  47. At the moment it is illegal in many countries, and effectively so in the US and UK, to evaluate, assess, criticise the ‘evidence’ for the holocaust; evidence, by definition, is something that can be evaluated, assessed, criticised, so it is correct to say that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for the holocaust.

    Interesting. What do you think of the work of Christopher Browning? I find it a lot more persuasive than the model put forward by Lucy Dawidowicz, although she did assemble some valuable evidence of what went on in the ghettoes. Certainly her work’s a useful source on the role of the local ‘Elders’ and the effects of the three-way split between Zionists, Orthodox and Bundists – which is ironic (or rather laudable) given her ideological starting-point.

    But I forget, there’s NO EVIDENCE for any of this. No reason to believe it. Those wily Zionists, eh?

  48. andrew r on said:

    “At the moment it is illegal in many countries, and effectively so in the US and UK, to evaluate, assess, criticise the ‘evidence’ for the holocaust”

    No one’s ever been prosecuted for denying the Holocaust in the US and UK (what the hell–?, the KKK and neo-Nazi groups aren’t even banned in the US).

    Also, in the EU it’s illegal to deny or trivialize anything by the Nazis, whether it’s the Holocaust or the blitzkrieg bombings. I think it should be illegal to deny all atrocities or none, and since there’s a maze of political conflicts to the former, it can never happen. If people can’t recognize an historical event on their own then law enforcement is just a waste of resources on them.

    Heck, even people from countries were Holocaust denial is officially encouraged affirm it happened.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2499938,00.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7119474.stm

  49. goodwin sands on said:

    Jock McTrousers in his trolling demonstrates by his dishonesty the central point about Holocaust denial – that it is not as it claims to be a school of scholarly inquiry but a form of lunatic anti-semitism that seeks the undeserved mantle of scholarship. Holocaust deniers have been fighting for an unearned legitimacy for several decades by persuading the quite easily persuaded that it is a completely rational form of historical inquiry. Yet McTrousers cannot refer to the overwhelmingly substantial evidence of the Holocaust; instead he must use sneer quotes when referring to the ‘evidence.’

    The problem is not with such obvious trolls; the problem is when bits of the Holocaust denial platform start leaking into the non-trollish discourse – for example the idea that there is any serious contention about the validity of the six million figure – by those who fail to recognize they are doing Zündel’s work, and who when corrected start screaming ‘zionists!’.

  50. Jock McTrousers on said:

    Goodwin Sands – the point is that only one conclusion is permitted to be drawn from the evidence, like ” you’ll be hanged after a fair trial”.

    I believe Raul Hilberg gives a figure of 5.1 million, so there IS debate among the orthodoxy. A few years ago it was heresy to suggest that the extermination of the Jews was planned from the start; now it’s the orthodoxy that this wasn’t considered until 1941, among the orthodox of course, including Browning. Browning’s work ‘the Origins of the Final Solution’ is the second part of the Yad Vashem (excuse me if I got that wrong – the official Israel Holocaust history lot) history of the holocaust; the third, so far unpublished, volume will deal with the implementation of the holocaust – that will be the up-to date orthodox statement on the areas where the revisionist have some doubts, so Browning’s brilliant work isn’t really relevant to the question.

    Can you quote me an example of ‘lunatic anti-semitism’ in, for instance, the works of Carlo Mattogno or Germar Rudolf? Can you point me to incontestable sources for population figures for the Jewish (or any other, for that matter) populations in Eastern Europe before and after the war? Can skeptics examine these sources and come to a different conclusion from the orthodoxy without being jailed or having their careers terminated? Do you support the jailing of dissidents? Do you know of any serious refutation of Rudolf’s work (not Van Pelt – he isn’t qualified to assess it) ? And, just as the corporate world can hire countless hacks to deny man-made climate change, why should I believe that the inevitable refutations of Rudolf are not just bought and paid for?

    If there are penalties for coming to the wrong conclusion, why should I, or anyone, believe any conclusions?

  51. goodwin sands on said:

    One could certainly look at the evidence of planetary motion, satellite photos, NASA missions, and such and conclude that the earth is flat and the sun is a flaming chariot circling around it. That is a ‘permitted’ conclusion – if you have no need for honesty. What one can’t do is look at that evidence, draw that conclusion, and be regarded as anything but a nutter.

    Its plain that you also have a similar lack of need for honesty and I have no corresponding need to answer you any further.

    Because its generally the pattern among crackpots when dismissed to then huff and puff about how rude their opponents are, let me add an unambiguous ‘fuck off’.

  52. Jock McTrousers writes: ‘What’s all this about holocaust denial? Why would anyone need to deny the holocaust?’

    He also cites Carlo Mattogno and Germar Rudolf as non-anti-semitic Holocaust Deniers.

    A few weeks ago – and I’m sorry, but I can’t be bothered trawling through the threads – I questioned Mr McTrousers on a comment he made questioning the numbers of Jewish people murdered by the Nazis and their associates in the 1940s. For merely asking what his sources were I was accused of being a Holocaust denier myself and abused rather roundly. That I can live with, but I was puzzled why he couldn’t produce his sources.

    Now he has (or at least some of them). Its clear that Mr McTrousers has some considerable knowledge of Denial material (Mattogno and Rudolf being key figures in the Denial industry – the former being on the board of the far-right Institute for Historical Review) and that he’s not simply whinging about those pesky Zionists always getting their day in the sun with this six million business. Good to know…

    Back to his original question: “What’s all this about holocaust denial? Why would anyone need to deny the holocaust?”

    Well, I could hazard a guess, largely based on the political sympathies of most of the leading Holocaust Deniers dating back to the end of the war. If the Holocaust is a hoax, then the Nazis were probably no better or worse than anyone else operating at that time. That was certainly the argument put forward by Richard Harwood, author of ‘Did Six Million Really Die?’, better known to the world as Richard Verrall, a leader of the NF and editor of John Tyndall’s ‘Spearhead’ magazine.

    As for the merits or otherwise of certain marginal claims by Deniers, I’m with Pierre Vidal-Naquet, who, while acknowledging that nothing was ‘untouchable’ or closed to question, and that therefore even Deniers claims needed to be judged on their ‘merits’ rather than simply dismissed outright because of their source, added that ‘anti-Semitic paranoia is perhaps not the best preparation for a study of Hitler’s policies towards the Jews.’

  53. Jock McTrousers on said:

    ” As for the merits or otherwise of certain marginal claims by Deniers, I’m with Pierre Vidal-Naquet, who, while acknowledging that nothing was ‘untouchable’ or closed to question, and that therefore even Deniers claims needed to be judged on their ‘merits’ rather than simply dismissed outright because of their source, added that ‘anti-Semitic paranoia is perhaps not the best preparation for a study of Hitler’s policies towards the Jews.’”

    I totally agree. Can you get back to me with an anti-semitic statement by Rudolf or Mattogno? Can you get back to me with sources (checkable, even name a book that quotes them) for the 6 million figure e.g. reliable sources for the pre and post war populations of Eastern Europe? Norman Finkelstein says that Raul Hilberg’s ‘destruction of the European Jews’ is the only worthwhile work (and his word is good enough for me), so if you can even give me a source note from that book, that will do. If you can’t do even that, then you’re even less interested in the subject than me(and that’s VERY uninterested; so why are you so attached to the official narrative? I’ve never read anything by these so-called ‘deniers’ that would alter anyone’s assessment of the Hitler regime in the slightest, have you? Tell me about it.

  54. Well it depends which so-called Deniers you’re referring to. Certainly up to the 1980s, most if not all of the Deniers were anti-Semites and Hitler apologists, many of whom were actively involved in neo-fascist and racist organisations. I refer here to people such as Arnold Leese, Colin Jordan, and Richard Verrall/Harwood in Britain; Revilo P Oliver, George Lincoln Rockwell, Willis Carto, and William Grimstad in the US; Maurice Bardeche and Francois Duprat in France; Ditlieb Felderer in Sweden; Wilhelm Staeglich in Germany; Ernst Zundel in Canada. The standard-bearers for Holocaust Denial were all largely far-right, and a core argument they advanced was that the Holocaust was used as a stick to beat National Socialist Germany (or to further ‘Jewish’ causes – this was the line of the ‘anti-nazi anti-semite’ Douglas Reed).

    Now things changed slightly in the 1980s, and there was an increase in non-Nazi input (especially through the Vieille Taupe group of France, which had formerly been of the revolutionary left – its particular critique of the Holocaust bore remarkable similarities to a later Denial foray by the former leftists of Lyndon LaRouche’s US Labor Party).

    Nevertheless, the main distributors and propagandists continue to be neo-Nazis and white supremacists – as in the IHR, founded by long time US anti-Semite and neo-Nazi Willis Carto, headed up by former UK NF leader David McCalden, and now run by US neo-nazi and white supremacist Mark Weber.

    I can’t get back to you with an anti-semitic statement by Rudolf or Mattogno – basically because I’ve not read their stuff. Even if neither had made any anti-semitic statements, I don’t know what that would prove.

    Certainly not that Holocaust Denial isn’t at base an argument that Jews shamelessly lie to further their cause and wield such power that they can manipulate reality to present such a demonstrable lie as fact, while terrorising/blackmailing virtually every single historian of that period into retailing this demonstrable lie. Or its companion argument – as clearly recognised by a casual review of the primary Denier literature – that if the Holocaust is a hoax, then the Nazis were just another authoritarian regime in inter-war Europe and that therefore its present day would-be admirers – from the NF and BNP in Britain, to the various neo-Nazi outfits elsewhere deserve more reasoned consideration by voters. If you’ve read Harwood/Verrall, if you’ve read Zundel, if you’ve read Oliver or Bardeche or Carto or even David Irving you would see that argument made time and again.

    As for finding you quotes from Hilberg, I don’t have a copy of his book to hand, so I can’t help you. On the neo-Nazi background to Holocaust Denial, I’d suggest you read either Vidal-Naquet’s Assassins of Memory or Roger Eatwell’s essay ‘Holocaust denial: a study in propaganda technique’ in Cheles, ‘Neo-Fascism in Europe’. Otherwise you can do your own research. If you’ve read enough of Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno to confidently say they’ve never written anything anti-semitic, it can’t be too much of an effort for you to look up Hilberg.

    BTW, for someone who claims to be VERY uniterested in this topic, you seem very willing to assume the best intentions of a group of neo-Nazis.

    Whatever your real motivations are, I can tell you this much, comrade: you’re not of the left. You may once have been. But you’re not now.

  55. The Raul Hilberg figure was related to the Nazi Extermination camps in Poland. Given the sheer scale and depth of Holocaust scholarship it might be an idea to read some of it properly before making judgements about the worth of books written by neo-Nazi crackpots. Raul Hilbergs actual book might be a good place to start. Its in two volumes and can be bought in Borders. Not a big demand to make.

  56. Jock McTrousers on said:

    Same to you Joepolitix.

    David (is that DavidT) – Wow, you know your shit! Rest assured, I have never heard of the people you mentioned, except Irving and Zundel. I haven’t read enough of Zundel to know his political leanings. Irving has never written about the holocaust, to my knowledge; I haven’t read much by him, and what little I have read doesn’t convince me that he is, though eccentric in my opinion, any more right wing than the maybe 50% of Americans who think Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter are commies.

    Cutting through all the shit, do you think it should be illegal to re-examine the figures for Jewish deaths (I notice that you didn’t give me any sources, but I accept that you’re more interested in it than me, from your post above – oh, it’s very expensive to BUY Hilberg, unfortunately – how about a quick reference so I can look it up quickly in the library) ? Do you think it should be illegal to discuss the mechanics, and practicalities of the alleged gassings? Do you think the Nuremberg trials were conducted according to acceptable standards of justice, and that their findings are dependable?

    Do you disagree that evidence can, by definition, be assessed, weighed up, criticised, negated, and that therefore any ‘evidence’ which it is illegal, or effectively illegal, to discuss is NOT evidence, and therefore, at present, there is NO evidence for the holocaust, and that this situation is a great dishonour to the dead, however many and however they died?

    Of course you don’t, judging from your posts above re Vidal-Naquet. So, we’re in agreement – greetings, friend!

    By the way, according to strict ‘exterminationist’ criteria, the 6M figure is sacrosanct, so Hilberg himself is a ‘denier’.

    Believe it or not, I’m not attached to either side( of the holocaust debate, that is – I don’t like nazis; they make you work!). I AM attached to living in a country where thought crime is not an offence, however.

    I looked at the books you mentioned on Amazon. I ordered the Cheles one, because it was only 2£. The review of the Naquet book, however, stated:

    ” the book is particularly illuminating on the role the American linguist Noam Chomsky has played as writer of a preface to one of the movement’s more influential tracts.”

    – I can see where HE’s coming from. I’ll give that one a miss, thanks.

  57. Again Jock, why not read Hilberg’s two volumed book. You admire Finkelstein. He recommends it. Go to borders and buy it. Whats the problem?

  58. Joepolitix on said:

    Jock McNazi: “Irving has never written about the holocaust, to my knowledge” . Then your knowledge is severely wanting then you thick illiterate fuckwit – but we knew that already.

    Run yourself a deep bath and have a nice soak with an electric toaster you fucking prick.

    xxx

  59. Jock,
    1. I am not David T.

    2. Zundel is a neo-Nazi. He wrote a book called ‘The Hitler We Loved, And Why’.

    3. Irving has often written and spoken on the Holocaust. He originally argued that it happened but that Hitler didn’t know about it (Hitler’s War). Then he argued that it didn’t happen (foreword to Leuchter report). I think his famous line was that more people died in the back of Teddy Kennedy’s car than were gassed at Auschwitz. Then he changed his mind again after reading Eichmann’s memoirs. Then he changed his mind again (no Holocaust) when speaking to neo-Nazi groups in Germany and Austria. Then he changed his mind again (yes Holocaust, very sorry) when the Austrians locked him up. And once out of jail, he changed his mind again (no Holocaust, ha ha) when they let him out. He is very right-wing, a racist and an anti-Semite. Read Richard Evans’ Telling Lies for Hitler.

    4. I don’t think it should be illegal to question numbers, mechanics, motives, etc. Nor is it in Britain or the US. I’m not in favor of outlawaing Holocaust Denial, but that doesn’t mean I put it on the same footing (or anywhere approaching) the same arguments put forward by legitimate historians.

    5. I don’t agree with your claim that there is no evidence to suggest the Holocaust (as we generally know it: ie, a deliberate extermination policy of the Nazis and their associates which led to the murder of roughly six million Jewish people as well as others, partly by the use of gas chambers in extermination camps) didn’t occur. The logic you use to arrive at this conclusion is breathtakingly stupid, I should add. Historians have been discussing the extent of the Holocaust for years. Holocaust Deniers are still largely free to peddle their shit, and totally free to discuss it in those countries where Holocaust Denial is not a crime. By your muddled logic, then, there is no evidence that the Holocaust occured if you happen to live in a country where Denial is illegal, but perhaps plenty of evidence in those countries where it’s not.

    6. I’m not your friend. Keep your hands to yourself.

    7. Within serious Holocaust scholarship, there are functionalists and intentionalists – ie was the extermination something that just came out of the chaos of the war years, with the Nazis grabbing the opportunity to kill off the people they had long demonised, or was this their intention all along, from the days of Mein Kampf. The only people who use the term ‘exterminationists’ are Deniers.

    8. The Vidal-Naquet book is one of the most balanced and intelligent appraisals of Holocaust Denial and the way it has seeped into non-Nazi politics that I have ever read. I doubt very much whether you can see where its coming from.

    9. I can, however, see where you’re coming from. And I can also see where you’re heading. Good luck with your new friends. Nazis always like a tame ex-leftist; it makes them feel good about themselves. And I sense you’re only too willing to oblige.

  60. goodwin sands on said:

    And of course a good one-volume introduction to the history of that maggot parade called the Holocaust denial movement is Deborah Lipstadts ‘Denying the Holocaust’. Holocaust denial is an innately anti-semitic undertaking, as it has been for thirty years, and there is a reason why it’s championed only by sad bastards of the McTrousers stamp, a few charlatans here and there in it for the money, and it would seem every last one of Gilad Atzmon’s friends.

    David Irving proffered the Rudolf report when appealing the judgment against him, saw the devastating rejoinder prepared by the Lipstadt team, and withdrew the submission at the last moment – leading the appeal judges to criticise him sternly for wasting so much of their time by forcing them to read it and the response.

    Irving knew the Rudolf report had been popped like a soap bubble. But the deniers generally know that the Leuchter report they used to rely on has been so devastated that they can no longer even pretend it has merit (although apparently Atzmons friend Paul Eisen did in the essay Atzmon circulated, even going so far as to blame its flaws on ‘zionists’) and they have turned to Rudolf instead; although its a similar collection of idiocy at least it is not as famously idiocy as Leuchter now is.

  61. You need a reference for Hilberg? This from someone who claims to be “very interested in the Holocaust”. Its called “the destruction of European Jews” and laid the basis for contemporary debates on functionalism, intentionalism, and a host of other matters which remain central to controversy amongst historians as opposed to neo-nazi nutcases. Occassionally the nutcases will quote Hilberg because he has adopted controversial positions in the debates which exist amongst reputable historians, and because they are nutcases they think ‘debate’ is an indication that there is something wrong with the historiography (at the same time as denying there are debates). You can go the library and order it. If you are as interested as you claim in the subject you won’t just quickly check it out. You’ll read it. One of the things it will help you with is independently assessing the claims of the nutcases you quoted, as you will be able to see for yourself how they twist and distort what Hilberg actually said (for example your claim about his use of figures). At this point the penny should drop. Alternatively you can continue to pretend to be ‘very interested’ in a subject and continue to read nothing except stuff written by people who deny that it ought to be a subject at all.

  62. Jock McTrousers on said:

    johng – I didn’t say ANYTHING about Hilberg’s use of figures. I don’t need a reference for Hilberg – I didn’t claim to be ‘very interested in the holocaust’ – I probably wouldn’t think about it if it wasn’t illegal to discuss it in so many countries, and if so many people here didn’t seem to be so anxious to catch deniers. I asked David for a reference, because he claims to care deeply about the holocaust and its denial; I suspect that he doesn’t care enough about the holocaust to own the definitive work on it, or ever to have looked at the evidence for it. I still suspect that. I think it is something else entirely that he cares about. Criticism of Israel, to spell it out.

    Goodwin sands – the Rudolf report has not been demolished. Nothing you say is true, as usual. Van Pelt is no way qualified to assess Rudolf’s work. Rudolf’s work can only be assessed by chemists; but I’m sure that some chemists can be paid to come to the right conclusions.

    David – I would agree that someone who wrote ‘the Hitler we loved, and why’ was probably a nazi, or at least very insensitive; but I vaguely remember reading something about that – was it not a book of interviews with old 3rd Reichers?

    David again – I think you misrepresent Irving there, a bit; but you haven’t demonstrated more than that he is inconsistent and eccentric. I do not hold any brief for Irving, or find him at all likeable, but I think he has been treated appallingly. Norman Finkelstein said as much in the Holocaust Industry -” these are the sort of discussions we should be having”.

    johng – ‘Reputable historian ‘ is the key word. Could a historian look at the evidence, in certain areas, and come to a different conclusion, and still have a career as a historian? Is evidence from which only one conclusion can be drawn truly evidence?

    Basically, ALL of you – David, johng, Sands – basically support the suppression of dissent, though you mealy-mouth about it. YOU are fascists!

  63. goodwin sands on said:

    So sorry, McTrousers, this just doesnt happen to be ‘Be Kind to your Local Hitler Apologist Day’. When and if such a thing is scheduled, we’ll be sure to give you a ring. In the meantime perhaps you’d be more comfortable on Mary Rizzo’s blog, presuming of course you’re not there already under another Stupid McNym.

  64. Jock,
    You’re right. I don’t care about the Holocaust. I’ve never really read anything about it. Not Hilberg, not Browning, not no-one. Over the years I’ve spoken to a few people who were in the camps, but they’re all mendacious old yiddishers anyway. Some of them even support the State of Israel. I could have cared, believe me, but apparently unless you have a copy of Raul Hilberg’s book to hand, and are ready to provide footnotes to a neo-nazi pretending to be a lefty, you don’t really care.

    You, on the other hand, have a remarkably in-depth knowledge of Holocaust Denial arguments, matched only by a studied and highly convenient ignorance of the politics of the leading advocates, from Irving to Zundel. You haven’t read Hilberg, but that doesn’t matter, cos like me you don’t care. You care deeply if David Irving is misrepresented, or if Carlo Mattogno or Germar Rudolf are called ‘lunatic anti-semites’, but as for anything else to do with the Holocaust, it’s all so boring (which is usually the last refuge of the thick reactionary aristo – nice to see it on this site).

    Jock – you are Unity Mitford, and I claim my five pounds.

  65. Ian Donovan on said:

    “Jock – you are Unity Mitford, and I claim my five pounds”

    I wonder who this McTrousers character really is?

    He is certainly very protective of his real identity, unlike the major participants in this discussion who are all known quantities.

    This really is, not ‘left’ anti-semitism (there is actually no such thing… despite the mendacious propaganda of the pro-apartheid Zionists who are also polluting this debate) but simply unmediated Jew-hatred.

    Personally, I’d be inclined to delete everything both McTrousers and a number of his Zionist mirror images write. Then we might have a decent discussion.

    There is a difference between ‘McTrousers’, who is evidently a simple Jew-hater, and others in this discussion who really are motivated by a misdirected hatred of Israeli (“Jewish” – as defined by the Zionists themselves) racism, from a starting point within the Jewish milieu. I don’t see any misdirected hatred of racism from McTrousers, just vile racism disguised with a bit of cynical leftist camoflague. A different point of origin (likely Stalinist) and a very different trajectory.

    I have something political to say to a Israeli Jew whose misdirected hatred of Zionist racism leads them to demonise Jewish culture itself as racist and predatory, even as seeking world domination. That is a comprehensible error. I have nothing to say to ah seeming (or maybe it is just a posture?) ex-leftist who seems to be metamorphosing into a Hitlerite. These are completely different things.

    Other material he has posted on various blogs show he is rather fond of Slobodan Milosevic, that great admirer of Ariel Sharon. I note he also attacked Respect as ‘Muslim communalist’. So he doesn’t like Jews or Muslims very much either. That figures.

    It is possible to conjecture about an East European connection – perhaps some kind of National-Bolshevism or other shit. In any case, this character should be deleted along with his apartheid-loving Zionist mirror-images. They really deserve each other.

  66. Other material he has posted on various blogs show he is rather fond of Slobodan Milosevic

    I first came across ‘McTrousers’ when he was subjecting Tawfiq to a very similar what are the figures? what are the real figures? have you actually seen the figures? shtick on the subject of the Srebrenica massacre. I guess allegations of genocide against anyone who’s not actually an ally of Britain and the US will tend to attract a certain kind of denier.

  67. garagelanduk on said:

    I disagree with Ian about deleting these posts because they illustrate clearly the vile can of worms that is open to Indymedia if they don’t get their house in order regarding racism and anti-semitism. Of course Andy is right to have deleted some of the more obnoxious postings here.

    I congratulate Tony for his work on this and Socialist Unity for carrying this “thread” on anti-semitism – it is a service to the Left and to the Palestinian cause which is undermined by these people. To see previous posts on anti-semitism, see:

    http://www.socialistunity.com/?cat=69

  68. Ian Donovan on said:

    I’m not so sure that Tony or Andy deserve any such ‘congratulations’. All this obsession with targetting Jewish ‘anti-semites’ has done is attract Zionist racists, and the odd genuine anti-semite like McTrousers, like flies around doo-doo, to various left blogs, without any discernable impact on the wider social reality. Because, of course, if anti-semitism were to re-emerge as a real threat, it would not come from the likes of Gilad Atzmon, but from gentile forces with real social weight and again, ‘exposing’ Gilad Atzmon would be utterly irrelevant to combatting it, whichever way you look at it.

    This absurd, obsessive nonsense has done something remarkable. It has made Lenin’s Tomb look good. Take a look at this posting

    http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/02/another-pogrom-chaps.html

    This Atzmon/Greenstein rubbish is a serious detour from interacting with the real world.

  69. garagelanduk on said:

    Ian – chauvinism needs to be challenged within wider society and especially within our movement. The fact that both Indymedia and the SWP give space to Atzmon is a reality that needs dealing with. It may not be high on your list of priorites – fine activists have to prioritse what they spend their time on – but it does require dealing with. Or are you saying that anti-semitism should go unopposed?

  70. Jock McTrousers on said:

    Why am I not surprised to see Ian Donovan here with the ‘get the goyim out of the Palestine movement’ lot? Keep it up, you’ll get that column in the Guardian yet.

    Ian, do you think that there can be such a thing as evidence that can’t be evaluated or criticised, from which only one conclusion is permitted to be drawn? Would you say so in the pages of the Weekly Worker?

    Do you approve of jailing dissident? Of course you do; because you’re one of the MI5 rats that hangs around the CPGB. Get your pals at Vauxhall to find out who I am, and then you can send the SS round.

  71. andrew r on said:

    The danger about Atzmon is that his crazy ‘3rd category’ Jew theories might be taken seriously by anti-zionists who think this guy is right because he’s ex-Israeli. Heck, it took me some time to realize how full of it he was, thinking the bitterness to him on Jews Sans Frontieres was just a personality clash.

    Jews shouldn’t be automatically accountable for Israel, no matter how much Zionists and Jew-haters want it to happen.

  72. Anti-semitism today in the UK is not a serious problem. Given the small numbers of Jews here, and their being effectively non-practising, and racially indistinguishable, it hardly matters how much the BNP, or any section of the ruling class would like to make them a scapegoat, this particular divide and rule strategy is not going to work. Islamophobia, on the other hand, not only can play the role that anti-semitism did Germany and elsewhere, to a large extent, it already is. The problem anti-semitism plays is not a direct one in the UK, but it’s role within the Arab and Muslim peoples. There are political forces that exploit anti-Zionism within the Muslim people that are deeply reactionary. Their anti-semitism is no more progressive than the anti-semitism of the Black Hundreds. There is no good reason why the Palestinian people need to fall for this crap any more than the Russian people. It is the task of socialists to advance secularism and democracy as the alternative to Zionism, with the right of those ethnically cleansed to return to their place of birth. Wherever anti-semites raise their heads in the pro-Palestinan camp, they need to be driven out, just as fascists who tried to jump on board the anti-poll tax, miners’ support groups, anti-war groups were shown the door. Socialists need to mobilise atheists, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Budhists, and everyone else in support of the rights of everyone to practice their religion to the extent this does not deny the rights of others, including the rights of members of one religion to convert to another religion, and to abandon all religions. All attempts to impose a Jewish state for a Jewish people, a Muslim state for a Muslim people, a Protestant state, etc, etc, etc have to be opposed. Atzmon has to be exposed not because he will increase anti-semitism in the UK. He has to be exposed because his anti-semitism undermines the legitimate cause of the Palestinians in the eyes of those who can and must be won round.

    Incidentally, it would be good if comrades could turn their attention to the more serious problem of Islamophobia, and the inept intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He thinks he was helping Muslims. However, his attempt to legitimise law based on religion has done them great harm. The only way to win the fight against Islamophobia is by mobilising everyone in defence of secularism.

  73. Jock McTrousers on said:

    Let me get this straight – are the posters above saying that anyone, who suggests that critics of the holocaust orthodoxy shouldn’t be jailed or persecuted, should be ostracised or persecuted by the ‘left’, the anti-war movement, and the Palestine solidarity movement?

    I no longer expect a reply to the simple question of whether these posters think that evidence, which cannot be evaluated or criticised, really fits the definition of evidence?

    By the way, I wonder who thinks that Ian Donovan and Andy NewMan are on the left?
    And ‘David’ is a ‘known quantity’ apparently – known to who? Maybe that’s the heart of it.

  74. prianikoff on said:

    #82 “Given the small numbers of Jews here, and their being effectively non-practising, and racially indistinguishable, it hardly matters how much the BNP, or any section of the ruling class would like to make them a scapegoat”

    You’re talking complete and utter shit.

  75. Ian Donovan on said:

    “Or are you saying that anti-semitism should go unopposed?”

    Dave, you are missing the point. I’m not ridiculing the idea of making a fuss about anti-semitism. I would take it just as seriously as I take Islamophobia if I thought it was a real threat, comparable to that of Islamophobia.

    It’s the idea of making a big fuss out of ‘fighting’ anti-semitism among *people of Jewish origin*, that I find bizarre. THAT is why all this is so unreal.

  76. If Jock McTrousers is unsure whether socialists want to ostracise Holocaust deniers, then he should not be. The flat earth society are harmless lunatics. Those who try to rewrite history about Holocaust are not harmless. They are poisonous vermin who want to justify genocide.

  77. Anti-semitism in the UK today is not a serious problem, and there is no chance of it becoming so, apart from one section of British society. Islamophobia, on the other hand, is a very serious problem. To the extent that socialist turn away from this problem, we create the conditions for reactionaries to introduce anti-semitism, and other reactionary views, into this section of British society. A growth of anti-semitism within the Muslim community will be the punishment dished out to socialists for an incorrect strategy on how to tackle Islamophobia. As for turning our backs on anti-semitism on account of the source being himself Jewish is bizarre. If an openly gay man transformed himself into a campaigner against gay rights, on account of seeing the light, socialists would not excuse his behavior. There is nothing unusual about individuals from oppressed communities hiring themselves out to their oppressors. Additionally, even if he was not making cash as a consequence of his reactionary views, his insane anti-semitic views would not make him any less dangerous.

  78. Ian Donovan on said:

    “If an openly gay man transformed himself into a campaigner against gay rights, on account of seeing the light, socialists would not excuse his behavior.”

    Yeah right, and if pigs started flying around the room, we would have to take due account of that as well. Whatever Gilad Atzmon is or is not, he is not a campaigner against anyone’s ‘rights’. Still, someone who can equate the likes of Hamas or Hizbullah with the Russian Black Hundreds obviously has a problem distinguishing between oppressed and oppressor peoples, which probably is the key to this confusion.

  79. Did I equate Hamas or Hizbullah with the Russian Black Hundreds? Where? When? Stop inventing bullshit. As for the idea that a Holocaust denier does not deny people their rights, words fail me. And your dismissing the possibility of openly gay men becoming campaigners against gay rights shows how ignorant you are. There is no shortage of gay men and lesbians in the US becoming born again Christians and denouncing gay rights, and their own past. Jewish men and women who denounce Jews the way Atzmon does is an exact parallel to gays who evangelise on behalf of homophobic organisations.

  80. Ian Donovan on said:

    RF in 90

    #90 “Did I equate Hamas or Hizbullah with the Russian Black Hundreds? Where? When? Stop inventing bullshit.”

    RF in #82

    “but it’s role within the Arab and Muslim peoples. There are political forces that exploit anti-Zionism within the Muslim people that are deeply reactionary. Their anti-semitism is no more progressive than the anti-semitism of the Black Hundreds. There is no good reason why the Palestinian people need to fall for this crap any more than the Russian people.”

    If this isn’t a reference to Hamas/Hizb, I dont know what is. RF is yet another Islamophobic left, in his methodology. He is also dishonest, and simply denies what he wrote yesterday. There is no comparison between anti-Jewish sentiment among Palestians and Lebanese shia, with anti-semitism among Russians, because the Russians were an oppressor people, whereas the Palestinians and Lebanese Shia are oppressed peoples. Racism is not about ‘bad’ ideas in people’s heads – that is the liberal conception – it is a POWER relation.

    Sorry, don’t believe Atzmon is a holocaust denier. Not been shown to my satisfaction.

    “Jewish men and women who denounce Jews the way Atzmon does is an exact parallel to gays who evangelise on behalf of homophobic organisations.”

    That is really grossly insensitive to the oppression of Palestinians and others by the Zionist state. Gays in America, as a group, dont oppress anyone. Israeli Jews, as a priveleged nationality in an settler-apartheid type state, certainly do. For all his pretentions, RF is another left Islamophobe.

  81. goodwin sands on said:

    For the curious, Indymedia UK has made its decision, which is to wrap Atzmon’s mentalist bilge in a warning label that says in effect ‘the stuff you are about to read is dead dodgy but owing to our internal rules we are unable to remove it completely.”

    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/378213.html

    And as we have also seen in threads here its very very hard indeed to praise ‘ftp’ for his contribution to the fight against anti-semitism.

  82. For information Ditlieb Felderer was a former Jehovah’s Witnesses. He has never voted in his whole life, and don’t intend to do it in his old age. The silly use of Antisemitism against any person who want to think beyond his nose, perhaps illustrates best the intellectual stand of Exterminationists and their Exterminationism dogma. Moreover, in reading early German literature, this word was primarily used in depicting abhorrence to the cruelties of the Jews in their Holy Bible, not only against human beings, but also against animals and nature itself. Hence, an Antisemite, was one who denied Jews were a Chosen people with God-given right to massacre and torture those whom they invaded – all according to the Bible. Perhaps a good synonym to it is : Atheist.

  83. goodwin sands on said:

    Look, somebody seems to have wandered over from one of Mary Rizzo’s blogs, going on about “Exterminationism dogma.”

  84. mimi on said:

    LABOUR PARTY CABINET – IS IT NOT “FIT FOR PURPOSE”?
    LABOUR PARTY CABINET – IS IT NOT DYSFUNCTIONAL?
    LABOUR PARTY CABINET – IS IT NOT IN MELTDOWN?

    LABOUR PARTY CABINET HAS MAJORITY OF ITS CABINET MINISTERS – ARDENT ZIONIST SUPPORTERS: HARRIET HARMAN (MRS JACK DROMEY);
    TESSA JOWELL (MRS DAVID MILLS)(MINISTER FOR OLYMPICS & LONDON),
    ED “GOLDEN” BALLS (married to YVETTE COOPER – MRS YVETTE BALLS – CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY);
    DAVID MILIBAND (FOREIGN SECRETARY) [ED MILIBAND’S BROTHER];
    ED MILIBAND (CABINET OFFICE MINISTER, CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER)[DAVID MILIBAND’S BROTHER] ARE ALL ZIONIST – WHICH CONFLICTS WITH THEIR DUTY TO SUPPORT THE BRITISH STATE!

    MANY OF THE LABOUR PARTY CABINET [LIKE JAMES GORDON BROWN PhD] ARE SCOTS.
    MOST OF THE LABOUR PARTY WOMEN USE THEIR MAIDEN NAME NOT THEIR MARRIED NAME – DONE IN AN EFFORT TO DECOUPLE – DECEIVE THE BRITISH PUBLIC OF THEIR TRUE LINKS.

    Ms HAZEL BLEARS (Mrs MICHAEL HALSALL) – COMMUNITIES & LOCAL GOVERNMENT SECRETARY;
    Ms CAROLINE FLINT (Mrs PHIL COLE)- HOUSING SECRETARY
    Ms RUTH KELLY (Mrs DEREK GADD) TRANSPORT SECRETARY
    Ms JACQUI SMITH (Mrs RICHARD TIMNEY) – HOME SECRETARY
    Ms BEVERLY HUGHES (Mrs THOMAS McDONALD) – MINISTER FOR CHILDREN
    JACK STRAW – JUSTICE SECRETARY [Zionist]

    Ms PATRICIA SCOTLAND of ASTHAL {from DOMINICA not BRITAIN} – HM ATTORNEY GENERAL

    BRITISH LABOUR PARTY CABINET – ARE THEY NOT TRAITORS…?

  85. IS IT NOT THE CASE THAT THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY UNDER LABOUR PARTY PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN THE LABOUR PARTY BULLY & COWARD THAT SUPPORTED THE CRIMINAL GENOCIDE IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN & SOON IRAN & INDIRECTLY CONTROLS ALL THE LABOUR PARTY DIRECTORS THAT HARASS, OPPRESS & INTIMIDATE THE MOST VULNERABLE & DISABLED NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST TENANTS?

    BRITISH LABOUR PARTY UNDER LABOUR PARTY PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN IS FINISHED…

    MELTDOWN MADNESS – UNELECTED LABOUR PARTY PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE…

    UNELECTED LABOUR PARTY PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN IS AN EVIL FREEMASON…

    UNELECTED LABOUR PARTY PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN IS A BULLYING COWARD IF HE FERVENTLY SUPPORTS HUMAN RIGHTS ATROCITIES THAT ARE BEING PERPETRATED IN THE VERY HEART OF HAMMERSMITH BY THE LABOUR PARTY EVIL DIRECTORS OF NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST…

    ANY POLITICAL PARTY THAT OPPRESSES ITS OWN POTENTIAL SUPPORTERS IS FINISHED FOR A GENERATION…

  86. meir on said:

    Labour Party under the criminal yobs at 1 Butterwick at the back of the Metro building in the heart of Hammersmith are finished.

    Labour Party is gerrymandering the vote across london by the Labour Party controlled housing associations through the british National Housing Federation (NHF) where the Sec of State of Communities gives huge unaccountable taxpayers funding through the unaccountable NHF. So the unaccountable registered social landlord housing associations can fritter away taxpayers money like water.

    British Labour Party is out of control.

    Not accountable. Not transparent. Labour Party’s recession under Gordon Brown’s control of the economy is trying to take Britain down the Abyss to permanently visit his Lucifer, Molech & JahBulOn – the Great Architect of The Universe…(GAOTU)!

  87. Notting Hill Housing Trust management are wicked criminals!

    Over 761 tenants have formally complained of the “New Labour” Party scam that targets the most vulnerable & disabled on a regular basis – all perpetrated by those sadistic criminals that are calling themselves “management” at Notting Hill Housing Trust who regularly harass, hound & force vulnerable & disabled tenants to live in properties full of infestation & major disrepair.

    The criminal chief executive Mrs Kate Johnson [who deceitfully calls herself Ms Davies] is a secret Special “New Labour” Party Adviser.

    Now the “New Labour” Party criminals that advise prime minister Gordon Brown that indirectly controls Notting Hill Housing outdoes spin & lies that the arch criminal warmonger ex prime minister Mr B.liar that unlawfully took UK into Iraq – killing 1 Million innocent lives through Genocide in Iraq alone – where the criminal Freemason Gordon Brown spends £391 Million – £53 Million more than the crook Mr B.liar in his last year as premier.

    So bad are the lies & deceits of Mr Brown – so much for the pledge to put substance before style. It was all a wicked lie! He sadly just apes what those evil criminals at Notting Hill Housing Trust who tell him what to do.

    No wonder that Gordon Brown is also evil and so his days are numbered. He gives the criminals at Notting Hill Housing Trust the “green light” to abuse & harass the most vulnerable & disabled tenants that get abused by the management.

    No wonder the respective representatives of Russian & Chinese Governments in London joke about Gordon Brown being outflanked by the spin doctors and press officers that stream out of those unbelievably plush, luxurious Notting Hill Housing Trust offices located at 1 Butterwick, rear of Metro Building at Hammersmith next to the International makeover cosmetic company of L’Oreal. Yes, they have far too much in common.

    All spin and not one iota of substance – just like all those criminals who purport to “manage” Notting Hill Housing Trust that are known by the Russian & Chinese governments to be indirectly controlled by that out of touch dinosaur Gordon Brown controlled by “New Labour” Party has-beens that clung to enforcing harassment & sadistic oppressive unlawful force at Hammersmith through the so-called “social landlord” Notting Hill Housing Trust – just as B.liar did!

    We got rid of B.liar and his evil legacy as we will assuredly get rid of that evil Freemason Gordon Brown as the “New Labour” Party steamboat with Steamboat “2 jags” Prescott assisting at the helm which will be wrecked on the rocks of progress by using force & criminality again & again & again & not once did the wicked Gordon Brown tell Notting Hill Housing criminals that what they do is unlawful & wrong in 2008!

    Gordon Brown, you are finished.

    Why?
    Because not once did you have the courage or the morality to support victimised, oppressed & harassed vulnerable & disabled tenants caused by the criminal conduct perpetrated by your “New Labour” Party lackeys who are in reality out of touch common criminals!

    If you have the gall to support evil criminals at Notting Hill Housing Trust management – then, just go and go now!!!

  88. Zabotnik on said:

    Socialist Unity is the traiterous organ for anti patriotism.

    Socialist Unity is a vehicle for promoting subtle Zionism & undermining the moral, ethical & spiritual dimension of the Semitism of Neturei Karta International that promote Orthodox Judaism.

    Under the guise of Zionism, Freedom of Speech is trampled and the good words of Orthodox Judaism are censored!

    So much for Socialist Unity and the “New Labour” Party experiment in denial of a homeland – denial of a motherland – denial of Patriotism – denial of our beloved country.

    Socialist Unity want me to be a slave.

    I say – NO WAY!

    FREEDOM OF SPEECH – for everyone. Even for my enemies – non Jews!

  89. The pathetic little (mossad?) ‘boy’ Miliband [whose brother is also -most surprisingly – in the UK cabinet] who tries to pull the rug from under the democratically elected UK prime minister & does his best to try to threaten our MAJOR oil & gas suppliers of Russia & Iran – has he not [secretly/deceitfully?] got dual loyalty – to UK & to Israel – but which sovereign country do you think might [in his affections & secret dreams] take precedence?

    Please learn the difference between zionism & semitism. I am semitic but I will never ever be a zionist like David & Ed Miliband, Harriet Harman, Jack Straw, Tessa Jowell & so many others in the New Labour Party cabinet!!!

    New Labour wants to subvert our democracy so that the US David Rockefeller family control us through the very close links to the ‘Friends of Israel’ [UK] AIPAC [US] & close connections with Michael Avraham Levy [appointed by B.liar a New Labour Party undemocratically elected peer for life in return for funding from very good jewish friends of Israel so that zionist causes in Israel would be supported by A(‘Tony’)CL Blair (B.liar) of 29 Connaught Square [& 5 Archery Mews by Marble Arch] would get £2.5 Million per year from JPMorganChase Bank which is controlled by David Rockefeller!].

    It must be only too clear why the REAL Labour Party was used as a Trojan Horse to deceitfully place zionist supporters in the cabinet and dictate to Gordon Brown how he would end up failing & betraying the whole of the REAL Labour Party!

    Thus we have ALL been sold down the river [as servile slaves & we are now ALL in bondage – no gold reserves all sold off indirectly to the Rockefeller banking/oil/military industrial dynasty – this country of the UK is now rapidly falling deeper & deeper into the abyss of the worst RECESSION in 60 years] by a pack of treacherous traitors… every one a hard nosed zionist!!!

    AS for the mediua in the UK the BBC is controlled indirectly by the DCMS through the Director of Governance [Nicholas Kroll (zionist)] whereby the chairman and all directors are staunchly zionist!

    Indeed, the head of DCMS [Ms Tessa Jowell] was marrued to David Mills who was the english lawyer for the head of the italian mafia who sought to control a supercasino in the UK through the gaining of a licence [permission] indirectly from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport through a very good word from David Mills [her husband]. Is that the real reason why all the women in the UK ‘New’ Labour Party cabinet use ANOTHER name to their real married name (to deceive the long-suffering electorate who are daily deceived by the evil cabinet… by lies, deceit & more corruption)?

    Ms Harriet Harman = Mrs Dromey
    Ms Tessa Jowell = Mrs Mills
    Ms Jacqui Smith = Mrs Timney
    Ms Yvette Cooper = Mrs (Ed) Balls
    Ms Caroline Flint = Mrs Cole
    & so the deceitful story goes on… and on and on…

    They just use confrontation – never consultation!
    They build houses – but never maintain them!
    They attack the disabled in council houses & housing association properties & have the gall to take more money off taxpayers to build more Housing association peroperties when too many disabled & vulnerable tenants of RSL’s are already being confronted by the ‘New’ Labour Party unaccountable & untransparent management that confront their own tenants in the very heart of west London by Rachman style landlords that are meant to be Housing Associations or Registered Social Landlords (RSLs)!

    No wonder so many decent disabled & vulnerable tenants are fed up of living in properties that are illegally not fit for human habitation & are being victims of harassment & oppression, confrontation & unlawful victimisation for speaking out about the unfit properties.

    No wonder so many tenants in west London of these wicked ‘Rachman-style’ landlords that are meant to be flagship Housing Associations located in the very heart of west London will NO WAY vote Labour ever again!

    Indeed many of the tenants ensured LABOUR lost control of the local authority in their own Borough + threw out the LABOUR MP & the majority council after 38 years of being LABOUR!

    NO MORE!!!

    The days of LABOUR are few and numbered because the tenants of the Housing Trust in west London were confronted & unlawfully treated by a criminal Housing Association that is run by criminals that dictates criminal actions and the message is going back through all the electorate – do NOT vote ‘New’ LABOUR!

    NEVER VOTE AGAIN in Hammersmith & Fulham or Kensington & Chelsea for the evil criminals who indirectly control the so-called ‘flagship’ housing association of west London with all its ‘charity’ shops [which had 21 charity shops located in the most desirable areas of prime real estate in west london] & scams that would gerrymander the vote for west London.

    NO MORE!!

    In 1998 nepotism abounded in the ‘New’ Labour Party, the ex chairman of the Labour Party, Mr Sawyer of UNISON Union was made Chairman of the criminal Housing Association by ACL Blair in west London. This was in return for Sawyer giving votes of his members to the deceiver-in-chief, who initiated genocide & crimes against humanity in Iraq – Mr Blair ‘New’ Labour Party prime minister…

    NEVER EVER AGAIN!!

  90. dwayne brown on said:

    If you want any example of revisionism – take Blair & Brown.

    I’d string them up – both of them.

    The biggest revisionists in history – ever.

    Give me Ernst Zundel any and every day…

  91. dwayne brown on said:

    Bastard Blair gave us an UNLAWFUL war in IRAQ

    Then came AFGHANISTAN

    Next stop IRAN – WORLD WAR III

  92. dwayne brown on said:

    Blair [the ANTI-CHRIST] the betrayer of the British wants thousands of millions of innocents killed – that is what faith in Lucifer/Molech/JaBulOn/GAOTU/pagan deity does for him.

    SOCIALIST UNITY is what Blair – and [successor] – Brown stands for!