Sunday, 19 December 2010

Dickens' Christmas Carol

It is doomed to wander through the world - oh, woe is me! - and witness what it cannot share.

Thursday, 2 December 2010

The Reverend Pike and David Duke.

Israel’s Cyber Warriors Knock Duke Off YouTube
By Rev. Ted Pike

The Internet was probably the least foreseen of events challenging ADL/Israel’s agenda for world control. Leaping across previously Jewish-dominated media boundaries, the worldwide web has given people of conscience unfettered privileges to criticize Jewish supremacism and misbehavior of the state of Israel.

However, in my April 27 article, “Israeli Cyber-Warriors Crash Internet,” I detail how Israel, unable to legitimately dispel overwhelming world criticism, has been marshalling hundreds of thousands of Jews worldwide into an army of internet “cyber-warriors.” These act in unison to skew polls about Israel and disproportionately flood the internet with opinion favorable to the Jewish state and against its critics.

Pike just wishes he could "marshall" more racists and achieve the same thing he accuses Israel of doing.

Pike believes Alex Jones could and should perform such a role. So what's Pike's complaint other than Israel is apparently more successful than himself, David Duke and Jones at "skewing polls" and "disproportionately flooding the internet with favorable opinion"? Pike condemns the Israelis for supposed success at it and Jones for his supposed failure at it. For Pike, and anti-semites more generally, when they suppose the Jews successfully work together it's a cabal and a dark malevolent conspiracy etc......but when they themselves work towards the same thing (and fail at it!) it's just never enough but an honour and duty all the same. Mad.

Pike continues:
Duke: First Domino to Fall?

After Canada passed ADL/B’nai B’rith’s hate law in 1971, the Jewish Gestapo’s strategy was to first indict those least in favor with Canadians: holocaust questioners and racists. While Duke is increasingly listened to on the far right, he will receive little sympathy in this controversy from mainstream Christian/conservatives who have been deeply imprinted with the negative stereotype of his KKK past and animus against blacks. Yet, in viewing several of his recent YouTube videos, I found everything he said to be factual and logical, without anything that could legitimately be described as racist or anti-semitic.
HAHA. He's a changed man! He hardly mentions Jews anymore....errr......just like Alex Jones.....oh, hold on!? Here's Pike in his letter to Jones -
When you do not faithfully warn against the Talmudic conspiracy, you sin most against your own family and loved ones. If you fail to be a dependable truthteller today, your descendants, shivering in a concentration camp someday, will curse you in your grave for not doing your utmost to identify and oppose the source of the horrific bondage that has come upon them.
The Reverend can't have it both ways, can he? Pike defends Duke against charges of anti-semitism, but attacks Jones for lacking it.

And note the source? Rense. That's Pike, writing at Rense, in defence of David Duke against charges of racism and anti-semitism. Elsewhere I have shown we have confirmation of Rense's friendship with David Duke - during his bust-up with Mark Glenn of the Crescent and Cross about supposed "anti-Islamic racism" featuring at Rense and preventing Glenn from getting published there.

What a merry little go around it all is. All these "independent alternative news" places all know each other. What are they independent of? Not each other, that's for sure.

Reverend Pike - Open letter to Alex Jones (HAHA)

Here's an open-letter from Ted Pike to Alex Jones. Jones heavily promoted Rev Pike and his efforts to stop passing of "hate-crime legislation." Pike has appeared as a guest, has been published at Prisonplanet and has a spot on both Willis Carto's AFP and David Dukes' WhiteCivilRights website.

Here's the letter:
National Prayer Network
By Rev. Ted Pike
7 Sep 10


I watched with pleasure a two-year-old YouTube video clip of your program in which you indicated you were sick of not speaking the whole truth concerning the threat of Jewish supremacism. (Watch clips at bottom of page.) You then went on to discuss this threat, revealing a knowledge of the subject much more extensive than the great majority of right-wing leaders or talk show hosts.

Yet, for the most part, you have not shared such knowledge with your listeners over the years.

Jewish supremacism is untiring and relentless in its attempt to bring about a Judaic new world order. It is not enough that you occasionally punctuate your radio outreach with such truth, giving token opposition. It should be your habitual response to be vigilant and vocal against the greatest threat to Christianity and civilization that has ever existed.

You said in this clip that you are a Christian. If so, God obligates you to speak the whole, undiminished truth without fear of the Jews. There are at least three reasons you should now tell such truth:

First, as a Christian, God has empowered you with the opportunity and responsibility to be a “watchman,” capable of warning millions. Ezekiel also had that assignment and was told by God that if he did not warn the instant he saw evil approaching he would lose his soul. (Ez. 33)

Second, if you do not speak the whole truth about what you know, you become a deceiver. Half-truths are worse than outright lies. When a leader of your stature claims to have researched a topic yet holds back half of the truth, your followers relax, concluding that if a threat really existed, Alex would tell them! How wrong they have been.

Clearly, you have known for years that an all-pervasive, Talmudic threat exists. Yet, for fear of losing some of your mainline stations and perhaps being called “anti-Semitic,” you have not warned your audience as you should. Instead, you have given airtime to consideration of a myriad of lesser conspiracies, largely distracting your listeners and consuming their energies. In doing so, you have protected the most wicked conspirators from regular criticism and exposure. Since you have not gone to the heart of the problem, your message cannot save America. This is very wrong and unchristian. This is dereliction of duty and will merit the loss of your soul. You must repent of this great sin and do what is right: repeatedly, consistently speaking all that you know of this pervasive danger.

Third, you must do so, not just because God commands you or on penalty of your soul, but because the Christian is obligated to lay down his life, as Christ did, in love for others. When you do not faithfully warn against the Talmudic conspiracy, you sin most against your own family and loved ones. If you fail to be a dependable truthteller today, your descendants, shivering in a concentration camp someday, will curse you in your grave for not doing your utmost to identify and oppose the source of the horrific bondage that has come upon them.

Jesus describes the shepherd who does not adequately protect his flock as a “hireling.” Today, this untrustworthy guide might be a talk show host who is very concerned about the fate of our nation yet is even more concerned with acquiring a bigger following and number of stations. He rationalizes that, because he has become so big, he cannot jeopardize his influence by saying anything that might threaten his outreach. As a result, this “hireling” flees when the ADL “wolf” howls, “Anti-Semitism!”

Over the past five years, America has experienced repeated assaults from ADL-inspired, Christian-persecuting hate crimes legislation. During that period, especially during times of greatest crisis, I have repeatedly left messages imploring you to put me on your show to warn the people and take action. Unlike over a hundred other hosts, very rarely have you responded, and then only at the last minute, giving me perhaps 30 minutes of airtime. That happened more than a year ago, hours before the federal hate bill passed. You told our audience, “No one has done more to save freedom than Ted Pike.” Yet, during the station break, you told me the reason you have virtually never put me on is that you “had forgotten all about [me].” We both know the truth: If I am your guest, I cannot be depended on to avoid the Jewish issue.

The true Christian speaks the whole truth because it is the right thing to do, the responsible loving thing. The fate of many may depend on him. That is why he will not be distracted from delivering the message God has entrusted to him. When we do what is right, looking to God for guidance and protection, He and His mighty angels take special notice. They make a way for the truth to be told, even when there seems no way.

As I recently warned another media leader, WorldNetDaily’s Joe Farah, it is time to leave the endless strategies and self-protection of traditional right-wing power politics. Leaders must return to the ancient, divinely backed command to trust God and the whole truth. If you and other authorities like Farah do what is right, and the people respond in truth, then there is no restraint with God to save America for as long as He wants to.

How long will that be? Just as long as we fear God, not Jews.
Very interesting. I love it when these people fall-out and go for each other. Their vanities expose each other. Brilliant.

Pike's most interesting line was this, I thought: "We both know the truth: If I am your guest, I cannot be depended on to avoid the Jewish issue." And yet Jones did invite Pike several times, published him, claimed he had done "more for freedom" than anyone else, etc. Pike is saying Jones knew Pike's views and his refusal to avoid explicitly referencing Jews. (Pike is pretty candid about it isn't he? lol) And still Jones promoted him. That it wasn't sufficient promotion to satisfy the vanity of Pike is hardly surprising, however, if Jones is really such an enemy of the anti-semites why did he have Pike as a guest at all if, as Pike asserts, Jones knew the score?

Pike, like the others, fails to understand Jones' position: he isn't there to promote explicit anti-semitism, swaztikas and Hitler. That's exactly what he cannot do, and what he attempts to position himself in opposition to (though only superficially, of course).

Jones promotes the Reverend Pike, Eustace Mullins, Willis Carto and his hordes, Mike Rivero, Big Jim Tucker and all the rest - and they simply complain he isn't "going for the Jews" sufficently. lol. Even when that's the exact thing that will most quickly get him exposed as a hater and fascist sympathiser - overt anti-semitism and promotion of nazi notions of jewish world conspiracy is exactly what Jones must avoid if he is to succeed at going anywhere near mainstream. Pike and the others just don't understand.....and Jones can hardly defend himself by admitting his trojan-horse position (which serves himself and the movement both financially and in terms of exposure.)

Jones faces some problems now - if he wishes to continue growing he must continue being very careful about overt anti-semitism. Otherwise he will never break into bigtime. At least not unless anti-semitism becomes more acceptable in the mainstream.....which is what Jones is helping to accomplish, though perhaps too adroitly for Reverend Pike and the extremists to understand. So what will Jones choose if it comes to it? Throw his fascist friends overboard (as he should have done long ago), or spurn the more mainstream overtures of FOX and co?

Regardless, the question remains what people such as Pike were ever doing on Jones' shows Pike clearly suggests Jones knew full-well what Pike was about. Likewise, Jones must have known what Mullins was about, what Willis Carto's "interests" are..... All these fascists and fellow-travellers are his friends, guests and colleagues. These are people with whom Jones has been wilfully colluding so as to mislead his audience to their real intent - anti-semitism. According to Pike, Jones has been allowing these people to say just what they like, so long as they don't directly specify Jews as the target - hence the euphemism found littered throughout Jones' shows.

Update: I just found another version of this "Open Letter" from Pike about Alex Jones. It appears at Barbara Hartwell's website (yes, that Barbara Hartwell)

An interestingly different letter - totally different. Odd for an open letter? Here's the text as it appears at Hartwell's site - and from which she links to Pike's own website. Only the link goes to the other version of the letter I posted which is completely different. Odd. Anyway - here's Hartwell's version:

By Rev. Ted Pike
9 Sept. 10

Last year, prior to passage of the federal hate crimes bill, Alex Jones, after years of ignoring my requests to allow me to warn his huge audience of the hate bill threat, finally put me on his June 8th program.

As I was waiting to begin the broadcast, Jones told me off the air that he had heard me the previous morning on Joyce Riley's program criticizing Jewish supremacists as authors of the hate bill. He said what he was about to tell me was "off the record." He said his broadcasting empire has "gotten so big" with many mainline affiliates that he cannot afford to lose those stations by criticizing Jews.

"But I've got to mention ADL behind the hate bill!" I objected. "ADL is okay," he said. "Talk about ADL all you want, but we can't talk about Jews specifically." He then told me that, with this understanding, there would be many opportunities for me to be on his program, especially as new legislative threats emerged. Having said that, we were on the air. I did go after ADL and, fortunately, did not encounter any time in which I would have been morally bound to become more specific.

Yet I felt violated. I had experienced raw censorship in action, by a national talk show host who touts himself (and is believed by millions) as delivering only the truth -- whatever the cost or controversy.

Jones put me on again Oct 14th for fifteen minuntes. Yet, he was not true to his promise of future interviews, even as I repeatedly left him messages warning of more ADL legislation, such as ENDA and the cyber-bullying bill. Evidently, Jones was as uneasy about having me on as I was about operating under his gag order.

Now, with ENDA and the cyber-bullying bills most likely defeated, I am relieved I did not compromise myself in order to access Jones' vast audience. It is now so critically important that the populist right know which leaders can and cannot be trusted. The fate of our republic hangs in the balance.

What I learned, beyond any doubt, was that Alex Jones cannot be depended upon to provide the populist right with all the facts necessary to understand geopolitical reality. If he will censor the truth concerning a threat as dominant and well-documented as Jewish supremacism, what else will he manipulate?

Jones is widely regarded as the most effective spokesman for the far right, the "king of alternative talk radio."

It is time that lovers of freedom look for another.

Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog organization.
Why such a difference in the letters? Did Hartwell change hers or did Pike change his? Odd. Hartwell's version is more revealing, I think.

Update2: Here's a Stromfront thread on Pike's letter to Jones (what is it doing at Stormfront if the issues, Pike and Jones are irrelevant to them?)

Vindication - from the other side

Interesting to find a good example illustrating some of my perspective on Alex Jones written by someone from 'the other side': it's from Subverted Nation, an apparently neo-nazi but unquestionably visciously anti-semitic blog. (IIRC Rivero linked to to it during his dust-up with Alex Jones when he was fired etc. I had posted there at the time in response to an article they'd posted on Jones' being a supposed jew, zionist, whatever)

Anyway, the article shows a consciousness of "the movement" from its own particular, anti-semitic/nazi stance. It references something I have suggested - Jones' use of euphemism rather than blatant anti-semitism eg "the globalists, bankers, socialists and one-worlders" as perennial and historic euphemism for "the Jew". Subverted Nation recognises that some "make excuses for Jones" because of this use of euphemism rather than the explicit use of "Jew" preferred by those openly embracing nazism and anti-semitism. I'm reminded of Poplawski the cop-killer nazi who was linked to Prisonplanet so uncomfortably for Jones. Poplawski was saying exactly this point about Jones at Stromfront - that he "wasn't 100%" sure of Jones' -- meaning he wasn't 100% that Jones was properly anti-semitic/nazi - not 100% that Jones' euphemisms meant what Poplawski (and Stormfront) understand them to mean. (Jones and Prisonplanet spun that "not 100%" line to suggest Poplawski's views were 180 opposed to those of Prisonplanet! ha!!)

Anyway, here's the article:
Alex Jones – I support Israel

Here is all one needs to know about Alex Jones. If this fat retard were a real patriot, he would be telling you the truth about things like 911, the wars, the economic collapse, Obama, the police state, and all the other things he rants about. The truth about these topics are that every last one of them was engineered by, what he calls, the “global elite”. However, there is nothing “elite” about the monsters behind all of our ills, because they are nothing more than a bunch of blood sucking leeches known as JEWS

How many dopes out there still believe that Alex Jones is really on our side? How many people think he ignores the truth about jews, just because he’s playing it safe and politically correct? How many excuses have you heard people make for this overweight windbag? I know I’ve heard dozens myself, but once people start to read sites like SN, it doesn’t take them long to figure out exactly where this chump falls short.

In reality, all Alex Jones is out to do is keep you in fear, because fear paralyzes. At the same time, he’s also out to make sure that anyone who really knows the truth, makes a fool out of themselves trying to share it with others. This is why he brought other psy-op groups like We Are Change, the makers of Loose Change, etc. to the forefront. Simply because their methods sell real good to truthers, but at the same time, make you everyone involved look like idiots. At least, their line of crap sells good to those who haven’t reached an understanding about jews, but to those who have, these people are nothing but criminal conspirators and traitors.
So, more evidence from the far-right that it's aware of Jones and that one of the issues is his use of placeholder euphemism rather than overt anti-semitism.

It doesn't occur to SubvertedNation that maybe Jones deploys euphemism quite consciously so as to avoid mainstream criticism and thereby enable his outreach efforts? It's called propaganda......and hardly works when one is covered in Swaztikas and Heil Hitlering everywhere. Stormfront already does that anyway and how close are they to getting on major TV Networks? Jones can happily take flack from the far-right, it provides him ammunition to defend attacks from elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that Jones certainly is employing classic anti-semitic tropes as euphemisms. The far-right understand it - well, they would. The only question for them is if he really means Jews when he deploys euphemism, or whether the euphemism is to protect Jews.

Poplawski was "not 100%" on Jones.....SubvertedNation is definitely 0%, apparently. Regardless, they both confirm the issue is real and live - does Alex Jones mean Jews or not? For the prosecution I submit the evidence that Jones eulogised Eustace Mullins and heavily promoted him as central plank of his conspiratorial world view - and Eustace Mullins has 50 years of mixing with Nazism and anti-semites eg Willis Carto (whom Jones also heavily promotes). Did Jones not know Mullins' anti-semitism when he called him "a modern-day founding father" and promoted him and his work over and over? Does Jones not know Willis Carto's views even as he promotes his prolific output? Can we believe that Alex Jones does not know his mainstay of guests and opinion come from the anti-semitic far-right?

Monday, 29 November 2010

Rivero - burying Wikileaks because of Israel and 911

Rivero's WRH is ignoring Wikileaks' releases, or where it does mention them, it is entirely critical and dismissive. Odd no? The leaks are extremely damaging to the USA, and hence Rivero should be interested? No, because the leaks show Arab nations urging USA to attack Iran to prevent the threat (to them!) of The Iranian Bomb, completely undermining Rivero's argument which has been that Israel wants Iran destroyed for its own supposed expansionism. Obviously having other Arab/Muslim states fearing an Iranian bomb destroys Rivero's purely anti-semitic slant, so he ignores it, and smears it.

Also, Wikileaks' release seems to provide no evidence for 911 conspiracy whatsoever. That's why Rivero, Alex Jones and the rest of the conspiros submit Wikileaks and Assange to insult and criticism. They even go so far as to suggest these leaks are a deliberate American policy, to defang conspiracism and help a drive to war with Iran etc! Rivero says:
I think Israel did invent WikiLeaks. After all, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange insists there is no 9-11 conspiracy, and not a single criticism of Israel appears anywhere in this latest dump; an impossibility in the wake of the lethal Israeli attack on the aid flotilla last May!
Mental illness beckons, Mr Rivero, if it hasn't taken root already. Mad.

And Rivero even prints Ahmadinejad's response, which sounds just like Rivero himself (Does Iran fund Rivero?)
Iran's president has dismissed as propaganda the leaking of US cables detailing Arab calls for Washington to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the release by the Wikileaks website of thousands of extracts from US diplomatic messages was simply psychological warfare against Iran.
Whilst ignoring all the content of the leaks, Rivero has published a special page (wooo!) on Wikileaks instead. I think it's what conspiros like to call a "hit piece":
Wikileaks, following much media fanfare (reason for suspicion right there) has just released a huge number of documents supposedly leaked to WikiLeaks and no other websites'. The media is denouncing this as a threat to the United States while US politicians wring their hands and wonder when they will be free of the curse of the First Amendment and all that troublesome nonsense about Freedom of Speech. Many observers think this is a propaganda set up and that neither Julian Assange or WikiLaeks should be taken at face value. After all, Julian Assange keeps insisting there was no 9-11 conspiracy and the 9-11 truth movement a "distraction." Apparently Julian Assange has patented conspiracy and nobody else may expose one except himself!

Of course, there is really not that much that is new in this latest dump. Like prior WikiLeaks dumps, most of it is old news mixed with some rather dubious claims. In his last such dump, Julian Assange included a claim that Osama bin Laden is still alive and controlling Al Qaeda. Of course, it is well documented outside the United States that Osama bin Laden has been dead for many years and that Al Qaeda itself is a fake front group created to hoax Americans into endless wars of conquest, much as the fictional Emmanuel Goldstein was used in George Orwell's "1984."

In yet another infamous propaganda attempt, WikiLeaks tried to claim that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, justifying the invasion. No such weapons were ever found.

As for the present batch of documents, again it is a rehash of stories already known to the blog-o-sphere. Even those people who did not know US diplomats spy on their United Nations counterparts did not find it surprising or in any way a new idea.

So what is the real purpose of Assange's little charade? Propaganda.

Propaganda is like rat poison. 95% of it is tasty, healthy food. But the purpose is to get you to swallow the poison. The same is true of the WikiLeaks document dump. The bait are all these old stories which we already knew about, used to convince us that the entire pile is "tasty, healthy food," except that it isn't. Buried in the pile of delicious, albeit past the expiration date morsels are the bits of poison which the US Government knows you will no longer accept at face value from the controlled media, but hope you will eat if handed to you by a con artist posing as hostile to the government.

So, given that 95% of the current WikiLeaks is really old news, as a public service I will point out the bits of poison that Julian hopes you will eat.

1. Iran is bad so you should all want to kill them.

2. Saudi Arabia is bad because they are funding Al Qaeda so you should all want to kill them.

3. North Korea is bad because they gave really long range missiles to Iran for Iran to put their nuclear warheads in, so you should all want to kill them.

4. China is messing with your computers, so you should all want to kill them.

That about sums it up. Oh yes, there is nothing negative about Israel in all these diplomatic messages, an impossibility given the lethal Israeli attack on the Aid Flotilla last May. That suggests who Assange really works for.

Funny thing about rat poison. After a while the rats learn to eat the food and leave the poison behind.
What a complete crock o shite. How has OBL's death been "documented"? Rivero is simply imagining it. lol. And notice how Rivero, a supposed special FX expert doesn't even use a GIF for an image with flat-colour? Again, he's using jpegs when it should be a GIF. He's not just a moron, he's incompetent. Pathetic.

Thursday, 11 November 2010

the next hammer falls

Ministers are to set out how they plan to overhaul the benefits system to provide greater incentives for work and sanctions for those unwilling to do so.

Central to the plan, being announced by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, is a single universal credit which replaces work-related benefits.

Claimants moving into work will keep more of their income than now, but face losing benefits if they refuse a job.

A sliding scale of sanctions will see those refusing work on three occasions having their benefits taken away for three years.

Wow. They are trying to increase the crime rate? They must be. Withdrawing benefits completely from losers is just bound to create a problem with rage and crime.

Seriously - how many unemployed people would 'refuse work 3 times'? It sounds like a sick joke when the government is furiously sacking people as quickly and ruthlessly as it dare. What work is there to refuse? This is a cruel joke?

The 2nd Chief Comedian, the LibDem leader, reportedly says 'the coalition's welfare changes will "reduce worklessness" in more than 300,000 families.'

What is 'worklessness'? I was surprised to find google return some results - seemingly all from British Government websites though. Here's their definition:
Worklessness is a less familiar term than unemployment to describe those who are economically inactive. The economically inactive are people of working age who are not working, not in full-time education or training and are not actively seeking work.

Many are outside the labour market voluntarily, because of family responsibilities or early retirement for example. It can also include those who are out of work because of illness. Such people may be claiming Incapacity Benefit (IB) or Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA).
So being sick or looking after someone who is sick is 'worklessness': are the government saying they will make these people better, or force them to get jobs? It is already doing that......

This whole revision of Welfare is surely just an excuse to smash the system and pay welfare claimants even less. And who will organise the riots of the ill and sick?

We need a National Union of Worklessness-ers.

From the ONS -
For the three months to June 2010, for those households with dependent children, 39.7 per cent of lone parent households were workless, 5.4 percent of couple households were workless.... Of those households without dependent children, 36.8 per cent ofone-person households were workless...
And again:
In 2009, there were three areas across the UK where more than three out of every 10 households had no-one in work, according to new figures from the Office for National Statistics on workless households by local area. These were: Liverpool (32.1 per cent); Nottingham (31.3 per cent); and Glasgow City (31.0 per cent). The next highest rates of worklessness were in Gwent Valleys (27.6 per cent) and East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire Mainland (also 27.6 per cent). By contrast, the analysis shows that the five areas with the lowest rates of worklessness were: Bedfordshire (9.2 per cent); Surrey (10.9 per cent); Inverness and Nairn and Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey (11.0 per cent); Berkshire (11.2 per cent); and Hampshire (11.7 per cent).


The Guardian is excellent on this:

A tougher-than-expected squeeze on the unemployed is to be announced today as the jobless face the threat of losing all benefits for as long as three years if they refuse community work or the offer of a job, or fail to apply for a job if advised to do so.

In the most severe welfare sanctions ever imposed by a British government, unemployed people will lose benefits for three months if they fail to take up one of the options for the first time, six months if they refuse an offer twice, and three years if they refuse an offer three times.

Downing Street sources said the new "claimant contract" will come into force as soon as legislation is passed, and may not wait for the introduction of a streamlined universal credit system in 2013-14.

Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, will tell MPs that he is introducing the biggest shakeup of the welfare system since the Beveridge reforms ushered in the welfare state after the second world war. He will say that a new universal credit system will make 2.5 million of the poorest people better off and reduce the number of workless households by 300,000.

The welfare white paper is deemed so groundbreaking that David Cameron chose to laud the measures as he landed at the G20 summit in South Korea.

He said: "The message is clear. If you can work then a life on benefits will no longer be an option. If people are asked to do community work they will be expected to turn up. If people are asked to apply for a job by an adviser they will be expected to put themselves forward. If people can work and they are offered work, they will be expected to take it. This is the deal. Break the deal and they will lose their unemployment benefit. Break it three times and they will lose it for three years."

The regime will apply to all 1.6 million jobseeker's allowance claimants, irrespective of how long they have been unemployed. JSA is worth only £64.45 a week for over-25s, and No 10 said it expected the sanction to be enforced, once warranted, as a matter of course.

Job advisers should not use discretion to let people stay on benefit, Downing Street said, arguing that too many advisers do not make use of the sanctions available to them.

The new workfare regime is certain to be criticised for expecting the jobless to take work at a time when unemployment is forecast to rise. The move could potentially leave thousands of people receiving no benefits other than some money to cover their housing costs.

Many charities and local government leaders will be wary of offering work to unemployed people, especially if they have been in effect forced to take the work or lose benefit. The community jobs set aside for the jobless include clearing up litter and doing charity work.

Cameron argues that the new regime is necessary to prevent a dependency culture. He believes a new universal credit system bringing together tax credits and a range of benefits simplifies the system so much that it will ensure work will always pay in comparison with staying unemployed. Ministers say that, with 5 million people on out-of-work benefits and almost 2 million people growing up in workless households, they have to embark on "root and branch reform".

The new universal credit, costed at £2bn for this parliament, is designed to remove the financial disincentives to work, ensuring that someone keeps a minimum 35p in every extra pound earned. Cameron said: "It simply has to pay to work. You cannot have a situation where if someone gets out of bed and goes and does a hard day's work they end up worse off. That is not fair and sends entirely the wrong message."

Duncan Smith will cast his reforms as a "once-in-a-generation" attempt to get the jobless back to work. But the man credited by Duncan Smith as his greatest influence on poverty reduction criticised the changes . Bob Holman, an academic and community worker from Glasgow who has worked for Duncan Smith's thinktank, the Centre for Social Justice, accused the work and pensions secretary of forcing people into "degrading" jobs.

Asked his opinion about Duncan Smith and his plans for welfare reform, Holman said: "Well, my view has taken a bit of a dent. When Iain came to Easterhouse in 2002, one of the things he expressed admiration for were unemployed people who were working or giving their time as volunteers to our project … now he seems to have turned that on its head.

"He seems to be regarding them with disrespect and saying you're not really a part of society. We're going to force you to do these, what are really degrading jobs, which won't equip them for anything, but in a way are punishing them for not working and in a climate in which jobs are hard to get."


So yes, it seems 'worklessness' will be overcome by compelling the 'workless' to do menial jobs that no-one will pay them a worhwhile wage to do. And 'charity work'. Handy, as the government already said it wanted charities to do more. Now we see the Big Society taking it's awful shape. And isn't it vicious. Did anyone seriously vote for this? They never mentioned any of it....

Wow, it's vicious.

"Refusing work means losing benefits" sounds like something that many people would likely agree with. But it really means "Refuse to do anything you are told to do and you lose benefits!" This isn't training people, it's marching them about to do the most menial work. It's humiliation and punishment. That bloke in the Guardian is spot-on. What a bunch of bastards.

And this is supposed to be justified/necessary on the back of economic crisis where banks and big business have been bailed out billions time and again because they fucked everything up. Everyone blames the bankers but some know different - it was all the loafers on welfare.

Wednesday, 10 November 2010

Students 'Riot' - who can blame them?

There have been violent scenes as tens of thousands of people protested against plans to treble tuition fees and cut university funding in England.

Demonstrators stormed a building in Westminster housing the Conservative Party head quarters, smashed windows and got on to the roof.

Outside, a crowd of thousands surged as placards and banners were set on fire and missiles were thrown.

Student leaders condemned the violence as "despicable".

They say about 50,000 people took part in a march through Westminster earlier.

A stand-off is still taking place between about two dozen demonstrators and the police.

Add this is the Telegraph report! Modern riots are potentially quite different in this internet age. Everyone can see, and report. Interesting. Surely this is only the first of many such protests. Good.

Wednesday, 3 November 2010


Students could face £9,000 fees


I was given money to go to higher education. I was amongst the last year of students whom could even claim housing benefit for their rent during term-time and unemployment benefit during Winter and Summer term-breaks. Cushy. Very privileged.

But back then about 15% of any year of students went to higher education, IIRC. And the last 'New' Labour Government set a target of 50% - which they made major progress towards.

The last Labour Government had introduced the fees? But specifically to fund greater numbers. Essentially a very good thing, greater numbers. But students at the time were furious, and I disagreed with their complaints, whilst understanding them. My view was a little different. Yes, I'm all for education: I would like 'free' life-long learning available to everyone, that's the goal, and the minimum. But it really shouldn't be used as an excuse for a piss-up and a state-subsidised A-road for social climbing. Moreover it has to be provided for by everyone else, including those who never get the opportunity to go.

So is it really worth sending 50% of each year's youth into 'university'?

One of my lasting memories of higher education was that nobody cared about any of it - apart from that it 'should make them money'. Even the people doing Business and Finance had no idea how they were going to make any money. They wanted money, and were 'studying' Business & Finance because they thought that was the way to get it. But what were they actually going to do? No idea......

Others were studying Law becuase 'it pays great!' I can remember being struck by how cash-oriented every single Law student was. Platitudes about the majesty of Justice just never even figured.

I found all that fabulously disillusioning. Not that I wasn't already disillusioned. And not that I set any sort of example. I was a far worse student than the money-driven bastards I saw all around me.

I had loved school and all the learning stuff when I was small - it was just life, and I loved it. And I did very well, generally. But only until my consciousness began to break through and I began to recognise my own life existence amongst everything, and I began to see I too was a 'process', a Student ID, a grantee, a UB40 claimant, a reproductive unit etc.

I then saw all that writ large at college amongst the acquistive students.

So, whilst I am all for learning, I am extremely skeptical that the community should expend so much effort on it - as it exists. Much of my experience of it was awful. And it seems to just exemplify the failings of the wider capitalist culture. Is it really something we want to be doing - sending most children into this? I can't believe it, though doubtless a £9,000 price tag will lead to greater consideration. And isn't that the point of the £9,000? To put people off? So I should be pleased? Well, I am, but that's why I hate it - because it will severely deter everyone but the most privileged. Of course, they say they 'will look after the poorest' - but that's relatively easy and insignificant. £9k won't have the least impact on the privileged, other than to heighten their position of privilege.

But would - has? - sending the masses to get 'an education' served its purpose? I don't think so, because the education they've been sent to get is of a particular sort: imperialist capitalist.

To me it seems a class issue - that the ruling class have tried to split the masses by offering qualification for 'elite workers'. It divides mass culture through buying-off a segment of the masses. The price is to accept the ideology (and now the debt too.) They thereby succeed in perverting the culture even more whilst further dividing the masses.

I just don't agree with the idea that most students hold dear - that getting an education should raise you above 'the others'. I don't believe it does. That isn't the point of it, is it? Well, sadly it is, and has been for a longtime. Always? The notion was always around when I was a student - 3 different times. Doubtless I expressed the same things too. But that's what I mean - the culture is what it is. It makes life - and learning - a shadow of what it is so easy to imagine it could be.

So, I'm not upset at all that fewer students will go to 'get an education'. But I'm furious that it might cost a bright average person nine fucking thousand pounds to get an education they really want. I'm also disgusted that very many are going to be so deterred by the costs that they will leave education aged just 16.

But I am also pleased people will be put-off from going to university. Why should we be sending people to such places? And why in hell should we pay for it? Why should everyone subsidise the indoctrination of an entire culture of privilege?

It doesn't help the class. (As in the proles, not 3M)

That's not to denigrate education - only to recognise how much of a factor it is in class structure - indoctrination - and that the only education available is entirely determined by the class constructs which provide the education. As is obvious. As it must be?

And so, the question arises - from where will change come? Hard to imagine, other than through a (crude?) materialism ie that conditions change such as to bring about a change in consciousness, and not the other way around. Ah - an old argument huh?

An interesting news story in retrospect - complaints about the education budget in the face of rising student numbers during the last government. (The next (ie present) government were to make much more enormous cuts in higher education - cutting the funding for teaching by 50%, for example.) Incredible to look back only 10 months:-
Guardian: Record number of new students, Ucas figures reveal

Funding row looms after universities take on 12,000 more applicants than the government is prepared to pay for

Update 1 - The Independent reports:
The Government was facing mounting fury tonight over plans to charge students up to £9,000 a year in tuition fees.

Under the proposals, which represent the most radical shake-up of student funding for decades, the fee cap will be raised to £6,000, with universities able to charge up to £9,000 - triple the current cap - in "exceptional circumstances".

Tuition fees currently stand at £3,290 a year.

It opens the door for England's top universities to charge the maximum amount, providing they ensure access for disadvantaged students.

The changes are politically explosive as many Liberal Democrat MPs, including Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, publicly pledged during the General Election campaign not to allow fees to go up.

The proposals, announced by universities minister David Willetts today, immediately led to fresh concerns about the introduction of a two-tier system, with poorer students being priced out of elite institutions.

Sunday, 31 October 2010

Architecture: Capitalist neo-Stalinism


Just look at those buildings? Isn't that the Ministry of Truth rather than a highly desirable florida zip code? Isn't it? Grotesque.

Industrialised fun, we are truly blessed.

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

Philip Glass - Branka Parlic

DRY ROT -- The Far Right Targets The Left - by Will Offley [2001]

DRY ROT -- The Far Right Targets The Left.
By Will Offley

Canadian Dimension, January/February 2001
Volume 35, Number 1

Like most huge events in history, the fall of the Berlin Wall shook our world. In doing so it also changed the ground rules of politics.

Whether you call it paradigm shift or merely the temporary triumph of neo-liberalism, the dust from the Wall's collapse has clouded our vision for nearly a decade. Without exception, currents of the left around the world have found themselves disoriented and scrambling to create a new vision and a new political framework within which to organize and to fight. This has not only been true for the traditional Communist Parties, but for the non-Stalinist and anti-Stalinist left as well.

The left has not yet been able to reconstitute a coherent vision of the new world we want to see issue from the ashes of the old, nor have we articulated the strategy or programme or organizations necessary to make that happen. As a result, radical left politics have remained largelyconfined to "anti" politics for a decade or more: anticorporate, anti-globalization, anticapitalist. We have remained locked down behind the relatively easy bulwark of what we're against, rather than venturing out into the exposed and more dangerous terrain of defining what we're for. In addition, in some sectors there have been marked tendencies to view the capitalist system through the lens of conspiracism and irrationality, where plots and conspiracies replace class interests and mass politics as the motor forces of human society.

This weakening of its culture, institutions and politics have rendered some sectors of the broad left vulnerable to the conscious and organized predation being carried out in Canada by a specific current of the far right. In the U.S. this dates back as far as the Gulf War, where neo-fascist currents like the Larouche organization and Spotlight sought to attach themselves to the movement against the war.

Is the Canadian left immune from this sort of targeting? No.

Is the situation any different now, a decade later? Yes and no.

Yes, because Seattle has led to Washington, and from there to Philadelphia and L.A. and Windsor and Prague. Quebec will be next, and it won't be the end. The rise of the struggle in the streets against globalization marks the end of ten years of demoralization and confusion.

There is a new dynamism and a new optimism, and if the path ahead is only partially visible, at least we're collectively underway again.

However, one has only to look at Seattle to see that the growth of far right currents within and alongside the left and progressive movements has increased visibly over the decade. There are also indicators that point to a change during the Gulf War, the far right was active on the fringes, but by Seattle it seemed to be active at the very centre of things. While the young militants faced down the cops and the gas in downtown Seattle, on a leadership level elements of that movement were being increasingly compromised politically by a de facto convergence between Ralph Nader and the most important far-right leader in the United States, the semi-fascist Pat Buchanan. Five months later during the April 16th mobilizations in Washington, Buchanan shared a stage with Teamster leader Jimmy Hoffa Jr. as an invited guest of the AFL-CIO.

Antiglobalist politics are not the exclusive preserve of the left. Though it springs from different roots, Buchanan's opposition to globalization and free trade is as genuine as ours. He just takes it in a direction diametrically opposed to everything else we stand for protectionism, racism, exclusion. Not only that, there have been plenty of examples this century to show the far right can be anti-corporate too.

Throughout the 1920's Hitler's Nazi Party contained a minority current led by Gregor and Otto Strasser that was inalterably opposed to the German trusts... as well as the Jews, the Communists, Social Democrats, gays and lesbians, unions, etc.

Nor is the far right confined solely to the hardcore neo-Nazism of the Heritage Front or the Northern Hammerskins. It's relatively easy to ward off the interventions of groups that put swastikas on their literature. It's considerably more difficult when the politics of the groups in question are cloaked in progressive rhetoric and hidden behind coded language. Between Wolfgang Droege and Stockwell Day there is a whole swamp of currents and organizations conspiracist, anti-Semitic, some with hidden fascist agendas, some totalitarian, some merely far right.

Some of these are targeting the left. There is reason to be concerned.


Although they're based at different ends of the country, they seem to be made for each other.

The Radical is a monthly tabloid published in Quesnel, B.C. since June 1998 by Arthur Topham, a self-described anarchist who regards himself as "a natural, sovereign and unique critter who doesn't need any centralized forms of authority telling me how to run my life."

Discourse and Disclosure is a more irregularly-published bimonthly, also a tabloid. It has been put out by editor Sue Potvin since May 1996. Potvin, formerly a resident of Ottawa, now resides in Greenwood, Nova Scotia. Potvin is considerably less forthcoming about herself than is Topham.

Both publications share common positions on many different issues. Both are opposed to globalization, the WTO, the MAI, NAFTA, the World Bank, the IMF, and now to the FTAA. Both are opposed to the increasing corporate domination of the economy and most other sectors of everyday life. Both have editorially supported the mobilizations against globalization, from
Seattle to Prague. Both have condemned NATO, and the West's aggression against Yugoslavia. Both oppose clearcutting and support many environmental causes. Both are strongly supportive of Canadian nationalism. Both have even run articles endorsing gay and lesbian rights, and have been outspoken in support of native struggles from Ipperwash to Gustafsen Lake. When you realize that each has survived hand-to-mouth for years, with very shaky finances, the announcement in the November 2000 issues of each publication that they were moving towards
appearing as a joint publication makes a whole lot of sense. The Radical is distributed widely throughout the hinterland of B.C; Discourse and Disclosure appears to have a broader national distribution. Both share a number of regular contributors. To move toward joint publication is a completely logical step in extending the reach of two papers which have essentially identical editorial approaches.

In fact, the similarities go far deeper, but this requires you to get out a fine-tooth comb and start a much closer examination of both ublications. Both papers are riddled with conspiracy theorists. Both have supported the politics of David Icke, the new age anti-Semite who argues the world is being run by a conspiracy of blood-drinking lizards. Both regularly feature and support the activities of the far-right Detax movement. Both exhibit numerous links to various prominent anti-Semites, militia supporters and white supremacists. And because of these similarities both have become important vehicles in English Canada for the politics of the third position current of Canada's far right, third position because this current of the right rejects capitalism AND Marxism.

Although a definite current of the far right, the third position current is distinct and apart from the mainstream of the neo-Nazi movement, which has attacked it in vitriolic terms. D&D's editor has herself been directly criticized by a fascist web site in the following terms: "Sue Potvin publishes a Canadian tabloid titled Discourse and Disclosure ...[which] believes aboriginals (Native North Americans) are the planet's chief (no pun intended) victims and contains an enormous amount of White guilt and rants about not only what Whites have "done" to these sacred aboriginals, but to the world in general. There is also so much ranting about corporations that it's hardly distinguishable from your local Marxist/communist publication." Clearly it would be a misrepresentation to equate Potvin's publication with mainstream neofascism, as this is simply not the case. However, it's also undeniable that the political content of both The Radical and Discourse and Disclosure extensively overlaps the politics of neonazism, anti-Semitism and some of the most crazed conspiracy theorists on the planet. Judge for yourself:

** On more than one occasion D&D and Potvin herself have quoted extensively from the U.S. newspaper, The Spotlight , which has been described as "the most significant voice of the far right". It is published by the Liberty Lobby, itself described as "the major source of anti-Semitic propaganda in the United States" , and whose leader, Willis Carto, has been publicly quoted as stating that "only a few Americans are concerned with the inevitable niggerification of America" and "the Jews came first and remain Public Enemy Number One."

** The December 1999 issue of Discourse and Disclosure appeared with a guest editor, Jim McKee. McKee has contributed frequently to the paper on numerous topics. Three months earlier a letter from him appeared, condemning immigration and stating that "in recent years, we have been bringing most of our immigrants from countries where the predominant religions are non-Christian, and the cultures are quite different from ours. Integrating these people into Canadian society poses problems that didn't exist for the British and European immigrants....Our heritage of Christian standards is being swept aside." McKee's racism assumes even sharper definition when it's recalled that on May 13, 1997 he held a public meeting in his Glenarm, Ontario home which was addressed by Paul Fromm. Fromm, the head of several racist organizations, gained notoriety ten years ago when the Toronto Sun obtained a video of his appearance on stage at a December 8, 1990 meeting of the Heritage Front, flanked by a huge Nazi flag and giving a Nazi salute.

** D&D features a regular column on the activities of the Canadian Action Party written by Carla Marie Dancey, CAP's representative to Elections Canada. In 1997, Dancey was the Reform Party candidate in Ottawa South, where she immortalized herself on the topic of "ethnic" immigration. An article in the May 18, 1997 Edmonton Journal reported that "Canada's immigration system is racially driven to ensure at least 85 percent of people who come into the country aren't white, a Reform candidate said May 17. If you look at the immigration system right now... they've got it divided according to racial lines,' said Carla Dancey....Eighty-five
percent of the people coming into the country have to be ethnic and 15 percent white, because before they had 85 percent white and 15 percent ethnic and they decided that was racist.'" Paul Fromm's thoroughly racist Canadian Immigration Hotline liked this quote so much it was promptly republished on its web site.

** Almost every recent issue of Discourse and Disclosure features at least one article by Tom J. Kennedy, the Ottawa tour organizer for David Icke in 1999. Kennedy's main area of activity centres around the Detax movement. He has published material on the Internet that he has reprinted from neo-Nazi and Holocaust Denial websites, and he has also publicly admitted
to a friendship with Ernst Zundel that goes back nearly twenty years. Currently, Kennedy has a brief tribute on the web naming his friends, mentors and leaders; this list includes not only Sue Potvin, but also Paul Fromm, Ernst Zundel, David Icke, David Irving, Glen Kealey and no less
than ten leaders of the Detax movement.

** Potvin herself has editorially promoted the Detax movement, an ultra-right tax denial movement that is in many respects the Canadian equivalent of the Posse Comitatus, the U.S. current in the 1980's that was one of the key predecessors to today's militia movement. Writing in a front-page article in the May/June 1997 issue of her paper entitled "Canadian Challenges The Illegal Income Tax System", Potvin extensively profiled David Butterfield's B.C,-based "Shareholders of Canada" and echoed its claim that no one need pay income tax, since "it's illegal". However, Potvin's editorials have rarely been as overtly far right as those of her other regular contributors. On occasion she has even publicly distanced herself from some of her most extreme contributors.

** Other D&D articles continually harp on the same conspiracist themes, whether it's on the New World Order plot that murdered Princess Diana (Sydney White, September-October 1999), or the New World Order plot to take away our guns (John Welham, Sept/Oct. 1998), or the conspiracy of the Illuminati to control the world economy (Fred Kirkman, August 1998). And as for Canadian nationalism, contributor Ed Benson gave a flavor of D&D's politics in the August 1997 issue when he wrote that Canada has been "reduced to being the major financial and atomic benefactor of Red Communism; a country which condones the jailing of people for displaying a sign in English; a country that allows democratic votive fraud and military sedition; and a country that permits bare-breasted women on the streets."

Discourse and Disclosure functions as the public voice of a far right current that first came clearly into sight during the 1993 campaign of the National Party of Canada. Since the National Party's demise, many D&D supporters have remained active in its successor organization, the
Canadian Action Party, particularly in CAP's leadership. Regular contributors to Discourse and Disclosure include party leader Paul Hellyer, CAP's national president Connie Fogal, at least three CAP regional directors , and more than 10% of CAP's candidates in both the 1997 and 2000 federal elections. D&D supporters have also been visibly active in and around numerous other organizations since then, including several PIRG organizations, Concerned Citizens Against Free Trade, David Orchard's campaign for the leadership of the Progressive Conservatives,
the Council of Canadians, various anti-globalization groups and others.

The Radical appears to have taken a completely different trajectory, only to wind up at the same spot. Where the D&D current appears to have set out to penetrate various sectors of the left, The Radical appears to have engaged in a process of political evolution away from anarcho/green politics towards those of the far right. Both papers share both a common
editorial approach and a common pool of writers. David Icke has appeared repeatedly in both papers, and has been listed on the masthead of both as a contributor. (The May/June 2000 issue of Canadian Dimension features an assessment of Icke and his backers in greater depth than is possible here). Numerous other writers besides Icke appear regularly in both The
Radical and Discourse and Disclosure. including Bev Collins, Joseph Duggan, Robert Rodvik, John Welham, Eva Lyman, Pat Bennett, Kevin Annett, and Connie Fogal, among others. Joseph Duggan is David Icke's main Vancouver organizer, whose speakers' bureau Strong Eagles Productions organizes tours in Vancouver and B.C. for much of the conspiracist right.

Bev Collins made the cryptic comment in the April 1999 issue of The Radical, "are you prepared for an American military officer under United Nations command to enter your home and remove you and your family because of Y2K?", and went on to hint darkly about a battalion of British troops on "training exercises" at the time outside Rossland, B.C. This has been one of her main preoccupations for a long time. In August 1996 she authored a long piece in D&D entitled "U.S. Militia Victim Of Negative Image Makers", which stated that "more than three million patriots in the U.S. today have joined with law enforcement and a cross-nation militia organization network". She went on to add that "the militia is not, as those in power would have you believe, some extremist band of thugs." On the contrary, she wrote, "militia members are said to be everyday, ordinary American citizens who care enough to take steps to protect their
country against corrupt government." She pooh-poohed the armed Freeman standoff taking place in Montana by simply declaring the Freemen were not really militia, after all, which probably came as news to them.

Collins' links to militia activity do not seem to be confined to ideological support alone, either. According to David Lethbridge of the Salmon Arm Coalition Against Racism, "not long before the 1997 federal election, Collins attended and spoke at a secret meeting of the Texas Light Infantry, one of the earliest militias to be set up after the [1992] Estes Park gathering which founded the contemporary militia movement." Bob Holloway, one of the key organizers of the Texas Light Infantry, is an associate of Louis Beam, Grand Dragon of the Texas Knights of the Ku KluxKlan.

John Welham has written for both papers as well. He authored a piece in the July 1998 issue of The Radical entitled "Why Federal Income Tax Is Illegal" which stated in part "Revenue Canada has done a fantastic job of brainwashing Canadians into believing that federal income tax in legal. Nothing could be further from the truth....No one has to pay income tax to the federal government. It's illegal...." The following month his article was picked up by Discourse and Disclosure and reprinted verbatim.

And not least, both paper have given extensive publicity to the various leaders of the Detax movement, including Eldon Warman, Tom J. Kennedy, Byrun Fox, Hans Krampe, David Butterfield and others. On more than one occasion Discourse and Disclosure has published four-page supplements on Butterfield's group, and The Radical has also repeatedly run ads for
various Detax seminars and public events.

If you judge a book by its cover, you'd have to conclude that The Radical is radical after all, every issue is festooned with peace symbols, anarchist A's, hemp plants and (cruellest joke of all) little pictures of Che. It would be much more accurate to say that while the layout may be
radical, the editorial content's been taken so far to the right that it's off the page. And it's not like Arthur Topham is the first, either.

Throughout the last century, every single current in the broad left has seen defectors from its ranks crossing over to the far right. Benito Mussolini left the Socialist Party to lead the Italian fascist movement. Many sections of the Comintern experienced losses to fascism during the
1930's, like the split of the Jacques Doriot wing from the French Communist Party. Lyndon Larouche came out of the Trotskyist SWP. Why should we expect hippie anarchism to be any different?

The problem is, The Radical, like D&D, has connections and it has influence. The current November issue demonstrates this clearly. It contains articles by militia supporter Bev Collins, Detax activist Tom Kennedy and Wiebo Ludwig supporter Allan Johnston. It has a column by Hans Krampe stating that this federal election "may very well be our last chance to deal with despotic and treasonous systems in a democratic and relatively peaceful manner. After that, who knows what will happen." , accompanied by an editorial calling on readers to refuse to register their guns. But others are present as well. There is an article by the Prince George Green Party. There is an article by Vancouver Parks Board commissioner Roz Cassels, elected on the Green Party slate. There is a letter from 72-year-old Betty Krawczyk, currently serving a one-year prison sentence for her participation in the logging blockades in the Elaho Valley.

This is where we find the danger from this current. They have a hearing within our ranks, and it looks like a pretty big one. Both papers have systematically courted sectors of the left, the greens and anarchist currents, most spectacularly in the case of The Radical. Over the last
year Topham's paper has featured front-page articles on the Elaho blockades, Toronto Green mayoralty candidate Tooker Gomberg, the Vancouver Mayworks Festival and the David Suzuki Foundation. The March issue featured a full-page ad on the back cover placed by the World March of Women for International Women's Day. Articles and letters have been printed from and about the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Friends of the Earth, the Cariboo Green Party, Vicki Husband of the Sierra Club of B.C., Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, the Valhalla Wilderness Society, the Council of Canadians, Amnesty International, SPEC, Check Your Head, the New Internationalist, Greenpeace, Leonard Peltier, the Sierra Legal Defence Fund and others. Articles by Noam Chomsky appear regularly. And the paper continues to be distributed not only by the progressive Magpie Magazines, but by the leftie Peoples' Coop and Spartacus bookstores.

Third-position politics are a threat to the left, the green movement and progressive organizations in general. To counter them, first and above all we need to expose them to the light of day. Many of the cases above have a very simple explanation, that Potvin's and Topham's politics are largely concealed from public view, and therefore neither known or understood by many who associate with these papers. This is pretty common with crypto-right currents.. But there will undoubtedly be those who defend The Radical and Discourse and Disclosure, just as there are at least some who appear prepared to accept Wiebo Ludwig as an ally, and David Icke as a guru. This will require not only exposure, but political struggle as well.

In the final analysis, the rejection and marginalization of third position politics require many of the same political discussions that will be integral to any process of rebuilding the left. What is at stake? A rejection of irrationalism, of conspiracy theories, of scapegoating. Repudiating Canadian nationalism. Moving beyond a reflexive anti-capitalist politics to begin to develop a broad vision of the world we want to be able to leave to our children. Articulating what we're for, and how we intend to get there. Redefining socialism. And reconstructing the left.

Will Offley is a Vancouver-based researcher.

Leninist-International mailing list


*Just putting this here for archiving as it appears to be from an old mailist.

It was written in 2001. Speaking in 2010 I can only confirm the authors warnings about the far-right targeting of the left.

Incidentally, Topham has republished this article at his site,
The article in question cannot be found by googling it and one cannot find it on the Canadian Dimension website. It’s fallen into the sink-hole of non-history because it no longer is useful to those who originally wrote and published it. I have it here mainly for reference as it will be useful in further discussions.

Paul Fromm -> Arthur Topham -> Rense -> You

Paul Fromm -> Arthur Topham -> Rense -> You

Image: Lorraine Hjalte/Calgary Herald
Source: News Release from the Anti-Racist Organizer

Wikipedia : Frederick Paul Fromm (born January 3, 1949), known as Paul Fromm, is a Canadian White Nationalist, based in Port Credit, Ontario, with a radio show on the Stormfront web site and ties to former KKK members David Duke and Don Black (white nationalist) through Stormfront. He has been described by national media as "one of Canada's most notorious white supremacists".[1]

Radical Press' Arthur Topham on Paul Fromm:
Paul Fromm and I have been working together on issues for close to a decade now after first meeting online while I was printing my hard copy edition called The Radical.

Mr. Fromm’s many years of experience in battling the good fight to retain freedom of speech and expression for all Canadians makes his participation in this present struggle with B’nai Brith Canada over the Section 13(1) issue one of vital importance.
Arthur Topham on Jeff Rense:
"He was posting my material without any problems until one day about a year ago he suddenly contacted me to say that I had spammed him by sending him something like 14 or 15 copies of an article and so he was removing me from his email list......I tried to appeal to him via a mutual correspondent Henry Makow but nothing ever came of it.

Now, in retrospect, I suppose I should check into the last few articles that I did send him. Possibly I was exposing the anti-Muslim bashers and hate-mongers and thus fell from Jeff’s grace."

Rivero's Wisdom


Badly written. Very poor reasoning.

Seriously, who puts their own (rubbish) up as 'Thought for the day'? Hilarious.

Sunday, 24 October 2010

Makow on Rense vs Mark Glenn

Looks like an argument has broken out amongst the lunatics. It seems to revolve around Lunatic Jeff Rense publishing stuff that Lunatic Mark Glenn thought was offensively anti-Islamic. The Lunatic Makow reports:
Among the thousands of articles Jeff has posted since last summer were two which Mark felt were anti Islam. Mark felt they played into the hands of Zionists who are trying to pit Christians against Muslims and asked Jeff to remove them. Jeff refused. He will not permit anyone to censor his news content or tell him how to run his site. Mark retaliated by launching a vitriolic attack on Jeff.

Ironically, both imitated the hated Zionists by playing the "hate card." Mark accused Jeff of inciting hatred against Muslims. Jeff accused Mark of inciting Muslim terror against him personally.
They're accusing each of other of exploiting 'hate'? No shit, Sherlock. They are former buddies so they really should know. The Lunatic Makow continues:
Jeff threatened to call the FBI and Homeland Security on Mark. Mark said Jeff was threatening Mark's wife and nine children.

When I suggested to Jeff that Homeland Security is the antithesis of everything he represents, he agreed. He was just trying to get Mark to understand how seriously he took Mark's readers' vitriol.

Jeff argued that these two articles were exceptions among thousands that are pro-Muslim or expose the Zionist NWO threat.

One was a ridiculous Zionist propaganda piece that he had meant to label as such. He expected his readers to recognize it.

Mark Glenn certainly didn't nor did he accept Jeff's explanation.
HAHA. Prior to this they would each have been defending one another from the accusations of being 'haters'. Amusing. And note: 'a propaganda piece that he meant to label as such.....he expected his readers to recognise it'. Ah - it was just one little mistake, says Makow:
Some days he [Rense] uploads over 100 stories. No, he cannot read them all from beginning to end. He readily admits that some things get past him. Let's cut him some slack.
Oh wow - what a guy! He uploads news stories! Woah boy! Amazing. Sometimes he even reads them. Incredible.
The attacks on Jeff simply ignore his extraordinary ability and record of service. He has provided us with the leading alternative to the mass media. Hundreds of thousands of people depend on him. He has worked 14 hours a day, seven days a week, year after year for 15 years. He has not taken a vacation in that time. Yet he has had no formal recognition or thanks.

Rather Jeff is now vilified and accused of being a Zionist mole, which is absurd. People on Mark's site said Jeff's father worked for the Rand Corp. Jeff's father worked in PR for McDonald Douglas. His step mother is a publishing executive.
Oh, really. And he joined the CIA in what year? lol Makow continues with his potted history of Rense:
He could see that TV News was becoming a mass mind control tool for the Illuminati and left a successful career to go into talk radio.
Ah of course! He was very successful but he left for obscurity and peddling tripe instead - and all because of the Illuminati. They get everywhere, right? Makow again:
He was chosen to face off against Art Bell's Coast to Coast when Bell's network bought Jeff's. There was room for both of them but Art Bell couldn't take the competition and insisted that Jeff be fired.
Oh right. Rense's network was bought up by Art Bell's network? (I thought it was supposed to be only those nasty corporations (and the Joooos!) who formed 'networks'......) Jeff Rense certainly has a profile that fits a ....... propagandist. Even some of his many former friends agree, right Marky Glenn? lol. Back to Makow:
Jeff and I don't always agree. Jeff is a lot more skeptical about the holocaust than I am. He has posted some articles that I found offensive. I thought they did his site a disservice. (We would both like to see an impartial investigation.)
Another story that sounds like a deep gloss. Rense is 'a lot more skeptical than Makow' about the Holocaust? What does that mean? That he's a Holocaust denier.
Makow: I also cautioned him [Rense] about the anti-Islam articles.
But not the anti-semitism? Anyway - what does he mean when he said he 'cautioned' Rense? He doesn't give the important details. Makow:
I also appreciate that he [Rense] treats Jews as individuals and judges them on their individual behavior. He is not a racist in the sense of condemning all Jews for the actions of so many.
Not a racist in the sense of.....? IS he a racist in a different sense then?
Makow: When I pointed out that a contributor had advocated rounding up all US Jews, Jeff immediately took the offending article down.
Oh fairplay to Rense, eh! (I guess that was just another one that 'slipped through')

Makow goes on to say
Let's save our venom for the enemy: the Masonic Jewish central banking cartel, specifically the Rothschilds and Rockefellers and their myriad dupes, lackeys and tools.
I just have to wonder what the word Jewish is doing in that sentence if Makow really isn't being 'racist'. Makow concludes:
We all owe Jeff Rense a vote of thanks. He may have made mistakes but he doesn't deserve the treatment he received from Mark and his followers.
You think so? I don't care but it's ever so much fun seeing lunatics attacking each other. haha.

Mark Glenn responded by publishing an open letter. Mark Glenn claims
"I have sent him [Rense] MANY emails–all in a very polite, respectful, and gentle manner, asking him if he thought it was wise to do such things, given the mission we are all supposed to be fighting for."
What mission is that? They never say, do they? Not in public, at least. And who is the "we" that Glenn speaks of? Who are they, what do they want, what do they do?

Glenn gives us an idea of what he at least thinks they were supposed to be working together for:
[Rense] never, NEVER, presented these articles as “examples” of the lying the enemy does. Like the ridiculous articles written by Devvy Kidd and Frosty Wooldridge that he gave showcase attention to, they were always put out there as “stand alones” with his obvious stamp of approval viz a viz their believability.

It was not until recently that I became less ‘gentle’ in my nudging JR [Jeff Rense] on this issue, and for obvious reasons. Given that innocent people are having their throats cut, their homes and mosques set on fire and, in the case of my good friend Hesham Tillawi who had a car set on fire in the parking lot of the mosque where he and his family attend, this is no longer a theoretical game. Real people are being hurt in real ways and the reason for it is simple–JEWISH LIES, and Jeff Rense–despite the good he may do in running articles critical of Zionism and Jewish power, nevertheless negates the good he does when he allows his forum to be used as an instrument for spreading the enemy’s propaganda.
Jewish lies? But I thought this wasn't supposed to be about 'race'? Incredible that someone as indulgent of anti-semitism and far-right racism as Mark Glenn can fail to see the irony of his own sensitivity about anti-Islamism. Nothing to do with his own biases, of course.....(he's a Muslim and head of Crescent and Cross Propaganda machine. He helped promote a fascist white-supremacist conference which masqueraded under the guise of a pro-palestinian, anti-war conference. Mike Rivero promoted it too.)

Hilariously Mark Glenn can't resist a dig at Rense's wackiness -
"I have never given Rense an ounce of grief over the articles he runs dealing with the Art Bell/National Enquirer paranormal-type articles that make the rest of us look like fools for all the nonsense they contain."
Seems their anti-semitism was the thing that united them? Glenn:
"Now, as to the “event” itself. The fact is that the time span between the last email communication I had with JR and him threatening to send the aforementioned federal agencies against me was nearly 2 weeks. There was NO REASON for him to contact David Duke and use him (for the 4th time) as a messenger in conveying this threat. I had written no articles, had not mentioned his name on any radio programs. His was the provocation, not mine."
Oh dear - David Duke as a go-between! It just gets better......haha. But these people aren't racists, of course. Not in some contorted Makowian sense, at least....... What a bunch of jokers. Their arguments most clearly betray them - their nasty internecine spats are by far the most interesting and revealing items they ever generated. lol.

Lastly, Glenn reveals another very interesting connection between these people and fascism/racism -
Furthermore, after doing the book review for you for AFP and in the subsequent agreement you had with them to get up-front free advertising in return for which you would send them a portion of the book sales you received from their ad, it was because of MY vouching for your honest character that they agreed to do it, as they were very reluctant to make a deal like that with someone they did not know and had not worked with before.
AFP is of course Willis Carto's American Free Press. (Carto is considered to be N AMerica's leading anti-semitic and far-right propagandist, publisher of Holocaust denial, friend of Stormfront, David Duke etc).

What a right little nest of fascists we have here. Tut tut. Truth movement, indeed........

I have been pointing out these connections to Troofers and Paytiots for years now. But they're so far gone....they just don't care. It isn't a surprise, because there must be political reasons underlying the interconnection of all these people and their respective audiences - anti-semitism and fascism.

The comments page at Mark Glenn's blog in response to his open letter about this reads like a "who's who" of the....errr...."movement": Arthur Topham (from Radical Press) appears, as does Phil Tourney, Joe Cortina and John Kaminski - all having digs at various personalities of 'the movement'. It's a real treasure trove of damning information, referencing Willis Carto's AFP, Jim Tucker, David Duke, Michael Collins Piper, Chris Bollyn, Mike Rivero, John Stadtmiller, Curt Maynard - all the usual far-right scumbags......

Link to Glenn's blogpage, here. Very interesting to watch them all go at it. Paranoia? Anti-semitism? Conspiracies? Particularly amusing was Mark Glenn saying that 'Americans are stupid, so ET & UFO stuff is too difficult for them. Better to keep it simple at first and raise more difficult issues (like ET) later.' HAHA. These people are such morons - yet they happily describe americans as "stupid". Other Americans are stupid, not them, obviously......haha.

And there's all that stuff about Jews that stands as the subtext of all there squabbling - it looks pathetic, bubbling up in almost every comment. What a bunch of wankers. Credit to them though - they've achieved a considerable success: they've very clearly proven themselves to be a tight-knit bunch of complete tossers.

Friday, 22 October 2010

Rivero and Paypal - hypocrite.

Gotta lova a man with principles.

Just yesterday Rivero was asking for donations because the site was really struggling to continue. Awwwww.

Rivero likes to trumpet the demise of 'the mainstream media' using their inability to fund their operations as proof and evidence that 'the people' know better.

We hear a different argument when it's Rivero pleading for funds though. He's asking for charity now (again)? But you know, if you can't fund it, Mr Rivero, you don't have a business. Tough shit.

And, oh yeah - Rivero the "special FX" wizard uses .jpg format for a block of flat-colour text - incompetent.

Thursday, 21 October 2010

Friday, 24 September 2010

Socialists say "Fuck the State"

I'm a socialist but i hate the state.

Isn't a state education dreadful?


Monday, 20 September 2010

A good thing

More than 600,000 plant species have been deleted from the dictionary of life after the most comprehensive assessment carried out by scientists.

For centuries, botanists from different parts of the world have been collecting and naming "new" plants without realising that many were in fact the same. The humble tomato boasts 790 different names, for example, while there are 600 different monikers for the oak tree and its varieties.

The result was a list of more than 1 million flowering plant species. Although experts have long known that it included many duplicates, no one was sure how many. Later this year, the study team, led by UK and US scientists, will announce that the real number of flowering plant species around the world is closer to 400,000.

The project - which has taken nearly three years - was the number one request made by the 193 government members of the Convention on Biological Diversity at their meeting in 2002. There were concerns that without this work, it would be impossible to work out how many plants were under threat and how successful conservationists were in saving them.

The information will also be vital for any organisation or researcher looking at "economically important" plants, such as those for food and nutrition or medicine, said Alan Paton, assistant keeper of the herbarium at the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, west London, one of the four leading partners in the project.

"On average, one plant might have between two and three names, which doesn't sound a great deal, but if you're trying to find information on a plant, you might not find all [of it] because you're only looking at one name," Paton said. "That's even more critical for economically useful plants: because they are more used, they tend to have more names."

In one example, researchers calculated that for the six most-used species of Plectranthus, a relative of the basil plant, a researcher would miss 80% of information available if they looked under only the most commonly used name. On another database, they found only 150 of 500 nutritionally important plant species using the names cited in current literature.

"By going for one name, we missed the majority of information mankind knows about that plant, which isn't too clever," said Paton. "What's really a breakthrough is we have a place which allows people to search through all the names used."

Kew Gardens joined up nearly three years ago with Missouri Botanical Garden in the US, and experts on two of the biggest and most valuable plant families: legumes, or peas and beans, and Compositae, which include asters, daisies and sunflowers.

They have since attempted to search existing plant lists and work out an "accepted" name for each species, and then list all known variations. One of the databases was originally set up using £250 left in the will of Charles Darwin. The full results will not be published until the end of the year, but so far the researchers have found 301,000 accepted species, 480,000 alternative names, and have 240,000 left to assess.

Although work will continue to assess smaller plant groups in more detail and check for missed duplications, Paton said they now believe that the true number of plant species will turn out to be "400,000 or just over".

"You can't give an absolute number of names, but we have narrowed the possibility," he said. Previous estimates, without the help of a full assessment, put the figure at between 250,000-400,000.

Most of the work of the study group was sifting and sorting different names allocated to one species, often because scientists were simply not aware of the work of rivals and colleagues who had previously "described" the plant in a scientific journal, or because of confusion caused by superficial differences such as different sized leaves in different climates. In some cases, plants thought to be the same have also been judged to be different species because of differences which have been revealed by later scientific discoveries, such as DNA.

As well as the likely 400,000-odd flowering plants, there are thought to be 15,000 species of ferns and their allies, 1,000 gymnosperms such as poplars and conifers, and 23,000 mosses and allies making up the plant kingdom. For comparison there are more than 1 million species of insects listed by science, 28,000 living species of fish, 10,000 birds and 5,400 mammals.

A meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity in October in Japan is likely to declare that targets to halt biodiversity loss by this year failed and set tougher new aims to halt the problem.

Sunday, 19 September 2010

Antisemitism on the Left - David Hirsh & Jane Ashworth

This article appears in the current issue of Progress Magazine

By denying the right of Israel to exist, anti-Zionists on the British left are in danger of pandering to anti-semitism, believe Jane Ashworth and David Hirsh

When British Jews gather to worship, sing songs or educate their children, they have to be guarded by armed police and community security people. Cars are discreetly placed across entrances to impede suicide bombers. Attacks on Jews and synagogues and Jewish cemeteries are still at a much lower level in the UK than other racist attacks, but they are growing year-by-year, and anti-semitic attacks peak at times when the Middle East is in the news.

Anti-semitic worldviews and narratives have also been making a comeback within and around the labour movement. There have been a number of angry controversies about the legitimacy of Israel, about the use of particular kinds of metaphors and images and about the role of Jews in relation to global imperialism and the Bush regime. Jews have been held responsible for taking the world into unjust wars – in which they themselves are unwilling to fight – and for forcing the great powers to alienate Muslims by supporting Israel. The integrity of Labour activists and progressive journalists has been called into question. Either the ‘Zionists’ – that is the epithet thrust onto people who think that Israel has the right to exist – are guilty of conspiracy, racism, imperialism, genocide and taking over other people’s countries, or there is a problem of anti-semitism on the left.

“Anti-Zionism creates a movement and a worldview that singles out Jews as being a central force for evil and imperialism in the world”

Some recent incidents, like the nighttime stripping of the Trade Union Friends of Israel stall at TUC Conference, are fairly trivial and may only be evidence of isolated cases of hysteria. Some, like the Labour general election campaign pigs and Fagin posters, are open to other than anti-semitic interpretations. But Ken Livingstone’s warm embrace, on behalf of London, of Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an openly anti-semitic cleric, shows a disregard for the importance of anti-semitism. The campaign for a boycott of Israeli artists, teachers, musicians, writers and researchers, which had some short-lived success in the Association of University Teachers, similarly refused to recognise the significance of singling out only Jews and the Jewish state for special punishment.

During the David Irving defamation trial in 2000, in which he denied there were Nazi gas chambers and claimed that the Holocaust had been invented by Jews and Zionists, there was a widespread mood of ambivalence, disquiet and cynicism. Holocaust denial has re-emerged recently with a call on the government to recognise the conflict between Israel and Palestine as being similar to the industrialised rounding-up and killing of millions of Jews, gays, Roma, Poles and Russians by the Nazis.

Each example of anti-semitism should sound alarms, but add them together and a serious structural problem begins to emerge. There is a problem of anti-semitism in British society and parts of the left peddle a particular version.

These days, nearly all anti-semitism is expressed in the language of anti-Zionism. Now, skinheads in Berlin affect a concern for Palestinian rights; Tory grandees and Republican isolationists worry that the existence of Israel is pulling the world into new global wars; open racists like David Irving and David Duke parrot George Galloway’s arguments for opposing the war in Iraq; Hizb'ut Tahrir and other fundamentalist groups make openly anti-semitic propaganda. It seems that everyone is now an ‘anti-Zionist’.

It is in this context that genuine friends of Israeli-Palestinian peace and those of us who want to support the Palestinian struggle for statehood operate. We, therefore, have a particular responsibility to be clear in our own minds where the boundaries lie between legitimate criticism of some of Israel’s oppressive actions and the demonisation of Israel, ‘Zionists’ and Jews. We have a responsibility to educate ourselves in the history of anti-semitism, in the way that anti-semitism operates now and has operated in the past and, especially, in the way that it has infected parts of our own left tradition.

It is sobering, therefore, that many people in the Palestine Solidarity Movement take the opposite view. Many deny that anti-semitism is a problem nowadays, particularly in relation to ‘real’ racism. Jews are not ‘oppressed’ and Jews do not suffer from social exclusion or particular poverty, they say. Anti-Zionists may sometimes get a little over-enthusiastic, they admit, but this is caused by Israel, by those who try to silence all criticism of Israel as anti-semitic. Besides, it is not real racism; it will disappear when the Jewish state is destroyed and there is justice for Palestinians.

The anti-Zionism that worries us is not the same as criticism of Israel. Israel is occupying and settling Palestinian land. In order to sustain this occupation, it uses racist violence and humiliation against the people that live in the West Bank. The occupation and some of Israel’s actions should be, and are, criticised by a large number of Israelis, Jews, and people around the world who are bothered by injustice. It is not those who protest against the injustice of the wall and the checkpoints, which control every stretch of road in the West Bank, who we worry about. It is not the just Palestinian aspiration to independence and statehood that worries us.

The anti-Zionism that worries us does not object to the policies of Israeli governments in the way that we might object to our own government’s policies. Rather, it understands those policies to be the necessary outcome of the existence of Israel. No other Israeli policy is conceivable to the anti-Zionists. So they do not criticise what Israel does. Rather, they criticise Israel’s very existence.

We are worried by the anti-Zionism that asks Israeli Jews – who are nearly all descended from victims of anti-semitism in Europe, in the Middle East and in Russia – to give up any aspiration to the possibility of self-defense by becoming the first nation in the world to voluntarily disband. If they refuse to do so, then the anti-Zionists would support the military conquering of Israel and its destruction as a nation state. Israel, and Israel alone for the anti-Zionists, must be incorporated by force into some larger political form.

We also worry when people are so much more enthusiastic in their anti-Zionism than they are in their criticism of regimes and movements that carry out much greater human rights abuses than Israel. Why do they seem unable to muster similar enthusiasm for criticism of China’s occupation of Tibet, for criticism of Saudi Arabia’s gender apartheid or for criticism of ethnic cleansing in Darfur? The list of more serious human rights abusers than Israel is long.

Left anti-Zionism inflates Israel into a symbol for all that is wrong with a world dominated by US imperialism. The details of the Roadmap or other actual, real-life political developments are rendered insignificant because the conflict is understood only though this symbolism. It is Manichaeism: the world is a great struggle between heroes and villains, only to be resolved by a great revelation and final undoing.

Conversely, the Palestinians have come to symbolise all victims, and their struggle has become the defining struggle against imperialism. Symbolic Zionists and victims replace real Jews and Palestinians in the left anti-Zionists’ imagination.

Some on the left seem to think that the only role that Muslims are able to play in this global showdown is to transform themselves into human bombs. They imagine glorious and tragic deaths as the only option left open to Muslims. The anti-Zionist imagination is filled with hopes for a symbolic victory over imperialism rather than with the actual struggle for a real Palestinian state alongside Israel. But painting Israel as an inhuman demon damages this real-world aspiration.

Terrorism may express anger and desperation but it, as the Palestinian leadership often points out, is not in the Palestinian national interest. The heroes of Palestine are not those who encourage teenagers to end their lives with a dramatic act of hatred and revenge. The real heroes are those Palestinians who find ways to educate the young, to look after the sick, the hungry and the desperate, to make links with anti-racist Israelis, and to invigorate the peace process. Real Palestinian heroes also engage in the political fight against those who want to build a new Palestine that is free of Jews, where women are barred from public life, where homosexuality is punished by death and where the rulers will be men of power who claim the right to speak on behalf of God.

We worry about the anti-Zionists that declare Jewish nationalism and only Jewish nationalism to be essentially racist. The reality is that Jewish nationalism, like all nationalism, contains an inter-woven tapestry of different threads and traditions. Some of these are right wing, some are ultra-nationalist, and many more are routine mixes of romance, desperation and abstract notions of nationhood mixed with a nod in the direction of a better tomorrow. Historically, many Israeli nationalists, thought of themselves as socialists. They wanted to build a new kind of state where Jews would work for themselves and would neither exploit nor be exploited.

Anti-Zionists, however, use a simple shorthand: Zionism equals racism. The effect of this is to encourage and to license people to treat those Jews who think that Israel has the right to exist as though they were racists. And the vast majority of Jews do support the right of Israel to exist. Many think of Israel as protection from a future genocidal threat. In this way, anti-Zionism sets itself up for a fight with Jews.

Anti-Zionism is not motivated by anti-semitism. It is motivated by concern for the oppressed. But it nevertheless creates a movement and a worldview that singles out Jews as being a central force for evil and imperialism in the world. Naturally, such movements are beginning to spawn people who are indeed motivated by anti-semitism. And this is where anti-Zionism begins to borrow from older forms of anti-semitism. It insists that Israel’s privileged role as the partner of American imperialism is protected by Jewish influence amongst the neo-conservatives and in American public life more generally. This easily sounds like, and becomes like, the Jewish conspiracy that was the myth at the heart of the ‘protocols’. It still sounds like it, and becomes like it, even if the word ‘Jew’ is replaced by the word ‘Zionist’.

Israel did not come into existence because of the utopian nationalist longings of early Zionists like Herzl. It came into existence because Europe tried to sweep itself clean of Jews. European fascism and anti-semitism transformed Israel from an idea into a reality. It is particularly unpleasant, then, when some anti-Zionists argue that Israel is a colony of European settlers representing European ideals of ‘progress’ and racism.

We learnt these lessons as children (when we read the Silver Sword), as teenagers (when we watched Cabaret and read Isherwood) and as grown-ups (when we read Jewish writers of fiction and twentieth century histories). It would be reasonable to expect products of such a liberal education to have a self-awareness that sets off alarm bells when anti-Zionism functions as a racist conduit. We might have expected political people to notice the racism of the movement around them. That this self-awareness or safety mechanism does not cut-in is testament to the power and pervasiveness of the anti-Zionist story.

Engage, an organisation dedicated to combating anti-semitism on the left, co-ordinated the campaign against the boycott in the AUT. Engage realised that a boycott is more likely to promote anti-semitism in the UK than it is to help Palestine. Engage was particularly disturbed by the boycotters’ analogy with apartheid South Africa. Like the analogy with Nazism, it is not intended to illuminate the problem of the Israel-Palestine conflict, but rather to demonize Israel. The boycotters’ argument was simple and effective. That Israel is an apartheid state is ‘demonstrated’ by an emotional speech giving a few nasty examples of Israeli institutional racism. We know what to do with an apartheid state: we boycott it. Discussion finished. It relies on the certainty of our hatred of apartheid and it links this with a half-accurate nostalgia of a victorious campaign.

In South Africa, the fight against apartheid was the fight to remove the white monopoly of political control and to create a new democracy – in effect to make a new type of country with a new political class. In Israel, the task is to force a negotiated withdrawal to the 1967 borders and to create a Palestinian state. The analogy relies on ignorance.

Writing for Engage, John Strawson explained the difference: ‘The whole argument about South Africa in the apartheid years was that it was quite exceptional. The racial classification board declared your race at birth, which would decide where you would live, what school you would attend, what job you could have, what wages you would earn, whether you could vote and what papers you carried. This does not happen in Israel, where Palestinians do have the vote and do participate in elections in all parties. Higher education is quite integrated. There are discriminatory laws, there is social discrimination and there is equivocation for equal rights on the designation of the state as ‘Jewish’. However, this is not apartheid South Africa where any organization opposed to the regime was banned and criminalized.’

The pro–boycotters have declared their intention to mobilise again in the universities. Some boycotters will be Jewish, some will certainly not be anti-semitic, but they will rely upon anti-semitic justifications. They will find amongst their friends and allies people who hate Israel more than they love Palestine. And they will find amongst their opponents anti-racists who will not tolerate their threat to create an anti-semitic current within the British labour movement.

Jane Asworth and Dr David Hirsh

Excellent article. A great summary of the position, I think.