Showing posts with label right woos left. Show all posts
Showing posts with label right woos left. Show all posts

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


SOURCE

*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.
SOURCE

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.

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
SOURCE
------------

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

Tuesday, 14 September 2010

More on ICNC, AEI, Al Giordano

A good resource for investigations and discussion of the ICNC, AEI, etc (Institute for Non Violence, and issues over its relationship with neo-imperialism)

http://michaeljamesbarker.wordpress.com/icnc/

It has a whole list of related articles moving the arguments along someway since Socrates wrote his piece on Al Giordano and his connections with the ICNC, AEI.

Indeed, the list includes Socrates' article -

"Annon, Fake Peace Activism Tied to the Military and CIA, Dave From Queens, November 17, 2009. (Include long and enlightening debate with Al Giordano.)"
------------

Nice to see someone noticed it.

Sunday, 12 September 2010

Bradblog lies again, censors criticism of anti-semitism and manipulates its audience

Bradblog are at it again.

When Brad Friedman and others working for Bradblog are unable to respond to arguments they simply traduce the commentator, resort to personal insult, manufacture lies and finally censor any right of reply. This happens even as they make such a deal about how the MainStreamMedia operates in such a fashion. Bradblog likes to pretend it has much higher standards, but it doesn't. It has far lower standards.

I'll post what was deleted from the thread over at Bradblog later. Essentially Brad Friedman denied ever deleting criticism of anti-semitism but when the evidence was presented, he deleted it and prevented my posting any further responses. Brad and Canning proceeded to traduce my character and completely misrepresented my position, whilst taking measures to prevent my having a right to reply. Hypocrites / liars / manipulators.

The evidence I'd posted against Bradblog follows - it's only a partial illustration of behaviour at Bradblog, but make no mistake - such behaviour is characteristic of BradBlog, whatever they might say by way of denial. Why else would they delete the evidence instead of simply mocking it viciously as they usually do to any criticism?
Let the reader decide? Sure.....

The charge against BradBlog is that it iundulges anti-semitism, even using a moderator whom promotes sources and content from Hitler, Charles Lindbergh, Ford's "International Jew", William Pierce, Willis Carto etc. Bradblog has repeatedly censored such claims - even censoring the evidence when it was given at their request. Shameful.

The evidence which Bradblog asked for but deleted follows. The content essentially comprises illustrations of what Bradblog censors, and what it indulges (extreme anti-semitism):

http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009/09/just-posted-this-at-bradblog-will-they.html


http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009/08/bradblog-hypocrisy.html


http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009/08/insight-bradblog-censorship.html

If one follows the links given in those posts, one can clearly see that Bradblog has been censoring criticism of anti-semitism, even as they deny it. On the other hand, Bradblog indulges anti-semitism, giving those whom hold some despicable views "free-rein".

The following provides further evidence against Bradblog: charges of hypocrisy over "demonisation" and "dehumanisation" which Bradblog makes a deal about exposing, but which they indulge, protect through censorship, and transmit (through their comments section and associated venues). The following evidence refers to interactions with Big Dan's Big Blog which is/was frequented by a coterie of posters at Bradblog, including Brad's moderator "Agent99". What is Brad doing associating with such people? How come these people find BradBlog so sympathetic to their views? How come Bradblog employs a moderator (!) whom hangs with such people and whom hold such repulsive (anti-semitic/fascist) views. People pushing anti-semitism are embraced whilst those criticising it are censored, traduced and banned. Some standard, huh?


http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009/08/deleted-at-big-dans-big-blog.html


http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009/08/banned-from-big-dans-big-blog.html

http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009/08/big-dans-big-blog.html

http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2009/10/this-is-what-big-dans-big-blog-deletes.html

More here.

I'll post the deletions from the latest episode of censorship later. Just for the record, like....

Wednesday, 8 September 2010

Rivero claims proxy-registrars are for "cointel" (!!!!!)

Nevermind that sooooo many of the links Rivero provides go to domains registered with Go-Daddy's proxy-registrar? HAHA. Rivero was even sponsored by one - ProgressiveIndependent.com


I found this one elsewhere too:


Interesting, no?

Wednesday, 26 August 2009

Deleted at Big Dan's Big Blog

Here's an example of my comments which have been deleted at Big Dan's Big Blog. All the instances of quotes from "plunger" I had culled from old threads at Big Dan's Big Blog. Plunger is also a contributor to BradBlog, and is on good terms with BradBlog's moderator Agent99, whom also post at Big Dan's Big Blog. Hence the views expressed by Plunger given here can be taken as somewhat representative of those at BradBlog - either that, or the views expressed here are unknown to BradBlog, in which case, Plunger and Agent99 (and any other member of the two blogs) is deceiving BradBlog about their views. Or vice versa, of course.

My comments are in bold. The thread they were deleted from is here.

I should point out that until this point I had been completely civil, and was intent on asking why the Blog owner - Big Dan - was linking to fascist "news" sources, whilst claiming sources such as Chris Bollyn, WhatReallyHappened, DesertPeace and Smoking Mirrors were "anti-fascist". The blog owner deleted at least 30 posts of mine which asked about this issue. Having experienced such censorship, and having spent hours reading through the back-history of threads at Big Dan's I was less inclined to maintain my civility - they simply don't deserve it, such is the preponderance of their hatred, their stupidity, and their service to genuine fascism.

Plunger: "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
LIES.

I challenge you to stand that statement up. Where is the least evidence that statement was actually made? I'll tell you - there's no evidence for it having been made.

But that says everything about you - you will accept such obvious tripe as "fact" - and you feed your hate on it. You embrace bullshit to justify your own hate, and to create hate in others. Despicable.
Plunger: "Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, all of them are ON ISRAEL'S PAYROLL. All of them were directly involved in 9/11, and many foreign intelligence services have them dead-to rights, and are blackmailing them."
You just pick things from the air - and say they are true. And thereby your hate is justified. No matter you have no evidence - no matter it's utter bullshit. Which came first - your hatred or your "facts"? Regardless - now they are one and the same: your hate leads your bias, your bias feeds your hate......
plunger: "Bin Laden does not exist."
HAHA - sure. Because you say so? Sure....
plunger: Henry Ford said this........
Charles Lindbergh said this......
Oh really? Like anyone gives a shit what they said? We're supposed to listen to Henry Ford, now, are we? Why? Oh - that's right - because .....errr.......because they confirm your beliefs. Big deal. It doesn't mean anything beyond asserting they *said it*. You believe it if you want to, Mr Gullible.
plunger: "33. The International Jew. By Henry Ford."
Oh - look - a real authority on "the international jew"! Pathetic.
plunger: Patrick Buchanan
Oh - look - listen up people, Buchanan's speaking! Bwahaha.
plunger: Who Rules America? By Dr. William Pierce
Woooaah! What a source that is! National Alliance founder, Nazi William Pierce! Pardon me if I pass? Sheesh. Let's find a Nazi for some "information" on Jews, shall we? HAHA. Facts, plunger, facts! HAHA. It'll be bloody Adolf fucking Hitler next?
plunger: From Adolf Hitler's last Will and Political Testament. Google users enter: Hitler my political testament
Hitler!? Oh yeah - world renowned for his scholarly ojectivity on jews, right.......? You're BATSHIT MAD.
plunger: Benjamin Freedman's 1955 speech
Ben Freedman? Oh lordy! The only jew every anti-semite totally trusts? LOL All the rest are lying snakes, but Freedman's reliable? LOL Believe it if you want. But so what?

Just look at that "range" of sources........?

And you say you're not anti-semitic?

Sure - it's just your sources that are anti-semitic. HAHA You don't fool anyone.
plunger: You will find no writing of mine that condemns the entire country of Israel for anything - ever.

and

plunger: You insinuate that I paint all Israelis or Jews with the same brush, despite the fact I never have.
That doesn't prevent you fielding a mass of sources whom DO! That's your entire gambit - claim you don't say those things, then field every crazed anti-semite whom does! Like Hitler, like William Pierce, like Lindberg, like Henry Ford, Like Ted Pike, Like AFP, like TBR etc etc. How transparent. That's pure rhetorical trickery on your part.

Plus you employ OBVIOUSLY manufactured quotes such as "We the Jews control America!"

SO, THAT IS YOU SAYING IT, plunger - WHEN YOU FIELD THOSE SOURCES AND QUOTES AS "FACTS" AND AS THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS AND CLAIMS, AND INSIST THEY ARE "FACTS" THEN IT IS YOU SAYING THOSE THINGS.

And you do CONTINUALLY say things such as:
plunger: Obama will say nothing, in deference to his true master, the Master of all who are (s)elected to serve Israel's AGENDA.
So pardon me, but your self excuse is frankly disgusting contortion and dissembling.

You don't say such things? RUBBISH!!
plunger: ALL LIES. Media = Jewish-owned and complicit.
One wonders what the point of the word "Jewish" is in that phrasing if it isn't meant to imply what it is obviously meant to imply. Don't give me your bullshit about you NEVER say such things. Combine such words of yours with the quotes and sources you cite and there is simply NO ROOM FOR DEBATE - YOU ARE AN ANTI-SEMITIC HATER. You have a Hitlerite conception of World Jewish Conspiracy - the exact same mobilising myth of Nazism. Your denials are self-delusion, if that. I don't believe you even believe your denials - they are only there for your audience and to provide a peg on which to hang your righteousness.

Your faux rage at being 'cruelly labelled' is pathetic and a travesty to language and definition.
plunger: Israel controls everything inside the US. .....Israel actually controls the launch and targeting codes of the entire US Nuclear arsenal. .....Bottom line - Israel owns the United States - thanks to GHW Bush. None of this is speculation. These are facts.
FACTS?! HAHA You are a disgusting joke and a fraud. I seriously think you are mentally ill.

Look at the vileness running through everything you write?

I have spent more time than I wish to engaged with far-right polemicists, and you are very clearly amongst them. You would be amongst the extreme even at Stromfront.

And don't pretend otherwise - your stupid enraged denials are ridiculous.


----------------------------------------------------

From these quotes from Plunger's contributions to Dan's blog, it seems obvious why my posts at BradBlog about Obama's Healthcare Reforms were deleted - I was arguing against the idea that Obama was "serving" some (jewish) conspiracy and instead was dealing with political realities ie I was recognising there was extremely fierce opposition to Obama's proposals rather than agreeing with the (far-right) conspiracy notion that that such disagreement is a pretense designed to deceive the public and prevent them realising there is a monolithic (jewish) conspiracy secretly ruling America.

This makes me wonder whether BradBlog's purpose is essentially the same too: is BradBlog's intent to suggest that there is a conspiracy? They suggest Obama is "betraying" Americans, and always meant to - do they mean to suggest such "betrayal" is on behalf of the (jewish?) conspiracy?

BradBlog also suggest vote fraud is endemic: is BradBlog suggesting such fraud is perpetrated to maintain the (jewish?) conspiracy? Is that BradBlog's intent - or do they just attract an audience which holds such a perspective?

Agent99 is a regular poster at Dan's Big Blog, and, as we have seen, actively ensures Plunger's comments appear at BradBlog using his privileged moderator status there. How much do Agent99's views about a jewish conspiracy reflect those of BradBlog? Is BradBlog's focus on Voter Fraud intended as a means to insinuate a conception of a Hitlerite Jewish World conspiracy into mainstream/progressive discourse? Or just to undermine confidence in what passes as "liberal democracy"? Or do they have a genuine concern for democracy?

I raise this question with the history of Weimar in mind - a crucial factor in the rise of Nazism was the undermining of confidence and faith in the Weimar Republic: before Nazism could gain a hold on the reigns of power, Weimar had to lose legitimacy, and the ensuing crisis opened a vacuum into which Hitler was swept. There were two major, and connected, factors: the loss of legitimacy of Weimar, and belief in a Jewish conspiracy.

It's worth noting that Big Dan defended his use of Willis Carto's AmericanFreePress with the examples that AFP had excellent coverage of vote fraud issues AND of Jewish/Israeli control over America.

Clearly there are obvious reasons why fascists would promote issues over vote fraud and "stolen elections"; 911 being an "inside job"; (Israeli/Jewish) blackmail of American politicians; demonisation of Israel/Jews; jewish control of media, political process, business, banking, etc.

Mainstreaming such views is crucial to the fascist enterprise.