Why there must be no free speech for Nazis
redletter | 05.12.2007 12:48 | Anti-racism
The Oxford Union’s recent decision to debate with two of Britain’s leading Nazis – Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party (BNP) and David Irving, a convicted Holocaust denier – provoked widespread condemnation.
Unite Against Fascism joined with many others to organise a successful anti-fascist protest. Trevor Phillips, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, described the invitations as “an absolute disgrace”.
But not everyone agreed. Bill Rammell, New Labour’s minister for higher education, spoke out in favour of giving the Nazis a platform. “We have to tolerate the expression of abhorrent views in the name of free speech,” he said.
The argument is not confined to Oxford. Last week saw students at Northumbria university in Newcastle voting in favour of a “no platform for fascists” policy.
In contrast, students at the University of East Anglia held a referendum last week that rejected no platform.
This debate over whether fascists should be entitled to “freedom of speech”, is by no means new.
It arose strongly in the 1920s and 1930s in Germany as liberals, socialists and communists argued over how to respond to the rise of Adolf Hitler’s Nazis.
It returned in the 1970s, when the National Front was sending its thugs to march through Lewisham and Southall.
While the historical circumstances vary, the broad outlines of the debate remain the same.
On the one hand, liberals tend to frame the argument in terms of free speech, arguing that however reprehensible the fascists are, they should be defeated through debate, just like any other opinion or political current.
Thuggery
Socialists, in contrast, tend to argue that fascism is not a political current like any other and should not be treated as such. Fascists are dedicated to destroying every vestige of democracy and have no misgivings about using thuggery to get their way.
Mere words are not enough to defeat them – they must also be physically confronted and excluded from public space.
Moreover, fascists do not seek out public platforms in order to test the strength of their ideas. What they seek is the veneer of respectability that such platforms provide – a veneer they desperately need in the aftermath of the Second World War and Hitler’s Holocaust.
The socialist argument is based on historical experience. Fascism first appeared in Italy in the early 1920s, when Benito Mussolini organised armed squads of war veterans to terrorise the workers’ movement by breaking up meetings and murdering trade unionists.
The state did little or nothing to stop these “blackshirts” and the fascist movement rapidly grew.
But thuggery on the streets was only one aspect of Mussolini’s strategy. The other was to court respectability by posing as a legitimate political party and contesting elections.
This two-pronged attack – pretending to be committed to democratic norms while organising terror on the ground – has remained the characteristic defining feature of fascism ever since.
The mainstream parliamentary parties in Mussolini’s time did not know how to react to the fascists. They deplored the blackshirts’ violence – while in practice doing nothing about it and insisted that the fascists had to be treated like any other party and granted the same constitutional rights.
The results were disastrous. Threatened with an increasingly militant workers’ movement, the Italian ruling class allowed Mussolini to seize power in 1922.
The fine words about democracy disappeared as the fascists abolished press freedom, suspended all democratic rights and went about expunging every trace of opposition, protest or criticism from their new “corporate state”.
Just ten years later in Germany the same pattern repeated itself. The mainstream parties of Germany’s post-war Weimar republic – conservative, liberal and social democrat – all united to condemn Hitler’s Nazis, but insisted that they had to be challenged only through constitutional means.
Once in power, Hitler threw into the concentration camps those very same people who had once defended his rights to “free speech”.
The BNP today stand in the same political tradition as Hitler and Mussolini. So the BNP are not simply a bunch of obnoxious racists – they are an organised political force that deliberately aims at smashing up what little democracy we have at present and instituting a racial reign of terror.
They have a strategy for achieving those aims – a strategy that has worked in the past and can work again.
Fortunately we too have a strategy for stopping the fascist threat. It involves recognising that fascism is an exceptional threat to all of us, and that it cannot be treated as a legitimate form of politics.
It is incumbent on all of us to unite together and prevent fascism from getting a toehold in public space.
And our resistance should not be confined to legal or constitutional means – we have to build the broadest possible movement that can physically stop the Nazis from organising.
Organisation
So what does this mean for the arguments around no platform today? We need to make clear to people that the BNP is a fascist organisation – and that as such they pose a unique danger and should not enjoy the rights granted to democratic parties.
We say no platform for fascists because of what they are and what they do, not because of their “opinions”, objectionable though these undoubtedly are.
Griffin’s strategy with the BNP over the past few years has been to try to cover up the organisation’s fascist character, a strategy pursued by the French Nazi leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.
So Griffin claims the BNP has put its thuggish days behind it – he even claims to have repudiated racism. We need to explain to people that these are lies that follow a long tradition of fascist parties masking their true intentions.
We also need to make clear that no platform works, and that is why the movement has adopted it as a tactic. In Britain no platform policies have successfully prevented Nazis from organising on campus.
In France, where the argument has not been won, Le Pen’s fascists have built up an extensive student organisation, and in some cases taken control of student unions.
We also need to connect words and deeds. There is a continuity between fascist hate speech directed at ethnic minorities and physical attacks upon them.
The former encourages the latter. Giving Griffin a platform at the Oxford Union sends a signal to his bootboys on the streets – it gives them the confidence to go on the attack, with frequently murderous consequences.
Pointless
Liberal common sense tells us that democracy is a matter of exchanging views and critical reason. That is true – but there’s a lot more to it than that.
One cannot rationally “debate” with those who systematically lie about their real aims and views, nor can one “debate” those who use terror tactics and thuggery against ethnic minorities, trade unionists and anyone who disagrees with them.
And why should those who have lost their families in the Holocaust have to “debate” the reality of what happened with someone like Irving, whose only purpose is to dissemble and lie in order to muddy the waters of history – and thus pave the way to repeating Hitler.
Griffin promises an “all white” Britain, just as Hitler once promised a “Jew free” Germany. And Griffin’s politics will follow the same genocidal logic if they are ever given the chance.
That is why it is pointless to grant the fascists a platform in order to “defeat them in debate”. Such set-piece events do nothing to stop the fascists outside the formalities of the debating chamber.
They do not deter the fascists from organising – on the contrary, fascists crave the respectability and legitimacy that such “debates” inevitably confer upon them.
What does defeat the fascists – and what they are most scared of – is mass grassroots opposition to their presence. That is how the Anti Nazi League defeated the National Front in the 1970s and it is how we can defeat the BNP today.
Democracy relies on the minds and bodies of ordinary people – and it is this force that offers the means to fight fascism’s threat to democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
redletter
Comments
Hide 60 hidden comments or hide all comments
easier to understand
05.12.2007 13:30
there thats cleared that up
florence
Free Speech for some - which ones ?
05.12.2007 13:44
No free speech for Holocaust deniers ?
A commendable position, supported by some, opposed by others. I favor only a consistency. If we are going to deny a platform to an individual or organisation because the views they hold are so offensive that we think they should not be heard then it should not matter where in the political spectrum they fall.
Most recently we have had known anti-Semite and Holocaust denier Gilad Atzmon works being promoted and defended by no lesser person than an IMC Admin. Of course on IMC anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial becomes acceptable when it comes from one of the Lefts poster boys for the elimination of Israel.
From my position I can't see a lot of difference between Nick Griffin's offensive views and Gilad Atzmon's offensive views - Why can't IMC admins ?
Racism, wrong in all its forms
IMC racism
05.12.2007 14:10
anyway, 'freedom of speech' should be deconstructed as a liberal concept, not defended or argued against...
else
you either have it or you don't
05.12.2007 14:15
So yes, I think that "free speech" means for everybody, even though some of those people are expressing views that are "unacceptable".
But no, I do not think that somebody claiming "free speech" rights can object if I don't allow him or her to climb up onto a platform provided by me. And if you are providing that platform, I might have a gripe with you what I consider bad judgement.
But then I have to remember that this is one of the points over which we as peoples were disagreeing back when we separated ourselves (and why our "libel" laws differ from yours).
Mike Novack
e-mail:
stepbystpefarm mtdata.com
Reference
05.12.2007 14:24
Far from being IMC's finest hour
Racism, wrong in all its forms
enough arm twisting
05.12.2007 14:39
> and Gilad Atzmon's offensive views - Why can't IMC admins ?
You are lumping together all IMC admins. Last time I checked there was a debate going
on within IMC UK about this. Stop trying to shortcut our processes with your ranty arm-twisting
(eg the personal emails sent to random IMC *volunteers*).
The background is here, for anyone interested:
.
No Platform
05.12.2007 15:08
To hell with free speech
In response to "enough arm twisting"
05.12.2007 15:12
What on earth are you talking about ? How does posting comments become 'shortcutting process" What process ? Who decided there was a process and when ? Come to that who are you, an admin ? If so why not leave a name or ID tag ?
If I lump together all admins it's because the last time I looked Indymedia was run by a collective and my work as part of a collective squat is that we share responsibilities and veto decisions where we find them offensive. Blaming this decision on others in not what I expect.
Obviously knowing that the debate over Holocaust denial and blatant anti-semitism is ongoing feels me with renewed hope and energy ! {sarcasm alert} Always nice to know that Indymedia is the sort of place where subjects such as these can be defended, promoted and debated.
Racism, wrong in all its forms
No Platform
05.12.2007 15:18
You, Me, Terry down the pub, MP's, Judges, The Police,..... see the problem ?
Mate of Terry down the pub
There must be no free speech
05.12.2007 15:27
We have the right to support New Labour - what more could anyone ask for?
Mike
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/387175.html?c=all
05.12.2007 15:31
Stage One Close ranks, hide the posts and comments,
Stage Two Try to divert attention to an unrelated subject.
Stage three is the inevitable shout of 'Troll' or 'Hasbarah' when indymedia's anti Jewish posts are highlighted. Somebody should be along any minute with that.
Stage Four Refuse to discuss the issue, refer all posters to the lists where only selected individuals emails are allowed to be read by the wider collective and ignore.
charlie
OR FREE SPEECH FOR OTHER PEOPLE????
05.12.2007 15:43
EXPLAIN
X
Sheer Arrogance
05.12.2007 16:37
**NEWSFLASH** - The average BNP supporter does not care about the opinions of a bunch of elitist students reading classics at Oxbridge.
1. Refusing to to allow them to speak will actually *galvanise* the support that the BNP already has. They win votes precisely because they are able to walk onto rundown council estates and say, "Hey, I'm just like you, and I'll promote your views." Banning them will give them the perfect example of how the political process is closed to the common man.
2. The stance the article's writer is condoning shows total contempt for the average man in the street by implying that he will be unable to reach his own conclusion when presented with both sides of the case. Unfortunately this is repeated again and again in
3. The article also claims that the BNP are trying to cover up their fascist tendencies. Putting them in a public forum and then forcing them to justify and explain their views is the best way to show them for what they are. If you silence them then their views/claims cannot be exposed, rebutted and then duly ridiculed.
4. The article finishes with "Democracy relies on the minds and bodies of ordinary people – and it is this force that offers the means to fight fascism’s threat to democracy." However, that sentiment runs counter to the entire rest of the article. How can we rely on the "minds... ...of ordinary people" when the article is proposeing to censor the information which that can recieve.
Lastly, this whole non-story has the stink of student politics about it Some dosser on the student unions council probably thought it would be cool to ban something - I can't count the number of times I've had to explain to some politics undergrad that the petition for which they've spent the morning gathering signatures is actually condoning a facist stance.
But this is an article from Socialist Worker so it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise - they can be just as arrogant, intolerant and bullying as any BNP candidate.
Steve
presuming
05.12.2007 16:38
Presuming that that wasn't Atzmon or one of his defenders. I don't think anyone will dispute that Atzmon uses no shortage of sockpuppets; I don't think forging mail is beyond him, and he certainly hates Tony enough to make him the subject of the forgery.
@%<
gehrig
Free speech hypocricy
05.12.2007 18:25
How were the protestors against Bezhti portrayed? As militant extremists.
Chav Man
boring thread!let fash drivel BS in private,but not on a platform of freespeech
05.12.2007 18:50
The point was many of protesters don't want free speech banned, we don't want nazis given a platform, especially as representatives of free speech.
Takes Orwell & Python to another level.
Moderators please take off any other story on banning oxford nazis again if its a repeat of what we have heard before recently & wasting space/time
Theres a lot of hear getting vbored of describing repeating these arguments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Personally I find it tedious & boring, but have no problem taking on bnp nazis in open debate, they hide behind such blatant lies.
I am more bothered about their bombers like Lecomber & Griffins links to Roberto Fiore a friend of Griffins from the third international who with connections to Propaganda Deu & NATO operation Gladio"resistance" network which was used in the train bombing in Bologna & murder of 85 civilians.Italian P2 was headed by the Agnelli fiat car family who were then members of the Bilderberg Group still headed by corporate american oil & banking leaders always willing to anyone for$$
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Fiore
Theres so much shit in Griffins past it hard to know where to start sometimes.
Neo Nazi British National Front attempted to enlist financial aid from Libya during the 1980s. These contacts were ended after the fascist nature of the NF was discovered during Nick Griffin's visit to Libya in 1986
Anarcho-syndicalist
Racism wrong in all it's forms. Is it something for a blanket ban?
05.12.2007 20:23
Gilhad Atzmon a person with some pretty abhorrent conclusions. Conclusions that often lend him to the anti-semites. But organising with them? A threat beyond his words? No.
Someone who should be actively No Platformed, No. Someone who should be actively given a platform, absolutely not.
poster
Insult to injury
05.12.2007 23:14
Hoarding
My view
06.12.2007 10:39
I have a clear rule, I do not talk to anti Semites regardless of what political ideology they claim to be from. Indymedia needs to take a long hard look at itself over this issue of anti Jewish racism being accepted here by some.
Atzmon is anti Semitic and a Holocaust denier - he should have no platform on any Indymedia I support and I am amazed this is still being debated.
Mike
Weasel words
06.12.2007 10:56
Theirs is the very speech that needs protecting the most - you don't need to protect people's right to say how much they like puppies.
The right of free speech also involves the right to decide to whom you are speaking. By preventing him from addressing the Oxford Union, who had *invited* him, then you are trampling not only on their freedom of speech but the whole Union's right to free assembly.
The students and faculty who attended should be able to listen to their arguments, listen to the opposing side and then arrive at their own conclusion. If they can't, they sure as hell shouldn't be at university. If they want to protest his views, that's fine, but they shouldn't be protesting his right to express them - it just makes them look like idiots to the unwashed masses like me who apparently need to be protected from hearing this muppet speak. Maybe he's going to get me with his Hypno-Ray and I will be forced to become his loyal servant... ....no, wait, that was Ming the Merciless.
The Oxford Union is not so important that merely speaking there will win mass converts in the country at wide - despite what the students would like to think.
Steve
e-mail:
steve.quick@hotmail.co.uk
Theres no need for the jury to retire?
06.12.2007 11:33
"Atzmon is anti Semitic and a Holocaust denier - he should have no platform on any Indymedia I support and I am amazed this is still being debated."
The original complaint was that he justified the holocaust.
Now you say that he denies it.
In the audio posted to the wire, he does neither.
And there is no need for debate?
It seems that you think the Indymedia you support should require even lower standards of proof than a state court. In fact it seems that you think Indymedia should be a Kangaroo court, following your own McCarthyite tendencies.
I don't support that vision of Indymedia at all.
ftp
Non-issue and actual issues
06.12.2007 11:33
The only free speech issues that need debating in the UK are SOCPA, the "hate" laws and at a broader level public access to and private ownership of mass media.
Now given that Irving, Atzmon and every other holocaust denier is not living under any suppression (remember Irving was in court in the UK because HE started proceedings against someone else and lost) there is no free speech issue to discuss where is the free speech issue here?
The Oxford Union event wasn't an act of defiance against a tyrannical state. Irving and Griffin were free to hold meetings anywhere in the UK as they had been doing for years. The Oxford Union was not upholding human rights, it was acting like recalcitrant teenagers, just doing something to piss the "grown ups" off. It worked. But what is democracy (what little we have) without conflict?
The real issue is of course about platforms. And we all have a right to freely associate as we wish, though young Asian Muslim males are under some pressure at this point, and part of the process of free association is deciding who we don't want to associate with. And believing in free speech and defending free speech does not equal the desire to endorse every scumbag on the planet.
There is no conflict with free speech in picketing an event.
In regards to the internal/external problem of antisemitism here, there is possibly one elegant solution. In the ethos of Indymedia: be the media!
Either by keeping up vociferous dissent, which inevitably gets hidden, but at least registers objection. Or by actually joining IMC UK and putting up internal opposition. It seems much needed since the biggest internal objector just quit and there is much evidence that no one else is providing any resistence from within.
No Brainer
to be fair
06.12.2007 15:06
In particular Gilad Atzmon has distributed Eisen’s ‘Holocaust Wars’, which is a full-blooded exposition of holocaust denial material and a tribute to notorious neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel. Atzmon says he has only ‘slight differences ‘ with Eisen’s article.
So Atzmon isn't necessarily a Holocaust denier; he just distributes Holocaust denial material on his list and then can only muster 'slight differences' with it -- praising with faint damns, in other words.
By now, though, the odds of ftp climbing down on the Atzmon issue are pretty slim. He is sure that he's striking a blow against International Zionism. Instead, he is tainting UK IMC with the ravings of an antisemitic whackdoodle and smearing those this offends.
@%<
gehrig
Further comment from me
06.12.2007 17:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to be fair
06.12.2007 16:06
Atzmon isn't a Holocaust denier in the usual sense. However:
In particular Gilad Atzmon has distributed Eisen’s ‘Holocaust Wars’, which is a full-blooded exposition of holocaust denial material and a tribute to notorious neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel. Atzmon says he has only ‘slight differences ‘ with Eisen’s article.
So Atzmon isn't necessarily a Holocaust denier; he just distributes Holocaust denial material on his list and then can only muster 'slight differences' with it -- praising with faint damns, in other words.
By now, though, the odds of ftp climbing down on the Atzmon issue are pretty slim. He is sure that he's striking a blow against International Zionism. Instead, he is tainting UK IMC with the ravings of an antisemitic whackdoodle and smearing those this offends.
@%<
gehrig
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It makes me upset to see people trying to turn this into an intellectual debate, it is not. If there are individuals involved with the administration of the site who really seriously can´t see the problem here they I would suggest they re-think their involvement with Indymedia and what it stands for.
Anti-Semitism is wrong, just wrong
Mike
Atzmon + Holocaust denial
06.12.2007 17:52
Atzmon isn't a Holocaust denier in the usual sense. However:
"In particular Gilad Atzmon has distributed Eisen’s ‘Holocaust Wars’, which is a full-blooded exposition of holocaust denial material and a tribute to notorious neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel. Atzmon says he has only ‘slight differences‘ with Eisen’s article."
So Atzmon isn't necessarily a Holocaust denier; he just distributes Holocaust denial material on his list and then can only muster 'slight differences' with it -- praising with faint damns, in other words.
@%<
gehrig
reply to steve
06.12.2007 18:05
" Steve there is a contadiction in the above that you posted. If we are refusing to let them speak as you say. (or hold any public address, leafleting, paper sale, meeting etc. which is the no platform way) how are they then as you say going to walk onto rundown council estates and promote their shit? Are they not going to be stopped there too? Also historically it is proven that stopping them in this way does not galvanise their support, but smashes it. I suggest you read up about Cable St. if you want to learn more about this.
No Plat
Mike's McCarthyite lynch mob mentality.
06.12.2007 18:34
So, having told us that Atzmon denies the Holocaust, you now agree that perhaps he doesn't?
You called for someone to be banished without having the full facts?
That'd be your McCarthyite lynch mob mentality showing then would it Mike?
By the way, Greenstein circulated three of Eisen's papers, including the one that gehrig refers to, to the whole Guardian readership. And gehrig is posting links to a David Duke article.
Should they both be banned in Mike's little world of social justice?
Where does it end Mike?
ftp
How stupid do you think UK Indymedia readers are, peeps?
06.12.2007 20:01
My god, how stupid do you think UK Indymedia readers are, peeps?
If Tony Greenstein had said that he had only "slight differences" with the Eisen article, you might have a fraction of a case for your rather desperate analogy. And if I said I had only "slight differences" with the David Duke article.
But you know, and the readers know, goddamned well what the real story is: Atzmon distributed a Holocaust denial piece to his list and, when called on it, couldn't bring himself to express anything more than "slight differences."
You claimed that Gilad Atzmon's progressive not-an-antisemite credentials were established by his stories being posted on sites like "thepeoplesvoice.org."
I then showed that same "progressive" site posts David Duke's fulminations about the Jew. And I documented it by posting a link.
Now, in your flailing desperation, you want to sell the idea that I'm some kind of a David Duke supporter.
Oh, but wait, the reader can't see what I posted in context. Why? Because it's a hidden post is why, because UK Indymedia has been hiding posts on the Atzmon issue left and right like a manic squirrel packing seeds for winter just to keep the Atzmon story to the one narrative you insist must be the REAL one: that this is just Tony Greenstein slagging off Atzmon, and nothing more significant than that.
When you see the whole story, though, the narrative looks a lot more like, why is a UK Indymedia editor who is, in all likelihood, not an antisemite himself working so hard (and so unilaterally) to ensure that antisemitic posts -- properly coded -- are not removed from this otherwise anti-racist site?
And can he really come up with no better response when challenged on this grotesquery than to cry "help, help, McCarthyism"?
@%<
gehrig
Semantic acrobatics
06.12.2007 20:08
FTP, do you yourself think that holocaust has been in some way exaggerated or misrepresented? Is that the reason that material from holocaust deniers has been allowed to stand for so long and so much outcry has been hidden?
Citing holocaust denial literature in a critical fashion equals the same as citing it in endorsement? Is that some sort of rudimentary mathematical value system?
If the calls for banning Atzmon from the site are "McCarthyite" what does blocking the proposal of the ban and hiding all dissent equate? Where does the arithmetic morality place that?
I'm quite interested to know what the rest of the Collective makes of this? Are they not at all concerned that they are being accused of being a haven for Jew hate and holocaust denial?
No Brainer
So if......
06.12.2007 21:19
The McCarthyism comes in condemnation without full facts, and based on the smears of a small group of people.
gehrig would be far more useful in pointing to the alleged anti-semitism in the article that this started off being about. (saying NO to the Hunters of Goliath)
He has already identified the fact that nobody except Greenstein and co has found the alleged anti-semitism in the article, which means it breaches the guidelines. Once we have clear evidence that it does, thats where the no-brainer part comes in.
The fact remains that Atzmon neither denies the Holocaust, nor says that nazi judeocide was in anyway justified. Neither is there anything other than a list of out of context quotes, as proof of Atzmon's alleged anti-semitism. You want guilt by association, you want Nu Labour!
I've spent a lot of time reading articles, meeting and talking to Atzmon, and reading this debate spread over website after website, and found no proof to back up the claims. It would be a good start if someone identified the clear anti-semitism in the article. If the call is to ban anything by Atzmon, despite the fact that there is no watertight case, then there is no consensus in the collective. That can be sorted out by an open discussion within the collective. Thats how the process works, you spend time listening to all views, checking out the source for yourselves, trying to understand what concerns everyone. And at the end of the process you find a creative way to sort out the issue.
It isn't going to be sorted out here. gehrig is trolling, rather than trying to help sort it out, and I have no idea who anyone else is. But all they seem to do is smear.
ftp
Meaningless Debate
07.12.2007 08:39
I read the links provided by others and the writings of Atzmon going back some time. I find his views offensive and in my opinion he is clearly anti semitic. I am unable to understand why anybody who did the same would come to a different conclusion, you for some reason have.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt as I do not know you and to the best of my knowledge we have never met however I do question your motivation for supporting this man and allowing him a platform on Indymedia, your writings seem to indicate a long term involvement in supporting the Palestinian peoples in their fight for self determination, for that you are to be applauded however I would ask you to consider if that support and interest in the cause has blinded you to the views and opinions of nasty people like Atzmon because he shares your views on the plight of those in the occupied territories ? I also spoke with friends last night concerning this issue, we are all supporters of Indymedia and without exception feel that this is an issue that for some time has been badly dealt with, the fine line between legitimate attacks on Israel and outright anti semitism is one that Indymedia crosses too often.
The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Atzmon is anti semitic, it really is that simple and I am sorry that you either cannot see this or refuse to see this.
My view is that anti semites should have no platform on Indymedia however as you are one of the Admins of the site and I am not I guess we will see on the site what you want and not what I want, such is life.
For me this debate is at an end as I do not wish to spend further time reading anti semitic ramblings and the words of those who support them
M
Mike
@ No Plat
07.12.2007 11:46
No Plat
I was referring to allowing them to speak at the Oxford Union event as that was the subject of discussion.
Steve
GA and antisemitism a quick appraisal.
07.12.2007 12:55
Antisemitism in '...Hunters of Goliath'
1. The piece opens by putting forward the idea that folklore of Good vs Evil is particular to Jews. It isn't it is to my knowledge universal to all theology.
2. It asserts the notion of the warrior chief is particularly Jewish. It isn't, at least in Europe it was almost universal and in some places even survived Christianisation in the tradition of the chief leading his (and occasionally her) people into battle.
Those are clearly attributing "negative" stereotypes to a particular ethnic group. Observations that collapse under the most rudimentary of comparisons.
3. The article then alludes to the Jews having an element of guilt for the holocaust. In fact, it goes a step further to state that Israelis are in deep denial of this and this will lead to their demise. It stops just short of accusing the Jews of being professional victims.
That third point was enough for me to sign that article off as having a clearly racist agenda. Just because he uses the legitimate pretext of Israeli atrocities as his context doesn't diminish the racism. And just because he uses the platform of the people of Palestine and the Lebanon doesn't make it "all right". If I have to explain why Jews aren't responsible for the holocaust, then you have proved my point regarding institutional antisemitism within Indymedia.
Then I had a look at this truly bizarre bit of work:
This piece would be hilarious if it had been written by a satirist.
It puts forward the idea that Sacha Baron Cohen (A Jew in case you couldn't spot the clue) is an archetypal misogynist Jew because his wife went to Israel to study the Bible before they got married. A rather ironic assumption since there is no clear indication if it was Cohen's idea of his wife's.
He goes on to brand Cohen as at best a useful idiot for Zionism because Borat's brand of antisemitism is from the middle ages and thus deflects legitimate antisemitism. The proof of which seems to be that he holidays in Israel. A marvelous assumption that Cohen has the slightest clue at all regarding the politics of the regions let alone the slightest care. Is it assuming that as a Jew visiting Israel he must without a doubt be a Zionist?
Even if ignoring the dubious tendency to single the Jews out for various traits that aren't culturally unique, Atzmon produces some of the worst mad, rambling Op Ed crap I have read since Woodrow Wyatt was still on Thatcher's Christmas card list.
Having read that second piece, I have to say I have little respect for anyone who takes this man seriously at any level... except for his excellent sax playing.
As for institutional antisemitism within IMC UK just a quick trawl through the 'features list' reveals some real gems. Such as several admins/editors asserting that arch NWO fruitcake Kurt Nimmo isn't a holocaust denier. The most bizarre comment though is an admin who states that the word antisemitism doesn't refer to racism against Jews. Which flies in the face of every dictionary in at least the last 40 years. Dictionary definitions in case you don't know are arrived at by examining the usage of the word in a 'corpus' (an amassed body of text). But hat's off, I have never encountered teh concept of 'antisemitism denial' before.
But let's we not forget FTPs comments the other the day the boil down to the colour of people's skin being a prime determiner of how valid an opinion is. Jews (who are apparently "white") shouldn't criticise Palestinians.
No Brainer
whatever else is clear
07.12.2007 15:31
The situation now is this. Atzmon's pieces are under very serious challenge, both within and outside the UK Kollektive, with substantial voices being raised calling the works racist. The UK Kollektive is -- we're told -- hard at work trying to sort through the policy. Yet during the process interim (a process interim which has stretched over a month now), posts which have been seriously and repeatedly challenged for their antisemitism are allowed to fester on the newswire.
Would other forms of racism be treated the same way? Are accusations of anti-Muslim bigotry, for example, presumed true a priori while accusations of antisemitism are presumed false a priori?
@%<
gehrig
Hmmmm
07.12.2007 16:19
No Brainer on the other hand has tried.
No Brainer says:
"1. The piece opens by putting forward the idea that folklore of Good vs Evil is particular to Jews. It isn't it is to my knowledge universal to all theology."
however, Atzmon does say this:
"But let’s face it, it isn’t just the Israelis who personalise conflicts. Thanks to the Neocons and their tremendous current influence within the Anglo-American political realm, we are all subject to some oversimplification and personalisation of almost every Western conflict. "
It seems to imply to me that it extends far beyond Israelis, to erm, all of us!
So. when you say:
"Those are clearly attributing "negative" stereotypes to a particular ethnic group. Observations that collapse under the most rudimentary of comparisons."
It seems that it is your observation which collapses. Furthermore, I'm struggling to find the bit where he says it's particular to Jews. I'm also struggling to find where you get the claim that:
" It asserts the notion of the warrior chief is particularly Jewish."
Does it actually say that? How? Where?
It'd be helpful if you could show which words you used to construct your claim.
Thanks.
ftp
For the hard of reading
07.12.2007 17:19
"Though the Biblical specific tale could be understood in a mere literary terms, the similarities to the Israelite of our time are rather concerning. In Israel, there is a direct express path that leads from the ‘role of the assassin’ to the Government seat. Time after time our contemporary Israelite supplicate their highly decorated assassins to become their kings, to lead their army and then to integrate into the cabinet. This obviously happened to Sharon, Barak, Mofaz, Halutz, Dichter and many more. "
It suggest that there is a racial trait in Jews right through to Israel to arrange their society around killing foes. The assertion is ridiculously egocentric as the planet & history is littered with the same mode of social organisation. It's a negative generalisation to ascribe that trait particularly to Jews= racism.
''I'm not a racist but...'
If I were to write an article that went thus, would it be acceptable here? 'Blacks are lazy and they smell, but it's not just black people that are smelly and lazy' and then went on to concentrate on black people. Now, would that pseudo-caveat negate the obvious racism? The answer is no, in case you were any doubt.
Why is the racism "obvious"? Because if the negative trait being portrayed was as widespread as the author briefly states, why single the one ethnic group out? And the only other group worth mentioning is the 'NeoCons' who are big friends of Israel and with a fair share of Zionist Jews on board.. rather than exception there is an element of recursion.
The recursion is further reinforced by the following:
"Clearly, this isn’t the case anymore. Within a world shaped by Neocons, the political system is reduced into a simplistic Biblical Goliath chase. We the righteous, the Davids, pursue the Goliaths: Saddam, Bin Laden, Assad, and Ahmadinejad. "
The author equates the "exception" in terms of the particularly Jewish trait itself linguistically dressing the NeoCons up as those belligerent biblical Jews.
But I guess this will get a lazy response of "smear" or "troll".
No Brainer
I am taking the bait
07.12.2007 17:23
FTP, I understand what you are doing, I saw it done at the LSE nearly twenty years ago by a speaker who would not accept that Stalin had been responsible for the deaths of millions, this speaker changed the subject, wanted to discuss the language in every sentence of every report into the atrocities under Stalin, asked for documented proof from every survivor who spoke about what he or she had seen, questioned the motives of even the most respected of speakers, when confronted with an individual who made clear consise provable points quickly tried to label them as agents of the USA and in general tried everything he could to avoid dealing with evidence that was so overwhelming it could not have been more conclusive.
The situation here is so close as to be near identical, by any rational analysis Gatzmon is an offensive anti semite who should have no platform on Indymedia, with the exception of you I can find nobody opposed to that view.
In my last post I said I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I retract that. I today read other posts on Indymedia that you have either made yourself or contributed to and it is clear to me you have a problem with Jewish people, note I say Jewish. Not Zionists, not the Israeli Army, not nutcase settlers in the occupied areas but Jews.
The contribution you have made to this debate is disgusting, there is no other word for it just disgusting. I understand some other admins have already resigned recently in part because of your attitude to Jews, I am not surprised, in fact the only thing that surprises me is that more of them have not.
Racism in all its forms is repellent, racism against Jews is not excused by what the Israelis do in Gaza any more than racism against Muslins is excused by what the Taliban do in Afghanistan.
Mike
pretty revolting
07.12.2007 17:26
Here's Nimmo's Holocaust denial being called out:
And here's Nimmo's Holocaust denial being waved away by, what do you know, freethepeeps:
circumstantial evidence. If Indymedia is going to be used as a platform for the hounding of posters whose politics are unliked by the Hasbarah crowd, then they should back up their claims so that readers can make up their own mind. I am pretty sure that if you were being hounded by a concerted campaign of unsubstantiated attacks in the comments section, you would not appreciate it, and would expect the mods to do something about it."
Nimmo calls the gas chambers of Auschwitz "discredited," but according to ftp, that's not proof of Holocaust denial; Nimmo's not a proven Holocaust denier, it's just "the interpretation" of "the Hasbarah crowd" that doesn't "like him" and are producing "a concerted campaign of unsubstantiated attacks."
Unsubstantiated my ass. An appalling moral collapse by ftp.
Actually, I hadn't seen that interchange when it happened in April, although it turns out that I'm mentioned in it anyway. Go figure. I guess I'm the evil genius behind the big conspiracy, or something.
So there are two narratives here.
Let's call the first one the Latuff narrative, because Latuff does his best to promulgate it: any time a critic of Israel is called an antisemite, he's not (unless he's on the right). The cry "antisemitism" is always false in such cases, and is in fact the product of an international PR drive of right-wing Zionists. No one could possibly be upset by antisemitism in the contest of the Israel/Palestine conflict unless they are right-wing Thought Police. You can see Latuff clearly spell out this narrative here:
The other narrative is this: IMC-UK is having consistent difficulty with posts that cross the line from criticizing Israel into actual antisemitism, and its reputation is suffering for it. The problem is that one of the editors cannot, for whatever reason, see antisemitism that is plain to many, many other readers, and instantly responds to any criticism of antisemitism on UK-IMC by trying to spin narrative one (see above). When Kurt Nimmo's Holocaust denial was pointed out to him in April, ftp said, "what Holocaust denial?" and then tried to spin narrative one. When the destructiveness of the Latuff cartoon was pointed out to him, ftp said, "what destructiveness?" and then tried to spin narrative one. When Gilad Atzmon's well-known, well-documented antisemitism was pointed out to him, ftp said, "what antisemitism?" and then tried to spin narrative one. In this process, the editor has inflicted considerable harm on the moral standing of his collective, and it's clear from the mailing list that people are being driven away from UK-IMC *because* of its swerve into "antisemitism not unwelcome, if it's coded properly."
There's a clear pattern that, when it comes one certain kind of bigotry, the consistent response of one UK-IMC editor is "well, you still haven't *proved* the sky is blue."
@%<
gehrig
Going off to do more exciting things for the weekend.
07.12.2007 19:02
Thats in your head - its not in the text. As is the claim that he says these things are particular of Jews.
First you call him a holocaust denier - and you can't back it up.
Then you claim that he says traits are 'particular to Jews'i, and can't back it up, and then you just carry on as if you've proved it.
When you've either shown where Atzmon claims that these things are 'particular to Jews' in the text, or withdraw it, I might just be willing to carry on.
Until then, it seems pointless.
"If the call is to ban anything by Atzmon, despite the fact that there is no watertight case, then there is no consensus in the collective. That can be sorted out by an open discussion within the collective. Thats how the process works, you spend time listening to all views, checking out the source for yourselves, trying to understand what concerns everyone. And at the end of the process you find a creative way to sort out the issue.
It isn't going to be sorted out here. gehrig is trolling, rather than trying to help sort it out, and I have no idea who anyone else is. But all they seem to do is smear."
And 3 of you lining up to back each other, one being gehrig the zionist troll, and another having retired and then returned, and another who thinks what is in his head is in the text, aren't that persuasive.
Have a good weekend.
ftp
actually, quite a persuasive case is being made
07.12.2007 20:10
@%<
gehrig
For ftp
07.12.2007 20:17
for fucks sake get some help
.
My next contribution
07.12.2007 20:30
"And 3 of you lining up to back each other, one being gehrig the zionist troll, and another having retired and then returned, and another who thinks what is in his head is in the text, aren't that persuasive. "
I do not know gehrig, he may be a Zionist he may not, I am the one that has returned the third one - who knows.
But of course we are not three, there have been a number of contributors to Indymedia over the last year who have raised the issue of its anti Jewish stance. I was very happy to receive from a friend details of how to access the View all posts section of Indymedia and quite an eye opener it is. Individuals making good, informed points showing repeated examples of anti Jewish bias on Indymedia hidden by the admins. I am going to take a wild guess and assume that admin was FTP.
My view is that Indymedia has as one of its admins somebody with strong anti Jewish feelings that nobody should have anytime for.
I am disgusted with what I have seen here. the BNP could do no worse
Mike
Oh well!
07.12.2007 21:00
And I couldn't care less if Gehrig was Ariel Sharon, because the debate is about racism/antisemitism and not about whether Israel should exist. And one is no excuse for the other.
It's typical these people are the first to scream "Zionist plant" "troll" "smear" and what does he do? He plays the man and not the ball. Which is more amusing given that they like also to carp "ad hominem!" at the merest critique of their stance.
So another recap:
1. Judging a man's worth by the colour of his skin is not racism.
2. Tarring all Jews with the same brush is not racism.
3. Denying there were gas chambers at Auschwitz is not holocaust denial.
4. Asserting that there are Jewish racial traits that are to blame for Israel's crimes is neither racism nor antisemitism.
5. Asserting that the Jews had some blame for the holocaust is not racism/antisemitism.
I am now getting a clearer picture of the logic at play here and strangely enough it tallies quite closely to the narrative of the US White Power movement.
Welcome to Indymedia UKKK- Jews not welcome!
No Brainer
indeed no much brain herr.
07.12.2007 21:40
No Brainer, it is nice of you to admit that thinking is not your strongest quality. I will try to help you step by step. As you know we Israelis always love to save our Jewish brothers in the Gola Advuya.
NB: 1. The piece opens by putting forward the idea that folklore of Good vs Evil is particular to Jews. It isn't it is to my knowledge universal to all theology.
Alice: Nonsense, the revelation of Christ is all about mercy and remorse as oppose to Kosher versus exclusion.
NB: 2. It asserts the notion of the warrior chief is particularly Jewish. It isn't, at least in Europe it was almost universal and in some places even survived Christianisation in the tradition of the chief leading his (and occasionally her) people into battle.
Those are clearly attributing "negative" stereotypes to a particular ethnic group. Observations that collapse under the most rudimentary of comparisons.
Alice: Nonsense again, ‘warrior chief’ is indeed part of the 19th century European nationalist philosophy.... Zionism is certainly the last racist nationalist state that succumb to that very reactionary idea….However, i don't remeber Atzmon using this terminology....
NB: 3. The article then alludes to the Jews having an element of guilt for the holocaust. In fact, it goes a step further to state that Israelis are in deep denial of this and this will lead to their demise. It stops just short of accusing the Jews of being professional victims.
Alice: This is by far more interesting reading than Greenstein’s interpretation . Let’s avoid talking about Jews because Atzmon himself doesn’t, your obsession with the Shoa must be realised as a deep affection with your Holocaust narrative… The way you defend this very historical narrative should be realized in libidinal terms. I wouldn’t say that this reflect on all Jews. But it absolutely reflect on you. I wonder when is the last time you fought for the victims of our time, the Palestinians , the Iraqis and so on…
NB:That third point was enough for me to sign that article off as having a clearly racist agenda.
Alice: Sorry NB, you didn’t present a single racist reference in Atzmon’s
Text. You better try again.
NB: Just because he uses the legitimate pretext of Israeli atrocities as his context doesn't diminish the racism.
Alice: no brainer, in order to argue for racism, you better bring a racist reference in Atzmon’s ideology. That is the way it works amongst
NB: And just because he uses the platform of the people of Palestine and the Lebanon doesn't make it "all right". If I have to explain why Jews aren't responsible for the holocaust, then you have proved my point regarding institutional antisemitism within Indymedia.
Alice: It doesn’t work that way, first you have to convince a single ‘non jew’ that this is what Atzmon is saying. because clearly, it isn’t in his text.
Behazlach
Alice Levy (nothing to do with the Lord)
Homepage:
http://Indeed not much brain there
you may need a pro....
07.12.2007 21:55
1. Judging a man's worth by the colour of his skin is not racism.
2. Tarring all Jews with the same brush is not racism.
3. Denying there were gas chambers at Auschwitz is not holocaust denial.
4. Asserting that there are Jewish racial traits that are to blame for Israel's crimes is neither racism nor antisemitism.
5. Asserting that the Jews had some blame for the holocaust is not racism/antisemitism.
but tell us so we know, who mentions skin and colour? Atzmon? FTP? i don't think so
who is tarring all Jews with the same brush?
Who denys that there were gas Chambers?
Did atzmon ever mentioned racial traits? where? tell us all... just bring a single refernce to race...
Did Atzmon blame the Jews for the Holocaust? maybe, if you are as stupid as Greenstein and his clan?
alice Levy (nothing to do with the Lord)
Frau Daemlich
07.12.2007 22:22
1. The Christian Bible in it's most widely endorsed form comprises the "Teachings of Christ" and the Old Testament. Christianity as an institution has had a bipolar disorder of the two. You are going to tell me the OT was a book of forgiving? Oliver Cromwell must've have skipped that page. But even the teachings of Christ embraced the notions of inalienable Truth and Evil. Morality cannot exist without those opposing forces.
2. The choice of wording was mine. It is implied by the text. You don't have to be overt to state something. Do you think that my description based on Atzmon's writing of David as a warrior chief is inaccurate?
3. Atzmon does refer to the Jews in Europe. I have no obsession with the Shoah. I merely dislike holocaust deniers. The closest I have come to the Shoah is knowing two people who were born in camps and became orphaned there and knowing someone who was one of the liberators of Bergen Belsen. Do you not think the denial of mass murder is reprehensible?
4. To my knowledge I haven't a single Jewish cell in my body. I'm a white atheist with a level of affinity for aspects of paganism and a quasi agnostic view of the universe.
I have been on anti Israel actions. I'll declare that I do have 4 Jewish friends two are Israeli and non-religious and non-political one who is religious and non-political, and one who is both. None of them are Zionists. I also have Arab friends, again non-religious and non-political, also non-Zionists (yes, that's humour).
No Brainer
And, inevitably
07.12.2007 22:25
@%<
gehrig
I may need a prod, as I'm nodding off
07.12.2007 22:58
2. Do you not think that failing to distinguish between the Biblical Israelites, the European Jewry and the Israelis Atzmon is not tarring all?
3. The inference of Jewish racial traits is obvious from the context of David through the European Jews to Israel. Dragging the worlds Jew's into the charge of being violent and warlike or bringing things upon themselves. Does it get anymore generalised without a roll call?
4. The Goliath article seems to imply that the European Jews had some sort of capacity to prevent the holocaust, and obviously Zionism isn't being proposed. That constructively implies that they brought it upon themselves to some degree and quid pro quo some level of blame.
It was the only meaning I could scry in this piece of doggerel:
"Hitler was indeed defeated, Jews are now more than welcome in Germany and in Europe, yet, the Jewish state and the sons of Israel are at least as unpopular in the Middle East as their grandparents were in Europe just six decades ago. Seemingly, it is the personification of WW2 and the Holocaust that blinded the Israelis and their supporters from internalising the real meaning of the conditions and the events that led towards their destruction in the first place. Would the Zionists understand the real meaning of their Holocaust, the contemporary Israelite may be able to prevent the destruction that may be awaiting them in the future. "
No Brainer
Missed one
07.12.2007 23:04
No Brainer
Last note, for now
07.12.2007 23:25
"Jews are now more than welcome in Germany"
And perhaps get someone to translate the Antisemitic Crime section of this government report:
Which states "According to diverse social studies the percentage of people with latent antisemitic beliefs remains around 20%"
I'm sure you'll find similar ares of concern throughout Europe.
No Brainer
quoted
07.12.2007 23:28
Here's Nimmo's Holocaust denial being called out:
And here's Nimmo's Holocaust denial being waved away by, what do you know, freethepeeps:
Unsubstantiated my ass.
@%<
gehrig
gehrig really is a liar who isn't worth the space
08.12.2007 03:09
_____________________________________________________________
Quoting "Cass, Noel" :
> Re: Nimmo et al,
>
>
> Is the policy that posts from holocaust deniers should be left up if they do
> not mention holocaust denial? I suppose that open publishing principles say
> yes, but I'm uncomfortable.
>
> anarchoteapot
I don't think there is a policy, nor is it clear that Nimmo is a holocaust
denier - here are some quotes from his website:
"In other words, Weiner is calling for an act of genocide that would best
Mao's"Great Leap Forward" into mass murder (49,000,000),
Stalin's various famines and purges (13,000,000), Adolf Hitler's
Nazi killing spree (12,000,000), and Pol Pot's "Year Zero"
(1,700,000), to list the most infamous."
"Strauss is all about Nietzschean relativism (the Nazis liked this about
Nietzsche too - made it easier to kill millions of people) and Hegelian
historicism"
"It is, to say the least, interesting the founder of an influential
"conservation" organization was active in the German SS, notorious
for wearing the Totenkopf, or skull and crossbones death's head, and
sending not only Jews, but Romani, Social Democrats, socialists, communists,
homosexuals, "deviant artists"and scads of others to
concentration and death camps. Moreover, the Nazis were big into eugenics
programs, in particular the Aktion T-4 program, "which authorized
specific doctors and officials to carry out mercy deaths-euthanasia-of those
the state deemed unworthy of life" physicians at hospitals and
psychiatric institutions throughout Germany identified and recommended
candidates for euthanasia according to the Kennedy Institute of Ethics
at Georgetown University."
"If we are to believe Ron Suskind, billed as a “Bush antagonist,”
al-CIA-duh terrorists “came within 45 days of attacking the New York
subway system with a lethal gas similar to that used in Nazi death camps. ...
Ah, yes, “al-Qaeda” operatives, acting like Nazi butchers, making
sure to use Zyklon B on innocent commuters. It makes your hair stand on end."
"In fact, it was only 70 years ago the German people embraced fascism and there
was very little kicking and screaming, save by those carted off into the night
to the torture chambers and death camps by the Gestapo."
A holocaust denier who says that Hitler killed 12 million, and that there were
death camps and eugenics programmes and who denies being a holocaust denier?
What kind of holocaust denier is that?
It is worth noting where this accusation first came from - Nimmo posted
Chronwatch by Steve Plaut:
"Well, David Irving is going to prison. He was convicted in Austria of being a
Holocaust Denier, which is a crime in Austria. All very well, but why is ONLY
David Irving going to prison? Why is not DePaul "University's" Norman
Finkelstein going to Austrian prison, or DePaul's President Dennis
Holtschneider for the crime of employing Finkelstein and defending his
"scholarship"? The Anti-Defamation League has declared him to be a Holocaust
denier. How about Northwestern University's Arthur Butz? How about Jeff Rense,
who runs the Holocaust Denial web site Rense.com, and his assorted nazi
columnists? How about the University of Ottawa's Michel Chossudovsky? And then
there is the unemployed skinhead and Holocaust Denier, Kurt Nimmo, or the potty
poet from New Mexico, as we affectionately like to refer to him. Nimmo's
reaction to the conviction of Irving on his little personal web site?"
In an article in Tikkun magazine, Israeli political geographer David Newman
alleges that "Writing under assumed names, Plaut has a long history of
attacking, labeling, and targeting left-wing scholars in Israel. One anonymous
article appeared under the name of Socrates in the MiddleEast Review of 2001".
Newman went on to argue that right-wing "forces of McCarthyism are at work in
their attempt to silence alternative opinions" within the Israeli academia
Mobius at orthodox anarchist isn't very keen on him either:
As Leah Harris notes:
"Palestinians speaking against the Israeli occupation can easily be dismissed by
the Martin Kramers and the Daniel Pipes' of this world as Muslim fanatics (even
if they are Christian). Average Americans or Europeans speaking critically
about the occupation can be denounced as garden-variety anti-Semites. American
Jews speaking about the conflict from an anti-occupation perspective can be
labeled as self-hating. Even someone like Norman Finkelstein, the son of two
Holocaust survivors, can be maligned as a "Holocaust denier" and a "Holocaust
revisionist" for speaking from an anti-occupation perspective. Finally, all
people who denounce the Israeli occupation are accused of supporting terrorism.
According to this twisted logic, if you oppose Israeli state terrorism, then
you of course support other forms of terrorism.
Among the pro-occupation right, the focus is not on defending a morally and
legally indefensible pro-occupation perspective, but on discrediting and
silencing those who oppose the occupation. It's about whipping up deeply-rooted
Jewish fears about anti-Semitism and American fears of Middle Eastern
terrorism. In short, it's about creating a climate of hysteria instead of
conducting rational, informed debate."
And oh my, it seems to work ever so well.
For a while there have been calls for a network meeting so that these issues can
be discussed - no sign of it happening so far, but clearly the need is as great
as ever.
best
ftp
__________________________________________________________
So, this post gehrig apparently didn't notice.
Nor did he apparently notice this one:
________________________________________________________________
I've done a little reading around the subject - thanks ftp for finding
all the quotes you did.
Of the two blog posts referred to by Nim Chimpsky
Contains nothing remotely near holocaust denial. It criticises another
blogger who rejoices in David Irving being convicted.
Again about the conviction of David Irving, saying that it will be
celebrated by Zionists, and comparing David Irving's treatment with the
treatment of those publishing cartoons of the prophet mohammed. Nothing
to sustain charges of Holocaust Denial apart from part of one sentence
"... with Auschwitz and its discredited gas chambers."
So this word (discredited) is the root of the charge. On the wikipedia
talk page -
debate about it. The explanation (seemingly by Kurt Nimmo) is
"There are not "numerous" references to "Holocaust denial" in my
writings, so this linkage will not be possible. In a blog post
(February 20th 2006), in regard to the conviction of David
Irving, I wrote that the gas chambers were "discredited." If you
bother to use a dictionary, you will notice that "discredited"
is defined as "cause to be doubted." Indeed, this is the case
with at least one historian, Franciszek Piper, a Polish scholar,
historian, author, and former chair of the Historical Department
at the Auschwitz State Museum (indeed, museum director) and is
currently associated with the Państwowe Muzeum,
Auschwitz-Birkenau, so I imagine that gives him a bit of
credence. It should come as no surprise that people argue about
historical facts surrounding the Holocaust and indeed the
history of the Second World War. But for those intolerant of
discussion, those who dispute the historical record, even in
minor fashion, are "Holocaust deniers" and "anti-Semites." I
suppose, as well, Lech Walesa is a "Holocasut denier," as he
revised number of dead inscribed on the Birkenau monument
downward from 4,000,000 to 1,500,000. I see no mention of this
in his Wikipedia entry or accusations that he is a "Holoacust
denier." But then, far as I can ascertain, he is not a critic of
Zionism, so obviously he does not deserve the same treatment. As
for the publication of my blog entries on other sites, related
to the Holocaust or otherwise, Shrike should realize reposts
happen continually, without my permission, so I have no control
over where my writing appears. For the record, I do not submit
my writing ANYWHERE, although anybody is free to repost it."
In the absence of other evidence pointing to him being a holocaust
denier, and particularly with the many quotes that ftp found on the blog
referring to the holocaust and mass murder by the Nazis, I think it
would be unfair to say that Kurt Nimmo is a holocaust denier.
>From the two blog posts above I do not see that Nummo "clearly endorses
Irving and his denial thesis." Objecting to a conviction is not
endorsing the actions that Irving was convicted for. He does appear to
say that he believes that the standard history of the holocaust is a
little inaccurate, but he states in many other places that the nazis
murdered many millions of people including Jews.
mish
__________________________________________________________
nor apparently did the obnoxious piece of trolling trash notice this one:
_____________________________________________________________
Hello all
Will add my take on this - as far as i can read
this is a case of someone being hounded for
daring to mention the words David Irving -
although we all hate what he stands for - this
blog seems to be making the point that he has the
right to say it. So not denial but odd bed
fellows.
I haven't been able to follow what comments were
made by whom to who on our site - but i do trust
our admins are on the ball and know how this is
playing out on the site.
Nim C seems only to attack anyone who goes near
this subject which is not healthy - I know we
probably don't get all the things hidden straight
away as we would like but there are 10,000 of
comments to read but we are on the right track
and are not the kind of site he insinuates.
cheers tony
___________________________________________________________
Likewise, the zionist liar pretends that he doesn't know that wikipedia DELETED the Kurt Nimmo page altogether after keyboard warriors of the same mindset and integrity as gehrig kept defaming Nimmo.
google for yourselves how many times gehrig spread the rumour himself.
All the highly unpleasant piece of trolling trash does is spread lies, smears and untruths.
I have no need to engage further with such a liar.
ftp
No Brainer
08.12.2007 04:04
"Jews are now more than welcome in Germany"
Apparently Germany now has"the fastest growing Jewish community in the world"
If you can tell me how a state can accurately measure "latent anti-semitism" I'll be fascinated. And I'll also know you're bullshitting.
You imagine that Atzmon "suggest that there is a racial trait in Jews right through to Israel to arrange their society around killing foes."
Race is a dodgy enough concept as it is, without trying to suggest such traits as being racial. You want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to do better than this. The way we organise our societies is to do with the processes of socialisation, education, religion and propaganda more than anything else. Nowhere have I seen Atzmon suggest any differently.
On the one hand you say this:
"1. Judging a man's worth by the colour of his skin is not racism."
and then you offer us this:
"I'm a white atheist with a level of affinity for aspects of paganism and a quasi agnostic view of the universe."
Well, the fact is that I didn't measure the worth of anyone by the colour of their skin, I did say that it is down to Palestinians to determine what is right for their struggle, and that it is our job as supporters to follow their lead. Tony Greenstein clearly is not a Palestinian, despite the fact that he thinks he can demand and insist that the Palestinians do what suits him, and then turn around and call their political decision "politically backwards". Can you see why more than a few Palestinians might find that very offensive.When I was in Palestine, Internationals worked on the basis that we were there to follow a Palestinian lead, not to tell the Palestinians how they should act, or behave. You presumably would just assert that your voice was the same as a Palestinians?
Why is the colour of your skin suddenly relevant?
Did anyone ask you to bring it into the equation - does it make any difference at all, as long as you're not presuming the right to dictate the terms of an oppressed peoples struggle?
Whatever, or whoever you are, you're far to keen to condemn, smear and judge, and the way you read that text suggests to me that you have something of a pre-exisiting agenda. I think you're being less than honest about it.
You and gehrig are doing a great double act, and there is no doubt in my mind what his agenda is, and how much he relies on lies, smears, and less than half truths.
Hating people merely for the fact that they are born is clearly stupid, irrational and wrong. Thats my belief, and it is also my belief that Atzmon shares the same view.
This is supposed to be a radical site, with values of transparency, inclusiveness, honesty and openess.
And yet all too often people respond with kneejerk reactions, rather than informed decisions.
If you think that the kneejerk is the only way to behave, then I don't agree with you, or have any desire to be like you.
Or to waste my time arguing with you.
ftp
FTP
08.12.2007 09:32
If you think I'm making it up, go knock on the door of any criminologist or any social researcher for that matter and ask how these things are measured, you'll get a similar response.
But hey, just accuse me of making it up, and it'll go away.
What is less 'woolly' is the section on reported crime. If you read the report it even mentions NeoNazis making overtures to unite with Islamic extremists on the subject of the Jews and the holocaust.
"Fastest growing" compared to what, grass outruns a glacier. And why would the one statistic cancel the other? The answer is, it doesn't unless one has a factor that proves the other is false, which thus far you haven't presented. You'll note the statistic is 20%, which represents a clear problem and not a vast majority. The 80% are obviously not a problem. the 20% are the 100% of the problem.
Should we try and get some Germans involved in this debate?
I referred to myself as "white" since someone insinuated bias based on my probable Middle Eastern Jewish descent. There is little in doubt about me being from Northern Europe. Do you have a problem with people calling themselves white? It would be fair enough if I actually suggested that my being white is a matter of superiority rather than inconsequence. The statement was designed to negate the poster's backhanded racism.
Try persuading a racist that skin colour doesn't matter without referring to skin colour.
So what now, I'm not supposed to defend my friends from racial stereotypes because I'm "white"?
Yeah, I have a pre-existing agenda that I brought to the text. I dislike racism. What was that you were saying about smearing.
And I think you know deep down that this place is posting dodgy material but convince yourself that it's the right thing to do for the Palestinians, "they need help more than the Jews". But you fail to notice that no one here has asked for this place to stop publishing material critical of Israel, just the plainly racist stuff.
That you cannot spot the difference between criticism of Israel and genearlising against Jews is telling. The Latuff cartoon is a prime example. It uses the holocaust and antisemitism to get at Israel. Would you think it justified if I called Mugabe "a stupid nigger"? Or called Angela Merkel "Die Fuehrerin"?
But you failed to see how that cartoon failed to concentrate on the legitimate target and just went off like a sawn-off shotgun at Jews in general.
And as mentioned above you failed to see how describing the Auschwitz gas chambers as "discredited" constitutes holocaust denial.
And you have the audacity to tell me I'm seeing things.
You've got your evil Jew stereotypes to cling to and you are damn sure that nobody is going to take them away from you.
I hope some day you realise this mistake and regret it and progress. But doubt it will happen.
Well, this is my last post here ever. I've tried to reason with racists before, it has never ever worked. It has always been a series of denial, excuse and deflection. Racism a grubby, stinking security blanket for sad or desperate people. I doubt you are that desperate.
No Brainer
No Brains
08.12.2007 10:16
1. No Brainer: FTP says clearly in another recent thread that Greenstein should not be criticising Palestinian's voting decisions because he is "white". His words not mine.
Well, in fact FTP makes a very good point...Greenstein isn't a Palestinian, is he? If we follow your lead and use racial terms, Greenstein would be a "white Kazharian" with no connection to that land or its people, so why is he claiming the right to denigrate and insult the democratic decision of the oppressed Palestinians?
2. No Brainer: Do you not think that failing to distinguish between the Biblical Israelites, the European Jewry and the Israelis Atzmon is not tarring all?
Er.... do some reading on the subject this weekend, N.B., and you'll discover that the Israelis regard themselves as the followers of their Biblical ancestors. This is why they speak Hebrew and give themselves Hebraic (Biblical) names such as Gilad, Elad, and Yarden, rather than Moishe, Chaim and Yanka’le, names favoured by diaspora jews. Atzmon, an ex-Israeli, seems to be the first to discuss the differences between Diaspora Jews, Israelites and the Israelis. Read some of his latest papers at
3. No Brainer:The inference of Jewish racial traits is obvious from the context of David through the European Jews to Israel.
Obvious to who, you? You admit it's not more than an ‘inference’ (on your part), and you cannot support it with a reference instead, but you ask us to follow your lead!!!. No Brainer, you are pathetic. I've been searching Atzmon's writings to find just one single reference to 'racial traits', and I haven't come up with anything so far. Please prove me wrong. Atzmon is dealing with identity politics, and is the first to argue that Jews are not a race. Listen to his latest interview on Indy...
4. No Brainer: The Goliath article seems to imply that the European Jews had some sort of capacity to prevent the holocaust, and obviously Zionism isn't being proposed. That constructively implies that they brought it upon themselves to some degree and quid pro quo some level of blame.
Now you use "seems to imply’" and in fact the text doesn’t imply what you say. It says in plain English: “Would the Zionists understand the real meaning of their Holocaust, the contemporary Israelite may be able to prevent the destruction that may be awaiting them in the future”. Please stop wasting our time and read more carefully before you feel tempted to imply. Rather than justifying the holocaust, it suggests there is a way to prevent another one.
No Brains, it's pretty obvious that Atzmon manages to annoy you terribly, so please explain why it is that you fail to nail him down? It sure isn't for want of trying. If I may share a secret with you, Atzmon is trained academically as a philosopher in the German tradition, and he has post-graduate qualifications. It would take real scholarship to crack his arguments, and clearly you, Gehrig, Greenstein et al have a very long way to go. Why don't you begin by reading properly, attempting to gain some understanding of the texts you quote, and then take it from there. High school stuff.
Edna
e-mail:
Edna@gmail.com
Censorship
08.12.2007 11:33
And you wonder why people are so critical of Indymedia right now.
Other amins need to stand up and be counted on this issue, real damage has been done to the Indymedia reputation over this issue and putting your collective heads in the sand and hoping it will go away is not the way to deal with it.
Mike
and now, the whole story
08.12.2007 14:40
@%<
gehrig
Same process here
08.12.2007 14:59
I presumed the other admins were just avoiding having to deal with the issue but it seems they act together when one of their number is caught out. I an intrigued to know how anybody becomes an admin, does anybody know when the elections are held and what safeguards there are for the voting process ?
Mike
Same process here
08.12.2007 14:59
I presumed the other admins were just avoiding having to deal with the issue but it seems they act together when one of their number is caught out. I an intrigued to know how anybody becomes an admin, does anybody know when the elections are held and what safeguards there are for the voting process ?
Mike
Editorial guidelines
08.12.2007 15:07
The guidelines explain what to do if you have issues about moderation on Indymedia UK.
IMCista
Banned?
08.12.2007 17:18
-Steve
No body as far as I am aware has mentioned banning them, banning implies using the state to proscribe them.
You mention free speech, I guess in part I agree, If Griffin or his cohorts want to speak then they can try, I feel however than anyone spouting racist shit should not be afforded the protection of the police or state, and feel people who live in the community/city/country affected directly or indirectly by it should also have the right to stop it. For example, if the BNP wanted to March or leaflet in the community I live in, I would oppose this physically if need be, and I know the majority of the community would be doing the same. Also on free speech you say that university students are clever enough to work out and debate against someone like griffin, therefore he should be allowed to speak. O.K, so where do you draw the line with this? can he speak in schools too? if you think not, then how about colleges? 16 year olds? or would you want to censor fascism in schools, and maybe colleges, but older or brighter people can hear it? Does this mean that all Fascists are thick? wrong, hate to say it but griffin is a clever guy, an asshole, but a clever ass hole.
Anyways let me know if you want griffin to be able to talk in schools, coz if you don't where does your idea of free speech fit with that?
No Platform anywhere
antifa
as expected
08.12.2007 17:53
Someone very much doesn't want you to know what's going on at UK Indymedia.
I mean, just look at how many posts have been removed from this thread -- more than eighty percent of it.
Why?
What is it that someone wants hidden so badly?
@%<
gehrig
discussion has moved
08.12.2007 23:30
The discussion continues at
Freethepeeps has assured me that this notice will not be hidden.
@%<
gehrig
and
08.12.2007 23:47
So much for the merit of word of freethepeeps.
@%<
gehrig
Reporter is a fascist
09.12.2007 19:34
This so-called 'reporter' condemns fascism for destroying free-speech and then outlines her solution to this which is - you've guessed it - curbing free-speech. In other words this reporter is fascist.
Ditto the Dr James Watson speech at the Science Museum, which was cancelled by more high-brow liberal thugs and luddites. Science cannot progress if certain topics and debates are proscribed and outlawed. If Watson was wrong, he could have been humiliated and laughed out of the building. However, banning the debate means that he is probably right and the establishment has something to hide.
Democracy is not about being able to vote only for parties that New Labour approves of. Free-speech is not simply listening to debates that New Labour approves of. That, is a fascist dictatorship, and that is what we appear to have at present.
Rod Elliot
rod elliot
e-mail:
rodd.elliot@virgin.net
fascist eh
10.12.2007 10:09
-
The SWP is not facist
10.12.2007 13:21
"Most activists on Indymedia would actually think the Socialist Workers' Party is pretty restrictive, top down, anti-democratic - but not fascist. "
I would agree, the SWP is many things but it is not facist. It does however contain individuals who despite playing lip service to the concept of anti racism are prepared to ignore anti Jewish racism when it is pitched as being anti Zionist. This is exactly the problem now being faced by Indymedia, one admin simply can not or will not recognise racist writing because it comes from an individual who is critical of Israeli government policies.
Racism is like cancer, it breeds and speads and must be cut out as soon as it is found.
Mike
Tony Greenstein in 3 Easy Steps
27.02.2008 02:44
xyz
Utterly deplorable!
27.02.2008 11:22
Here Derek Wall,the Principal Male Speaker of the Green Party of England and Wales, publishes this comment (#3), and leaves it up!
"Among those who have experienced the vehemence of Greenstein's wrath, there are Jewish students that have been bullied and beaten
Jews Against Free Speech
We support Tony Greenstein all the way!
27.02.2008 12:00
English Jews for Zion
e-mail:
ejfz
Has Tony Greenstein found Jesus?
28.02.2008 03:41
Last comments (#106 and #107) at
xyz
Hide 60 hidden comments or hide all comments