Gilad Atzmon: "I am happy i circulated" Holocaust denial propaganda

Gilad Atzmon has distributed -- and defended in general terms -- an essay by Paul Eisen designed to promote Holocaust denial. The Eisen essay, titled "Holocaust Wars," claims among other things that the gas chambers of Auschwitz are fraudulent and couldn't work. It "backs up" this claim using the same lies used by the leading lights (such as they are) of the Holocaust denial movement -- people like David Irving, the self-described "Hitler-lover" Ernst Zündel, and the faux engineer Fred Leuchter.

When you defend Paul Eisen's essay, you're defending the very same lies promulgated by the "Hitler-lover" Zündel, his flunky Leuchter, and his admirer David Irving. Yet this is what Gilad Atzmon does.

Now, if you think I'm exaggerating by calling Paul Eisen's essay "Holocaust denial propaganda," you might want to skip to the last section of the post, in which I document exactly that. For now, it suffices to say that Eisen has said "... the evidence for the use of homicidal gas-chambers [at Auschwitz] is not good at all. The evidence against it is much, much stronger."

And the following paragraph from the essay Atzmon circulated gives little room for doubt on where Eisen stands:

"Many will take the view that Holocaust revisionism [the boilerplate euphemism for the Holocaust denial movement] is but pernicious nonsense motivated only by a hatred of Jews and a desire to rehabilitate Hitler and National Socialism specifically, and fascism in general, and therefore not even worthy of scrutiny. I don't agree, and those with sufficient curiosity to wish to research the subject can visit the website of the premier Revisionist think tank, the [fascist-founded, though Eisen doesn't mention that] Institute for Historical Review, locate the Journal of Historical Review and its archive of articles and papers and start reading."

I'll describe the "Institute for Historical Review" in a little more detail below. You can find the Eisen essay itself, the one Gilad Atzmon thought was so brilliant, by googling "Eisen 'Holocaust wars'"; you'll pull it up on a number of "Poor Hitler was misunderstood" sites like Ernst Zündel's.

What was Gilad Atzmon's reaction recently when he was challenged over having distributed a stack of standard-issue Holocaust denier lies? "I am happy i circulated Eisen and he is indeed a friend of mine."

Is Atzmon an open Holocaust denier, as Tony Greenstein claims? Not quite; he's got too much to lose to go around saying openly what Eisen does. But Atzmon clearly has no serious problem with circulating pro-denial essays or praising Holocaust deniers, as shown by his decision to distribute Eisen's essay, a decision he's "happy" about. And when challenged about the propriety of spreading the lies of Nazi apologists, Atzmon resorts to the same line of patter I describe in the next section.

-- Some notes on the Holocaust denial movement.

One of the favorite lines of patter of the Holocaust denial movement is that nothing should be taboo when it comes to studying history. They're right -- or at least they're right if by "studying" you mean studying, not "making up lies about." Unfortunately, they mean the latter.

It helps to remember some facts about the Holocaust denial movement.

And the first thing to notice is that the Holocaust denial movement is and has been for thirty years a product of the racist right, the brownshirt right. Ernst Zündel -- the guy who paid for the Leuchter report I'll discuss below -- let us know exactly where he stands politically when he wrote the book, "The Hitler We Loved and Why."

The Holocaust denial movement in America was also a product of the racist right; the "Institute for Historical Review" -- for decades the leading Holocaust denial organization in the US -- was funded by Willis Carto, a former Bircher who led it for more than a decade.

And, of course, David Irving -- well, nobody's about to argue that *he's* in any way a political progressive, right? His racism was completely exposed in the Lipstadt trial, but so was his tendency to speak to neo-Nazi organizations.

Like any crackpot organization, Holocaust deniers have two core ideas. One is that the Holocaust was vastly exaggerated by the greedy Jews. The second -- common ground for all crackpot organizations -- is that they are being censored and persecuted for their ground-breaking views. (Name a crackpot who doesn't claim he's being persecuted for his ideas. It's part of the syndrome.)

When legitimate historians refuse to debate Holocaust deniers -- for exactly the same reason that legitimate astronomers don't debate flat-earthers -- Holocaust deniers do the "nothing should be taboo in historical study" dance. Which sounds pretty good, if you've removed it from context.

The context, though, is this: the Holocaust *has* been very widely studied and will continue to be very widely studied. And from the very beginning these studies have shown that Holocaust deniers are full of shit. (I'll give a specific example below.)

They're like -- although considerably nastier than -- the "intelligent design" folks, who start from an absolutist religious position but try to dress it up as if it were a scientific position. Scientists see right through "intelligent design," just like historians see right through Holocaust denial, which is antisemitism trying to pass for historical inquiry. The Holocaust denial movement starts from the stance, "the brownshirts weren't as bad as they say, and The Jews are lying," and then tries, through pseudo-scholarship, to make that seem like it might be a legitimate historical stance, rather than an expression of basic antisemitism.

-- a note on law

A key difference, of course, is that spreading Intelligent Design isn't illegal, while several countries have included Holocaust denial as part of their laws against hate speech. These countries -- all but two, last time I checked, either having been part of the Reich or having been occupied by the Reich -- aren't wrong to consider Holocaust denial a form of hate speech. I think these are bad laws, not because they somehow mischaracterize Holocaust denial (they don't), but because I don't think there should be laws against hate speech as such, except when that speech is used to incite to violence.

Of course, Holocaust deniers -- and their defenders -- natter on about "thought police throwing people into prison" and such, never mentioning that Holocaust denial is only one of many forms of hate speech such laws prohibit.

Having said that, let me repeat that I don't agree with such laws. I think the best way to confront Holocaust denial is simply to show how ridiculous its claims are, when unwrapped from their lies and rhetorical flourishes.

But let's be clear: if you start saying things like "why is investigating the Holocaust taboo" you have bought into the Holocaust denier frame, which is wrong for two reasons. One is that investigating the Holocaust is not taboo; the second is what Holocaust deniers are doing isn't "investigating" but lying.

-- the repackaging of Holocaust denial for leftist consumption

And let's be clear about something else: there are some folks on the left starting to repackage classic, by-the-book Holocaust denial in "anti-Zionist" garb, hoping to spread it over here. Paul Eisen is one, and Gilad Atzmon is self-admittedly "happy" to help him do it. In the new version, tailored for the left, the culprit is not the Jews -- heaven forfend, no! -- but "the Zionists." Same lies, same reliance on Zündel and Leuchter and Faurisson and Irving and the rest of that jackboot lot, new false "anti-Zionist" moustache.

There was an interesting example of this in the US just a few years ago. The nation's oldest regular publication, a progressive magazine called The Nation, ran an ad for a book by Roger Garaudy called "The Founding Myths of Modern Israel." The ad ran for one issue only before it was discovered to be a work of Holocaust denial and pulled. The placing of the ad was a clear and conscious decision by Holocaust deniers to repackage their lies for the left by making the villains not the Jews but "the Zionists" -- even though the ad was placed by the same "Institute for Historical Review" I mentioned above, a group just as happy to blame the Jews.

This -- the antisemitic pile of lies called Holocaust denial -- is what Eisen wants to bring to leftist discourse, and his friend Atzmon is happy to help. Anything that makes you hate "Zionists" is fair game, apparently, even when it's repackaged Nazoid horseshit like Holocaust denial. They're hoping you'll be useful idiots.

But you can't be a useful idiot if you're not an idiot, and the best way not to be an idiot is to educate yourself. So let's take a look at the real sources of Paul Eisen's Holocaust denial.

-- Paul Eisen's essay

Let me start out by saying that I've been following the Holocaust denial movement for over a decade, and that related to the David Irving trial I've probably read, all told, somewhere around three thousand pages of reports, submissions, transcripts, etc. I'm not going to footnote every last thing I write in this section, but be assured that I can, and feel free to ask me for details about the source(s) of any particular fact. I am *so* not making this up.

Here is an example of what Eisen wrote and Gilad Atzmon was so "happy" to have distributed:

"Nothing seems to fit about the gassing story. The numbers of victims crammed into the space, the design and construction of the gassing facilities, the lack of protection for the attendants, the implausibility surrounding the rate of cremation, the huge errors, omissions and disparities in eye-witness accounts -- all these and more, when added to the near total absence of hard affirmative evidence, makes one wonder why anyone believed such a story in the first place..."

Let's just take the very first issue, "the numbers of victims crammed into the space." If you followed the Irving trial in any detail, you already know that this is one of the standard gambits of the Holocaust deniers, and has been for decades. Goes like this: "There simply wasn't enough capacity in the supposed gas chambers of Auschwitz to hold all the Jews who were allegedly murdered there, not even enough room to cram them all in."

Where does this claim come from? It comes from a guy named Fred Leuchter, the twit Ernst "The Hitler We Loved" Zündel paid $35,000 dollars to in the 1980s to produce a bogus "scientific" refutation of the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Zündel wanted to prove in Canadian court that the Holocaust didn't happen, and he thought that throwing down a bullshit "engineering report" about the gas chambers would help his case. It didn't. But that document, the "Leuchter Report," has the grim historical hallmark of having been the work that made David Irving decide to become a Holocaust denier himself; Irving published it in the UK under his own imprint and repeatedly referred to it in his talks as an irrefutable blow to the Auschwitz "myth."

I'm not going to link to the Leuchter report; you can find it at your nearest swastika-kissing site. A detailed demolition of the Leuchter report can be found here: This is a chapter of the expert report submitted by Auschwitz historian Robert Jan van Pelt as part of the Irving v. Lipstadt trial, and it chops the Leuchter Report into bits.

Well, say what you want about whether or not Leuchter is an antisemite, but he's certainly an idiot, and his "Report" is full of appalling idiocies, many of which have been taken up by Paul Eisen and spread, in turn, by Gilad Atzmon. Leuchter made his calculation of the gas chamber capacity at Auschwitz and concluded that there just wasn't enough. His calculation is, as van Pelt shows, full of all sorts of stupid assumptions and errors -- Leuchter vastly overestimated fatal HCN concentration levels, he ignored the presense of a ventilation system Leuchter didn't notice, vastly overestimated the minimum possible time between gassings, etc., etc.

But maybe the single dumbest factor of Leuchter's calculation is this: he assumes that -- despite eyewitness accounts of how packed the "showers" were -- that each person, required *nine* square feet of standing room within the gas chamber, man, woman, or child.

Why such a ridiculously large figure? Because he wasn't trying to get at the facts; he wasn't "studying" the chambers; he was instead trying to force his numbers to fit his pre-ordained conclusion, as bought and paid for by Ernst "The Hitler We Loved and Why" Zündel.

So he lied. And Ernst Zündel picked up that lie ("not enough floor space") and ran with it. Why not? He paid for it. And then David Irving picked it up as well, when he started selling copies of the Leuchter report in the UK. And the lie wound its way through the Holocaust denial movement as a standard part of the "gas chambers wouldn't work" saga. And it is as part of that saga that the Holocaust denier Paul Eisen picked it up -- without mentioning its source -- and put it into his love letter to Ernst Zündel, the very same "Holocaust Wars" essay Gilad Atzmon was so "happy" he circulated for his "good friend."


Hoo Boy

Hey gehrig, I know that Indymedia uk get unhappy about these threads, so its great that UC IMC are willing to share the burden.

To start at the beginning:

You say:

"Gilad Atzmon has distributed -- and defended in general terms -- an essay by Paul Eisen designed to promote Holocaust denial."

Setting aside the fact that that isn't what Eisen says the essay was intended to do (and what would he know, he only wrote it), can you clarify to whom Atzmon distributed it, and what comment he passed at the time that he did so? Also, when you say that Atzmon has 'defended in general terms' - what exactly were those terms?

It seems that you forgot to clarify these matters, and that you then write mainly about things other than Atzmon. As you are part of the lynch mob, and bearing in mind that you call someone who says that that there were 12 000 000 victims of Nazism, and that Jews were gassed in death camps on the direct orders of Hitler, a Holocaust denier, it is necessary to be somewhat cautious about accepting your claims.

It also seems that you have read Eisen's essay, and it hasn't turned you into a steaming Nazi, so what is all the fuss about? Are you the only person capable of reading and making up your own mind?

Explain it to me please.

I've been reading all over the web that you think I have a Holocaust denial problem.

I think we should talk about it in a courteous way as fellow IMCistas. See if we can find a way of stopping these interminable threads from going on and making other IMCistas unhappy.

Over to you.........


peeps dint see nuffin

The problem you have with Holocaust denial, peeps, is that you can't even spot it in such direct and obvious places as Paul Eisen's essay. You're being played for a fool, and you can't be bothered to educate yourself enough about the Holocaust denial movement to let them stop diddling you.

I gave you a clear example of a lie with Nazi-apologist origins -- the bit about "not enough floor space in the gas chambers" -- and showed you exactly which Nazi apologist ("The Hitler We Loved and Why") Zündel paid which pseudo-scientific "expert" (Steady Freddy Leuchter) to gird that lie in bogus numbers, how Leuchter's document in turn was the single thing David Freaking Irving cited as having caused him to become -- as Irving and Eisen and Atzmon euphemize it -- "a Holocaust revisionist," and what do you know, that very same lie, front and center in Eisen's essay -- the very same essay in which he praises Leuchter and Zündel!

And what's your reaction? "I dint see nuffin."

ftp: "Are you the only person capable of reading and making up your own mind?"

So why not put your backbone where your mouth is, peeps -- post the Eisen essay to Indymedia UK and see how your fellow IMCistas react. Your hero Atzmon would love it if you did. You'd be your hero's hero. Go for it. Or wimp out.

ftp: "As you are part of the lynch mob ... I think we should talk about it in a courteous way as fellow IMCistas. "

No contradiction there. Have another pint, peeps.


Erm gehrig

I'm sure that another pint of coffee won't make the slightest bit of difference. However, as you seem unable to remember the beginning of a post, I'll stick to that.

The question was this - your article purports to be about Atzmon. It starts with a claim that he distributed -- and defended in general terms -- an essay. I'm asking you to give us some context, and to explain what exactly "in general terms" means.

peeps dint see nuffin again

Oh, for fuck sake, peeps, don't play stupid. You saw everything you asked for quoted again and again in Tony Greenstein's stuff, so don't give me that "Is a circle is really round, and how do we know?" pseudo-Socratic bullshit. Unless, of course, you dint see nuffin again.

Now -- Eisen quoting neo-Nazi lies, and your boy Atzmon passing them along "happily" to his mailing list -- you have no problem with that, of course?


You still haven't answered the question Mr. Gehrig

You've been making a big song and dance about this.

Now, you are threatening to keep running a campaign on Indymedia UK till I see things your way.

Your whole article is built on the fact that Atzmon distributed the article, and defended it in general terms.

So, now we need the context. To whom did he distribute it? What did he say when he distributed it? And what are the "general terms" in which he defended it?

Your claim is that:

"When you defend Paul Eisen's essay, you're defending the very same lies promulgated by the "Hitler-lover" Zündel, his flunky Leuchter, and his admirer David Irving. Yet this is what Gilad Atzmon does."

So, it isn't an unreasonable question to ask. After all, its central to your article.

You are gehrig, not Greenstein

I want you to explain your article.

Greenstein hasn't told us who was on the mailing, how they got there, or what comment Atzmon passed when he distributed the article.

You now have the opportunity to explain it all, so that we can finally put it in context.....

nor the phase of the moon

ftp: "Greenstein hasn't told us who was on the mailing, how they got there, or what comment Atzmon passed when he distributed the article."

Nor has he told us what color shirt Atzmon was wearing at the time he posted the Holocaust denial propaganda to his list, nor what he had had for breakfast that morning, nor the phase of the moon at the time. Why? Because not a one of those things changes the content of the Holocaust denial propaganda essay Atzmon distributed to his mailing list and then, just this month, said once again he was "happy" to have helped spread.

But I can sure understand why you're working so hard to change the subject away from that essay; your boy Atzmon really put his foot in it, distributing Holocaust denial propaganda, and you're trying to dig him out.

In the meantime, of course, there goes Atzmon spreading an essay with the very same antisemitic lies as Irving and Leuchter and Zündel, and there you go defending him for it.

Or is it maybe that Zündel isn't really an antisemite in Peepsworld? Is there actually finally a limit to how much antisemitism you'll defend? I haven't found it. Atzmon didn't trip your alarm, Nimmo didn't trip your alarm, Eisen didn't trip your alarm. Does Ernst Zündel trip your alarm, or do you just simply not have one?


ho hum

You still haven't answered the question.

You've distributed the text, you've several times called for me to post it on Indymedia. Greenstein has distributed the text to the entire readership of Comment is Free. He tells me that context is everything - so, as you've pinned a whole article on the fact of the distribution, it does seem necessary to investigate that further.

I've told you repeatedly that Greenstein is not reliable in reporting Atzmon, but he never wrote this article, you did.

You make all sorts of claims about Atzmon, and yet you can't answer basic questions about the central plank of your argument.......

In fact anyone reading will surely notice that it's you that keeps trying to change the subject.

I am still waiting for an answer.

How many people did Atzmon circulate the article to?
Who were they?
What did he say?
What exactly are the 'general terms' that Atzmon defended the article in?

The claim that needs justifying is this:

"When you defend Paul Eisen's essay, you're defending the very same lies promulgated by the "Hitler-lover" Zündel, his flunky Leuchter, and his admirer David Irving. Yet this is what Gilad Atzmon does."

If he does, then you should have no difficulty in demonstrating that.

peeps: playing stupid or just stupid?

ftp: "How do we know a circle is round?"

Are you claiming that Atzmon *didn't* distribute Eisen to his mailing list, or are you just being deliberately overdeliberative in order not to address the damning content of Eisen's essay, which in turn damns Atzmon for "happily" distributing it? Or are you instead claiming that, if I don't produce the email address of everyone Atzmon sent the Holocaust denial propaganda to, their middle names, and their mothers' favorite Beatle, then nothing else matters? You'd make a rotten attorney, peeps. The jury would laugh your ass out of the courtroom and three miles down the street.

And you've already seen Gilad's defense of the essay so many times you can't *possibly* pretend you haven't and still retain even your remaining scraps of credibility. Here it is again, Atzmon to Greenstein: "Mr Greenstine, True I circulated Paul Eisen's paper. I do believe that argumentative texts must be circulated as widely as possible. I am sure that in case you have a counter argument to suggest Paul will be delighted to address it. By the way, my take on the subject is slightly different than Paul's one and yet, i found Paul very attentive to my criticism. Furthermore, Let me assure you that if I ever see a great text written by yourself I ll be the first to circulate it. This is my way, that is what i believe in."

Now, a pop quiz. "My take is *slightly* different" means:

(a) "My take is, aside from slight differences, essentially the same."

(b) "My take is not *slightly* different but *completely* different, and I only said *slightly* to confuse those members of the International Zionist Conspiracy who live in my corn flakes box."

(c) "I'm freethepeeps, and words have no meaning whatsoever to me when it comes to defending my hero Atzmon, because when I see the name 'Atzmon' I get so starry-eyed & puppy-eyed & dreamy-eyed I can no longer even find the screen. Oh, sorry, were you saying something? I was off on cloud nine again."

Note how Atzmon euphemizes "overt Holocaust denial propaganda" as simply an "argumentative text." "Mein Kampf" is also an "argumentative text," and in this case bringing it up isn't even a violation of Godwin's Law, since in the end it is the author of "Mein Kampf" that Holocaust deniers are defending.

And Atzmon to Mary Rizzo just this month: "I am happy i circulated Eisen and he is indeed a friend of mine."

And as Atzmon's mailing list came up in some detail your hagiographic slurp-slurp-slurp interview with the antisemite himself last November, you can't pretend you don't know about it. Unless, of course, you're trying to be deliberatively overdeliberative, and your next question is going to be "how do we *know* we know that we know a circle is round?"

Now: Zündel's bought-and-paid-for lies go out through Atzmon's mailing list. You're fine with that?


speaking of ho-hum

You know what's just not working any more? Your "you stiiiiiill haven't answered question #342" bit. If I were so bored I made a list of questions you've left unanswered at various points of this debate, I'd wear my keyboard down to nubs.

So I'll stick with one. Leuchter's lies, paid for by Ernst "The Hitler We Loved and Why" Zündel, distributed "happily" by Gilad Atzmon to his mailing list. Good thing? Makes you as "happy" as it made Atzmon?


Mr. Gehrig

This is the latest letter you wrote to Indymedia united kollektives:

A simple question from David Gehrig

Gilad Atzmon has said he's "happy" he circulated Paul Eisen's Holocaust denial propaganda. Is it the stance of IMC-UK that

Eisen's essay wasn't really Holocaust denial propaganda, despite its open embrace of the very same lies David Irving lost his case over; or
Eisen's essay was Holocaust denial propaganda, and Atzmon gladly spread it, but it's somehow okay and a progressive thing for Atzmon to help the Holocaust denial movement despite its neo-Nazi origin and essentially antisemitic nature; or
It actually doesn't matter whether Gilad Atzmon spreads Holocaust denial propaganda or not, or is an antisemite or not, as long as someone can change the subject to how much he hates Tony Greenstein every time the issue comes up, and hide posts like this without alerting the imc-uk-features list.

Or is it the stance of IMC-UK that

This issue is larger than ftp versus Tony Greenstein versus Gilad Atzmon versus me, and comes down to this: does IMC-UK mean it when it says it is an anti-racist organization, or is an institutional exception to be made for antisemitism if it appears in certain officially approved pseudo-lefty guises, such as Atzmon's crusade against what he calls "Jewishness."

Its now the second time you've written to them, this time it appears to be an attack on the whole collective, as well as on me.

In light of this, I really think you have a responsibility to back up your claims - which focus on the 'fact' that Atzmon distributed a text.

Furthermore. you have indicated that you are campaigning against me, as you did against Nessie:

"Article: Why Palestinians Are Fleeing Apartheid Israel’s Gaza Concentration Camp? (390240) (Newswire) [ edit | All comments for this article ]
Wehrmacht Wendy rides again (188451) by: gehrig
What do you know, AZAS, Wendy Campbell keeps going further and further over the edge.

It took me an entire year to convince nessie on SF-IMC that Wendy was an antisemite posing as an "anti-Zionist" and should be banned, and nessie fought it with everything he had every step of the way -- until the day finally came that even *he* had to admit Wendy had serious Jew issues.

Kinda like what's happening with peeps and Gilad "have a little Holocaust denial" Atzmon ( One day peeps will see the light. And, like nessie, it will never occur to him to apologize for fighting it so long.

And ol' nessie might have been mad as a bag of starved snakes, but at least he recognized Holocaust denial when it was right in front of him, something I can't say is true of peeps.


Now, If I were to demand that a collective take action against a fellow IMCista, I would make damn sure that I was sure of my facts - we are after all about 'social justice - So, as the person bringing the charge, I am asking you to back up your claims - I am not the slightest bit interested in what colour shirt Atzmon was wearing, nor what he had for breakfast, as that is completely irrelevant. However, I am insistent that you substantiate your claims about me.

As I now know you have a very short memory, I will repeat the issues that need clarifying in the next post.

smiling ear to ear

I'm smiling ear to ear. Wish you could see it.

I laughed at your Atzmon interview -- well, lots of times, really, but in particular the part where you claim that I was somehow responsible for driving the whackdoodle nessie from the IMC movement. Collectives are collectives -- I don't make decisions for SF-IMC, they don't make decisions for UC-IMC. And I didn't so much "campaign" against nessie as offer him opportunity after opportunity to look like an idiot on the antisemitism issue, and he took a surprising percentage of those opportunities. I'd have much preferred he'd not have been an idiot, but if he's going to go for the brass ring of idiotude, I want to make sure people saw just how far he was willing to reach for it. And when nessie's site went down last year, I offered to host it here on our servers. He refused because, like Spammer Thornton, he thought I was a seeecret agent Mossad spy of some kind.

And I think you'll discover that I'm far from the only IMCista who concluded that nessie and his authoritarian ways -- "I am wisdom personified and if you are against me you are against the very concept of justice itself" sort of thing -- were a serious detriment to the IMC movement.

Like you, nessie had a paranoid streak so wide you could land a 767 on it. When I say, "one day peeps will see the light," I'm simply being Panglossian about human nature and the progress of knowledge. It was an optimistic wish for you. Funny that you take it as a "campaign against you."

When the facts are on the table, Eisen's essay is classic Holocaust denial with only the slightest alterations. I think that, if you learned enough about the Holocaust denial movement, you'd see that as clearly as so many around you do. Because, mad as a sack of snakes as nessie was, at least he knew Holocaust denial when he saw it, and didn't run interference for it.

And when the facts are on the table, Atzmon plainly knows he's toying with antisemitism, deliberately using classic antisemitic rhetoric with Groucho glasses, knowing that people like you would rush up say, "Why, that *can't* be classic antisemitic rhetoric -- it's wearing Groucho glasses!" That's a role you're serving nicely now, but -- Panglossian that I am -- I think you may eventually come to see things a little more clearly, and see how counterproductive Atzmon's antisemitism actually is.

That's why the best favor you could do yourself right now is to educate yourself about the Holocaust denial movement. I studied it hard when it was a threat from the brownshirt right. Now it's repackaging itself for the left. You can either learn about it and help me stop it, or you can continue being a useful idiot.

The best single source for exactly why the Holocaust deniers are full of shit is the van Pelt report I mention in my article. I gave the URL for just the chapter on Steady Freddy Leuchter, but it would be even better if you read the whole thing. Then you'll understand not only where I'm coming from -- which is plainly not where you like to say I'm coming from -- but why your stance is so destructive.


Gehrig - the issues that need clarifying

How many people did Atzmon circulate the article to?
Who were they - how did they come to be on the list?
What did he say when he distributed the text?
What exactly are the 'general terms' that Atzmon defended the article in?

I look forward to honest, straightforward answers.

Thank you


Gehrig - Re your latest letter to IMC-UK

I'm delighted that you're now considering that there may in fact be issues which need to be worked out.

However, there are still matters to sort out!

You write:

"It's maddening to see what's supposed to be an antiracist site proudly
running interference for a guy who's self-admitedly "happy" to spread
Holocaust denial propaganda, while a long post documenting that slab
of brownshirt-originated propaganda for what it is was furtively
hidden ( without --
note -- that hiding being reported to imc-uk-features. If there isn't,
in fact, unanimous consensus that the post should be hidden, if after
looking it over someone decides I do in fact document my claims, then
I'd appreciate it if it were made visible again."

You're still making the claim about Atzmon distributing the material, without giving any context. I am therefore opposed to your post being re-instated on the grounds that it is an unverified attack on an individual, and it remains non news.

If you can support the claims by providing the context - as listed above, and can explain why something Atzmon did in 2005 *IS* news now, then I would be prepared to reconsider my position. You have already got a live "Atzmon is a Holocaust" denier thread, the 'evidence' for which is an article which turns out to come from a Nazi site........ You even claim it might be true..... Is anything else on the Nazi site true? We should be told......

But an article based on - "In 2005 Atzmon distributed an article to unknown persons, and I do not know what comment he passed at the time, therefore it is impossible to provide evidence that he agrees with it" (he has in fact publicly stated that he has a "different take" to Eisen on the matter) is not actually acceptable, because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You will recall that you were invited several times to agree to abide by the editorial guidelines of IMC-UK and you flat out refused. Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to read them, and agree to abide to abide by them?

I look forward to your assistance in clearing this matter up.

Perry Mason: "But an article

Perry Mason: "But an article based on - "In 2005 Atzmon distributed an article to unknown persons, and I do not know what comment he passed at the time, therefore it is impossible to provide evidence that he agrees with it" (he has in fact publicly stated that he has a "different take" to Eisen on the matter) is not actually acceptable, because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny."

Sorry, peeps, but could you please make your attempts to defend Gilad Atzmon on whatever straw-grasping fringes or reason are left to you slightly, just slightly less transparent? I use the word "slightly" twice because you managed -- ahem, innocent oversight of course, couldn't possibly be anything other than that, oh no no no -- to leave it out of Atzmon's response to Eisen. He didn't say his take was "different." He said it was "slightly different."

But let's be perfectly plain here. You are defending the spread of brownshirt-originated antisemitic propaganda. You are doing it out of ignorance, but the more time passes, and the more sources on the Holocaust denial movement I point you to, the less forgivable that ignorance becomes. Believe me, I am treating you with considerably more respect than a person in such a condition deserves, and *only* because you are an IMCista.



How many did Atzmon distribute the essay to?

How did they get on the list?

What did he say at the time?

What are the general terms that he used to defend the article?

In your so-called letter of apology - in which you continued to attack me, you ask for the article which has this act of distribution as its central plank to be unhidden, but you aren't prepared to give a context.

Are you defending the article as accurate, fair and news? If so, then please provide the context for the central plank of the argument, along with a reason why it is newsworthy now.

If your idea of 'social justice' is to attack people without being prepared to give a context for the attack, then it isn't the same as mine.

You just keep changing the subject - I can request the information via the list if you prefer.....

Poor peeps. That's pretty

Poor peeps. That's pretty weak tea. I've posted two separate indications, straight from the mouth of Atzmon, that he posted a Holocaust denial essay to his list and was glad to have done so, and that he has only "slightly different" conclusions.

That's quite bad.

You know that you'd lose the discussion of whether or not Eisen's essay is Holocaust denial propaganda.

You know that you'd lose the discussion of whether Atzmon circulated it to his list.

You know that you'd lose the discussion of whether Atzmon is still *happy* to circulate it to his list.

You know that you'd lose the discussion of whether Atzmon still calls the Holocaust denier Paul Eisen a friend.

So instead you must pretend -- and not very convincingly -- that none of that matters in the slightest unless I can meet your sudden ad-hoc jump-through-the-hoop tests for "context."

Weak tea, peeps. Embarrassingly weak.

Incidentally, you might want to work on that "IMC-UK -- c'est moi" complex.

"You just keep changing the subject"

Yup. I stiiiiiiiiill haven't leapt through hoop #342!


Now lets look at another claim

You write:

"And it's also maddening to have my stance routinely mischaracterized
(that's the charitable way to put it) -- every, every effing time by
Atzmon's self-appointed defender."

Shall we have a look at some threads, and see what happens? I've googled [ftp gehrig]

First thread:

First post by you - and first time your name comes up:

"truly a riot

03.12.2007 17:59
ftp: "So, tell that to the censor himself."

Yes, folks, ftp, the guy who obliterated the thread about Gilad Atzmon's antisemitism by hiding *forty* comments in a row ( because so many posters rightly refused to excuse away Atzmon's racism -- which ftp has decided, politically, not to notice, even though it means he has to wear not one but two pirate eye patches -- is complaining about censorship.

It's really very simple, folks. There is never, ever, ever any antisemitism on this board, even when there blatantly is, and if you say otherwise, well, ftp will hid your posts and regurgitate scrambled Atzmon at you while Mary Rizzo ("thecutter") coos appreciatively (and, sooner or later, Jordan Thornton comes through for another Adventures in Capitalization post).



You come in and go for me - read the responses I make - and tell me where I mischaracterize you

Next thread:

First post from you, and first time your name comes up:

"Atzmon blames the Jews for the Holocaust

07.01.2008 15:44
Peeps, you just don't have any credibility left on the Atzmon thing, and damned little on antisemitism in general.

You're defending an antisemite, and the only way you can do so is to invent this bizarre narrative that one of the UK's loudest and most persistent anti-Zionists is actually a "crypto-Zionist." It's like saying that Salma Yaqoob is crypto-BNP. It's laughable on the face of it. Or it would be if the net effect weren't that you're showing the world just how far you are willing to go to into alternate realities just to defend the antisemite Atzmon.

You've dug in your heels over the wrong guy, peeps. You're embarrassing yourself.

Atzmon blames the Jews for the Holocaust. He does it in the very interview you made with him, but you were too clueless to see what he was doing.

It really makes me wonder. Have you ever actually seen an antisemite whose antisemitism you couldn't excuse?



Next thread:

No post of note that I can see - feel free to point out where I "mischaracterize" you though....

Next thread:

Your post - my comment:

"No surprise really.

18.05.2007 16:28
Mainstream journos have been misreporting gehrig's favourite colonial adventure for years.

Heres a sample of what they and gehrig like to pretend isn't happening:"

Its commentary on your support for Israel - you do support Israel in this matter, no?

Next post:
remind me

02.04.2007 16:06
That's the same Kurt Nimmo who was kicked off Counterpunch for his Holocaust denial?



02.04.2007 16:36
Have you got a credible source for your claim?

This is from Nimmo's site:

"I am called a Holocaust “deniar” on a regular basis—and I never write about the Holocaust—and an “anti-Semite” for criticizing Israel (even though the people who run Israel are not even Semites). One particular loathsome piece of human detritus in Israel is in the habit of making up countless lies about me (for instance, that I am connected to the Barnes Review, supposedly both a historical revisionist and Holocaust denial magazine). Ted may dislike being called an anti-Semite, but at least his wife’s name was not hijacked (far as I know) and used to write obscene and slanderous comments on various message boards. Coulter’s comment is nothing compared to having Betar fascists call you at work and threaten you.

It would be nice to raise the money to sue the people who continually stalk and harass me (one is enlisted in the U.S. military), in particular one violently insane blogger who urges his psychopathic friends to pay me (and others) a visit and execute me as a traitor. In order to do this, I’d have to ask people for money every day of the week."

So, it would be interesting to know why an Urbana-Champaign IMCista has come all the way to the uk to ask this question.

You guys must be underworked in U-C if you have time to moderate another kollektives site....

You never did reply.........................

Next post:

Ooops google doesn't give any more.

Seems like it only highlights posts where you come in and attack me.

Let me know where I've mischaracterised your stance.


let's have a look

Let's have a look at a string on UK Indymedia which was utterly decimated, 40 comments hidden by, presumably, you:

peeps bleats: "Right at the start I appealed on the list for an informed decision, rather than a knee-jerk reaction, and so far all we seem to have is knee-jerk reactions. People read the smears of Tony Greenstein and gehrig the perpetual smearers along with the pontifications of Steve Cohen, the self-appointed guru of anti-semitism and buy them. This thread seems to be a perfect indicator of the need for people to make their own minds up, rather than relying on these rather dodgy characters to sort it out for them.

I am bored with having these clowns trying to shut down whole areas of conversation around the issue of pro-Palestinian solidarity, and as Palestinians near the 60th anniversary of the Nakba, many still imprisoned in refugee camps, it is clear that there needs to be a more open and honest appraisal of all the issues that affect the discourse and solidarity actions. gehrig's whole position appears to reflect his own racism towards Palestinians [...] That they operate by accusing everyone whose politics they don't like of racism is breathtaking hypocrisy of the highest order."

Well, gee. By reading this, I discover that my claims that Eisen echoes Zündel's lies is really only my "accusing everyone whose politics I don't like of racism." I learn that I'm trying "to shut down whole areas of conversation around the issue of pro-Palestinian solidarity" -- whole areas of Palestinian solidarity like whether or not the Holocaust was a Jew fraud, as Zündel claims. Why? Maybe because I'm a "perpetual smearer." Maybe there needs to be a "more open and honest appraisal" of whether or not the Holocaust was a Jew fraud? Oh, and of course, I discover that I'm a "racist" -- wait, wasn't it supposed to be me, not peeps, who went around accusing everyone whose politics they don't like of racism? Guess peeps had it backwards.

So now's your chance to clear the air, peeps. Nazi apologist lies, charting a path from Zündel's wallet to Atzmon's mailing list. Anything strike you as "dodgy" about that?


Your racism gehrig....

...... is clearly reflected in a post on Indymedia Watch, you know that anti-Indymedia blog where you were indistinguishable from the clowns who ran it, and for that matter Indymedia UK's most prolific troll 'ex-IMCer'.

As I've already told you, it wasn't me that hid the 40 posts. However, they really didn't even pretend to comply with the editorial guidelines, did they? You then trolled the board repeatedly putting up a link to the hidden comments, no?

You wrote an article attacking Atzmon, and you still haven't provided the context for the central plank of your argument against him. And yet you're appealing to the UK collective for the article to be unhidden.

You just keep smearing, hoping that will resolve the matter....... You don't actually have a clue what Atzmon thinks of that article, do you gehrig? Nor whom he distrinuted it to, nor why?

Pound the desk harder, peeps

You might impress someone. Someone easily impressed, that is.

If you're too lame to detect the obvious Holocaust denial in Eisen's essay, and too lame to detect Gilad Atzmon's antisemitism, and too lame to detect Kurt Nimmo's Holocaust denial, you'll pardon me for not giving a flying farthing whether you think I'm a "racist," 'cuz your meter's clearly busted.

And I stiiiiiiiill haven't answered question #342.


you still haven't answered question 1

The same as you never managed to point to the anti-semitism in the Atzmon article that started all this off. How many chances were you given?

If you had, then it might well have been hidden by now. But time after all you failed to provide it.

Now you're failing to provide sufficient information to make your article relevant to IMC UK, let alone newsworthy.

As you say in your Geniza blog:

"Indymedia UK is right to push back against unsubstantiated allegations of anti-Semitism. The problem is that it’s possible to go too far in the other direction. "

In other words gehrig, quite often its a political call . There isn't a single authority who can confirm or deny that something is anti-semitic - we have to decide for ourselves.

We're supposed to be grown ups on a radical political site, aren't we?

If you want your opinion to be taken seriously, then you need to be able to justify your articles, and vouch for the accuracy of the content.

You never provided evidence of anti-semitism in the Atzmon article, you just went on about IMC UK having a "Jewish problem" which turned out to be the process of consensus decision making.....

and now you can't put the central plank of your attack on Atzmon into any kind of context.

What action do you think people should take in the case of unsubstantiated claims gehrig?

whatever, peeps

peeps: "If you want your opinion to be taken seriously"

Trust me, peeps, I'm long past any particular need to be taken seriously by you. I'm onto the deeper question, which is, how can Indymedia minimize the damage you cause it by your insistence on letting the cat drag antisemites in?

peeps: "What action do you think people should take in the case of unsubstantiated claims gehrig?"

"Unsubstantiated"? Once again, it's "IMC-UK, c'est moi." There were five people in the UK collective ready to ban Atzmon for good before I even entered the discussion, and you were apparently having sobbing freakouts about it.

What I'd hope your collective would do is see that you're plainly hiding behind procedure -- as arcane and ad hoc as necessary -- to protect a blatant antisemite who's stroked your ego, and they should act accordingly, in accordance with the Indymedia principle of anti-racism. And what I'd hope *you'd* do is learn enough about Holocaust denial to pull your head out of your ass and stop running interference for it.


Avoiding avoiding avoiding

"Gilad Atzmon has distributed -- and defended in general terms -- an essay by Paul Eisen designed to promote Holocaust denial."

No proof whatsoever.......

peeps flailing

Me: "Gilad Atzmon has distributed -- and defended in general terms -- an essay by Paul Eisen designed to promote Holocaust denial."

You: "No proof whatsoever......."

That's right, peeps. When Atzmon said, "Mr Greenstine, True I circulated Paul Eisen's paper," he really *meant* "True I am a large purple hamburger bun and I sneeze out maracas and hex bolts." Because, since words apparently have no meaning in peepsland, the two sentences are semantically equivalent.

I've shown he distributed the essay, I've shown he's defended it in general terms, I've shown the essay was designed to promote Holocaust denial, and I've shown that you're flailing around frantically like an octopus being electrocuted trying to come up with some pretext, no matter how measly and no matter how weaselly, to convince yourself that I actually haven't.

Better luck next time.


What are the 'general terms'?

I don't see where you've outlined them? Specifically what has he said to justify this statement:

"When you defend Paul Eisen's essay, you're defending the very same lies promulgated by the "Hitler-lover" Zündel, his flunky Leuchter, and his admirer David Irving. Yet this is what Gilad Atzmon does."?

Who was on the list?

What comment did he pass at the time?

Not rocket science at all!

Who is flailing around?

You want it on IMC UKs newswire - where is the news? That conversation was reported on Peace Palestine on June 10th, 2005. Its now January 2008.

This is a repeat of your refusing to identify the anti-semitism in hunters of Goliath, a simple question followed by a tour of the houses, and no answers.

You've already run an article on Atzmon's supposed Holocaust denial, using a Nazi report. Your so called article appears there as a comment.

You might like to see lots of threads about this on the Indymedia UK newswire, but it isn't news.

ftp dint see nuffin

ftp in short: "I dint see nuffin."

Here's a little secret, peeps. You seem to think that it matters a great deal to me that the post is hidden, and that I should be begging you personally to put it back up. But the real audience for the post was the other editors in your collective. I wanted them to see the shit you're defending. I wanted them to see the brownshirt origins of the stoooopidity you're defending. And, lo, that link went out on imc-uk-features. Mission accomplished.

Sure, it'd be *nice* if the post was unhidden. But all your fellow editors now have in their hands a post addressing exactly what you've tried every trick in the book to prevent them from having: hard evidence that Gilad Atzmon distributed Holocaust denial propaganda to his mailing list, and that he's still "happy" he did it. That's what I want them to know going into Nottingham. And they know it. They know you're defending a guy who spreads Holocaust denial propaganda. Do you really think that "but gehrig never said how many people Atzmon sent it to" is going to outweigh "but gehrig did show Atzmon twice said he sent it and is glad he did"?

And let me tell you something else. They're going to see right through your sudden, ad-hoc, unevenly applied demands for "context." When Atzmon lied right into your face with that white-power favorite about Ashkenazi Jews not being Jews after all but "Khazarians," you didn't go looking for "context." You swallowed it and begged for more. Why? Because you're just too ignorant to catch Atzmon's lies and too starry-eyed to do even the most rudimentary fact-checking.

What other shit did Atzmon slip down your throat? Lots of it. Lots and lots. But you don't care, as long as you can sit at The Great Man's Knee and talk about how much you hate Tony Greenstein, and as long as Atzmon in turn strokes your ego every now and then. (Oh, wait, isn't that the site of the fascist "Israel Shamir," another guy who says Auschwitz "was not an industrial extermination factory" but whose antisemitism you can't detect and who you've personally praised for his "passion for justice"? You've got one busted racism-meter, there, partner.)

Your most recent rejoinder to Tony Greenstein ended with "Now go fuck yourself." As I've said before, that's exactly what *should* be said to someone trying to defend the distribution of Holocaust denial propaganda, and it's *only* because you're an IMCista that I don't close in exactly the same way.


Gilad Atzmon - Holocuast Denial

I already had the chnace to speak with this guy directly on Facebook. This guy is clearly spreadign anti-israelite propaganda. He's basically a nazi whore. A traitor of how own just like many other radical socialists living in Israel.


He denies the middle eastern origins of the israelite people based on a book by israeli historian Shlomo Sand (who was rpobably influenced by Arthur Koestler) portraying the majority of israelites as being mostly a people of european origins, and particlarly from the ancient khazars, a people living in what is now Georgia and Ukraine. needless to say all these anti-israelite bullshit theories have been disproven by DNA studies which clealry indicate that the majority of israelites has middle eastern origins.


He also revealed to be a supporter of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hamas, and Hezbollah. I have all this conversations saved on Facebook and would like to know how i can shares this. This guy needs to be exposed for spreading hate speech against the israelite ethnicity.


You know, i added the guy on Facebook because i hear he was a good jazz musicians and had played with some other israeli artists i admire some years ago. But when i started noticing his bullshit talking i had no choice but to confront him and know for sure what he was up to. 

On yet another blog gehrig wrote:

"Yep, they've got a problem sorting through the fog banks Atzmon hides his antisemitism behind, and yes there are editors who get lost in that fog and conclude Atzmon must be okay (but can't explain why he sends Holocaust denial propaganda to his mailing list). But pounding the table isn't going make the process IMC-UK needs to go through any quicker."

Which is interesting, because this whole comments thread has been me asking gehrig to explain the circumstances under which Atzmon circulated the essay. He has failed to answer the questions how many times? Without the context of who the essay was distributed to, and what Atzmon said, or for that matter didn't say, when he circulated it, this claim cannot be verified:

"When you defend Paul Eisen's essay, you're defending the very same lies promulgated by the "Hitler-lover" Zündel, his flunky Leuchter, and his admirer David Irving. Yet this is what Gilad Atzmon does."?"

Three trolls, including my esteemed IMCista friend gehrig are spending an inordinate amount of time camapigning on this matter. gehrig's so-called letter of apology (which is somewhat reminscint of the Latuff letter where instead of expressing solidarity on behalf of the Coillective he chose to attack Latuff instead.....) is meaningless while he continues to attack, smear and try to distort IMC UK's own decision making process.


oh the monotony

reality: I have shown that Atzmon distributed Holocaust denial propaganda to his mailing list, and peeps doesn't like it that the guy he gets so puppy-eyed over turns out to be carrying water for brownshirts like Zündel.

peeps' version of reality: "Gehrig never laid a glove on Atzmon. That thing he kept landing on Atzmon's chin about the Eisen essay, that wasn't a glove. At least we don't know it was a glove because we don't know the names of everybody at the factory on the day the glove was made. In fact, we don't even know the day the glove was made! All we know is that we don't know that the glove is actually a glove. How many fingers were on it? How many fingers were in it? I think we need more cowbell. Sorry, more context."

Okay, peeps, you came, you saw, you played dumb, you bored us. And in the process you demonstrated that you're utterly indifferent to the fact that your heee-ro Atzmon got caught distributing Holocaust denial propaganda to his mailing list, so that you've got to seize on some irrelevant detail to change the subject, and you've demonstrated your willingness to exploit IMC process to protect brownshirt lies.


smoke and mirrors gehrig

(but can't explain why he sends Holocaust denial propaganda to his mailing list)

You are the one making a song and dance about the circulation of the essay. All you've got so far is circumstantial evidence, and you can't expalin what actually happened. And now there is an Indymedia wide campaign claiming "Holocaust Denial is acceptable on IM UK" and your name is added to the blog.

But there is no holocaust denial on Indymedia UK and it certainly isn't acceptable.

Your threshold for 'justice' is so low that you make British judges look liberal.

The monotony of course would never have happened if you'd told us WHY we are supposed to be shocked because someone sent a text to his list. We don't know anything about his list - it isn't archived on the web - we don't know who was on his list, and we don't know what he said, if anything, when he distributed the text.

Eisen's essay doesn't appear on IMC UK, and the only links to it are from you and Greenstein. You quote from it, though I think the passage you quote is part of his summary of Faurrison's beliefs ........ but regardless of that - it seems you and Greenstein have read it, and haven't been turned into anti-semitic nazi's. The question is why you think that it is so shocking for Atzmon to distribute the text to a reading list - without knowing the details of that list, or what comment he passed at the time, or since.

It is possible to read the essay and not agree with it. If its so dangerous, why are you and Greenstein posting links to it? Who knows who might read it from link on Indymedia UK?

You aren't being helpful - and then you write an "email of apology" to IMC UK and get involved in a network wide smear camapign.

I am not Nessie, and I am forever going to struggle to take anything you say as being anything like accurate.

Why don't you act like an IMCista and lay off to give the united kollektives a chance to deal with the issue?

And your latest post on AZVSAS

Classic. "Well, that's really the critical thing, isn't it. Indymedia is essentially anarchist in organization. There are good and bad things about that decision structure, and one of the bad things is exemplified by IMC-UK's inability to get rid of stuff from the antisemite Gilad Atzmon as long as anyone there is willing to defend it.

And I'll admit that the appearance of antisemitic garbage on IMC-UK makes me plenty mad too. I spent years studying Holocaust denial horseshit when it was a threat from the brownshirt right, and it's absolutely freaking *appalling* that we should now have to spend any energy whatsoever to keep those same brownshirt lies from spreading on the left -- and even more appalling that there are IMC editors who seem to want to made the battle against these brownshirt lies as difficult as they can (by, for example, hiding this post).

And there are indeed members of the IMC-UK collective who are upset about it for all the right reasons. Unfortunately, there are others who've gotten so tired of fighting the good fight that they've stepped away from the collective in frustration.

I quite agree that something's gone terribly wrong when an IMC collective honors process over the hiding of racist posts, and I think there are members of the collective feel the same way. But the core argument of those who defend Atzmon has two parts: the essentially untenable position that Atzmon isn't actual an antisemite, and the potentially tenable position that Some Great Zionist Conspiracy is trying to censor Indymedia UK. It makes a great story, and freethepeeps isn't ashamed to spread that story, even though in this case it's quite wrong.

After a certain point, pounding the table loudly in frustration ends up helping freethepeeps' feed that second lie, "look, it's all a big noisy campaign to censor Atzmon." You will also discover that he starts calling you a "crypto-Zionist" for opposing him.

There is quite a bit of discussion about this within the IMC-UK collective; they're quite aware that they've got a big problem on their hands. But they've also got a meeting coming in a little over a week that has this very issue on the agenda.

They now have plenty of information that Atzmon is an antisemite (just google "atzmon antisemitism indymedia"), and they have a time and venue in which the matter will be discussed. Afterward, one way or another, we'll know what they're made of, and whether IMC-UK is "anti-racist" in name only. I maybe wrong, but I think they'll have the collective wisdom to save themselves from that fate.


Why not tell us in advance what 'fate' is in store for us if we don't ban Atzmon? If we say that he is subject to the same guidelines as everyone else, including you? 

peeps and elementary reading skills

At this juncture I can only guess that you're trying to collect as many idiot points as you can.

Exercise passage: "Afterward, one way or another, we'll know what they're made of, and whether IMC-UK is "anti-racist" in name only. I maybe wrong, but I think they'll have the collective wisdom to save themselves from that fate."

Exam question: "What fate?"

Answer: "The fate of being 'anti-racist' in name only." As in, claiming to be an anti-racist site but not banning the antisemite Atzmon.

Thus ends your elementary reading lesson, peeps. Hope this helps.



And it would be you, AZvsAS and Greenstein spreading the news that IMC is now "anti-racist" in name only would it?

You 3 would be judge, jury and executioner would you?

peeps sniffs out a conspiracy

Oh my god they're all against me it's a conspiracy I tells ya!

Before you dissolve into a paranoid fit, I haven't thought one way or another about what I'd do if IMC-UK failed to no-platform the antisemite Atzmon, other than think, "well, they failed the anti-racism test."

But let me remind you once again of the awkward fact you'd prefer buried that your buddy Gilad Atzmon's antisemitism is so obvious and overt that there were already five UK indymedia collective members on record for banning him permanently before I made my first post on the subject.

It's just another one of those ways you characteristically and routinely mischaracterize what this whole thing is about -- this is not simply an external group trying to whack Indymedia UK to its senses regarding the antisemite Atzmon, but members with Indymedia UK itself.

But hold tight to that "it's bad guys versus Indymedia UK" narrative if you prefer it to reality. And if you want to do the courtroom analogy, here we go.

I've shown he distributed it to his mailing list and later said he was "happy" he did it. If you have evidence that he didn't, bring it forward, or else the point stands unrefuted. You will not be able to.

I've shown that it's a Holocaust denial propaganda piece, designed to spread, not refute, Holocaust denial. If you have evidence that it isn't, bring it forward, or else the point stands unrefuted. You will not be able to.

I've shown that Atzmon defended the piece in general terms, having said nothing worse than that his conclusions are "slightly different" but that the author remained his "friend." If you have evidence that Atzmon has in fact repudiated the essay or Eisen, bring it forward, or else the point stands unrefuted. Unlike the other two points this one, theoretically, you might be able to actually do, if you can find additional evidence anywhere that Atzmon did indeed repudiate the essay or Eisen.

Unless and until you can do any of these, I'm through letting you waste my time.


behaving like an IMCista?

"It's just another one of those ways you characteristically and routinely mischaracterize what this whole thing is about -- this is not simply an external group trying to whack Indymedia UK to its senses regarding the antisemite Atzmon, but members with Indymedia UK itself."

NO there are 3 people involved in a disinformation campaign that is across Indymedias on several continbents.

1) Tony Greenstein who has a history of hounding people, and doesn't even understand what open publishing is.

2) AZvsAS - who keeps changing his name in the discussion

3) gehrig - an IMCista from UCIMC.

gehrig the IMCista, who was previously involved in attacking IMC Uk and other IMCs on a hostile site - ie Indy Media Watch.

" I haven't thought one way or another about what I'd do if IMC-UK failed to no-platform the antisemite Atzmon, other than think, "well, they failed the anti-racism test."

Well, why don't you think about it now, so that we can discuss the implications at the network meeting?

oh the monotony, part II

Peeps: "Well, why don't you think about it now, so that we can discuss the implications at the network meeting?"

Why don't you just make up whatever shit you want about me, like you've been doing all along, peeps? You've had plenty of practice.

Incidentally, in answer to your question on another board: "BTW - you said the holocaust is really well documented - where can I find the exact number of people that the non-Islamic Mr. Hitler killed? ... Wolfie - where can I find the exact number of Hitler's victims?"

In the same place you can find the exact number of Germans killed by the Allies -- WWII being also, as I recall, a very well-documented event.

The difference between your question and my reply is that mine isn't a straw man borrowed from Arthur Butz.

You're starting to demonstrate the "get up with fleas" part of the adage, peeps. Educate yourself about the Holocaust denial movement before you really embarrass yourself.


Post new comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer