|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Kook-note |
Current rating: 0 |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
20 Feb 2003
|
|
|
Just a quick note -- for those of you wondering whether IMC kookery disappeared with Dan Elliott's departure: presenting Wendy Campbell, aka multinym, ardent -- well, I'll let you decide "ardent _what_."
@%< |
See also:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/1576638.php
|
|
Another Comment |
by gehrig via gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 8
21 Feb 2003
Modified: 08:15:42 PM |
There goes Gehrig again
by I.Rate Friday February 21, 2003 at 12:40 PM
Gehrig is quite obviously a disinformation specialist.
His tactics are
l. Ad hominems
2. Changing the subject
3. Irrelevancy (meaning never addressing the issues, but attempting to impeach the testimony by demonstrating some "nefarious" linkage.
<< snip >> It even appears that Gehrig has a full time job, that is to browse the internet for any material that is expository or "harmful" to Israel, ridicule the source, minimalize the damage or change the subject.
decision point
by gehrig Friday February 21, 2003 at 01:53 PM
No, I'm just someone who's familiar with the tactics of white supremecists and who's heartsick to see the degree to which some progressives let their anti-Israel feelings leave them open for exploitation by antisemites.
Let me give another example to help illustrate it.
Remember Dan Elliott, AKA Cui Bozo? When he was going on his rampage last August or so, in here and IMC-Jerusalem and the Process mailing list, one of the pieces he posted in IMC-Jerusalem on how ee-e-evil Zionism was, was a history written by a guy named Mark Weber. Nice, big long piece about how The Zionists exert irresistable pressure on US politics, international politics, the media, and so forth. It wasn't that far in tone from -- well, I'll say it, from Chomsky on a roll.
One little problem. Who is Mark Weber, the guy who wrote the article Cui Bozo posted?
If you want, I can go into a _great deal_ of detail about who Weber is. I can demonstrate that he is one of the half-dozen central figures in the Holocaust denial movement; I can demonstrate his affiliation with the neo-Nazi National Alliance; I can quote his court testimony in defense of Ernst Zundel, the Holocaust denier who funded the Leuchter report -- claiming to prove chemically that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz -- at the very same trial for which Zundel commissioned that report; I can post a picture of Weber giving one of a series of talks at David Irving's annual riverboat assemblage in Cincinnati; I can give you the references to his history of antisemitism in the various expert reports assembled to refute Irving in the Lipstadt trial -- anyway, you get the picture.
In other words, the guy is pure swastika-kissing shit.
But, see, merely by changing the word "Jew" to "Zionist" in his writing, and repeating some of the usual tropes about the Palestinian tragedy, he sounded enough like an ardent-but-principled anti-Zionist that some of the ardent-but-principled anti-Zionists on the IMC took him for one of their own.
And if I had pointed out to Cui Bozo that he was quoting a well-known Nazi apologist, does anyone doubt that (a) he would simply turn around and say "there they go with the 'antisemitism' card again," and then (b) he would blame _me_ for being upset that he's quoting a Nazi?
There was another example a few weeks ago in a major British newspaper, the Evening Standard. Somebody had posted an ardently anti-Israel column, and then suggested that those who wanted more information should read a book titled something like "The Palestinian Holocaust," co -written by a dude named Michael A. Hoffman, II. Three days later, they published an apologetic retraction, saying that the columnist didn't know that he was pointing people to a Holocaust denier as if he were a legitimate source.
Indybay, to its credit, deletes links to Hoffman's site instantly. But the Evening Standard's columnist had his idealism exploited, and the deniers are all having a good chortle about how their propaganda made the Evening Standard.
This isn't my imagination, folks. This shit really happens. And "pretend it doesn't" isn't a suitable response. And "you're working undercover for the Mossad" ain't particularly convincing either.
And when you literally can't tell the difference between your stance on Israel and that of a professional Nazi apologist like Weber or Hoffman II, isn't that just a tad troubling?
Finally, this is the dividing point. This is one of those cases where you make a choice, and that choice is determined by the strength of your character. There will be those who, after seeing this, will stop and scratch their heads a bit and decide that there is after all something of a point to what I'm saying; there will be others who simply brush it off and stamp, "there they go screaming 'antisemitism' again, la-la-la-I-can't-HEAR-you."
@%< |
