| | | | |
"But how could anyone, the ADL or The Spotlight consider Bilderberg to be a Jewish issue? Hardly any of the Bilderbergers are Jews. This really should disqualify them from being a Jewish conspiracy." Jon Ronson, Secret Rulers of the World, The Bilderberg Group, Channel Four TV, 27Jun01.
>>One Tony Gosling has been
>>following their progress his web site,www.bilderberg.org.>
>>Yes, the same Tony Gosling who promotes the nazi David Irving on his site,
>>famous for denying the Holocaust and for stirring up fascist skinheads in
>>Germnay and England to burn Black children in their homes. Strange behaviour
>>for an "anti-fascist", isnt it?
No, its not just me being pedantic, the term Anti-Semitic really is more confusing than helpful. It is used by many to mean Anti-Jewish and is used by the Anti Defamation League and the mainstream press as an interchangeable term which it is not. Semitic is not a religious but a racial term identifying peoples sharing specific languages in the Middle East, West Asia and East Africa. Many modern Jews have racial origins in Eastern Europe and are therefore not Semitic, yet they are presumably just as Jewish as Semitic Jews.
The term Anti-Semitic is of little use now, heres one reason why: since the influx of non-Semitic Jewish migrants to Israel there are more Semitic Arabs than Jews in the Middle East.
The World Bible Publishing 'Short Dictionary of Life and Peoples of Bible Times' gives the following description under the Semites entry: a group of nations, who, starting about 3000BC, appeared in Western Asia, south of modern Armenia and west of Iran. Semite nations included Babylonians, Assyrians, Syrians, Canaanites, Isrealites, Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites.
The Anti-Defamation League, based in the US, claim to be on the look out for Anti-Jewish racists. No doubt they do help in the search for hiding war criminals... but why are they defaming those who are not Anti-Semitic? Losing court cases for defamation against the ADL? Their publication ADL International Notes accuses many of Anti-Semitism and how many of these accusations are tested in court? Many of those accused never get to see the allegations made by ADL and of those that do only a tiny number can afford to persue legal action against them. After five-and-a-half years of fighting one Denver couple were recently awarded $10million compensation for being falsely accused by the ADL of Anti-Semitism.
As if blind to the murderous effects of international capitalism the ADL actively promote the innocence of Bilderberg: Gail Gans, one of their spokespeople explained their position in the Jon Ronson programme The Secret Rulers of the World series on Channel 4 in May 2001:
"The Bilderbergs have been coming together for a large number of years. There's nothing in the public record that shows that they have any control whatsoever on governments."
She hasn't seen the evidence of Heads of State and European Commissioners that have been interviewed or simply groomed at Bilderberg then. Their rise to power is purely co-incidental.
Gail Gans also accuses The Spotlight magazine of using 'codewords' for Jews:
"Frequently they [Spotlight] refer to Jews as international financiers, they talk about that strange group behind the media or they talk about bankers or cultural industry manipulators."
So we must all beware of using these terms, yes, even the expression bankers lest we are mistaken for meaning Jews! How utterly absurd. All these terms have been invented by Spotlight, we are told, simply to avoid direct accusations of being a Jewish cabal. One small factual problem Ms Gans, Bilderberg is not a Jewish organisation.
Alex Jones, from http://www.infowars.com/ has another view of the role of the ADL:
"A bucket of black paint and a brush, that's the ADL"
The Board of Deputies of British Jews rightly guard against false accusations which cheapen the legacy of the serious racial hatred perpetrated against Jews and others in Nazi Germany.
Jewish-hate thought and literature is an area of discussion where the accuracy of information needs to be carefully checked and substantiated. If groups or individuals, particularly if anonymous, are mud-slinging and/or crying wolf their frivolity must be taken seriously and investigated. It is not an appropriate legacy to those Jews corralled, herded and executed by the Nazis that such Crocodile tears go uninvestigated.
In 1999 Australian magazine (with UK and US editions) Nexus was accused of anti-Semitism by an Israeli website which supposedly keeps an eye on such matters. The accusation falsely claimed that the Jewish Board of Deputies had condemned the magazine for anti-Semitism.
The dissemination of false Bilderberg participation lists that contain mostly Jewish names is a graphic example of literature which needs a thorough investigation.
The answer is both. The Jewish faith is founded on the Torah, or Old Testament law given to Moses by God. The Ten Commandments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy etc. As well as this the sayings and writings of respected Orthodox Rabbis, the Talmud, is considered God-inspired. There are two versions of the Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. In Orthodox Judaism the Babylonian takes precedence.
Orthodox Jews do not believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah prophesied by Moses and others in the Old Testament and are still waiting for that Messiah to appear. Messianic Jews do believe Jesus was the Messiah. There are many Jews who dont follow their family religion and/or have married out of the faith, the latter of which can cause deep divisions in some Jewish households.
The term Semite has already been rejected as inappropriate since it refers mostly to non-Jews.
Zionists are conservative, right-wing Jews, who campaign zealously for the secure establishment of Jews in Palestine, in the newly-formed state of Israel. The Zionist movement was founded by Hungarian born Austrian writer Theodor Herzl (1860-1904). His pamphlet Der Judenstaat, published in 1896 advocated the establishment of an Orthodox Jewish state in Palestine.
The Zionist movement had a major success during the First World War with the Balfour Declaration (1917), in which the British Foreign Secretary, ex-Prime Minister and 1st Earl of Balfour, Arthur James Balfour, declared the British Government, who then controlled Palestine, would help further their cause. Provided, that is, the rights of "existing non-Jewish communities" in Palestine were safeguarded.
Zionists today tend to be racist. They attempt to justify the theft of homelands from Palestinians, Lebanese and other Moslem nations, notwithstanding resolutions of the United Nations, as security precautions.
Isreal in the 21st Century is an apartheid nation. Zionists have become bitterly militaristic and racist. As such, their philosophy and actions must be effectively criticised. In April 2001 A Zionist Rabbi is on record as saying that it is the divine duty of every Jew to kill Palestinian Arabs.
Henry Kissinger, a key Bilderberg figure is a Jew of Eastern European origin. This is nowhere near enough proof to say that Bilderberg is a Jewish organisation!
Freelance writer Jim Tucker is right wing. He sees himself as a Patriot having faith in the correct operation of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. He sees America as a country whose most important public offices, under the Constitution, have been taken over by grasping men. Though he has been accused of being a Nazi Jim is anything but.
After a career that saw him with positions of responsibility in more mainstream newspapers he was asked by Spotlight to do occasional updates on the Bilderberg Group. He couldnt quite believe such a powerful group of people could meet without the media knowing or commenting. When he discovered indeed they could, he determined to expose them. Jim is not only the most dogged Bilderberg chaser in the world he is also an insightful and entertaining writer.
Though commonly referred to as anti-Jewish this document is in fact anti-Zionist. The protocols were supposedly leaked in the early 1900s - they have been banned in some countries - expounding a Zionist programme for world domination. There are several traditions of criticism of this document.
Some elements, led presumably by Zionists or other Jews, attempt to suppress discussion of the document, even though it usually leads to the conclusion that the documents are forgeries.
Moslems often quote it as proof the power-mad mentality of the Israeli right-wing. Free and open discussion around the origins of these documents is to be encouraged. Well-known book Warrant for Genocide attempts to prove the Protocols to be a forgery.
Leon Zeldis, FPS, 33° - PSGC, Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite for the State of Israel - Honorary Adjunct Grand Master - Editor, The Israeli Freemason - More than once in the course of the last two centuries, anti-Masonry has been fused with an older hatred, hatred of the Jews, that is to say anti-Semitism. Probably, the irrational nature of both phobias facilitates their juxtaposition. Be that as it may, from the middle of the 19th Century, we are witnessing an increasing wave of simultaneously anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic propaganda. Possibly, the paradigmatic work of this class of "literature" is an opuscule entitled "The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion" sometimes also known as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/9991/protocols.html
World Conquest Through World Jewish Government The Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion - http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm
Keeping Your People Down, Fascists, Football, Ecstacy and Gladiators. Control the Media; Separate Politics From Everything Political; Create New Ideals; Create pointless pastimes; Hold the moral highground and create Catholic-style guilt complexs; Maintain a Steady Drugs Supply. http://www.cynicalbastards.com/cynic/dictate.html
Studying the US Political Right-General Bibliography - Antisemitism - http://www.publiceye.org/research/biblio/General-05.htm
One man's master plan for world domination http://www.cromwell-intl.com/fun/master-plan.html
Jews returned as prime candidates for Satanic collusion after circulation of the forged anti-Semitic propaganda tract, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, the root source in this century of anti-Semitic allegations of a vast Jewish conspiracy http://www.publiceye.org/Apocalyptic/Dances_with_Devils_1-01.htm#P220_63948
The document known now as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is one of the most important documents ever to come to light in the world. In fact, it can be described as the blueprint for the domination of the world by a secret brotherhood. http://www.vegan.swinternet.co.uk/articles/conspiracies/protocols_proof.html
Comments in the following text related specifically to the Jews which superficially seem to implicate all Jews do not reflect my own attitude to this issue as I have already established. However, these were the words of those individuals quoted and of the publishers who presented the following document many decades ago, and I hesitate to censor them. This document is meant to challenge hatred, racism and deceit, not ferment it. http://www.vegan.swinternet.co.uk/articles/conspiracies/protocols_text.html
About The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - Introduction - by Gordon Fisher - The document known in English as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is, to many people, obviously a clumsy piece of false antisemitic propaganda http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~antis/doc/graves/graves.a.html
For whatever reason it seems to be taboo to state that the British national media has a disproportionately large number of Jews on its payroll. This need imply no criticism of gifted Jews, who have a solid moral grounding in the Torah but is often taken as such. It reflects the genuine talent in the Jewish community and need not even be a criticism, nevertheless it remains largely a taboo.
It shouldnt have to, but sometimes it needs to be said. Jews are just as susceptible to corruption or misuse of public office as any one else.
The Khazars were an Eastern European nation whose royalty converted to Judaism in late mediaeval times. Explains why many Jews are not of Semitic (Middle-Eastern) origin.
There is a strange anomaly in the tale of the Khazars since, according to Orthodox Judaism no-one can become Jewish. It is a faith one must be born into.
Some mistakenly think all Jews believe Jesus Christ was not the Messiah. Messianic Jews such as Bob Dylan etc.do believe Jesus was the Messiah.
To complicate things Jesus actual name, in Hebrew, was Yeshua and Jews, Messianic and Orthodox rightly prefer to use his actual name. They see, with some justification, the Greek word Jesus as tainted with Gentile anti-Jewishness.
Many Jews believe certain parts of the Old and New Testament to be Anti-Jewish. Some see the whole of the New Testament as anti-Jewish even though Yeshua and his disciples were Jews!
The End of the Book of Daniel, printed in Catholic (not Protestant) Bibles is virtually prohibited for Orthodox Jews to read. The Book of Revelation, written by the Apostle John on the Greek Isle of Patmos, is generally assumed by Jews to be anti-Jewish. One reason for this may be that Jesus, through John, condemns those who call themselves Jews but are not. [Revelation 2:9 and 3:9] But as one might expect coming from a disciple of Yeshua the King of the Jews there is no criticism of genuine Jews in Revelation.
If the bible is true, they and we Europeans are Babelites. By the Bible every Israelite (every Jew of the Bible) was an Arab.
Arab Israeli war? Who were the Israelis? It is quite the joke. It began with a lot of Arabs, about 5% followed "Judaism" and then a lot of hated Europeans began to invade as they fled from Europe. It would be more like the German/Pollock/Russian vs. Arab war.
Anyway... here is the no spin version From the Ottoman Empire to the European invasion of the Palestinians. Look to the upper right of this page, there is the option to e-mail this page to your friends or to your self.
Ignorant "Christians" support these false Jews because they think they are getting brownie points with God, but if they would bother to read the scriptures, they would find every Israelite in the Bible was a composite of Arabs and the "Jews" are European Babelites.
After looking at the promise land "Israeli / Arab war" page, go to the home page to trace the identity of the Israelites.
One of the main causes (another being oil) of post-WW2 Mid-East instability, with all its concomitant crises, was the setting-up of the State of Israel in 1948. This is an indisputable fact - which must be kept in mind in order to gain a clearer understanding of the currently brewing US/Iraq confrontation. A few pertinent facts of an historical nature concerning the State of Israel would therefore be helpful - again, always keeping in mind that Judaism is a monotheistic religion originally adopted by a breakaway faction (now known as Jews) of a wider semitic-speaking Afro-Asiatic racial group of peoples in the Middle East. Simply put: these Jews therefore share a common lineage with those same Afro-Asians (including Arabs).
Over the following centuries the Middle East was to experience a maelstrom of religious-motivated violence (tragically still with us), invariably resulting in forced migrations of one group or another, of which the move by the Jews westwards along the North African coast with the advancing Islamic Moors in the 8th century is of pertinence to this article, inasmuch as the subsequent invasion of the Iberian peninsular led to the accompanying Jews being known as Sephardim (Hebrew for Spain).
The term Sephardim immediately brings to mind its corollary - Ashkenazim - or Eastern European Jews, who constitute a majority of Jews worldwide today. A crucial and much-overlooked aspect of the Ashkenazim is that their racial roots lie mainly in the Khazar Empire (as it then was, north of the Caucasus). These were a Pagan Turkic people who adopted Judaism in the 8th century AD, but were subsequently defeated and driven from their homeland in the 10th century by the Varangians (Vikings), as a result of which many fled westwards eventually settling in eastern Europe.
The Ashkenazim played a crucial role in the setting up of the State of Israel, inasmuch as a group of them, formed in 1896 and calling themselves Zionists, were responsible for formulating the concept of such a State. This was basically a secular, atheistic group, the two most influential members of which were Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann (who would later become the first President of the newly-formed State of Israel).
As recorded by Lloyd George in his "War Memoirs": in 1917 Britain (then in dire financial straits and facing a long drawn-out war) made a deal with the Zionists (their broker being Chaim Weizmann), whereby the latter would use their considerable political clout to persuade America to enter the war against Germany - in return for which, Britain would back the Zionist's call for the setting up of a 'State of Israel' in their 'homeland' of Palestine. This was the Balfour Declaration which would subsequently - and understandably - sour relations between Germany and its Jewish citizens (most of whom were Ashkenazim) when, at the Versailles peace conference, the Germans first learnt of said Declaration (as revealed by Benjamim Freedman - who was a member of the US delegation at said conference - in his speech delivered in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington DC)
The State of Israel was subsequently set up in 1948 by the Zionists, under the leadership of the Russian-born David Ben-Gurion (another atheist) who had emigrated to Palestine in 1906. The very term atheist means disbelief in any God and/or religion. Hence, an atheist cannot consider him/herself a Jew in the strictly religious sense of the term. To quote Rabbi E. Weissfish: The Zionist ideology has no connection whatsoever with Judaism, on the contrary Judaism is totally opposed to Zionism. It is thus incontrovertible that the two terms Judaism and Atheism are antonymous, a fact that Ben Gurion would certainly have been aware of - but here we have Ben Gurion himself, in his address to a special session of the Knesset in 1971, saying An Arab can be Muslim or Christian. A Jew, however, cannot be a member of another faith and still be a Jew. A Jew can be an atheist, but if he adopts the Christian or Muslim faith - he is no longer a Jew. This was clearly a duplicitous statement on his part, and, as such, therefore designed to confuse and divert attention from some hidden agenda.
That agenda is perhaps best revealed in their book Dangerous Liaison by Alexander and Lesley Cockburn, a detailed and well-documented assessment of the secretive - and remunerative - relationship between The US and Israel over the past few decades. A story that would make the likes of Saddam Hussein smile with envy, and please the Industrial-Military Establishment in particular. Politically, the US needed to foster a well-armed, technically advanced Israel which would serve a triple purpose: acting as a foil against the Arab hosts of the vast oil reserves; satisfying its politically-influential domestic Jewish lobby; and in view of the earlier burgeoning friendship between Ben Gurion and the Soviet Union, would ensure that the latter would not gain a foothold in the area. This would lead to very close cooperation between their respective Intelligence Services, with, at times, gruesome consequences in various Central and South American states such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras Panama and Colombia - when Israel would act on behalf of the US both as surrogate suppliers of armaments (including planes), and trainers in the art of assassination, torture, etc. to the police, militia and death squads of those countries when it was politically inconvenient for the US to be seen to be doing so (as in the Iran/Contra affair). Furthermore, laundered money from deals brokered with the drug cartels in the region would be used to facilitate the financing of such activities.
We are thus faced by an incongruous situation: here is an influential, secular faction of Ashkenazim - of Turkic lineage - who, under the religious banner of the Star of David, are laying claim to ahomeland (Palestine) that is not justifiably theirs! This also explains, to a large extent, the much-overlooked Ashkenazim/Sephardim schism within Judaism (a notable example of which was the exposure, in the mid-80s, of Israels atom bomb plant in Dimona by one Mordechai Vanunu whose parents, being Sephardic Jews from Morocco, were made to move from Haifa into the desert at Beersheba, leading to his deep resentment).
Finally, and most importantly, it should be emphasised that Arabs and Jews had for centuries lived in peace in the region before the advent of Zionism. The only conclusion to be drawn from this story is that Zionism has inevitably led to the more widespread dissemination of that tragic phenomenon - anti-semitism - with not-a-little-help from the Balfour Declaration.
Board of Deputies of British Jews
1 New Oxford Street,
Dear Jo Wagerman
I have recently been publicly and wrongly accused of anti-Semitism by Eric Lee from the Labourstart website, and others. I wonder whether you are interested in hearing about false accusations such as this?
I critically appraise information from right wing Internet sites (and critically link to them) but I do not have any 'conspiracy' world view as Eric alleges.
I am an environmental and social justice campaigner and journalist that has attempted to present the known facts, not the right-wing conspiracy theories, about the notorious Bilderberg group set up by ex-SS Nazi Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.
In my view it dangerously cheapens the efforts of good Jewish and Non-Jewish people fighting fascism in all its forms to have these unfounded allegations to circulate unchallenged by British Jewry which is why I have brought them to your attention. I look forward to your considered opinion of Eric's circulation of these allegations.
I believe that you mislead me -- and others -- when you attempted to distinguish your own conspiracy view of the world from that of the extreme right. Frankly, Tony, it appears that you identify very much with anti-Jewish, extreme Right elements which are correctly perceived by leftists as our enemies.
from my page all about allegations of Anti-Semitism http://www.bilderberg.org/jewish.htm [this very page]
nb. this letter has also been sent by post
Saturday February 7, 2004
In Claude Lanzmann's harrowing Holocaust documentary Shoah, a Polish farm labourer is interviewed standing on the steps of her church after Sunday Mass. During the war the church had been used as a holding pen for Jews destined for the nearby death camp. Lanzmann presses her for an explanation. She answers with the story of Jesus's trial in Matthew 27. Having offered the mob a choice between Jesus and the criminal Barabbas, and the crowd having chosen Barabbas for release and Jesus for crucifixion, Pontius Pilate washes his hands of the decision. Then "with one voice the people cried 'His blood be on us and on our children'".
Later this month, Mel Gibson's new film about the death of Christ, The Passion, goes on release in the United States, where it is already reopening ancient wounds. "The film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus," said Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League after a preview screening. "We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, could fuel the hatred, bigotry and anti-semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate." Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, has written to Gibson: "For 20 centuries, the false charges of deicide and collective guilt have been the core reasons for anti-semitism, causing the death and persecution of millions of Jews."
In 1965, as part of the reforming Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic church officially rejected the blood libel of Jews as Christ killers: "True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His Passion cannot be charged against all Jews without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today."
Even this sounds more of a qualification than an outright denunciation of the blood libel slur - which makes it so much more disturbing that Gibson belongs to an ultra-conservative Catholic splinter organisation, the Traditional Catholics, who have rejected the findings of Vatican II. While in Rome making the film, Gibson had a priest flown in from Canada to say the Tridentine Mass - the local Roman clergy apparently still tainted by the apostasy of Vatican II. Gibson's father, the single most influential figure on his theological development, described Vatican II as "a Masonic plot backed by the Jews" and has suggested that the Holocaust was hyped out of all proportion.
Little wonder Jewish organisations are worried about the film, which opens here next month. The Passion of Christ has been abused as anti-semitic propaganda for 2,000 years. At the Reformation, Protestants also got in on the act. Luther's publication of On the Jews and their Lies in 1543 represents one of the most disgusting anti-semitic tracts ever penned. Jews are "our plague, our pestilence, our misfortune", they "look into the devil's black, dark, lying behind and worship his stench". Furthermore, "We are at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord. We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in out midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, defaming." Texts like this sent people out to kill. From the highbrow anti-semitism of successive Christian theologians to the medieval passion plays that pandered to the anti-semitism of the mob, the idea that Jews were the murderers of Christ became a bogus alibi for a violent prejudice that remains the greatest stain on the Christian character. Anything that even faintly encourages such a vision ought never to be made in celluloid.
Gibson's defence is that he is just telling it straight; that the script for the film was the New Testament itself and that it was directed by the Holy Spirit. His frustration with scholars who insist that the Gospels can't be read as neutral eyewitness biography is evident: "They always want to dick around with it," he complained. The Pope was granted an advance screening and apparently gave it his imprimatur. "It is as it was," sources quoted the Pope as saying - though a Vatican spokesman later denied he had made any comment. All of which begs the question: is the anti-semitism some have recognised in Gibson's film really the anti-semitism of the Gospels themselves?
Jesus was executed in a land under Roman military occupation and by the Roman authorities. Only the Romans were allowed to crucify and only the Romans had the authority to condemn a man to death. Crucifixion was a punishment for those who threatened the political status quo, not those accused of theological heresy. Of course, in first century Palestine, as today, theology is politics. A charismatic leader who proclaimed a kingdom with God and not Caesar at its head was an immediate threat to the authorities. And as with all occupations, there were local stooges who acted on behalf of the Romans. But no one was in any doubt who was ultimately in charge. The Romans were responsible for the death of Christ.
All of which makes the story of Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the decision to execute a political/theological troublemaker entirely implausible. Brutal crowd suppression was Pilate's specialty. Governors of troublesome outposts of the Roman empire were hard-nosed career politicians who would not flinch from taking a man's life before breakfast. Can you imagine Paul Bremer sticking his head out of the hotel window and asking the Iraqi crowd whether he should send somereligious agitator to Guantanamo Bay or release him?
But there is no getting away from the fact that the New Testament bristles with vociferous condemnations of "the Jews", of Jewish leaders, Pharisees etc. Many argue that these denunciations originate at a time of conflict between the synagogue and newly forming Christian communities that had recently been ejected from synagogue worship. On this account, the vitriol levelled against "the Jews" is generated by a small and insecure community smarting from rejection. Moreover, given that the much of the anti-Jewish rhetoric of the Gospels was written after Romans legions had returned to crush the Jewish rebellion of AD 66, some have seen the desire to blame "the Jews" as whitewashing Roman responsibility so as not to antagonise Roman power.
What is going on here is intra-Jewish sectarian polemic. Note: intra-Jewish not anti-Jewish. The attack on "the Jews" in the Gospels is a family argument, and is conducted with the ferocity typical of a family argument. The prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures frequently denounced Israel for failing to live up to God's expectations. "These people draw near with their mouths and honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me," insists Isaiah. Attacks upon "the Jews" in the Gospels are of a piece with this intra-Jewish prophetic invective. But once Christianity morphed from a small Jewish sect, wrestling to establish its identity against the prevailing religious establishment, to the official religion of the Roman empire, these denunciations became deadly. Torn from the context of an intra- Jewish row for the soul of Judaism, "the Jews" starts to be heard as "them" as opposed to "us". From this moment on, the Gospels are used as justification for the greatest crime in European history - the death of one Jew becoming the pretext for the murder of millions more. Christians have too often preferred an anti-semitic lie to a disturbingly relevant truth: Jesus was destroyed by the logic of empire.
· The Rev Dr Giles Fraser is vicar of Putney and lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford
Special to the Jewish Times
NOVEMBER 11, 2003
New York http://www.jewishtimes.com/News/3460.stm
It's not often that George Soros, the billionaire financier and philanthropist, makes an appearance before a Jewish audience.
It's even rarer for him to use such an occasion to talk about Israel, Jews and his own role in effecting political change.
So when Soros stepped to the podium Nov. 5 to address those issues at a conference of the Jewish Funders Network, audience members were listening carefully.
Many were surprised by what they heard.
When asked about anti-Semitism in Europe, Soros, who is Jewish, said European anti-Semitism is the result of the policies of Israel and the United States.
"There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that," Soros said. "It's not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti- Semitism as well. I'm critical of those policies."
"If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish," he said. "I can't see how one could confront it directly."
That is a point made by Israel's most vociferous critics, whom some Jewish activists charge with using anti-Zionism as a guise for anti-Semitism.
The billionaire financier said he, too, bears some responsibility for the new anti-Semitism, citing last month's speech by Malaysia's outgoing prime minister, Mahathir Mohammad, who said, "Jews rule the world by proxy."
"I'm also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world," said Soros, whose projects and funding have influenced governments and promoted various political causes around the world.
"As an unintended consequence of my actions," he said, "I also contribute to that image."
In the past, Mahathir has singled out Soros and other "Jewish financiers" for financial pressure that Mahathir said has harmed Malaysia's economy.
After the conference, some Jewish leaders who heard about the speech reacted angrily to Soros' remarks.
"Let's understand things clearly: Anti-Semitism is not caused by Jews; it's caused by anti-Semites," said Elan Steinberg, senior adviser at the World Jewish Congress. "One can certainly be critical of Bush policy or Sharon policy, but any deviation from the understanding of the real cause of anti-Semitism is not merely a disservice, but a historic lie."
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called Soros' comments "absolutely obscene."
"He buys into the stereotype," Foxman said. "It's a simplistic, counterproductive, biased and bigoted perception of what's out there. It's blaming the victim for all of Israel's and the Jewish people's ills."
Furthermore, Foxman said, "If he sees that his position of being who he is may contribute to the perception of anti-Semitism, what's his solution to himself -- that he give up his money? That he close his mouth?"
Associates said Soros' appearance Nov. 5 was the first they could ever recall in which the billionaire, a Hungarian-born U.S. Jew who escaped the Holocaust by fleeing to London as a child, had spoken in front of a Jewish group or attended a Jewish function.
The one-day meeting on funding in Israel, which took place at the Harvard Club in New York, was limited mostly to representatives of Jewish philanthropic foundations.
After Soros' speech, Michael Steinhardt, the real-estate magnate and Jewish philanthropist who arranged for Soros to address the group, said in an interview that Soros' views do not reflect those of most Jewish millionaires or philanthropists.
He also pointed out that this was Soros' first speech to a Jewish audience.
Steinhardt approached the lectern and interrupted Soros immediately after his remarks on anti-Semitism.
"George Soros does not think Jews should be hated any more than they deserve to be," Steinhardt said by way of clarification, eliciting chuckles from the audience.
Steinhardt then gave the lectern back to Soros, who said he had something to add to his remarks on the issue of anti-Semitism. Soros then paused to ask if there were any journalists in the room.
When he learned that there were, Soros withheld further comment.
Mark Charendoff, president of the group that hosted the conference, said he was pleased overall with the Soros event.
"We found him to be enormously frank, candid and generous with his time," Charendoff said. "I would be delighted if Mr. Soros would bring his passion, his brilliance and his resources to a range of different causes that are important to the Jewish community."
Charendoff is not alone.
Regardless of what they think of his politics, most Jewish activists likely would welcome Soros' participation in the world of Jewish philanthropy.
Though he's ranked as the 28th richest person in the United States by Forbes magazine -- with a fortune valued at $7 billion -- Soros has given relatively little money to Jewish causes.
Soros' first known funding of a Jewish group came in 1997, when his Open Society Institute's Emma Lazarus Fund gave $1.3 million to the Council of Jewish Federations, and when Soros gave another $1.3 million to the Jewish Fund for Justice, an anti-poverty group.
As much as Jews may not like what Soros has to say -- at the Nov. 5 meeting, he called for "regime change" in the United States and talked of funding projects in "Palestine" -- they are eager to get Soros involved in giving to Jewish causes.
"In many ways, this was an introduction for Soros," Charendoff said. "He remarked to me how impressed he was with the quality of the people he met. We can only hope that this was a beginning of an engagement with the Jewish funding world."
Soros said he has not given much to Jewish or Israel-related causes because Jews take care of their own, so that his financial clout is better directed elsewhere.
Steinhardt tried to correct him on that point, saying the field of Jewish giving is not as crowded as Soros thinks.
"Even if we were a crowded field," Steinhardt told Soros, "I'm sure we could make room for you."
During his speech, Soros announced that he would support the "Geneva accord," an unofficial Middle East peace plan proposed by two out-of-office politicians, Israel's Yossi Beilin and Palestinian Yasser Abed Rabbo.
That plan envisions two states along pre-1967 borders and a shared Jerusalem, and is vague on the demand that Palestinian refugees from 1948 be allowed to return to Israel.
It was not clear whether Soros' support of the plan would involve funding. Beilin's office did not return a call seeking comment.
1. Tam Dalyell's 'mistake' - David Rosenberg
2. Worse than Thatcher - Paul Foot
3. Message to the left: there is no all-powerful Jewish lobby - David Aaronovitch
Monday May 19, 2003 The Guardian
It was nice of Paul Foot to interpret Tam Dalyell's recent intemperate outburst about "Jewish pressure" for him (Worse than Thatcher, May 14). Foot dismissed it simply as a "mistake" as Dalyell obviously meant "Zionist pressure". But if it was purely a semantic mistake why did Dalyell illustrate his point with specific reference to prominent Jews and individuals of distant Jewish origin rather than the many influential non-Jewish supporters of Israel that abound in the circles around Bush and Blair?
Of course Foot is right to point out that the Board of Deputies of British Jews also conflate "Jew" and "Zionist" and regard it as their duty to the Jewish public to defend Israel. But whatever the Board of Deputies "thinks", that is hardly an excuse for an intelligent and experienced political thinker such as Dalyell to accept their views at face value.
Until the late 1930s the Board of Deputies were officially anti-Zionist, but in more recent decades their overriding agenda has been to protect the Israeli state's perceived interests, and it is regarded with deep cynicism by large numbers of thinking, open-minded Jews, whom Dalyell ought to spend more time getting to know.
Incidentally, what does Tam Dalyell, or Paul Foot, imagine would be the policy of Bush and the major American corporations that back him towards the Palestinians, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, France etc in the absence of any advisers of Jewish origin?
David Rosenberg London
Wednesday May 14, 2003 The Guardian
My earliest memories of David Triesman glow with pride at the furious and eventually successful campaign to get him reinstated as a suspended student at Essex University in the late 1960s. He was a wild man of the Very Far Left. I didn't follow his subsequent career very closely, except occasionally to observe him on the usual dreary road from left to right, until he ended up as general secretary of the Labour party.
Last week, acting entirely on his own authority, he suspended George Galloway from Labour party membership. He gave as a "reason" some mild remarks George made about the role of his party leader during the war in Iraq. Triesman made no comment about the hotly disputed allegations made against George by the Daily Telegraph, but the suspension can only have damaged George's libel case against the newspaper. What amused me most, however, was Triesman's pathetic whine that he was acting against George exactly as he or any of his predecessors would have acted against any other party member. Really?
How did the Labour party leadership respond, for instance, to the shocking story of Geoffrey Robinson's massive (and secret) loan to his fellow minister Peter Mandelson? What action followed the revelations about the extremely close connections between Mandelson and the Hinduja brothers when the latter were under investigation in India for the most monstrous arms dealing?
What action did the Labour party take against Dr John Reid when the parliamentary standards commissioner exposed his nepotistic employment of his son on a salary paid out of his parliamentary office cost allowance? As far as I know, there was no Labour party investigation into any of these allegations, each of them in my view much more damaging to the Labour movement than the trenchant comments of George Galloway. There were no suspensions. Robinson is still an MP. So is Mandelson. So shocked were the Labour leaders at the revelations about Dr Reid that they promoted him - to be chairman of the Labour party and now leader of the House of Commons. I wonder whether David Triesman ever reflects on the ideals and passion of his youth, and compares them with his current responsibility for New Labour. How, for instance, does he hope to persuade people that the Labour party still deserves the support of the workers and the poor? This week come official figures to prove that after six years of Labour government the gap between rich and poor in Britain is even wider than it was under Thatcher. "Worse than Thatcher" is a terrible indictment, but thoroughly deserved. In every area of social and political endeavour the New Labour administration has distanced itself from its origins, promoted and enriched the rich, glorified them for their wealth and occasionally even dabbled in their greed and their corruption. Those who speak up for the rich are promoted, ennobled, rewarded. Those who have the guts to speak out against them and their cabinet toadies are suspended.
Is Tam Dalyell anti-semitic? My first job as a young feature writer on the Scottish Daily Record 41 years ago was to interview the Labour candidate at a parliamentary by-election in West Lothian, an engaging Old Etonian who lived in a castle. I liked him at once (and have liked him ever since) but was rather surprised when he told me a few months later that there was only one socialist country on earth: Israel. Obviously, Tam has changed his mind since, and obviously he is wrong to complain about Jewish pressure on Blair and Bush when he means Zionist pressure. But that's a mistake that is constantly encouraged by the Zionists. The most honourable and principled Jews, here, in Israel and everywhere else, are those who oppose the imperialist and racist policies of successive Israeli governments. It was a Palestinian Jew, Tony Cliff, who convinced me very early in life that the six-day Israeli war in 1967 was a war of conquest and occupation that would make it easier for US billionaires to keep their fingers on the region's oil. When I wrote in this column not long ago about the discrepancy in reactions to UN resolutions against Israel and against Iraq, I was surprised to read a rebuttal from a representative of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The Board was set up in 1760 to "protect, support and defend the interests and religious rights and customs of the Jewish community in the UK". There are lots of Jews in Britain who are bitterly opposed to the loathsome Israeli occupation of other peoples' countries and the grotesque violence it involves. Are their interests also protected and defended by the Board of Deputies? If not, are the deputies guilty of making the mistake for which they denounce Tam Dalyell?
Tuesday May 27, 2003 The Guardian
Thinking about it now it must have taken some courage for the blonde, middle-aged woman to approach me, as I sat with friends in the restaurant marquee at Hay-on-Wye last Saturday night. At the time I was aware at first only of her anger, and then - subsequently - of mine.
Hay is a gentle festival. Disagreements are generally handled with regretful qualifications, as in, "I loved your piece on the Tories, but I'm afraid I didn't altogether agree with what you said about Iraq." But from the moment the blonde woman bore down on me it was obvious that she was too cross for all that.
"You're David Aaronovitch," she said, "you write all those articles about anti-Semitism." I agreed on identity but said I was puzzled, because I hadn't written much about anti-Semitism. Why, I asked, did she think I had?
She carried on, with vehemence. "Being critical of Israel isn't anti-semitic, and many of us are fed up with being told that it is." I agreed that being anti-Zionist wasn't the same as being anti-Semitic. "And," she added, unmollified, "if the American neo-conservatives are all Jewish, it isn't anti-Semitic to say so, it's just telling the truth!"
I said that that depended on why you felt obliged to "reveal" the religious or racial identities of a group of people. What, in other words, was she trying to say? "I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm in PR," she replied, adding, "and a lot of my really good friends are Jewish." And she stomped off.
These days, when I look in the mirror I see my father's face and when I speak, I hear my father's voice. From somewhere, God knows how, I have inherited a few inflections that Henry Higgins would recognise as being London Jewish. Apart from that, no synagogue, no briss, no Hebrew classes, no bar mitzvah. Yet in the past year these small things, and people like the blonde woman, have begun to make a Jew out of me, whatever I think about it.
After all, what had I written in the previous six months? An attack on conspiracy theories, one reference to receiving the occasional anti-Semitic letter or email, an objection to being called "pro-Israeli" and a worry about an audience member on BBC1's Question Time, who referred to there being "so many Israelis in the American government" (there aren't any, of course). In the previous year I had argued that it wasn't per se anti-Semitic to deny the right of Israel to exist, and pointed out that the real victims of racism in this country tended to be asylum seekers and Muslims. So why did the blonde woman come after me?
Why did Pardeep call me a Zionist on the Medialens forum (Medialens is an organisation devoted to putting the official media right about the world)? I emailed Pardeep to ask him, but this very vocal man suddenly went quiet. Why did a questioner in an Observer online session refer to my support for the Iraqi war as being occasioned by loyalty to George Bush, "and Ariel Sharon"? I can see the rhetorical point of the Bush jibe, but the Sharon quip only makes sense if you read it in a particular way.
Last March an Ian Henshall, who describes himself as "chair of the UK's alternative media umbrella group, INK", wrote an open letter to the editor of the Observer, to complain about the journalist Nick Cohen's support for an attack on Iraq. "Cohen," said Henshall, "has written publicly about his loyalty to his Jewishness, so (is) there is any connection between this and his apparent support for the coming war?" Henshall continued, "Just before anyone calls me anti-Semitic, could I point out that my current hero is Uri Avneri, and the bravest people in the world are the Jews who are resisting the occupation and Sharon's ethnic cleansing." Henshall, incidentally, is also a disseminator of internet stories with headlines such as, "What were 120 Israeli spies doing in America a few months before the 9/11 attacks?"
This month J Hall suggested to me that the infamous Galloway documents could have been the work of "the Jewish lobby". A Medialens regular, David Bracewell, posts this week to criticise "Israeli fascism" and adds, "if ever there was an inflammatory, racist, insidiously exclusive term, 'anti-Semitism' is it. It baffles me why the supposed victims of racism would want a term all for themselves." Supposed? And not one of the assembled lefties took him up on it.
When Tam Dalyell accused Tony Blair recently of being in the pocket of Lord Levy, Peter Mandelson and "the Jewish lobby", he defended himself against charges of anti-Semitism by recalling that his daughters had visited kibbutzim. Notwithstanding Jonathan Freedland's devastating and factual demolition of Dalyell's slide into anti-Semitic stereotyping, Paul Foot - veteran leftwinger and campaigner - defended Dalyell suggesting that Tam was merely "wrong to complain about Jewish pressure on Blair and Bush when he means Zionist pressure". "But," explained Foot "that's a mistake that is constantly encouraged by the Zionists." Clever bastards, they even manipulated poor old Tam into looking like the anti-Semite he isn't.
RG Gregory wrote to this paper to attack Freedland. He particularly objected to Freedland's mentioning the BNP's similar-sounding assaults on Zionism. "Why has the BNP been dragged into the matter? Has that party been against the Iraq war, sympathetic to Arab suffering, able to put itself in Palestinian shoes? Does the BNP in fact hold one view that concurs with those of Tam Dalyell?" To which the answers were, if Gregory had but researched them, Yes, Yes (in rhetoric, anyway), ditto and - regrettably - Yes.
So here's a danger alert. The blonde woman was stupid, but it was her stupidity that was allowing her to say what many others are thinking. Too many leftwingers and liberals are crossing the magic line right now. Let me spell it out for you. There is no all-powerful Jewish lobby. There is no secret convocation. Most journalists with Jewish names do not write the things they do because of loyalty to their race or religion. Nor can you simply change the word "Jewish" to "Zionist" and somehow be exempt from the charge of low-level racism. And it's no good wiffling on about your Jewish friends or trying to slip your prejudices past the guards by boldly proclaiming your refusal to be intimidated. There are no Elders and there are no Protocols.
This article about the Bilderberger has been hidden by me because of weird generalising nonfactual religious discriminative content, which is moreover notnews, inaccurate, disruptive, hierarchical and repeatedly posted.
I have been active long enough in antifascist groups in Germany to know that it is fucking bullshit which does not require justification.
"Keep a close eye too on Zionist attempts to rebuild Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, to expand Israel's borders and to wipe out the Palestinian people. The Zionist eye is firmly on the main chance: feeding the fire of interreligious hatred amongst the worlds three monotheistic religions."
well, this seems to me an obvious reason to hide the article and rest of the article is no better, just more subtle, but still provides enough weird conspiracy madness to hide. More worrying to me is that this author apparantly is able to be involved in the Indymedia project without getting chucked out, as this person apparantly does not understand the editorial guidelines or the philosophy Indymedia comes from and represents.
Also I want to remind everybody, that we were having a discussion and agreement on the imcuk feature list to hide more and more strictly unrelevenant stuff during the war, as otherwise news reports about direct action against the war in the UK drop out too quickly from the newswire and are a pain to try to retrieve them via the search option.
Wednesday August 21, 2002
The unquenchable defiance of the Palestinian people inspired the furious speech from the dock last week by the handcuffed Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti. In a single sentence, repeated with great passion, he summed up the one absolutely undeniable truth about Palestine: that there can be "no peace with occupation". In other words, whatever the vacillations of Zionist intellectuals in the west, whatever the reactions to the suicide bombings, the plain fact remains that there is no hope for peace in the region as long as Israel maintains its illegal and brutal occupation of other people's territory.
Mr Barghouti was seized by military force in Ramallah, where, even according to the miserable treaties already agreed, criminal justice is a matter for the Palestinian authority. His illegal capture and trial is yet another pathetic attempt by the Israeli authorities to pretend that their military occupation and enforced settlement of other people's land has something to do with justice and democracy.
While Mr Barghouti waits for his trial to start, two other powerful voices have been raised to haunt the Israeli authorities. The first is that of Nelson Mandela, who says he will be closely following the trial proceedings. His involvement is a reminder of the similarities between the bantustans for South African black people under apartheid, and the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza. The other voice was that of Marek Edelman, who was deputy commander of the historic Warsaw ghetto uprising of the Jews against the Nazis in 1943.
Now in his 80s, Mr Edelman wrote a letter early this month to Palestinian leaders. Though the letter criticised the suicide bombers, its tone infuriated the Israeli government and its press. He wrote in a spirit of solidarity from a fellow resistance fighter, as a former leader of a Jewish uprising not dissimilar in desperation to the Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories. He addressed his letter to "commanders of the Palestinian military, paramilitary and partisan operations - to all the soldiers of the Palestinian fighting organisations".
This set up a howl of rage in the Zionist press, who reminded their readers that Mr Edelman, despite his heroism in the 1940s, is a former supporter of the anti-Zionist socialist Bund, and can therefore not be trusted. Nothing infuriates Zionists more than the arguments of anti-Zionist Jews, who have such a courageous and principled history. The essence of the intellectual case for Zionism is that its opponents are anti-semitic. But when Jews, especially heroic Jews such as Marek Edelman, speak out against Zionism, and especially if they denounce Israeli imperialism and defend the victims of it, how can they be accused of anti-semitism? What a boost it would be for the Palestinians and their cause - and for peace in the Middle East - if Marek Edelman could attend the Barghouti trial.
Subject: Re: [right-left] Oppose racist infiltration of the anti-globalisation movement
Sent: 06/05/01 18:27
I will reply to your last two messages in one here, even though you have answered not a single one of the questions I asked last time.
<The way Lisa connected various snippets of information together is a classic example of what is wrong with conspiracy thinking: A is 'linked' with B, B is (said to be) facist, therefore A is fascist; 'THEREFORE' anyone who says that something said by A is true is also a fascist, i.e. an enemy i.e. deserving to be silenced/exterminated.>
Why dont you stop the shit, and speak in plain terms, Professor. This is not an algebra class. There is no A, B and there is no C. There are real, concrete people, real organisations I have referred to. So, say out loud who are the A, B amd C in your puzzle? Who is "said to be" fascist, (and, as you imply), is not really so? Do you think that Spotlight are not fascist? Do you say Irving is not a fascist? Who are you referring to? Say what you mean, you coward!
Also, do not think that people on this list will not detect a sub-text in the way you have used the word "exterminated" against me. Your message is similar to the message of the screwed-up Ronson - you want to imply that the antiracist movement is as bad as the "nazis" , that antiracists are out to "exterminate" indiscriminately and that we "deny freedom of speech just like the fascists".
Well I tell you something, I think that anyone who is a hard-core nazi deserves to have his freedom of speech shoved right up his arse, and then to be exterminated with the same loving care and compassion that Mengele gave to his victims. And if you do not like what I say, Professor, you can fuck yourself.
<I am not going to respond to the histrionic virulence of your message. Your moral self-righteousness is alarming and the 'violent' imagery of your language is offensive and personally threatening. You have no right to speak to anyone whom you do not know in such a tone. It is the kind of rhetoric associated with fascists.>
Yes, you are giving yourself away here, professor again. The antifascists are fascists, right?. And what about the reverse, professor? Do you think that people like your mate Gosling are the true democrats, cherishing freedom of speech of people like Irving, so he can go over to Germany and incite more brainless nazis to burn Kurdish and Turkish children alive in their homes? Or the "right" of Gosling to say that the Protocols "may" be true (ie the Jews may really be in a secret plot to dominate the world). Fuck you! [even if there is some truth in the protocols, highly unlikely, it would only implicate a small cabal not all Jews - use reason not emotion, TG]
<You have no right to speak to anyone whom you do not know in such a tone. It is the kind of rhetoric associated with fascists.>
I will talk to you in any way I like. And by the way, you are wrong. Some fascists swear and shout. And some talk in very cultured and polite tones. Some are skinheads with Doc Martens and tattoos. Yet other fascists are upper-class English "gentlemen" who take tea at four. Yet they always stand loyally, some by intention, some unaware in their pig ignorance - loyally in service of capitalist masters.
<How can one research corporations unless we are allowed (by thought-cops like you) to investigate....?>
Did I say we must not investigate? Investigate whatever you want. But dont you dare tell us to treat fascists as legitimate sources of "information".
<PS Your own reference to Ronson as a 'money-greedy journalist' could itself be seen as evidence that your own thinking is infected by anti-semitism. >
Sure. You are providing a lot of comic entertainment for us on this list.
Look you arsehole, I am Jewish, I am the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, I have spent my entire political life fighting racism and fascism. I have been accused of spending TOO MUCH time fighting antisemitism, to the extent that it is affecting my health and my family. I will forward your accusation to my friends, so that they can have a good laugh.
Now look Peters, my people, the Jewish people, are neither any better, nor any worse than anyone else. We have great people, great scientists and doctors, and also great working-class people who are heroes in their ordinary lives. We also have screwed-up Jews, idiotic Jews and those Jews who will do anything for money. And these last three certainly describe Ronson.
You are defending Gosling, a pig who tells everyone that the Jewish people "may be" running an international financial conspiracy to subjugate the world. You defend him as a friend. Then you accuse me, a Jew, of antisemitism, because I criticise a Jewish journalist who makes friends with nazis?! Are you out of your bloody mind?
<You yourself also 'personify' capitalists like Milliken in a way I recognise from fascist writing. The level of analysis (goodies versus baddies) and the assumption that physical violence is the optimum way of settling all disagreements is appalling.>
Do you like Milliken, Professor? You ignored all the questions I asked you in my last message. Perhaps you will answer this one?
Yes, I have got an analysis in which there exist "goodies and baddies". Goodies are those who fight for the overthrow of capitalism, to establish a just and humane society for ALL, regardless of colour, ethnic origin, sexual orientation etc etc.. Baddies, are capitalists, who want to maintain this oppressive system, and also the racists and fascists who do their dirty work for them. You do not like my approach. What then, is yours?
Is Milliken a "goodie" or a "baddie" for you? You claim you want to expose the truth about a number of billionaires. Good. But why does it bother you so much when I criticise THIS PARTICULAR American billionaire? Have you got a special soft spot in your heart for him, Professor? It seems very strange.
<the assumption that physical violence is the optimum way of settling all disagreements is appalling.>
Did I say that all disagreements should be settled with violence? Never! I simply said, that the best education for a hard-core nazi is done with a baseball bat. Perhaps you remember the famous quote by Hitler, something to the effect "if they had crushed me when I was still small". Well, many people believe he was right. And of course he was. If Hitler and every other nazi organiser who stood up in the German beer-kellers to incite racial hatred had received some of this baseball bat therapy, there would never have been a Third Reich or a Holocaust, would there?
<Your demand for total agreement as a condition for discussion is intolerable and totalitarian.>
What total agreement. I demand total agreement with a few basic things, yes.
I demand total agreement that we do not ever give credibility to fascists, yes. I demand total agreement that we do not promote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Have you got a problem with these things, Professor? Have you?
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:36:44 +0100
To: Bristol Activists List
From: Tony Gosling <email@example.com>
Subject: Institutional Analysis or Conspiracy Theory?
Bilderberg is not a Conspiracy Theory.
It is an established institution that can be calmly and factually analysed.
It is convenient for the rich and powerful that people like you attempt to ridicule serious study of Bilderberg.
If the links (which are nothing directly to do with the Bilderberg research I do) to the protocols were just 'crap' I wouldn't have put them there.
Since I have nearly 1200 links I'm sure every single person on this list would find something they disagree with.
And I stress again, anyone who thinks I might be an anti-Semite please make your own mind up by talking to me or looking at the site.
And see my page on the fallacious notion that Bilderberg is a conspiracy theory and on these bitter ongoing (invariably anonymous) slurs http://www.bilderberg.org/jewish.htm [this page]
As for panic posting articles??? Does it not help to see where my head's at? I have been posting bits and pieces ever since joining the list. And I felt it would be good to raise the information rather than disinformation content of the list.
Had you noticed, for example, that Bilderberg was devised in 1943 by the same people and at the same time as NATO? I don't expect you to answer that question because I don't think you really care.
by the way, who are you?
Note: Since the publication of Jewish writer Norman G. Finkelstein's book 'The Holocaust Industry' (Verso, 2000, ISBN 1-85984-773-0) it has become clear that some people have been promoting, in school curricula, faked, forged accounts of the Holocaust. - this book highly recommended.
I suppose he's an Anti-Semite too?
0117 953 1256
At 07:16 PM 18/04/2001 +0100, you wrote:
So the answer to my question is yes then? It is the same Tony Gosling.
The thing about conspiracy theories is that you can't disprove them. So aliens might be running the US from bases under the Nevada desert. Clinton may be an illuminati. Kennedy might have been shot by the CIA. The world might be run by a coterie around Bilderberg. And Gosling might be an anti-semite. How do we know?
He appears to be hung by his own petard. That's what you get for producing popular, publicity seeking journalism init? These are tricky times for anti-capitalists. We know we must be being infiltrated. But by whom?
Tony, mate, take more care and how about an apology, the promise to remove the crap from your site and less excuses? Oh, and posting up loads of stuff about Palestine and Gregory Palast all of a sudden...is this panic?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:37:31 +0100
To: Fred Fire <firstname.lastname@example.org>,email@example.com
From: Tony Gosling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [BrAct] Tony Gosling
This is libelous material Eric's circulating.
To call me an admirer of Nazis - how would you like me circulating an email saying that about you? - you really should check your facts.
I wouldn't dream of circulating such a message unless I was ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it was correct. It cheapens a serious area.
One of the main reasons I campaign against Bilderberg - mainly for more public information about and press coverage of the conferences - is because it is a clandestine collection of the richest and most powerful men in the world. It was started by an ex SS Nazi. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands worked for IG Farben - gas chamber poison manufacturers.
I used the Labourstart news headlines because I am a Trades Unionist myself and support the movement, not to 'gain credibility' .
When I got the aggressive birthday message from Eric demanding I remove the links - I replied to it promptly and politely but got no reply from him.
Eric Lee neglected to look at the page I have all about this kind of slur. http://www.bilderberg.org/jewish.htm And containing my explanation of why I think a link to the Protocols of Zion IS justified. Why not read some of the comments on the protocols by Zionists and non-Zionists and make your own mind up. What Eric is trying to do is to drive discussion about the protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion Underground.
Incidentally Eric seems to like slagging lefties off that don't see eye to eye with him. He commented to me at the Green Party economics meeting in question that Chris Bailey, Owner of Labournet as an awkward so-and-so.
Labourstart, seems to have been set up[ to compete with rather than compliment Labournet
I've had to put up with slurs like this before - Although it's tiresome I would have thought Eric Lee was more intelligent than to circulate malicious drivel about me being an 'Admirer of Nazis'
I realise Eric is Jewish and many Jewish people believe the Protocols of Zion to be anti-Jewish hate material. In fact their authenticity has never been entirely proven nor disproven and if true, they don't incriminate the Jewish race as a whole. The protocols, if true, are anti Zionist. Zionists are right-wing Jews, some of whom are responsible for the current wave of racism, murder and apartheid in occupied Palestine.
Though I don't think there is much doubt that the Protocols are fake I feel the single link, amongst several hundred links, is justified (there is a warning at the top of the page and next to the link) and was not about to be bullied into taking it down.
I maintain the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are worthy of study which is why I have included links, in the spirit of balance, to sites which both disbelieve and believe them.
At 04:34 PM 17/04/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Interesting letter circulating the net reproduced below. Is this the Tony Gosling expressing concern re: paper sellers? I think we should be told.
Below is an item of interest on the anti-Bilderberg agenda. cheers
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 4:56 PM
Subject: [UK_Left_Network] Whither Tony Gosling
The letter below is by Eric Lee, who runs the well-known Labourstart site on the net. He has given permission for its further circulation. Basically he has given Tony Gosling the boot after finding that this so-called "Bilderberg expert" and admirer of nazis was using Labourstart's name to add to his left credibility.
By MARC PERELMAN FORWARD CORRESPONDENT
Upholding most of a $10 million defamation suit against the Anti-Defamation League, a federal judge in Denver has lambasted the organization for labeling a nasty neighborhood feud as an anti-Semitic event.
In upholding the first-ever court defeat handed to the 87-year-old ADL, U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham said the organization had endorsed and publicized the bigotry accusations of a Jewish couple against its neighbors without either investigating the case or weighing the consequences.
"Based on its position and history as a well-respected civil-rights institution, it is not unreasonable to infer that public charges of anti-Semitism leveled by the ADL will be taken seriously and assumed by many to be true without question," the judge wrote on March 31 in a 46-page order and memorandum of decision obtained by the Forward. "In that respect, the ADL is in a unique position of being able to cause substantial harm to individuals when it lends its backing to allegations of anti-Semitism."
The judge's opinion confirmed a verdict reached last April by a federal jury, which essentially accused the Denver chapter of the ADL and its regional representative, Saul Rosenthal, of falsely portraying William and Dorothy Quigley as anti-Semites. Mr. Quigley, an executive of the United Artists theater chain, said his career in the "predominantly Jewish and close-knit" film business had stalled after the incident.
"The ADL seized an opportunity to aggrandize itself as the defender of the Jews by unjustly accusing a middle-class couple of being anti-Semitic crooks," said Jay Horowitz, the Quigleys' Denver-based lawyer. "And all along, they showed an unbelievable arrogance."
At the same time, the judge reduced last year's judgment by some $675,000, cutting the punitive damages awarded to Mrs. Quigley under state law and reducing the Quigleys' compensatory damages to reflect money they received in an earlier settlement with opposing lawyers.
The ADL said it would appeal the decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver later this spring. The ADL's law firm, Long and Jaudon, claimed in a statement issued by the ADL last week that "there were reversible errors made during both pretrial and trial proceedings." Both the ADL and attorney Joe Jaudon refused to comment further.
What is not in dispute is that the ADL, after springing to the defense of a Jewish couple essentially seeking to strengthen their hand in a private dispute, now finds itself entangled in an embarrassing and potentially costly legal stew. The league's annual budget hovers around $50 million. The judgment could harm its reputation as an aggressive but reliable monitor of anti-Semitism.
The ruling comes at a time when the ADL is also embroiled in the Marc Rich pardon scandal. The organization said it received some $250,000 in the past 15 years from the fugitive financier who received a controversial 11th-hour pardon from President Clinton. The league's national director, Abraham Foxman, declared last month that he "probably" had made a mistake in writing a letter to Mr. Clinton supporting the Rich pardon.
All this was not lost on Mr. Horowitz, the Denver attorney.
"Can you imagine an organization using money from Marc Rich, a guy who made millions dealing with anti-Semitic countries like Iran, attacking powerless people for some alleged anti-Semitic slurs?" he said.
The Denver dispute began in August 1994, when Mitchell and Candice Aronson moved to the affluent suburb of Evergreen, Colo. The couple was initially befriended by the Quigleys, their neighbors, but relations quickly began to sour, escalating from complaints about dogs and stolen plants to an allegation by Mrs. Aronson that Mr. Quigley tried to run her over with his car.
The Aronsons contacted the ADL on October 21, after concluding that the Quigleys were plotting to drive them out of the neighborhood because they were Jewish. The suspicions were based partly on a conversation on the Quigleys' cordless phone, which the Aronsons claimed they inadvertently overheard through their police scanner. They said they heard the Quigleys talking about sticking pictures of oven doors on their house, burning their children and wishing they had been blown up in a terrorist attack in Israel.
The ADL, after consulting with the district attorney, suggested that the Aronsons tape another six weeks' worth of conversations. None of the parties reportedly knew that Congress had outlawed such wiretaps on October 25.
In December, the Aronsons filed a federal suit against the Quigleys, accusing them of ethnic intimidation and violation of their civil rights. The following day, at a press conference, Mr. Rosenthal of the ADL labeled the Quigleys anti-Semitic and said they were planning attacks against the Aronsons. The district attorney's office also filed felony criminal charges of ethnic intimidation.
At that point, the case began to unravel. The Quigleys accused the Aronsons of waging a smear campaign against them. In January 1996, they sued the Aronsons and the ADL for violating their rights under the Federal Wiretap Act.
In the meantime, the district attorney, who realized that the tapes were illegal, dropped the ethnic intimidation charge and agreed to pay compensation to the Quigleys. In February 1998, an out-of-court settlement was reached between the couples. But the settlement did not include Mr. Rosenthal and the ADL.
Mr. Horowitz said he tried to settle numerous times with the ADL, but was rebuffed.
The Quigleys accused the ADL of libel, false light invasion of privacy, invasion of privacy and violation of the Federal Wiretap Act. In April 2000, a jury accepted nearly all the charges and awarded them $10.5 million in damages, one of the largest defamation awards ever in Colorado.
In reply, the ADL and Mr. Rosenthal called for a reduction of the judgment, or a new trial.
Judge Nottingham, ruling on the ADL's motion to overturn the verdict, accepted none of the league's arguments. He pointed to evidence that Mr. Rosenthal and the ADL had not bothered to listen to the tapes, read the transcripts or investigate in-depth before publicly leveling the charge of anti-Semitism. He criticized what he called the selection of isolated comments from thousands of pages of transcripts to build the anti-Semitism accusation "in what could otherwise be regarded as mere sarcastic, banal and tasteless remarks uttered in a garden-variety dispute among neighbors."
To support his argument, the judge cited an internal ADL memorandum written by Mr. Rosenthal in January 1995, in which the league official said he wanted "to be sure we are maximizing all opportunities that are available from the Aronson case and arrests.... In short, 'make hay while the sun shines' graciously of course."
Mr. Quigley, a New York native, was a chief financial officer at Paramount pictures and president of Vestron Pictures. There he produced the movies "Dirty Dancing" and "The Dead." He moved to Denver in 1993 to head the United Artists' theater chain in the region.
As a result of the anti-Semitism charge, said his attorney, Mr. Horowitz, "He has become a pariah in the business."
The judge concurred, repeatedly underlining what he called the "catastrophic impact" of the accusations on Mr. Quigley's career. He said the issue was actually raised in discussions within the Denver ADL. "In that respect, Rosenthal's conduct could be perceived as even more egregious, given his awareness of the stigmatizing consequences attached to accusations of anti-Semitism."
Regarding the large damage award, the judge wrote that "it will, at a minimum, provide a deterrent effect against the ADL from engaging in future conduct involving the use of intercepted telephone conversations to pursue a civil lawsuit against persons perceived to be anti-Semitic."
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 07:48:03 +0100
From: Eric Lee <email@example.com>
Subject: LabourStart and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
As I'm sure you'll recall, when we sat together on that Green Party conference panel in Leicester last November, I cautioned the audience -- and you -- about the dangers of becoming anti-Semitic when one adopts a conspiracy theory of the world. If I remember correctly, you agreed with me. You are concerned about the Bilderberg group, the Masons, and so on, but you made a point of assuring everyone that you are not anti-Semitic.
Imagine my surprise at discovering that among the "Good Links" on your website is a link to the most famous of all anti-Semitic forgeries, the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". And if this were not enough, your description of the link -- in your own words -- is that this document is "interesting" and "fascinating" and you indicate your own suspicion that it might be evidence of "a Zionist conspiracy" rather than merely "anti-Jewish propaganda".
Though I have not had time to go through all the other links on your page, I understand that several point to the works of well-known Holocaust deniers and other anti-Semites. (Your link to David Irving's site is, fortunately, no longer working.)
It is absolutely unacceptable to us [for 'us' read 'me'] that LabourStart news headlines appear on such a site. I believe that you mislead me -- and others -- when you attempted to distinguish your own conspiracy view of the world from that of the extreme right. Frankly, Tony, it appears that you identify very much with anti-Jewish, extreme Right elements which are correctly perceived by leftists as our enemies.
I have deleted your link from the Labour NewsWire Global Network page and insist that you remove the line of code which provides a Labour NewsWire feed to your page -- immediately.
I am sharing this message with our colleagues in Leicester who invited you and me to that conference. I am happy to see that, at least, they do not link to your website from their own.
Information and Communications Technology Co-ordinator
Labour and Society International
PGP: Public key - see http://www.labourstart.org/pgp.shtml
Phone: +44 20 83491975, +44 20 83461953
Mobile: +44 77 19420815
Fax: UK - 0870 4022588; Elsewhere - +1 815 550 6904
Postal address: 51 Briarfield Avenue, London N3 2LG, U.K.
What you say is not quite accurate - Personally I believe the protocols are fakes - not 'forgeries' as you say as that implies they are based on a genuine original document... but your demonisation of me for linking to them shows you want to drive that discussion underground.
And the fact that people like Ivan Frazer, who has just done a study on the protocols, are slandered by some as Nazis does not mean they are Nazis. And cheapens the debate.
The idea that because I have linked to a site I must agree with the site owner is clearly nonsense. I have a link to labourstart but I clearly don't agree with you on everything!
The protocol debate, I maintain, is interesting - why are you so easily offended by this word??
You have totally ignored my warning at the top of the page, why?
You can call me a Nazi too if it makes you feel better. All I can say it is you who are attempting to stamp out free and open discussion.
At 10:10 2/4/01 +0100, you wrote:
>The Protocols of the Elders of Zion contains no "unique information",
>you well know. It is the most famous anti-Semitic forgery in the world and
>the only people promoting it these days are Nazis. You have still not
>removed the LabourStart news headlines from your page -- this is
>outrageous. I insist that you remove these immediately. We have no
>interest in being associated with you or your website.
Taken from 'Do or Die' publication no.9 pp. 220-221 - this anonymous letter was published in the February 2001 edition of this anarchist journal produced in Brighton.
I write to warn your readers of a disturbing new political tendency that seems to have recently emerged, which though yet small, deserves to be stamped on swiftly. Others may have notice publicity knocking around for an event called 'The Anarchist Heretics Fair', publicising itself with the strap line "Beyond Left and Right". It was advertised as a forum for the "outsiders and rejects from the mainstream contemporary anarchist movement including neo-medievalists, Goths... anarcho-monarchists, surrealists... neo-pagans, druids, odonists, folk autonomists and the hermeticists anarchist undergrounds." Now, I admit I was tempted by some of this-I'm as amused by ley-lines and secret Marian bunkers under St Paul's Cathedral as the next man, (here it comes...) BUT...
It was fucking dodgey. Among those advertised as attending were: Nexus-an Australian-based New-Age magazine with proven and documented links to the far right....
We must beware of any tendencies within our movement that push in this direction. For example, Tony Gosling of The Land Is Ours runs the www.bilderberg.org website, which collects information on the Bilderberg group, a secret organisation of the rich and powerful. Unfortunately the existence of such a group is like manna from heaven for far right conspiracy theorists and loony tunes of all descriptions, seeming to fulfill all their prophecies. Even more unfortunately Gosling is a Bible-bashing Christian who believes it's all part of a plot by the Illuminati and then goes on to point people in the direction of fascist groups for more information....
If 'anarchist' Wayne John Sturgeon of Albion Awake! can say he is "interested in the growing convergence of the radical decentralist left with the radical decentralist right- in opposition to the globalisation of capital and the neo-liberal free market", then surely we have to do something to distinguish ourselves from that sort of politics. We need to develop our ideas and our actions so that the far right can have no common ground with them- so that no such convergence can ever occur.
NB: The whole thing appears to have been organised by Jonothan Boulter of ...[address, phone number and email given]... Why not drop him a line or something?
There are some important inaccuracies in B's letter, glaring to anyone who cares to check out his/her assertions.
B asserts coolly that I believe Bilderberg is "...part of a plot by the Illuminati". Uh? From the beginning on the website I decided to separate fact and speculation clearly. I even give this Illuminati story as an example of a 'conspiracy theory' therefore out of the scope of my analysis of the institution of Bilderberg.
Bilderberg is not 'secret 'as B asserts, it is secretive. It uses various cloaking tactics such as not telling the press of its venue nor issuing an attendance list until the last Mercedes has left, ensuring the press have nothing to report on.
Links on my website to right-wing sites such as Spotlight come with an appropriate health warning. It would be misleading to pretend criticism of Bilderberg by the right did not exist. Surely better to acknowledge and criticise these sources than to deny them? The fact is Spotlight is the only paper in the world with sources which reveal venues before the event so is an essential ingredient in getting the press to cover Bilderberg. It might also encourage some healthy competition from the left.
B criticises me for being a 'Bible bashing Christian'. Is the Bible no longer considered spiritually acceptable? Are we Quakers now beyond the pale? And more importantly would I get similar criticism for being a Buddhist, a Moslem or a non-Biblical Christian?
Anyway, there are several points that make investigation of Bilderberg a priority for the left.
Not surprisingly the most cogent criticism of Bilderberg already comes from a leftist perspective.
If B wanted anarchists and lefties to treat Bilderberg as dangerous right-wing territory to be avoided he, or she, has missed the boat by several decades.
Tony Gosling - http://www.bilderberg.org
NB: A large letter B is displayed prominently on the windscreens of the chauffeur driven black Mercedes' that bring the fat cats to Bilderberg every year. No wonder B wants to remain anonymous.
Anyone who thinks criticism of the Bilderbergers is somehow anti-Jewish or Fascist should first take a look at Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands who started the conferences back in the 1950's. He also chaired them up until 1975 when he was publicly discredited after being shown to have taken a million dollar bribe from Lockheed. The Prince was a card carrying member of Hitlers hated SS. [reference on this site]
So why the repeated accusations that critics of the Bilderbergers are anti-Jewish? Are the Bilderberg Steering Group entirely from Jewish families? Maybe someone else can start a website on that! I don't care whether they are or not there is no excuse for their obsessive secrecy in such globally powerful networks. The Bilderbergers may leak information to right-wing individuals and groups - such as John Whitley and Spotlight magazine - in order to give credence to this powerful slur. To assume that because some commentators on the Bilderbergers are on the extreme right Bilderberg is not worthy of level-headed examination is simply lazy thinking. I think it makes work I and similar critics do more worthwhile.
I probably don't see half the disinformation and subsequent criticism of my work but I publish whatever I get. I WISH these people, whoever they are would look at what I've written! [examples of disinformation]
Branding all critics of what the prime movers behind globalisation do as anti-Jewish is simply inaccurate. And I don't take it too seriously. Isn't that just the same as saying if you don't support globalisation you must be anti-Jewish. Equally nonsensical.
Here are some non-extreme-right critics:
Hansard - record of British Parliament - on the website
and not far right
Patricia McKenna MEP - European Green Party - on the website and not far right
Kenneth Clarke MP - Conservative Party - on the website and not far right
Christopher Gill MP - Conservative Party - on the website and not far right
On Target magazine - Barry Turner - on the website and not far right
Nexus Magazine - Australian - on the website and not far right
The Economist magazine - on the website and not far right - as far as we know
Robert Eringer - book: the global manipulators - on the website and not far right
Alden Hatch's biography of Bernhard - on the website and not far right
Wall Street and the rise of Hitler - Anthony Sutton - on the website and not far right
......the list goes on and on
Check out the material and you can help put paid to the disinformation. It is no accident that the Bilderbergers feed disinformation about themselves to groups that can be ill-informed. Wrong accusations of being anti-Jewish are particularly pernicious slurs that can only eminate from the most twisted sources. Unfortunately some are taken in by it. And let's not be naive, some organisations that put out information about the Bilderbergers may be funded by Foundations of the Power Elite.
"...false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep."
2 Peter 2.2-3
In fact, in the case of Nexus magazine there were viscious rumours circulating about the Editor, Duncan Roads. Even purporting to be condemnation by the Board of Deputies of British Jews. This condemnation later was unveiled as false and the Board of Deputies conducted a serious investigation into who was wrongly using their name.
The purpose of these slurs is to dissuade editors, writers and readers from pursuing lines of enquiry that point to any Jewish malingering . Some Bilderbergers are Jewish yes but someone from a Jewish family is not immune to criticism - neither to the temptation that comes from greed and avarice.
The motives of anyone making such a broad unfounded accusation need to be looked into carefully by Jews and all those who take seriously the Nazi exterminations and round-ups.
Do I want to expose lies and corruption in Mossad/Zionism/Kaballah/The Israeli government? Yes. Is Bilderberg related? Who knows? And I have friends and colleagues who are Jewish that I love dearly. Yes.
Are all Jews immune from criticism? No.
Finally here are Christ's words to the Christian Community in Philadelphia spoken to John:
"Come, I will give you some from the Synagogue of Satan, those that call themselves Jews but aren't - on the contrary they are lying - see, I will cause them to come and prostrate themselves at your feet, and they will know that I have loved you."
Revelation 3:9 (Jewish New Testament)
This letter is over-generalising but makes some interesting points.[TG]
In a full-page article in the Weekend Telegraph of May 16 1998, you, a gentle, considerate, intellectual Jewish publisher, complain that once, when you were a schoolboy, some of your fellow pupils insulted you in a "terrifying manner" by calling you a "Christ Killer." You say that this came about because your father, a German pre-war immigrant Jew forbade you to attend any religious instruction in the school and you would sit out the classes by reading a book in the playground. This was the first of several cases of discrimination you encountered during your education and later in your life as a publisher, most of them of a less serious nature.
At almost exactly the same time of the ultimate Jew-baiting which has obviously stayed with you, while I was myself at secondary school, I struck up a friendship with a school mate whose adopted name was John Martin. He played Cassius to my Brutus in a school production of Julius Caesar. We so enjoyed our roles that long after the production had ended we would go onto Hampstead Heath and re-enact the choicest scenes with great gusto. He often came home with me to enjoy whatever the austerity of the period allowed in the form of tea. One day, rather shame-faced, he told me he could not invite me to his home for tea because his parents disapproved of him having any close friends who were not Jewish. While I found this a trifle odd, I was able to shrug it off. In fact it was the first time I had even known he was Jewish, let alone cared about it. His parents, he told me later, were similar to yours, but from Austria where in 1938 they had flown anti-Semitism and found refuge in London.
In the school summer holidays we would go together on a working holiday to the Purbecks in Dorset where we camped and did haymaking for a local farm. During the days of rationing, farmhouse meals were direct from heaven and we were paid for an arduous day's work with three sumptuous meals and a gallon of cider each. In those idyllic days the Purbecks were still thousands of acres of medieval meadows in which, during the day, the air hummed with an orchestra of insects and at night we could read a book by the light of the glow-worms. Apart from our mutual love of Shakespeare, we also both deeply enjoyed, even bathed in, the wildlife of such a rustic paradise. I only found out later that Martins had lied to his parents about my actual identity.
One day, by chance in the street, John was summons over by a man in a newsagents. The man said: "What are you doing, going with a Goy? A Yiddisher and a Yok? You should be ashamed of yourself." To my surprise, John Martin, aka Cohen, denied our friendship and said he had only just met me. He then walked off in another direction and I did not see him until the next week in school where he mumbled a form of apology. The newsagent had told his parents that he had been seen with me and they had been angry and forbade him to see me again. And that was an end to it. "If we do meet again, why we shall smile. If not then this parting is well made."
The irony of all this only caught up with me much later in life when I began to really understand the "Jewish Problem". There were many Jews in post-war London and my mother knew a wide selection of them. Two old and dignified Jewish ladies lived in my grandmother's vast house in Nassington Road, Hampstead, (where I was myself brought up) and as a kid they were incredibly kind to me. Despite strange accents, one did not think of them as "Jews", merely as sweet old girls who saved their sweet ration for your birthday. It was they, however, who constantly reminded you that they were Jewish. I did not realise the full catastrophe of the holocaust until I saw a horrific film of its consequences when I was 13. Then, naturally, one felt - along with the whole of civilised humanity - a revulsion and guilt, however abstract, that it had happened. The personal guilt that I felt then lasted until the Six-Day War which I witnessed as a newspaper correspondent. The Israeli victory caused within me a great euphoria when a small and vulnerable nation to whom humanity owed a vast psychological debt had stood up to the "Arab Hoards". That only began to erode gradually as I stayed on in the Arab world, mainly in Amman and Beirut, and watched as Israel began a form of genocide against the Palestinians. Only the Jews, I came to think when the State of Israel "celebrated" the fiftieth birthday of their state, could have spent all that time in conflict with their neighbours. It was a savage irony to me to realise that the Jews, themselves victims of millenniums of racist hatred, were themselves the greatest racists.
It became a further irony to realise that the Jews were themselves quite incredibly discriminatory out of choice. They wished to be a race apart and to keep it that way. So did you when you chose to obey your father's instructions and read a book on your own in the playground while the others undertook religious instruction. How could the bible have tainted you? Half of it is a history of the Jews and the other half is an attractive, certainly not dangerous, theological theory. I have studied The Bible, the Koran, Buddhism, Jewish scriptures, and am still drawn in some way to Catholicism. I am also conversant, say, with Karl Marx, Mein Kamph and, come to that De Sade. But it never made me a communist, a fascist, or a sadist. It is not because The Bible would have tainted you, of course, it is because your father, along with most Jews, including Martin's parents, were ardent separatists. As such, I find your paranoid whinging a trifle pathetic.
Jews simply can't have it both ways. Any race which purposely sets itself apart from the rest of humanity by claiming it is "chosen" and therefore elite, should not complain if the rest of humanity accept their wishes and treat them as a people apart. The persecution of the Jews is only a small part to do with the fact that their own politics led to the crucifixion. It is mainly to do with the fact that in any community in which they have found themselves, since the death of Christ, they have created their own form of apartheid. So how is it anti-Semitic for a person to call you "you people?" If it is a matter between "you" and "us", you people have always, literally, asked for it.
Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4140042,00.html
Why would the Guardian provide moral and medical justification for the multiple murder of innocent Israeli civilians?
It's a pretty bizarre question, but we found ourselves being asked it over and over again this week. Emails clicked in to the letters page by the hundred, all making the same weirdly alliterative points. This followed publication of a Guardian article trying to understand the motivations of the Palestinian bus driver who ploughed into a queue this month, killing eight Israelis.
The mysteriously similar emails - from all over the world - started coming in, too, to our foreign editor; to our website; and to the personal email address of our Middle East correspondent, Suzanne Goldenberg.
They were inconvenient, and also sometimes a bit scary in their violent tone - "The bloody Guardian... Have you killed a Jew today?... Are you anti-Jewish?... Unrelenting Guardian anti-Israel bias... Why would the Guardian provide moral and medical justification etc...?'
This global blitzing was tending to crowd out genuine expressions of opinion from our readers. Our suspicions aroused, we tried to discover what was going on. It wasn't straightforward. But eventually we discovered the trick. A website calling itself HonestReporting.com was set up in London last autumn.
It has recruited 12,000 subscribers to its database, it claims, all dedicated to fighting anti-Israel "bias" in the media. The aim was to recruit a total of 25,000.
Every time someone writes something they don't like, details of the offending article are circulated round the world, together with a handy form of protesting words, ready to be lightly embroidered and electronically dispatched at the push of a button.
"This is what you should do," they tell their members "Forward it on to the news company concerned at the email address provided. If you can, please change the subject of the email to 'complaint' or something similar."
Their first success, HonestReporting boasted, was with the London Evening Standard. Its columnist Brian Sewell wrote last autumn calling on Israel to "become a multicultural society" and cease exploiting the Holocaust to justify unacceptable behaviour.
"The next day, [we] sent out a letter to subscribers." Standard articles recorded "a wave of complaints... hundreds of Jewish readers have written in". Then "after more pressure" there followed a pro-Israel article by Simon Sebag-Montefiore. "This is an example of what we can do."
And now it was the Guardian's turn to get the email treatment. A long electronic bulletin went out headed: "The Guardian: a mainstream British newspaper consistently blames Israel for everything."
It complained that a Steve Bell cartoon showing Sharon's bloody handprints on the Wailing Wall "encroaches on brash anti-semitism". It complained that a Muslim, Faisal Bodi, had written questioning Israel's right to statehood; and complained that the Guardian had said Sharon had killed the peace process. "No blame is assigned to Arafat." And there too, was our old alliterative friend: "Why would the Guardian provide moral and medical justification...?"
Who was behind this internet harassment? The website gave no address. It had been registered last October under a London name and phone number that seemed not to exist. Eventually, it transpired that it had been set up by a 27-year-old Jewish web-designer from north London called Jonathan. "Don't give my full name," he asked. "Someone was killed in Stamford Hill [the Jewish district] the other day." He and his friends came up with the idea by themselves: "We were just brainstorming."
But the operation was now being funded and run from the US by an organisation concerned with media fairness, Media Watch International.
And who were they? "We're pretty new," says their director, Sharon Tzur, speaking from Manhattan. "It's a group of concerned Jewish business people in New York."
Yet a bit more inquiry reveals that this is not quite the whole story either. For this week's bulletin denouncing the Guardian was in fact composed in Israel by a man named Shraga Simmons.
And when he is not working for HonestReporting, Mr Simmons is to be found employed at another organisation altogether - Aish HaTora. This is an international group promoting orthodox Judaism. "I do some work for Aish," Mr Simmons says, from Israel. And Jonathan, the web-designer who started it all in London, also concedes: "I go to the odd class at Aish."
Aish verge on the colourful in their antics. Founded by Rabbi Noah Weinberg, who complains that "20,000 kids a year" are being lost to Judaism by marrying out, Aish invented speed-dating - eight-minute sessions in cafes to help New Yorkers find compatible Jewish partners. They're widely regarded as rightwing extremists. And they're certainly not people entitled to harass the media into what they would call "objectivity".
Secret clubs of the rich and powerful are bound to arouse suspicion, particularly when the evidence suggests those in power are using it against the public interest. So why should those who investigate the Bilderberg, a secretive club for the worlds most rich and powerful, be labelled as Nazi collaborators?
The argument used to discourage investigation by the left is a powerful one: By doubting Bilderbergs own story, that they are a harmless talking shop one is aligning oneself with extreme right-wing fascists such as those at the racist Spotlight magazine in the U.S. Also with a loony fringe of those like Nexus magazine or author David Icke that talk seriously of UFOs preparing to invade the Earth and members of the Royal Family shape shifting into lizards.
So thats it. Right-wing Fascists and hunters of the Lizard Men are critics of the Bilderberg Club therefore all critics must be dangerous Nazis, nutters or both.
One look at Spotlight and its clear some kind of racism permeates its agenda, even if it is to balance what they see as the imbalance in the mainstream. Spotlight has an uncomfortable hypocrisy: on the one hand arguing that the white elite are running roughshod over democratic institutions and on the other targeting black people who vent their wrath on whites. From a leftist perspective not the sort of journalists one would expect to be balanced.
Lycanthropy aside, David Icke has linked Bilderberg to an anti-Jewish document banned in several countries. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is thought by many to be a forgery. This links him in closely with the extreme right.
With such fellow travellers most people and journalists, if they value their reputation and career, will back off. So why pursue the Bilderbergers?
In fact there are some very good reasons why the Bilderbergers should be vehemently pursued and investigated. References to all information can be found on this website
1) There are far more respectable sources that criticise Bilderberg eg. Holly Sklar, The Big Issue, European Green Party, Lobster magazine etc.
2) The argument being extended is one of contamination or guilt by association. No-one is right about everything, the contamination argument makes a basic wrong assumption that people are either correct and trustworthy and wrong and sloppy. Since we are all somewhere in-between this is patent nonsense.
3) Jim Tucker, Spotlights Bilderberg watcher, has gathered secret information from Bilderberg conferences which has subsequently proved accurate.
4) The Bilderbergers themselves have a greater claim to being Nazis, they were started by an ex-member of the SS.
5) British Prime Minister Tony Blair has gone to extreme lengths to cover up his attendance at Bilderberg after initially having entered his trip in the register of members interests. Even to the extent of lying in the House of Commons (in reply to two separate written questions).
6) Criticising the excesses of banks and big business, including the corporate media is one area where left and right are broadly allied. Left and right wing are not simply opposite ends of the political spectrum but groupings around two different priorities both with possibly erroneous assumptions.
7) Links with anti-Jewish groups are tenuous at best. The most incisive criticism of Bilderberg is on their abuse of power. A legitimate criticism of anyone, Jewish or not.
8) Anyone or group of people with control of wealth or other form of power that could be described as vast that then seeks deliberately to avoid public scrutiny should be regarded with a healthy suspicion.
9) Bilderbergers claim they are simply a think tank yet they lie about who attends the meetings, leaving high-powered participants such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair off the attendance list. As they lie about such a fundamental thing arent we right to investigate further?
10) In a world ravaged by the excesses of Globalisation, what Vandana Shiva has called The New Totalitarianism any forum which pretends this is the global consensus must be regarded with suspicion. They must show themselves able to represent diverse views for that consensus to be valid.
11) Bilderberg prohibits all participants, often against their wishes, from commenting to the press. On one occasion the Greek finance minister was collared by a journalist while jogging at the conference, he finished his apology for not being able to reveal much with: ...be critical whatever you write.
12) National intelligence agencies organise security for these conferences. Why? This is surely not appropriate for a private conference.
13) If the Bilderbergers have nothing to hide why do they label the participant lists Not for Circulation?
14) The bosses of most, if not all, the global news empires are at the conference yet they do not even inform their readers that the event is taking place. Why?
15) On the J18 discussion list, an email list for discussions around a day of action against global capitalism on June 18th 1999 an email was sent out saying critics of the Bilderberg are Nazis. This turned out to have many inaccuracies and to come from a fictional person from a fictional Russian organisation. Clearly deliberate disinformation.
16) Sloppy Journalism - Journalists steer clear of Bilderberg, either because they are told to or because hard information on them has been difficult to source.
17)............the list goes on.........
The Spotlight covers the Bilderberg meetings because it long ago came to the realization that those meeting were the movers and shakers of this world and that shortly after their yearly meetings things in the political and economic worlds moved and shook. On closer examination it was discovered that the agendas presented at the meetings have a direct relationship to those movings and shakings.
The Spotlight has, from the beginning, covered the meetings seriously while the establishment media, handmaiden of the same movers and shakers, either ignored them, presented them as benign, or ridiculed The Spotlight for taking these good ol boy, social get togethers seriously.
The Spotlights editorial policy is that the people of the world have a right to know who it is that manipulates their lives, no matter how powerful these individuals may be.
The Spotlight abhors the word racist, a new addition to the English vocabulary. The word implies that anyone who uses the word race as a description of the different peoples of the world is somehow nasty. This is patently ridiculous. The word race exists for the very purpose of describing the differences in, well.... races. How else do you say it? If there were no differences, the word would not exist, but it does, for the simple reason that races are obviously different, physically, temperamentally, etc. To say otherwise is to put oneself in denial to those realities.
The Spotlight has black and Jewish writers at times and it has black Asian, Jewish and other ethnic and racial subscribers, worldwide, but it is accused of being racist because it is not cowed into political correctness by the likes of the Israeli lobby or any other group that has illicit influence in American (or other nations) affairs.
It does not blush to say that some races (or other artificially manufactured minorities) commit more crimes than whites or are otherwise not always upstanding citizens. And it is not afraid to give whites credit where credit is due - in other words, it has not been conned into self-destructive, false guilt nor into denial of all the accomplishments of white civilization which the whole world clamors to get a piece of.
Its editors find the hypocrisy of having civil rights laws (which are supposed to be totally color blind) while at the same time enforcing euphemisms for non-white racial preference, like affirmative action and quotas, contradictory past the point of insanity.
The Spotlights crime is simply in telling it like it is, letting the chips fall where they may. Organizations like the Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith dont like that because, when the truth is published, the chips too often fall on such groups which conspire together for mutual gain for themselves and to the detriment of the general population.
Not being in the pocket of any special interest but that of the people at large, The Spotlight doesnt care who the truth hurts, it cares about telling the truth. This is what the public has always expected from news media but seldom received.
Well, I'm still just as gung-ho for Buchanan after his vp pick (who sounds just like him), but you must understand that in the US today you are practically a felon waiting for prison if you are a white male.
Racism in this country is the vehicle of all others and it is open season on white males. There is seething hatred of us for no other reason than that we are white males. The discrimination is unending and escalating, to the country's disadvantage. There WILL be a backlash. There always is.
Matter of fact, American women are already discovering that they were lied to and they don't want to compete in the workplace and would be much better off married and raising a family in their home, where they can work at their own pace; choose whatever they wish to do at any time. In other words, be their own boss without the pressures they really can not handle in the workplace. The only women who can really handle the workplace are bitches like my sister. A real pain in the ass to anyone who has the misfortune of working under them as they are totally unrealistic in their outlook and capricious in their dealings with others. Minority men are also having problems in positions they can't handle with lots of suicides.
The bottom line is: Give the job to whoever can handle it and quite violating our laws of free association with forced associations among people who don't want them (on both sides). This is a direct violation of nature's law and necessarily leads to violence. Speaking of violence, the U.S. still has a crime rate about the same as Japan's (very low) if you rate only the whites in the country. Black males are about 6.5% of the population but commit upwards of 70% of all violent crime (fact, not propaganda). --
No, it's not pass misuse, it's the difference in races. That's why they are labeled "races." Matter of fact, black males today have EVERY advantage. Those who use them have just as much problem with those who don't as any white man. Also, blacks are developing a great fear of hispanics, who are going to replace them in numbers shortly if the U.S. doesn't soon get the balls to have national borders again.
Hispanics in general want the advantages of the civilization here created by whites, but they are insisting on bringing their own failed culture with them which, at the same time, they are running from. Two guesses of the outcome of that insane "reasoning."
Their justification is worrying in two respects:
1. Equating race with crime is extremely dangerous. All assumptions of this nature have so far been exposed as false, as:
a. They take no account of socioeconomic factors (poverty/lack of opportunity to engage in the legitimate economy)
b. They tend to concentrate on certain categories of crime in which people of different ethnic groups are more highly represented due to factor a. For example, they look at street burglary, but ignore white collar crime (fraud, embezzlement etc) which, because white people have more opportunities to engage in it, happens to be a largely white activity.
2. Take a look at the BNP [British National Party] website, and you will find strikingly similar language and justifications used.
I had better make my position clear. The No Platform for Fascists principle has been the consensus most of my political life and I am willing to conform to it, despite its ignorant misuse to throw around the fascist label unthinkingly, and the mob-hysteria mentality of rent-a-mob ultra-leftists willing to be used by Searchlight to serve the secret states own agenda. All these and other abuses of fashionable anti-racism ideology I am on record as attacking. Moreover, I do not interpret no platform as excluding the possibility of ideological debate with people seduced by racist arguments hence the need for some contact of some sort.
Nevertheless (real) fascists and (conscious) racists remain BEYOND THE PALE, as far as Im concerned. They are the enemy not only politically but in human, moral terms. There is a danger of making excuses and there are (after Auschwitz) no excuses.
I understand the supposed fears of white males (I am one myself) but this mentality is utterly useless and really stupid. Its prevalent in the USA (and increasingly in Europe) largely because of the demise of old-fashioned class consciousness. Fortunately most white working class males in the USA have more sense but unfortunately immense historical ignorance.
The fact that Spotlight is the only organ dealing with Bilderberg research is a symptom of the problem we face. They are not, however, reliable (their information cannot be trusted and must be checked independently Grattan has done more useful work in the last months than Spotlight). Tuckers research MUST be prised away from Spotlight. Anyone acquainted with the history of the Liberty Lobby in the USA cannot fail to see what they are all about.
Speaking of Auschwitz (which I visited only last week for the first time) I recently read Shermer & Grobmans The Denial of History, which painstakingly takes apart the Holocaust revisionists (and has interesting sidelights on Willis Carto) and I recommend this book, if you have the stomach for it. It emphasises, if nothing else, the possibility of discovering genuine facts independently of ideology, which is something (so-called) anti-racists should think about, and which Bilderberg researchers have an interest in keeping clear-headed about.
These issues may not bother you the way they bother me. I despair, for example, at people of the calibre of Chip Berlet saying things like elite research is stupid and always reactionary. If it really does not matter who is in what position, then why has the left spent so much energy for 100 years trying to get leftists into key positions in organisations? Chip Berlet it is leftists like you who are saying stupid things and there is no excuse for this either!
Willis Carto set up the Liberty Lobby which publishes Spotlight. He is a fascist (a l'americain) and an anti-semite and is happy to be involved not only with holocaust-deniers (IHR, Irving etc.) but with a seedy underworld including the occultic Moonies and Lyndon Larouche (who are, by the way, financed and manipulated by the CIA). If only on moral grounds, he and his like are nasty and malevolent, and their minds are perverted by hatred & ignorance. Nothing good can come from this discredited milieu.
Many so-called professional people, particularly journalists, pushed for time when faced with evidence of secret meetings of the power elite, like to pigeon hole them as a 'Conspiracy Theory' . It may, for whatever reason, make it easier for them to dismiss difficult-to digest research work but it doesn't bear any relevance to reality.
1. Bilderberg is not a conspiracy, it is one of the central Transatlantic lobbying and 'consensus setting' fora for globalisation and Capitalist Internationalism. It is certainly the most powerful such group in the 'Public Domain'. The major players there regard democratic institutions and the mainstream press as ideological 'competition' to be undermined. Their claim to be setting the consensus goes largely unchallenged by so-called Journalists.
'Press Releases' are issued as the last luminary leaves - nothing, then, for the press to cover at all. No wonder Bilderberg is hardly covered.
2. There are enough facts around now about Bilderberg for it to no longer be seriously talked about as a 'Theory'.
3. Most people who use the expression 'it's just a conspiracy theory' do not attempt to acquaint themselves with those facts. By treating them as theory they only demonstrate contempt for unpalletable facts.
Unfortunately this means some of the alternative press are - just as the mainstream press - stopping ordinary people from understanding how massively undemocratic and disconnected from public scrutiny the process of globalisation is.
Bilderberg's role is mainly a lobbying one, to pull together powerful, influential people as representatives of 'the other view' to the Globalisation of Capitalism (they usually are of course the least radical people). This is done in an attempt to present them with an awesome view of an illusory 'consensus' of opinion in an attempt to 'get them on board'.
That is not to say that there aren't other, more secretive bodies, that form networks of influence behind the scenes. Eg Illuminati Quotations http://vvv.gh.wh.uni-dortmund.de/illuminati/Illuminati-Quotes.txt
Now that is a Conspiracy Theory, Bilderberg is not!
The only hope is for journalists, broadcasters and teachers of all sorts to break the mysterious taboo that hangs over the Bilderbergers and to cast off the labelling of them as a 'Conspiracy Theory.'
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002
I wouldn't worry about it too much.
As an American Jew, I'd be considered "anti-Jewish." It's simply ridiculous.
Exposing the Elite's conspiracy is a deftly challenging task for me. Most Jews (whether Semitic or not) have no concept of this cabal of tyrants. Most citizens of the world have no concept of it.
Had I not already been of a 'conspiracy' minded person, I'd probably still have my eyes shut.
To identify this as a "Jewish" conspiracy is to be disingenuous to the facts. If said "conspirators" have "Jewish" surnames, this does not make them Jewish anymore than going to church makes Clinton a Christian.
Furthermore, there are equal amounts of other religions (and the same holds true for these conspirators) involved in a plan for global tyranny.
While the Rothschild financial conspiracy is real, so is the intent of globocrats like Kofi Annan, Bill Clinton, and Tony Blair. Last time I looked, they were not listed as "Jewish."
It is the responsibility of all citizens of the world whether they be black, yellow, red, white, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, Hindu, gay, straight, trans-gender, etc., etc., etc. to throw off the chains of tyranny of a total state for the purposes of freedom.
I care not what a persons race, creed, religion or sexual preference is. (Although, pedophiles should be strung up and shot in the ............. and I resent the Homosexual agenda)
Freedom should be a universal desire and I believe it is. The United States has a disproportionate amount of immigrants trying to enter our nation. Why? Because the potential for the greatest amount of prosperity and personal freedom exists despite the vast destruction of our Constitutional rights over the last century. The U.S. remains the single most free society in the world. (For now)
The individuals claiming that you're "anti-Jewish" are the same ones that have pictures of Trotzky over their mantle. Hell, we have one in the U.S. Congress. His name is Bernie Sanders, (S) Vermont. Yeah, the 'S' is for Socialist.
Check out the JPFO.ORG. The Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership. They're considered 'anti-Jewish' as well. Go figure!