210

Counterpunch Shadowboxes and Loses

Edward Curtin

Image source here

In a fair boxing match, opponents enter the ring with similarly padded gloves and battle under the bright lights for the world to see. There are, of course, cases where one fighter cheats, as in the infamous case in 1983 when Luis Resto wore weakly padded gloves and hand wraps hardened with plaster to make them rock solid. His opponent, Billy Collins, an up-and-coming boxer from Tennessee with a 14-0 record, was permanently and very seriously injured in the fight at Madison Square Garden. His eyes were battered shut and his vision damaged. He never fought again and died depressed the following year at age twenty-two.

In the fight for truth in the public arena, similar subterfuges occur.

To battle honestly in the open forum, to argue to and fro squarely, is often prevented in advance by eliminating an opponent’s voice from the debate. This is the typical method used by the corporate mass media that stack the deck with sycophants and refuse dissidents a place to voice their ideas.

Then there is the masquerade of fighting an opponent who is really a collaborator and benefactor, whose punches one counters in a game of shadow boxing meant to convince the audience that the fight is real and you are on their side. Some alternative media use this technique because they are gatekeepers for the power elite.

Sometimes this ruse is so blatant that the fix becomes transparent because the smart-asses who play this game screw up, yet they still expect their real opponents to shut up and walk away because their fixer’s mantra is “Never apologize, never explain.” It has always been the code of the rich and powerful.

Some are brawlers, however, and fight back against this bullshit.

The well-known leftist website Counterpunch is an example of the “never apologize, never explain” school. A number of writers and journalists who have published many pieces at Counterpunch have been banned from the site in recent years without an explanation, Andre Vltchek and C.J. Hopkins being two who crossed an invisible boundary the Shadow had drawn and were never again published by Counterpunch. Others, smelling an odd odor, have walked away. The numbers are growing.

I’ve recently seen Counterpunch shadowbox and the Shadow won.

On January 29, 2019, I published an article highly critical of the CIA (The CIA Then and Now: Old Wine in New Bottles) that was posted at Global Research the same day. Lew Rockwell picked it up the next day. The Greanville Post and Dissident Voice posted it on the 30th. Then The Unz Review published it on January 31, 2019. Five ideologically diverse websites that saw value in a harsh and complicated critique of the spy agency. Other sites would also publish it in the following days, including Off-Guardian. After the piece appeared, I received an email from the editor of Counterpunch, Jeffrey St Clair, telling me that he too was going to publish this article on Friday, February 1, for Counterpunch’s weekend edition.

I had written a few dozen pieces that Counterpunch had published and had a very cordial relationship with St Clair. In fact, when I was in Rome in 2018, he had asked me to place a stone for him on Keats’ and Shelley’s graves when I visited the cemetery where they were buried. I did that, and my wife took photos that I sent to him. All was copacetic. Buddies. High fives!

On February 1, 2019, shortly after midnight Eastern time (12:02 AM), Counterpunch published my piece for their weekend edition where articles remain for three days. When I awoke at 4 A.M., I saw it. Then at 8 A. M., when I arrived at the college where I teach, I again saw it. At 11 A.M., when I had finished teaching a few classes, I looked again and it had disappeared. Transitive verb: Counterpunch had disappeared it. Eliminated it. Scratched it. Excised it.

All the other numerous articles remained. Only mine was gone. At first I thought it was a mistake. But as the day wore on I wondered. So I emailed St Clair and asked my buddie what had happened. As compatriots don’t do, he did not reply. But I assumed he was busy, as I am, and gets many emails. So I waited. When I emailed him again, there was no reply. A third very cordial email three days later went unanswered.

Unlike Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting for Godot, I am no longer waiting. No reply is coming, and St Clair isn’t Godot, or on second thought he may be, a chimerical leftist gatekeeper enticing Counterpunch’s followers to wait forever for a revelation that isn’t coming. Like his mentor and the founder of Counterpunch, Alexander Cockburn, who was so fond of excoriating as “idiots” and “conspiracy nuts” anyone questioning the JFK assassination or the attacks of September 11, 2001 – two fundamental issues that only believers in official government conspiracy theories such as Cockburn could dismiss – St Clair seems similarly dismissive of explaining why a writer’s critique of the CIA would deserve to be eliminated from their front page after being published. As if only an idiot would want to know.

However, any reasonable person would ask: Why would he not respond? St Clair, the editor-in-chief, published the piece and then disappeared it after 10-11 hours? This is highly unusual, to put it mildly. Unprecedented for the so-called left-wing alternative media. It is the kind of thing when done by the mainstream corporate media would be denounced and exposed as censorship. Not publishing an article is a publication’s prerogative, of course, but what could cause one to eliminate an article highly critical of the CIA after people had ten or so hours to read it, and since the author and editor had a very cordial relationship up to that point and the editor had days to read it carefully?

Having eliminated the piece from their front page weekend edition where it could have been viewed by readers for four days while that page was available, they subsequently dumped it into their archives where the only reader who would later see it would be one who knew about it and went looking for it by title or author’s name. Very few would have reason to do that, of course, though readers of this article may be among the few. Censors often have a bag of tricks that allow for plausible denial after the fact.

One doesn’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize that someone objected to the piece. But who could that be? If it were St Clair’s managing editor, Joshua Frank, twenty years his junior (the two run the operation), then St Clair could have explained to me why, since we were on good terms. I wouldn’t have liked it and argued my points, but at least we could have cordially agreed to disagree. But the Frank possibility makes no sense, for a managing editor would be intimately involved in the publishing process that was completed the previous day in time for the very early Friday A.M. postings. And in any case, St Clair is in charge.

Clearly an outside reader objected. The question is: Who is that reader who could exert such control over a publication that promotes itself as one that “Tells the Facts, Names the Names”? A publication that is considered radically leftist and in opposition to the ruling elites.

Okay, Counterpunch, would you name the name of the shadowy one who won this fight?

Edward Curtin writes, and his writing on varied topics has appeared widely over many years. He writes as a public intellectual for the general public, not as a specialist for a narrow readership. He believes a non-committal sociology is an impossibility and therefore sees all his work as an effort to enhance human freedom through understanding. His website is edwardcurtin.com

Filed under: latest, media watch

by

Edward Curtin writes, and his writing on varied topics has appeared widely over many years. He writes as a public intellectual for the general public, not as a specialist for a narrow readership. He believes a non-committal sociology is an impossibility and therefore sees all his work as an effort to enhance human freedom through understanding. His website is edwardcurtin.com

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Deschutes
Deschutes

CounterPunch has sucked for at least the last 3 or so years. I get the impression Joshua Frank is the problem. He is rather intolerant of contributors who don’t share his opinions. If you aren’t a Russiaphobe like Frank is, for example–then you are not welcome at CounterPunch. He had an extremely ugly meltdown with CJ Hopkins awhile back, that was all published on Unz.com. While I used to always read the CounterPunch weekend edition, I have blown them off for the past year or so because they have driven away all the writers I used to like at their site: Mike Whitney, Diana Johnstone, Linh Dinh, Michael Hudson, etc. The CounterPunch of today reminds me of The Intercept: both are fake-left gatekeepers, and are not to be trusted. People on the left need to be very careful with the leftist sites they read these days. I think there is a great deal of moles and gatekeepers that have infiltrated the leftist website media. CounterPunch and The Intercept are good examples of this type of corruption.

antiwar7

You nailed it. Both CounterPunch and the Intercept have a few good articles, but have acted quite fishy over the last few years, causing me to barely ever check them out anymore (when they used to be in my daily rotation). Two observations:

1) They increasingly suck.
2) In a suspicious way.

rosemerry
rosemerry

When I saw a comment by StClair comparing Putin to Trump as being “irrational impulsive and petulant” I was completely stunned, as i cannot think of three less suitable words to describe Putin. I have no confidence in his judgment on Russia.

samivesusu
samivesusu

From Counterpunch to Kosher Punch… just another Guardian of Judea..pathetic yet symptomatic…

barovsky

Why has CounterPunch spiked Andre Vltchek’s ‘Lies of the Empire’?
by Ramin Mazaheri

https://countercurrents.org/2019/03/02/why-has-counterpunch-spiked-andre-vltcheks-lies-of-the-empire/

Stefan
Stefan

The problem with Counterpunch is that they only have Remainiacs writing for them about the EU now it seems like, right wingers like John Wight and Alexander Cockburn, right wingers who think they are on the left, but of course they are not as EU-lovers. Now they got their will it seems like, another election, like always with EU.
Counterpunch is all right, no need to write it off totally. Even The Guardian has some decent stuff once in a while.

milosevic
milosevic

Could I suggest to the administrators, that the debate here between myself and “crank”, “mark”, “barovsky”, and others, on “anti-semitism” and related subjects, be extracted, and posted as an independent article? I’ve provided some extensive references, which I think merit consideration, even by those who strongly disagree with them.

Mikalina
Mikalina

Articles are ‘must reads’. Just spent most of afternoon reading them – thanks for links.

crank
crank

Personally, I would rather see OffG re-publish something by Israel Shamir.
I doubt very much that they will.
As you wrote, there is a lot that is made sense of by considering this aspect of history, one that it’s basically forbidden to talk about. One bit of the story that is not on your condensed list and which got me interested in this area was the Piper theory about the Kennedy killings. It ties up the contradictions.
Similarly, I rejected any serious consideration of the ‘cult’ connection to 9/11 for many years, long after I had been fully persuaded that the official story was bunk. I simply regarded any argument in that direction as driven by a prejudiced racism. Now I know different, and it really is beyond dispute that Bolyn et al have uncovered the truth of the matter. Only a fear of ‘antisemitism’ (really, fear of being consumed by one’s own racism) stopped the truth movement as a whole from recognising the obvious.

I counted up how many fairly distinct ways in which the term ‘antisemitism’ is used in modern discourse. I got to 14 – the last one being that it is increasingly considered antisemitic to discuss anything at all concerning Jewishness, Jewish individuals or Jewish organisations in a political context, if you are not yourself Jewish, no matter what your opinion.

A way to go. I do still believe somewhere in the power of education.
Again, excellent links.

louisproyect

Interesting how things here have veered off into an UNZ Review type comment thread about the Jews, with Milosevic offering up the standard UNZ Review “revisionism” on death camps. You don’t see this kind of stuff on blogs that are outside the conspiracist bubble. This 9/11 inside job, Faurisson, Jews control the world sort of thing is just the kind of flower that grows from the conspiracist soil. David Icke and the late Lyndon Larouche mined this vein to the hilt. Leon Trotsky had a good take on the subculture that pervades UNZ Review and the mindset of people like Milosevic:

“Fascism has opened up the depths of society for politics. Today, not only in peasant homes but also in city skyscrapers, there lives alongside of the twentieth century the tenth or the thirteenth. A hundred million people use electricity and still believe in the magic power of signs and exorcisms. The Pope of Rome broadcasts over the radio about the miraculous transformation of water into wine. Movie stars go to mediums. Aviators who pilot miraculous mechanisms created by man’s genius wear amulets on their sweaters. What inexhaustible reserves they possess of darkness, ignorance, and savagery! Despair has raised them to their feet fascism has given them a banner. Everything that should have been eliminated from the national organism in the form of cultural excrement in the course of the normal development of society has now come gushing out from the throat; capitalist society is puking up the undigested barbarism. Such is the physiology of National Socialism”

What Is National Socialism?, June 1933

crank
crank

Just a couple of years back Louis, I might have agreed with you with regard to Jewish power.
(9/11 has been a litmus test for credibility for me for at least a decade, so that you seem to still believe the official 9/11 story, in effect bars you from any serious consideration.)
But the facts, in the end, speak for themselves. The opponents of the arguments put forward by Unz, Shamir, Atzmon and the many documented (mainly Jewish) opinions in the volumous linked material in this thread, only have smear by association, and accusations of racism as a response. This is not an argument against the facts, it is not intellectually credible.
“There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principal is contempt prior to investigation.” Spencer.

What is National Socialism ? It is the very same mindset of blood and soil fanatacism, the very same racial supremicism, the very same claims of ‘god ordained rights’ of one people over all people that is critiqued in When Victims Rule.

It is quite fitting that the discussion turned to this from CPs alleged editorial actions, as the cross posting with Unz seems to have been the sticky issue for CP editors. This controversy of Jewish power and it’s unmentionable status, is, arguably, at the heart of the dispute involving Hopkins, Johnstone and now Curtin, as it is at the centre of so very many other issues.

milosevic
milosevic

Milosevic offering up the standard UNZ Review “revisionism” on death camps

The only thing I said about the subject is that the “six million” Official Story is without factual basis, which certainly doesn’t imply that a lot of people didn’t die, of various causes. If you are acquainted with any serious evidence to support that number, you might reference it, but of course you won’t, because there isn’t any. So all you’ve got is the standard slurs and insults. (even Raul Hilberg suggests the real number is closer to five million. Is he a “revisionist”, or a “neo-nazi”?)

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/03-tgwfoc.pdf

Meanwhile, people much more principled than yourself, have done serious research and discovered that “six million” suffering Jews is a number with some kind of numerological significance, which has been frequently reported in the mainstream press since well before the FIRST World War. In the absence of any meaningful evidence that this number is factually related to the real history of the Second World War, it seems quite safe to assume that this is its actual origin.

https://archive.org/details/SIXMILLIONOPENGATESByS.A.R.Lynch271/

There’s a pattern which people like you always fail to recognize, which is that somebody questions some unquestionable Official Story, and you respond with slurs and insults, because that’s all you’ve got (see: 9/11 denialism in general), which then provokes them into providing the factual evidence which reveals you to be a fool, a liar, and a power-serving shill. You might have done better to keep your mouth shut; whoever it is that holds your leash is eventually going to become dissatisfied with your services.

the mindset of people like Milosevic

I’ll leave you to guess how much I care about the opinions of people who offer their services as “left-wing” shills for the Empire’s death squads in Syria. “Left-wing” disinformationism is a declining industry; you might want to start looking for another occupation. Maybe AIPAC would be interested in hiring people with a proven track record, like yourself. Or maybe they already have.

milosevic
milosevic

Even the crimes of the Nazis fade into seeming insignificance, in relation to the Jewish genocide committed by the Roman Empire, as recounted in the Babylonian Talmud:

There were four hundred synagogues in the city of Bethar, and in every one were four hundred teachers of children, and each one had under him four hundred pupils, and when the enemy entered there they pierced them with their staves, and when the enemy prevailed and captured them, they wrapped them in their scrolls and burnt them with fire.

Babylonian Talmud — Tractate Gittin, Folio 58a

For those counting, (400 * 400 * 400) is, of course, sixty-four million, and those were just the (male?) child victims in just one city. Latter-day holocausts seem almost humane, by comparison. (Surely the Palestinian goyim have nothing to complain about!)

This was at a time when the population of Rome itself was approximately one million. Such Official Stories are evidently the product of an intellectual culture for which historical or numerical accuracy is not a primary, or even a secondary, concern.

A modern footnote for “400 synagogues * 400 teachers * 400 pupils” helpfully explains, “this is obviously a conventional expression for ‘very many’.” One wonders if there could be alternative expressions for ‘very many’, such as “100 * 200 * 300”, for example.

milosevic
milosevic

Here’s some opinions of Leon Trotsky that you won’t ever see quoted by the “left-wing” 9/11 Deniers:

As one of the main causes for the victory of fascism, the luckless leaders refer – in secret, to be sure – to the “genius” of Hitler, who foresaw everything and neglected nothing. It would be fruitless now to submit the fascist policy to a retrospective criticism. One need only remember that Hitler, during the summer of last year, allowed the high peak of the fascist tide to escape him. But even the gross loss of rhythm – a colossal mistake – did not have fatal results. The burning of the Reichstag by Göring, even if this act of provocation was crudely executed, did, however, yield the necessary result. The same must be said of the fascist policy as a whole, for it led to victory. One cannot, unfortunately, deny the superiority of the fascist over the proletarian leadership. But it is only out of an unbecoming modesty that the beaten chiefs keep silent about their own part in the victory of Hitler. There is the game of checkers and there is also the game of losers-win. The game that was played in Germany has this singular feature, that Hitler played checkers and his opponents played to lose. As for political genius, Hitler has no need for it. The strategy of his enemy compensated largely for anything his own strategy lacked.

The German Catastrophe: The Responsibility of the Leadership (May 1933)

It seems like accusations of “darkness, ignorance, and savagery” should be directed towards those who believe in miraculous — and miraculously opportune — Reichstag Fires, rather than those who take the trouble to point out their actual sordid origins, and are rewarded for their efforts with this sort of vile insults. But that would be a mistake, a result of confusing people who actually believe in mediaeval superstitions, with those who only pretend to believe in them, because they are paid to. An example of the former would be the Empire’s death squads in Syria, whereas the latter are more likely to be found living safely in New York, producing Imperial propaganda, crudely disguised as its opposite.

(* miraculously opportune: “a catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor” — Project For The New American Century, September 2000)

As I said below, “we need to consider the idea that a large part of what has traditionally been thought of as ‘left-wing’ politics, since approximately 1917, is actually a sophisticated camouflage operation, intended to disguise the activities of a nasty ethnic supremacist cult, left over from the European Middle Ages.”

It’s rather unusual that one makes a provocative observation like this, and is then immediately presented with a living example of exactly the phenomenon described. Maybe miracles actually do happen, sometimes.

barovsky

Milosovic, your comment:

“we need to consider the idea that a large part of what has traditionally been thought of as ‘left-wing’ politics, since approximately 1917, is actually a sophisticated camouflage operation, intended to disguise the activities of a nasty ethnic supremacist cult, left over from the European Middle Ages.”

Reinforces my view that people like Tariq ‘Assad has to go’ Ali, fit very neatly into this view, namely that what passes for a left in the imperialist world, is in fact very much a part of the imperialist world view of the rest of the planet, a ‘left’ that never stops telling the rest of the world what to do, the ‘we know best’ position. Thus the Trotskyists take the position that either it’s a full-blooded ‘Bolshevik’ revolution in Syria or it’s a fake. The ‘all or nothing position’, which means we shouldn’t have supported Nasser’s Egypt when he nationalised the Suez Canal (he also outlawed the Communist Party), or we shouldn’t have supported independence movements in Africa because they weren’t ‘real’ revolutions! Tell that to Kwame Nkrumah or Eduardo Mondlane. It’s the arrogance of the Tariq Ali’s that really piss me off.

milosevic
milosevic

antiwar7

Good attempt at changing the subject!

Deschutes
Deschutes

You are always safely within the mainstream reality bubble of what is ‘safe’ to talk about. And you smugly look down your nose at those who would question mainstream narratives about 9-11, Jewish influence in politics, and the Holocaust? You know who you remind me of? That corporate talkshow windbag Bill Maher, only he’s a bit more edgy than you. Anybody who actually believes the official 9-11 narrative of a bunch of Saudis pulling that off needs their head examined. The official 9-11 narrative is so full of holes and glaring omissions as to be a farcical conspiracy theory in itself. As for your straw man ‘Jews control the world’ bromide, only you come across as afraid and clueless. Go and watch ‘The Israel Lobby’ documentary–the documentary done by Al Jazeera. You know, the one Israel tried so hard to block access to. To deny the massive, powerful influence of the Jewish lobby in the UK and USA is laughably naive. Look at the rash of anti-BDS laws being passed in more than half of the USA’s states. You convince nobody.

Israel Shamir

I’ve been asked whether I consider Zionism being intrinsically anti-Semitic.
Well, next step, you’ll call gefilte fish – antisemitic))
Is Islamism anti-Muslim? Were Ustasha anti-Catholic? Was Shin Fein anti-Irish? Was NSDAP anti-German?
I think it is too paradoxical!
And I am very grateful for references to my writing!

milosevic
milosevic

QED, I think.

Thanks for your important work.

milosevic
milosevic

“crank”:

Thank you for all the links. Educative.

It takes some intellectual integrity to think clearly and speak truthfully in hysterical times like these. So I for one appreciate the honesty.

As I said here previously, we need to consider the idea that a large part of what has traditionally been thought of as “left-wing” politics, since approximately 1917, is actually a sophisticated camouflage operation, intended to disguise the activities of a nasty ethnic supremacist cult, left over from the European Middle Ages. As Israel Shamir says, when this cult lost its elite economic niche in the general collapse of Eastern European feudalism, it entered into an alliance of convenience with the rising European and North American left.

This alliance greatly aided the cult in its struggle to regain its elite status in the societies to which it had emigrated, which was mostly accomplished by the 1970s. Since then, it has no further need of left-wing movements, and has largely discarded them, but is careful to maintain its ideological agents within the used-up remnants, to prevent discovery of either its historical or current activities.

Like you (I presume), I was once an adherent of the Chomsky Theory of zionism, as propounded in this very discussion. Wherein Israel is postulated to be an instrument of US imperialism, an “outpost” or “launchpad”, etc. What I could not understand on the basis of this theory, was the genocidal violence against the Palestinians, who have nothing that the US wants, but even more so, the overwhelming support offered for these atrocities by the cult membership OUTSIDE of Israel, when it is clear that a settlement on the 1967 borders is both available, and most likely to assure the future security of Israel.

I eventually found an explanation for this mystery in the references which I am now offering, which are obviously the work of people other than myself. (many of them are “ex-jews”, a phenomenon which occurred even in the Middle Ages — Baruch Spinoza, etc — even though, according to the racialist ideology of the cult, such resignations are impossible. Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir, Shlomo Zand…)

In order to even begin to address not just the issue of Palestine, but a wide range of problems on a world scale, we need to recover a lot of deeply suppressed history:

— the actual role of the cult in mediaeval Poland and Ukraine

— the actual role of the cult in the 1917 Russian Revolution, and associated phenomena of the international “communist” movement

— the actual role of the cult in the truly mediaeval barbarism of the Stalin regime in Russia, especially the deliberately-created famine in Ukraine and other places in the 1930s

— the actual history of the persecution of ethnic Jews during the Second World War, which seems to have been grossly distorted (“six million” is a pure fabrication, with no factual basis whatsoever), and the completely impermissible idea that this may have been to some extent, a reaction to the barbarism of the Stalin regime and its ethnic activists

— the actual role of the cult’s worldwide operatives obtaining both the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and the creation of the State of Israel in 1948

— the actual role of the cult’s academic operatives, beginning in the 1970s, in the creation and promotion of the anti-rational fads of Post-Modernism and Identity Politics, which have now succeeded in utterly discrediting left-wing politics, probably for the next generation

— the actual role of the cult, also beginning in the 1970s, in the promotion of neoliberalism, the Chicago School of Economics, the Shock Doctrine, the Chilean coup d’etat of 1973, the DotCom bubble, the 2008 financial crash, the Madoff Fund swindle, the ten-trillion-dollar bank bailout, etc

— probably most importantly, the actual role of the cult, in the form of “neoconservativism” and the Project For The New American Century, in the false-flag 9/11 event and related phenomena, and the never-ending Terror War, for which they serve as the essential pretext, the “catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor” (as requested by PNAC, almost exactly one year before delivery)

anyway. These references succeeded in illuminating the above subjects for me, and made sense of things which I had never previously been able to understand. I would urge you, and anybody else who finds them of interest, and is not intellectually crippled by fear of “anti-semitism”, to disseminate them as widely as possible. Very little that is useful can be done, until these deliberately-created myths and intellectual barriers are overcome.

here is one more anti-semitic reference, which extensively documents some of the subjects above. ethnic activists can shriek and howl all they want, but this research is verifiable, and it succeeds in de-camouflaging some very large elephants in important rooms, and blowing very large holes in a number of essential Official Stories.

When Victims Rule — A Critique of Jewish Pre-Eminence in America

Israel Shamir, on the above:

Our comprehension of the world starts at juxtaposing observations. Four blind men describe an animal they encountered: it is like a column; no, a snake, no, a barrel, no, a tooth. Their impressions would be of little value unless there were a man of vision to integrate them and draw a picture of an elephant.

Various manifestations of Jewish spirit produced a cascade of differing impressions almost defying an integration attempt. Zionist Jews in Palestine created a many-tiered rigid caste society, where natives are excluded, imported “guest” workers have no rights, army and security apparatus controls everything and a call for equality disqualifies the caller from holding a public office. Globalist financiers of George Soros kind, followers of Karl Popper’s Open Society offered and created other systems. There are impressions of activity by Jewish media moguls, Hollywood producers, museum curators, art dealers, human rights activists, New York bankers and Washington neo-conservative ideologists.

The observations are valid and important; now they should be collected and systematised until the ground is ripe for a man of vision who would draw a picture of the elephant. It is not an easy task, for it is an article of faith in our world, “thou shalt not draw an elephant”. This commandment is enforced by the fierce Jewish opposition to such endeavour.

This forbidden and mammoth task was undertaken by the Anonymous (and possibly collective) author of WHEN VICTIMS RULE: A Critique of Jewish Pre-eminence in America, (further called The Critique), two-thousand-pages-long collection of observations of various Jewish activities. This work in progress is posted on http://www.jewishtribalreview.com and probably will remain there for quite a while. Its sheer size is just one of the reasons why it is not likely to emerge as a printed book. While describing the challenge that moved him, the Author writes:


In “free societies,” anyone who wants may write, and publish, works that attack Christianity; assail the “historical revisionism” of Afro-centrism; deconstruct the myths of Hinduism; defame the Pope; disdain Republican, Democratic, communist, or any other ideology; emblazon the whole of Islam as a hotbed for irrational mania and terrorism; write entire volumes about the alleged worldwide Japanese economic “conspiracy”; and vilify the entirety of the nebulous entity known as the “white establishment” and anyone dictated by skin colour to be within it. But, curiously, in the vast expanse of deconstructive engines of all and everything, one cannot criticize the sacrosanct domain of Jewish history, politics, and identity, unless the critic is willing to be systematically marginalized in all walks of life, prepared to be tarnished and branded as a contemptible hate-filled “anti-Semite,” risk losing her or her job, and be categorically lumped into mainstream society’s moral and intellectual garbage dump reserved for the likes of the Nazis and Ku Klux Klan.

The biased discourse so aptly described by the Author causes much mental anguish to Americans of Jewish origin, separates them from their Gentile compatriots and even more regrettably contributes to the loss of life in Palestine. That is why a good new deconstruction of Jewish history, politics, identity, religion and tradition is certainly needed, especially as the critical works of 1920s and 1930s became outdated. The Author has followed the trail blazed by Professors Albert Lindemann of the University of California, Kevin MacDonald of California State University, Israel Shahak of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Elliot Horowitz and other researchers.

The Author collected immense amount of data, sometimes trivial, sometimes relevant facts and opinions. The bibliography is colossal, as if the book was produced by a Jewish Studies department of a well-endowed American University. It could be a companion volume to Encyclopaedia Judaica. Severely abridged, it would be readable and still impressive. In the full form, it will be used whenever there is a discussion on the Jewish influence in American politics or media.

https://www.unz.com/ishamir/four-blind-men/

barovsky

Occam’s Razor

milosevic
milosevic

Since you say you know Israel Shamir personally, why not discuss it with him?

barovsky

Milosovic, I think I already told you I’d email him and I did but I still await a response from him.

Israel Shamir

I never got it, sorry! (unless by other name?)

Israel Shamir

Sorry again, indeed I found the email, and here is my reply.
I’ve been asked whether I consider Zionism being intrinsically anti-Semitic.
Well, next step, you’ll call gefilte fish – antisemitic))
Is Islamism anti-Muslim? Were Ustasha anti-Catholic? Was Shin Fein anti-Irish? Was NSDAP anti-German?
I think it is too paradoxical!
Here is a longer take:
The Jewish law has a sensible rule: “Minhag Israel din hu”, meaning ‘Israel (that is Jewish umma) acts righteously”, the way Jews act is the way of Jewish law.
Provided that majority of Jews accept Zionism, it is not against them.
The way out of this problem is to invoke the erevrav thesis, saying that a lot of Jews are not real Jews but (spiritual or real) descendants of gentiles who accompanied Children of Israel on their way out of bondage. This is a Jewish analog of takfir, of declaring somebody kaffir among Muslims.
So there is no easy answer for your question. If pushed for an answer, I’d say, no, Zionism is not antisemitism, and anti-Zionism is not antisemitism either. Say No to takfir))

Joerg
Joerg

@Eric Blair (Feb, 23, 2019)
Edward Curtin put forward his case being exclusively factual and using only moderate expressions. While Your comment, Eric Blair, is nothing but a chain of not ending insults and disparages.
Here some of Your insults, Eric Blair:
Curtain is being paranoid. ”
“Curtain …deliberately manufactured controversy in order to slam Counterpunch ”
“Curtain … only makes himself look paranoid and unhinged”
“Curtain or other negative bandwagon jumpers..”
“Curtain… lesser idiots”
“makes you an ego-driven fool in your own right”
“My advice to Edward Curtain: …get that paranoia in check.”
“wingnut ranter with a chip on your shoulder”
.
Also that arrogance, You, Eric Blair, put forward with: “My advice to Edward Curtain…“. -Yes, Your “advice” – oh, my God!

It is easy to see, that You, Eric Blair, obviously just do a job, You were ordered to do.
Oh, yes, may be I am now also “paranoid and unhinged” or a “wingnut ranter” and so on.
But it is obvious that You, Eric Blair – except for endless insults – fearfully avoid to even pick up the only case Edward Curtain put forward here: And Curtain’s case is, that after his article was treated in an ‘unusual way’ by Counterpunch, he contacted – in a friendly way – several times the responsible people or the people within the hierarchy. People he had always had good relations to. AND EACH TIME THEY REFUSED TO ANSWER!

As an attorney, who during his life had a lot of divorce cases and legal employment cases, I can tell You, that it was always a point that never left the judges unimpressed, if a husband refused to talk to his wife any more (ore vice versa).
Or if a boss or a direct superior refused to talk to the employee any more. In the letter case, not seldom, it could be proved that there was a case of “mobbing”.

Eric Blair

Curtain is being paranoid. Frank and St. Clair responded to his accusations HERE.

Counterpunch has done some stupid stuff, like stop publishing certain writers (Andre Vltchek, Diana Johnstone, Caitlin Johnstone and CJ Hopkins) because of ideological and style differences while continuing to publish that caustic fool Louis Proyect and other low quality contributors. For this they deserve, and have received, substantial criticism. But Curtain who, for whatever reason, deliberately manufactured controversy in order to slam Counterpunch only makes himself look paranoid and unhinged, thereby damaging his own credibility. It’s almost as embarrassing to behold as Eric Zuesse’s ridiculous “take down” of Chomsky. These kind of stunts put them on par with St. Clair and Counterpunch whose actions divide the left even further and help its ideological enemies.

At the end of the day Counterpunch is basically an aggregator that publishes a variety of writers – some very good ones and some mediocre ones. This makes it still worth reading. It is unfortunate that its publisher, and his sidekick Joshua Frank, are self-righteous boneheads but that doesn’t make Curtain or other negative bandwagon jumpers lesser idiots. Two wrongs don’t make a right and manufacturing a fake controversy just so you can have a go at an egotistical magazine publisher, who you’ve personally had no problems with before, makes you an ego-driven fool in your own right.

My advice to Edward Curtain: take a break from the politics, dude, and get that paranoia in check. Seriously. You’ve written some really good stuff that I’ve enjoyed and passed on to others, like the essay about Serpico, reflecting on your trip to Montreal and the conversation you had with the homeless chap you met in a southern state (can’t recall which one atm) and it would be a shame if you turned into a wingnut ranter with a chip on your shoulder.

Willem
Willem

They say: ‘only a certain number of articles can fit into our jam-packed Weekend Edition lineup.’ And that Curtain’s article fell off.

How often does that happen at counterpunch? The editors don’t show other examples. I never saw articles fell of when I was still looking at counterpunch for interesting articles.

Think it is a weird excuse. It could be true, but how likely is it that articles fall of?

Willem
Willem

What is also weird is that the counterpunch editors demand an apology from Curtin. Apology for what? Prior to writing the article above, Curtin asked the editor why his article dissappeared from counterpunch. As he received no reply, Curtin decided to sort things out for himself. Should he apologize for sorting things out for himself and making his thoughts known in the open?

At best, all could be a misunderstanding. But since the editors demand an apology from Curtin for speaking out his own mind, I don’t believe this is all a misunderstanding.

Joshua Frank

Eric, every writer you mentioned, aside from Andre (who we decided to stop publishing for a number of reasons) left on their own accord. Caitlin Johnstone never wrote for us.

Israel Shamir

I do not remember leaving you on my own accord. But I do remember being slandered by Project.

Robert Montgomery
Robert Montgomery

What are those “number of reasons and I think Eric was talking about Diana Johnstone.

Threeedawgs
Threeedawgs

You’re a fucking, boring, pretentious, know-nothing, presumptuous, self-appointed mind-reading, shallow punk.

Lochearn
Lochearn

Good bye, Counterpunch. You fired your best writers and ended up as Guardian Lite. You were all over the place on Ukraine and Syria. Your editor’s ego has grown so pathetically large that he lists all the music he is currently listenting to, as if we give a damn. Thanks for the article link Edward and all the literature you recommend. Thanks too to C.J. Hopkins for his continuously brilliant writing.

louisproyect

All over the place on Ukraine and Syria? Are you out of your mind? For every one I wrote, there were dozens of the sort that appear here. Including from Patrick Cockburn, Robert Fisk, Jonathan Cooke, Seymour Hersh, John Wight, et al. You can’t stand it that for every 20 film reviews I write, there is one dealing with Syria or Ukraine. Is the “axis of resistance” so flaccid that it cannot stand a single article debunking it? I guess so.

King Kong
King Kong

It is complete hogwash to object to be published at Unz , just because there are indeed a few loonies there. I do believe that Unz has made it a policy to publish almost anything that is controversial…… And is that not the idea of a free and open press. The main thing is to get the message out, no matter how, if Volkischer Beobacheter acceps your article, fine. Journos and blogger cant be to critical, then they play the “Deep States” own game and on their rules. Idiotic.
There are many very sensible readers at Unz, dont be mistaken about that (read comments), dogmas exists, because they can maybe be broken. How long have modern man walked the Earth? Well officially, only 200 000 years, but indications point at much longer, which completely rocks the boat.
And that is the purpose: To rock the boat. Ingrained and overgrown beliefs.
Galileo had a hard time too.
Rock the boat, no matter how.

CJ Hopkins
CJ Hopkins

No idea whether it has anything to do with the “non-removal removal” of Ed Curtin’s piece, but, as one can see by Louis Proyect’s comments, the CounterPunch boys have a bit of an obsession with The Unz Review, which is odd, given that CounterPunch has accepted large amounts of money from Unz. Here’s an addendum to my September 2018 essay (also published here at OffGuardian): https://consentfactory.org/2018/09/29/how-to-maliciously-smear-your-critics-and-not-get-away-with-it/

“In an amusing twist to the events recounted above, it turns out the CounterPunch Red-Brown hunters who are so fond of smearing writers like myself as “far-right shills” and “anti-Semites” based on the fact that we allow our essays to be posted in The Unz Review have themselves been lavishly funded by Ron Unz. Here are several public foundation records documenting Ron Unz’s contributions to CounterPunch in 2009, 2013, and 2015, totaling $75,000. And these are just the records I was able to easily find online in five minutes of googling. Not that I care who CounterPunch takes money from. (Accepting contributions from someone does not imply that you share all their views any more than being published by them does.) I just happen to find it particularly hilarious that these sanctimonious, smear-happy bullies are attempting to play the guilt-by-association game by associating the targets of their smears with a person they are associated with themselves, and have taken large amounts of money from. It’s not every day you come across that kind of utterly shameless hypocrisy.”

louisproyect

A lot has changed with CounterPunch since 2015. I am not privy to all of the editorial deliberations but there a number of people like Le Pen fan Diana Johnstone have been shown the door. My guess is that the obvious bid by the Kremlin to boost fascist movements in Europe such as Le Pen’s National Front became too obvious, like the 800-pound gorilla. In any case, people like Curtin and Hopkins are welcome to UNZ Review since they are not bothered by their articles appear next to ones arguing that the Nazis did not exterminate Jews, that Emmett Till was a thug, that Latinos are genetically inferior, that white farmers in South Africa are in danger of being exterminated, etc. For me, it would be the equivalent of washing my hands in a urinal but that’s just me.

noseBag
noseBag

“the obvious bid by the Kremlin to boost fascist movements in Europe such as Le Pen’s National Front became too obvious” – seemingly I’ve missed the elephant in the room – please elucidate.

mark
mark

“Tommy Robinson” and the EDL were getting £10,000 a month in Zionist money.
Wilders and his outfit are in receipt of similar largesse.
They are constantly shilling for Israel.
This is a general pattern.
Most of these neo Nazi outfits are Zionist Fronts, stirring up trouble with moslems to serve Zionist interests.
They even tried to take over the BNP at one stage.

crank
crank

the obvious bid by the Kremlin to boost fascist movements in Europe
Oh, I see where you are coming form now.
La la land.

Willem
Willem

I agree that there are crazies at UNZ, but they are openly crazy and you can disagree with the crazies at UNZ.

At counterpunch Patrick Cockburn supported Obama’s and later Trump’s red line (Assad gassing his own people). That is a lot worse than crazy as that debunked lie that killed 1000s of people. Disagreeing with his position at counterpunch is difficult as it is only possible through Facebook.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/12/how-can-we-know-if-a-chemical-weapons-attack-took-place-in-syria/

Personally, I would not want to be associated with Cockburn for the reason that Cockburn openly supported regime change in Syria.

But publishing at Unz is much worse than on counterpunch, says LouysProject who publishes at counterpunch.

Robert Montgomery
Robert Montgomery

SO you dismiss Johnstone as a “Le Pen fan” along the really childish line of yeah so there. And you are a serious writer?!

Joshua Frank

Hey CJ, we don’t take $ from Unz anymore. Haven’t in a number of years and don’t plan to in the future. Yes, this is largely due to his hard-right-Holocaust-white-nationalist turn. Cheers.

IntergenerationalTrauma
IntergenerationalTrauma

C.J. Hopkins – Thank you, thank you, thank you! I am literally laughing out loud at those revelations. Absolutely freaking amazing!

And as icing on the cake we get – Louis “regime change” Proyect – visiting us here at OffG to bring us to Jesus with his deep insights regarding why – if the CP boys don’t like “where” one’s work is republished – well, they are simply morally obliged to disappear you!

Even a visit from CP editor Joshua Frank! Geeze, I remember contacting Joshua when CounterPoof published an article that openly attacked anyone on the left who dared ask the obvious question of whether the CIA might in any way be involved with the then current “spontaneous protests” in Iran. Global Research was one target of such venom I recall. Sadly Mr. Frank’s freely shared condescension and his dripping sarcasm had to suffice for an actual rational response to my inquiry and concerns.

CounterPoof has become completely irrelevant to those on the anti-imperialist left, but I’m guessing there is a whole new audience on board that now enjoys reading CounterPoof as soon as the Rachel Maddow “RussiaMania” episode of the day finishes. I’ll even bet “donations” have never been better.

Thanks C.J. You absolutely made my day.

barovsky

But it’s still a shame that so much energy is being diverted into this debate, about what exactly? That CP is liberal-left, but hasn’t it always been liberal-leftish? It’s published some good stuff and bad and maybe it still does I wouldn’t know, I’ve tried for ages to get an email sub and never arrives, so I gave up.

And now my old pal Lou from my NY Marxist School days back in the 80s, has popped up, one big unhappy family that fights all the time. Meanwhile… the world is going to hell! But isn’t this left in the imperialist world all over? A left that spends more time trying see how many Marxists it can get on to the head of a pin, to paraphrase, than it does getting serious about revolution and it’s been this way for as long as I can remember and I’m 74. And it was the same for my folks, who were both communists and cut their political teeth in the 1930s. It’s really depressing to see all this energy being wasted on Counterpunch eg, writing this.

IntergenerationalTrauma
IntergenerationalTrauma

barovsky – Removing anti-imperialist voices like Diana Johnstone, Andre Vltchek, C.J. Hopkins, and now Ed Curtain hardly equates to a “debate” of any sort I’m familiar with. This is censorship plain and simple. We in the left roundly condemn such censorship by MSM. Why would you suggest doing so when censorship occurs within so called “progressive media” somehow is instead – “energy being wasted?”

Dimly Glimpsed
Dimly Glimpsed

An itch that demands to be scratched.

milosevic
milosevic

a whole new audience on board that now enjoys reading CounterPoof as soon as the Rachel Maddow “RussiaMania” episode of the day finishes

Dimly Glimpsed
Dimly Glimpsed

Shunning and shaming is the coward’s way out. Censorship convinces no one, but does harden opposition. Such tactics are the veneer of a weak argument. In a society which truly values free speech, the proper response to a writer with whom you disagree is to respond with an argument, not censorship.

As to Counterpunch, even if St. Claire and Frank were to truly believe that Russia delivered the presidency to Trump, why fire their own writers who dare to disagree on that point? Why the hatchet job on Caitlin Johnstone? When did Counterpunch become enforcers for the neocon wing of the Democratic Party? Why the jihad against those who see common ground with libertarians in opposing an encroaching police state, celebrating civil rights for all, and opposing horrific foreign wars?

Something just doesn’t add up here.

louisproyect

I am not a CounterPunch editor but if I were, I’d have told Curtin not to crosspost to UNZ Review that is nothing but a neo-Nazi website with some left cover. Here’s an excerpt from a typical article, Linh Dinh’s “Heart of Darkness Germany”:

If not for Jewish power, questioning the Holocaust wouldn’t be a thought crime in 16 European countries. No other event in human history is so fascistically protected from scrutiny. None but the Holocaust, thanks to Jewish power.

Robert Faurisson conclusively dismantled the Nazi gas chamber myth, so Jewish power destroyed his academic career, put him on trial and bankrupted this brave, unflinching man. In 1989, three thugs claiming to be The Sons of the Memory of the Jews attacked the 60-year-old and broke his jaw.

The Holocaust does not explain genocide but enables it, but few dare to say so, for fear of Jewish power.

There are no scientific or even documentary proofs of the Holocaust, so the six million figure is just as much nonsense as the human skin lampshades and human fat soap.

crank
crank

A ‘neo-nazi website’ edited by a man of Jewish descent, Ron Unz ?
Nothing in that quote above is, strictly speaking, ‘neo-nazi’. No Aryan supremicism, no call of allegiance to a fuhrer, no call to arms in a bid to ‘crush the weak’ or other such deranged rhetoric.
You could argue that it is ‘Holocaust denial’ (or holocaust skepeticism), or that such criticism of ‘Jewish Power’ is often a feature of neo-nazi writing- but correlation is not always causation.
Unz, Atzmon, Shamir, …Finkelstein even. There are Jewish voices that recognise a tendency of Jewish elites to organise amongst their own in-group. There are non-Jewish people who agree this argument has a lot of factual support, yet who are at the same time repulsed by anything far right.

mark
mark

Max Blumenthal and Medea Benjamin, among others. Miko Peled. And people like the late Gerald Kaufman and Harold Pinter, who had a belly full of Zionist antics. Glenn Greenwald. And others. Good people who have put their heads above the parapet.

louisproyect

Yeah, Unz was born a Jew but he does not believe that Jews were exterminated in the millions. I’d explain that in the same way I’d explain Black Americans voting for Trump. In any case, if you spend 5 minutes at UNZ Review, you’ll discover that it is filled with racism as well, especially from Ron Unz:

Or consider the fascinating historical case of Emmett Till, mentioned earlier, whose murder in 1955 became the archetypal case of an innocent black youngster lynched by murderous Southern whites, perhaps even lending some inspiration to Harper Lee’s public school classic To Kill a Mockingbird. There was enormous national media coverage of the Till murder, which uniformly reported that the black fourteen-year-old child had merely made rude and provocative remarks to the young wife of a white shopkeeper—a “Wolf whistle”—leading to his abduction and brutal killing. Yet oddly enough, only long afterward did it emerge out that his father, a violent criminal, had been executed for multiple rapes and murder, and that Till himself, weighing 150 pounds and quite large and muscular for his age, also had a violent history. Indeed, these facts had remained totally unknown to me until quite recently.

crank
crank

I wouldn’t argue against the assertion that there are racist articles at unz.com.
Not all racists are ‘neo-nazis’ though.
I wrote a comment on here a couple of weeks back to the effect that I feel ‘politically homeless’. Although I stand opposed to racist ideologies, I am increasingly distanced from the Left’s insistance on policing acceptable discourse, and even policing acceptable thought. In fact I think the Left’s descent into identitarianism is counter to any remaining commitment to a universalist ideal. Whilst the Right are plagued by irrationality and subject to self serving emotion, the Left are often constricting debate with dogma and an obsession with correctness. The Right indulge in racism, the Left seek to enforce policing against it, and endlessly throw accusations around instead of seeking to really understand it.
Is the Talmud a racist set of ideas? Does that matter? Is that in any way relevant to Likud or Adelson ? No such issues can be debated on the Left.

I read articles at unz, amongst many places (Left and Right). I dislike the indulgence in overt racism that I read in the pieces and comments there, yet at the same time it is a rare place for non neo-nazi critiques of Jewish power – something I see as undeniable in todays world. For seeing what is plain as day, the Left tell me that I am a racist regardless of any discussion of the facts.

Critiques of Jewish (racist) in-group advancement as a major feature of politics in the West does not by definition mean adherence to an alternative (white) supremicism. There has to be space for such a critique from a universalist position.

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig

I read articles at unz, amongst many places (Left and Right). I dislike the indulgence in overt racism that I read in the pieces and comments there, yet at the same time it is a rare place for non neo-nazi critiques of Jewish power – something I see as undeniable in todays world. For seeing what is plain as day, the Left tell me that I am a racist regardless of any discussion of the facts.

As Gilad Atzmon–yet another brilliant writer who got canned from CounterPunch–would put it: ‘Jewish power is the power to silence criticism of Jewish power.’

mark
mark

There are endless examples of these hoaxes.
Recent examples are the Jussie Smollett “racist and homophobic attack.”
The Catholic boys in MAGA hats who were demonised by the lying MSM when it was left wing extremists causing the trouble.
163 bomb threats to US synagogues made by a Jewish man in Israel.

mark
mark

All the above is true. Though by now we all know that the truth is “anti semitic.”

I have asked many times why the previous “3.5 million Jews gassed at Auschwitz” is now “1.1 million.”
Nobody has yet given me an answer, plausible or otherwise.
The human skin lampshades were intended as a joke by a Soviet official with a weird sense of humour.
The human soap was recycled WW1 atrocity propaganda.

Dimly Glimpsed
Dimly Glimpsed

The sad irony is that the decades long-standing propaganda and censorship of discussion of The Holocaust has created a seething underground of anti-semitism which points to the censorship and propaganda as proof of their anti-semitic arguments. Another irony is that racist Jews like Bibi and Adelson will never feel the sting of anti-semitism, while progressive American Jews who criticize Israel and support Palestinian rights are accessible targets for vicious and ignorant anti-semitic bigots.

milosevic
milosevic

progressive American Jews who criticize Israel and support Palestinian rights

sure, there’s at least a few dozen of them. most of them are at MondoWeiss.

crank
crank

Been looking at the much linked-to ‘Torah Jews’ website.
These seem to be the go to referal when making the assertion that ‘many Jews reject Israel’s claim to be the ‘Jewish State’ and reject zionism or the equating of anti-zionism with anti-semitism’.
There are no names anywhere on the website (that I can find). All the commentary articles are anonymous, as are the contact details. Nobody puts their name to any of it.

A Google maps search of their address produces a small cellphone shop in New York.

Their Twitter feed is remarkably devoid of retweets, and comprises almost exclusively of the same point made day after day- i.e. that American religious Jews do not all accept Israel.
There is no conversation that is being documented there.

It seems fair to conclude that they are a very small organisation.

More curiously to me, I looked at the Youtube vidz of ‘Orthodox Jews protesting/ getting arrested in Israel’. I don’t know about anyone else, but they look like the no public order situation that I have ever seen anywhere else….

I am certain that there are earnest and courageous Jewish humanitarians who speak out against zionist crimes.
I am not certain about some of what gets presented supposedly showing me that there is a significant percentage of religiously devout Jews who are staunch opponents of Israel.

barovsky

I’m not sure where you get your info from but there’s an entire sect of Orthodox Jews who do NOT accept the state of Israel, and it’s based on the notion that until the Second Coming, Israel is an illegitimate state. I’ve been on demonstrations with them in London and New York, much to the confusion of NY cops who couldn’t figure out why they weren’t demonstrating with the Zionists.

crank
crank

I’ve said where I’ve got my information from in the post.
I don’t dispute that there are religiously observant Jews who object to zionism on theological grounds. I am questioning the often read inference that this is particularly representative.
I am new to researching this and would gladly stand corrected, but I have not found a large, vocal and organised campaign amongst religious Jews in the UK or the US on this issue. I see a small, self referencing circle of non-conformists who get their message amplified by non-religious anti-zionists.
You yourself say that you are not religious, yet you joined the march of a religious sect to express your secular political views on Israel. How many others did I wonder?

barovsky

I never said they were representative of anything except their own sect but they exist and they’re quite vocal. As to being on a demo ‘with them’, well no, I was on a demo in Brooklyn protesting the visit of Begum, the Orthodox posse were ALSO on the demo (as a group, as I said much to the confusion of the NYC cops). Ditto for the one I was on in Trafalgar Square, both these by the way, some years ago. My lack of religion is neither nor there.

crank
crank

As to being on a demo ‘with them’, well no, I was on a demo in Brooklyn protesting the visit of Begum, the Orthodox posse were ALSO on the demo (as a group, as I said much to the confusion of the NYC cops). Ditto for the one I was on in Trafalgar Square, both these by the way, some years ago.
Ok, I misread what you previously wrote.
I am interested about whether my point is right or wrong about an over-representation of anti-zionist sentiment amongst religious Jews in the US or UK in the anti-zionist Left alt media..
What proportion would you cite or guess?

barovsky

Frankly, I’ve no idea, but I suspect it’s quite small.

crank
crank

Perhaps for a religious organisation or individual that is more representative of devout Jewish views on Israel, we might look to chabad or Rabbi Sachs?
Those circles have considerably more followers, and more branches reaching out to Jewish community groups and synagogues accross the world.

milosevic
milosevic

If 97% of people who self-identify as “Jewish” are active or passive supporters of zionism (as in, they are members of Jewish organizations which actively support zionism), whereas 3% (a charitable estimate) keep telling us “not all Jews…” or “zionism is anti-semitic”, who should we believe? Why is it supposed to be a 3% minority who are the supreme authority on the content of Jewish identity?

These claims are implausible on their face. Jewish identity is what the large majority of people who so identify say it is — that’s why it’s called “Jewish identity”. A common argument is that until the 1960s, most “Jews” were not supporters of zionism. In fact, zionism was considered to be Bad For The Jews. After the Six-Day War, and the alliance with US imperialism, this started to change, and by the 1970s, zionism was Good For The Jews.

(A now heavily suppressed fact is that during the 1930s and 1940s, it was the USSR and “communism” that was Good For The Jews. During the 1950s and 1960s, “communism” gradually became Bad For The Jews, and the allegiance shifted to Israel and zionism. This accounts for the extremely Talmudic style of argument that was used to defend both, at various times.)

This and other examples illustrate what is constant in Jewish identity. “The goyim are like cattle, they were only created to serve us.” It’s ethnic supremacism, all the way down, or all the way back, for a thousand years, or more.

crank
crank

I wouldn’t know the numbers myself.
If it weren’t so serious it would all be quite funny.
I mean, the likes of Asa Winstanley recently point out Lansman and Owen Jones supporting Israel, and accuse them of antisemitically linking Jewishness with zionism.
Owen Jones is of course the biggest supporter of anti-zionist Jeremy Corbyn, and so gets labelled an antisemite from the Right.
People like Atzmon get labelled antisemite by Greenstein et al for stating that zionism and jewish identity are effectively inseparable to critical thinkers.
A small sect of religious Jews claim that they speak for ‘Real Jews’ against Israel, and say that zionism (and by extension, about 95 % of all Jewish organisations in the world) are antisemitic.
Most secular anti-zionists with a profile cite these small number of religious jews as proof of Israel being ‘antisemitic’.
The real nasty, race hate fuelled antisemites all seem to have a link to Israel (-and by extension most Jewish organisations that support Israel). Nobody talks about this undeniable fact because it is ‘antisemitic’.
A lot of the reported ‘race crimes’ against Jews turn out to be committed…by Jews posing as far right racists.
It’s a farce.
Monty Python had nothing on all this.

crank
crank

Further to that, if we look at many of the twitter accounts around this issue we find a circle of feeds that all have the same website link to torahjews.org and all have between 2,000 and 10,000 followers:
Jewish Identity
Voice of Our Rabbis
Original Jews
Jews vs Israel
American Jewry
Satmar View
Diaspora Jews
(as well as the True Torah Jews mentioned above).

Again, there does seem to be a genuine objection to zionism amongst some modern day Jews of New York area (about 1.5 million in total). I do wonder whether the religious component of this is as significant as its often made out to be (-by anti-zionists often as not).

Robert Montgomery
Robert Montgomery

Even the term “The Holocaust” why is it capitalised? is misleading as if it was the first and only when it is neither.

barovsky

This is why I label Zionism anti-semitic, never mind Israel Shamir’s gefilte fish (which I really love and have done since my Auntie Lizzie in Leeds turned me onto it as a kid). My mum used to buy it out of a wooden barrel in Soho, my Friday treat with a giant pickled cuke. All gone of course.

Dimly Glimpsed
Dimly Glimpsed

I agree. As I’m sure you know, the etymology of term “Holocaust” is quite interesting. Same goes for “antisemitism”. I use the terms not ideologically, but rather as an established convention.

Johan Meyer
Johan Meyer

The reason is not a secret. The 4 million was a Soviet estimate, that was challenged by Raul Hilberg. The latter estimated 1 million. His argument may be found in Destruction of the European Jews.

It is a bit freaky to have scientifically illiterate (not even grade 12 chemistry) clowns like Proyect milling about—nightmare fuel.

milosevic
milosevic

the following allegedly scientific references may be of interest:

http://holocausthandbooks.com/

Joshua Frank

This article is patently false. We never removed Ed’s article. It was bumped from our main page, because we can only fit a certain number of pieces on the sidebar during our Weekend Edition. It was still on our current articles page, his author page and searchable via Google. It’s still up on our site, always has been. We hope Ed will correct his error.

Zoltan Jorovic
Zoltan Jorovic

I see you found time to publish an article on the subject on your website, but wouldn’t a simple email response at the outset have avoided all this? You say this article is false, but then admit that the CIA article was “bumped” from your main page – so not exactly “false” then, more like, a misunderstanding, exacerbated by you failure to reply to a reasonable query. Also to sign off the article “your humble editors” just seems like mockery.
That said, this writer does seem to have overreacted and leapt to conclusions by establishing a conspiracy. Not sure what all the waffle about boxing has to do with anything, either. However, a simple explanation followed by an exchange of apologies – yours for failing to reply, his for accusing you of … whatever it was he struggled to say, would resolve the situation. “Never explain, never apologise” is not a wise mantra to live by, in reality.
You are all being rather silly.

Antipropo
Antipropo

Just can’t get away with that mate, if it’s a simple as you claim why did he not get a reply to his repeated queries about the matter? Perhaps you could explain that.

zach
zach

Counterpunch’s efforts to decree the legitimate boundary on the left could have worked if its readership had been composed of unthinking liberals. It’s no wonder their begging for donations is now so frantic.

milosevic
milosevic

— but this policy is recommended by the highest possible left-liberal authority:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

Noam Chomsky

paul metcalf
paul metcalf

Bevin,try michael collins piper if you are interested in who killed jfk.

bevin
bevin

I’m really not interested. I don’t think that it is very significant. But thank you for your polite and thoughtful reply.

Joerg
Joerg

“Anti-Semites” are those who are against the Palestinians – who are the only and true descendants of the old Hebrews – and Anti-Semites are those, who are/were against the Arabs. FULLSTOP!
So those who murdered the people and countries of Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and who mass murder the Palestinians to this day are the real Anti-Semites.

This because Arabs and Hebrew-Palestinians are of Semitic race (according to their own race ideology of these Anti-Semites).
Israelis and those who consider themselves by race to be “Jewish” are not of Semitic race but of Turk (not “Ottoman”) race. this because they are descendants of the people of the Khasar Empire (north and east of the Black Sea), who took over the Hebrew religion about the year 600 AD.
This is why the ancestors of all people who falsely consider themselves to be “Jews by race” (I use the term “Jew” only for follower of the Hebrew religion) had their origin in East Europe – never in Palestine or India or Iran (the later having had colonies of real Hebrews 2000 years ago).

milosevic
milosevic
Joerg
Joerg

@milosevic
Very interesting indeed! thank You!

milosevic
milosevic

Having read the above, as well as some of his other writing, I very much doubt that he considers zionism to be intrinsically anti-semitic, since ethnic supremacism seems to be the very essence of Jewishness.

But if you know him personally, why not ask?

milosevic
milosevic
barovsky

See: Leading Israel lobby group sees massive rise in budget
https://electronicintifada.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=70effeb5f63e84ab0c0730984&id=012d80c02c&e=e55063ad42

A leading pro-Israel group in Brussels has seen its budget increase fivefold over the past few years.

The European Jewish Association has become increasingly prominent in efforts to counter the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions. One of its campaign priorities is to convince political parties that they should issue policy statements rejecting the BDS movement as anti-Semitic.

The association has a massive war chest.

The latest annual budget that it declared came to $8.5 million. That is five times the $1.7 million per year figure previously stated by the association.

barovsky

So anti-zionism is just anti-semitism in disguise? This is the trope that the Labour Party Zionists used, not only to castigate Corbyn but also to get the internationally accepted description of anti-semitism replaced with exactly this! Outrageous! Oh, but I forgot, I’m just a self-hating Jew.

milosevic
milosevic

I’m just a self-hating Jew.

Why not just resign from Jewishness? Then you can think as you please, without having to worry whether your opinions are contrary to the perceived interests of a nasty ethnic-supremacist cult.

Everything that has a beginning, has an end as well. Before the French Revolution, the Jewish people supported despotism against aristocracy, and the Magna Carta was signed by King John despite their opposition. After Napoleon, the Jewish people had had a long alliance with the Left. It was long, but not forever. This alliance has been severed in the aftermath of failed 1968 revolution. After that time, the Jewish people built a new alliance, with Globalisation forces. One saw the new alliance in action when it supported victory of Margaret Thatcher, right-wing shift of Labour under Lord Levy’s promoted Tony Blair, and in the US, the programme of Globalisation and World War Three (‘clash of civilisation’).

Give it a thought: if Daughter of Zion could ally herself with the Left, why could not she change her partners? Should she be considered a permanently beneficial force, next to God Almighty? Jewish leadership benefited from the union with the Left as long as it was an aspiring force, struggling with traditional upper classes. After their aspirations were satisfied, they had no more interest in such an ally.

For thirty years, this major and obvious fact of the Jewish people’s re-alliance was not sufficiently discussed in the Left. Like a ditched boyfriend, the Left hoped to re-forge the union of old. One of the reasons was a sentimental belief expressed by Mr Milne: “The left’s appeal to social justice and universal rights created a natural bond with a people long persecuted and excluded by the Christian European establishment”.

Why should one describe this relationship with the rich Jewish bankers and newspaper owners, who had supported the Left, as a ‘natural bond’ rather than a marriage of convenience? It was quite unnatural bond, formed against obvious class interests of the involved sides, and its collapse was inevitable. The Left accepted help of rich Jews, disregarding their motives. It paid a heavy price – alienation from working classes who had a long and painful history of Jew-Gentile relations, alienation from the church, uncompromising hostility of the upper classes. The Jews used the energy of the Left until it run out, and then, ditched it.

Mr. Milne objects to Jews calling the Left “anti-Semitic”. He thinks the Left does not deserve it. But it is mainly a point of definition. In the eyes of Mr. Milne, ‘anti-Semitism is an anti-Jewish racism”, and its use, ‘a slur’. In the Jewish eyes, ‘anti-Semitism’ is a policy counteracting the policy of the Jewish people. Thus, until 1968, the Right was ‘anti-Semitic’ by definition, as “the fates of the Jewish people and the left have been closely intertwined”. After 1968, as time goes by, the anti-globalist Left (and Right), or environmentalist groups had become ‘anti-Semitic’ by definition. In 1953, McCarthy’s Committee for anti-American activities was ‘anti-Semitic’, but in 2002, ‘anti-American’ means ‘anti-Semitic’, according to the Commentary, the main ideological Jewish American magazine.

In Russia of 1990s, which I covered for Haaretz daily, any movement against ‘the market forces’, for socialism and preservation of the Soviet Union was considered ‘anti-Semitic”. Anti-globalisation is ‘anti-Semitic’ as well as objection to the Zionist policies. Thus, anti-Semitic labelling is not a slur, but a definition of every policy at deviance with the present ideas of the Jewish people.

If you are NOT called an anti-Semite, you should immediately reconsider your writing, Mr Milne. But if you ARE called an anti-Semite, it does not mean too much: even Wolfowitz, the Jewish Zionist bigot hawk and supporter of Sharon, was booed as anti-Semite by even more fervent American Jews. Even Ariel Sharon, the mass murderer of Sabra and Shatila, of Qibya and Jenin, was relegated into ‘anti-Semite lefties’ by the bloody-minded supporters of Benjamin Netanyahu.

That is why there is no reason to incessantly apologise for offending sensibilities. The Left can accept the offered definition and to reply with a shrug while being called ‘anti-Semitic’, as it would certainly respond to accusations of ‘anti-British’ or ‘anti-aristocratic’ behaviour. The Jews are not Les Misérables any more; after 1960s, they occupy (in the US and Europe) a position similar to that of Brahmins in India. The Left should try to undo their supremacy, while preserving and using their talents and abilities.

Even more important, it should overcome its rejected lover syndrome and reassess its positions vis-à-vis the Jews in the light of Marxist teaching. Karl Marx (certainly not a biological Jew-hater) rejected his ties with the Jews, and called for emancipation of the world from Jews. Later, the Left chose to forget these words of Marx, but they could be brought back.

— Israel Shamir, Love’s Labours Lost

barovsky

Why not just resign from Jewishness? Then you can think as you please, without having to worry whether your opinions are contrary to the perceived interests of a nasty ethnic-supremacist cult.

Resign from Jewishness? Not sure what that means but to clarify, I’m not Jewish by religion (I don’t have a religion), there’s no such thing as the Jewish race, so at best, I’m Jewish because my mum told me I am, which, as she, like me was a communist, I’m Jewish by ‘culture’, the culture of European Jews (she was from Russia). BTW, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment (self-hating Yiddle) but perhaps you didn’t get that?

To further clarify, I DO think as I please, thanks very much. I don’t recognise the state of Israel, I regard it as stolen land. I

milosevic
milosevic

I DO think as I please

I don’t doubt it, and I’m sure your mother does too. The point is that if you stop identifying yourself as “Jewish”, the overt zionists won’t be able to call you “self-hating”, and the covert zionists won’t be able to point to you as part of their “not all jews…” disinfo campaign.

(that it is a disinfo campaign, becomes obvious as soon as one dares to ask, “among people who self-identify as ‘Jewish’, what are the relative proportions of zionists and anti-zionists?”)

barovsky

Milosovic, I’m not sure if that’s the correct approach, to deny my history, my ancestors, but it’s true to say that if my mum (ashes these past 26 yrs) hadn’t told me that she/I’m of ‘Jewish’ descent then yes, I’d never know. On the other hand, the Nazis completely exterminated my mother’s family during WWII, how can I forget that they were wiped out because they were Jews (and of course, Russians, the untermensch)? I’m also part Roma and 2-3 million Roma were also exterminated, should I also forget that?

I think the issue, as I’ve said elsewhere, is NOT about Jews, it’s about Israel and Zionism, which boils down to imperialism and colonial conquest. Israel exploits Western (presumed) guilt to get away with literal murder, The trick is conflating Jews with Israel/Zionism, that’s why Zionism is intrinsically anti-semitic. When I was kid my mum used to tell me that, ‘a Jew is just an Arab on horseback’.

Willem
Willem

All this -ishms, -cals, and -ists steer away from the fact that your human.

Just call yourself human and act humane, steer away from the unanswerable ‘logical song’

barovsky

BTW, Milosovic, Israel Shamir is an old friend of mine and like Israel, I regard Zionism as intrinsically anti-semitic!

milosevic
milosevic

Having read the above, as well as some of his other writing, I very much doubt that he considers zionism to be intrinsically anti-semitic, since ethnic supremacism seems to be the very essence of Jewishness.

But if you know him personally, why not ask?

barovsky

Okay, I will.Will let you know what he says.

Tim Jenkins
Tim Jenkins

Nothing beats civil discussion, as evidenced here: Thank you.

I personally would be very interested in your quest for further clarification.

You appear trustworthy 🙂

barovsky

Tim, ‘I appear trustworthy’ but appearances can be deceptive. Just kidding. I have emailed Israel and I await a response. you’ll be the first to know.

BTW, I stand by opinion the Zionism is anti-semitic, in fact it’s blindingly obvious simply by the nature of this debate on anti-semitism ie, redefining anti-semitism as including any criticism of the Zionist entity, Israel.

Israel Shamir

I’ve been asked whether I consider Zionism being intrinsically anti-Semitic.
Well, next step, you’ll call gefilte fish – antisemitic))
Is Islamism anti-Muslim? Were Ustasha anti-Catholic? Was Shin Fein anti-Irish? Was NSDAP anti-German?
I think it is too paradoxical!
Here is a longer take:
The Jewish law has a sensible rule: “Minhag Israel din hu”, meaning ‘Israel (that is Jewish umma) acts righteously”, the way Jews act is the way of Jewish law.
Provided that majority of Jews accept Zionism, it is not against them.
The way out of this problem is to invoke the erevrav thesis, saying that a lot of Jews are not real Jews but (spiritual or real) descendants of gentiles who accompanied Children of Israel on their way out of bondage. This is a Jewish analog of takfir, of declaring somebody kaffir among Muslims.
So there is no easy answer for your question. If pushed for an answer, I’d say, no, Zionism is not antisemitism, and anti-Zionism is not antisemitism either. Say No to takfir))

noseBag
noseBag

Counterpunch trashing someone can be treated in the same way as not believing anything until it’s officially denied.

Yarkob
Yarkob

Jeffery St Clair is no one’s “buddie” He’s a tool of the highest order, who seems to take his publishing orders from the Atlanti Council now. Perhaps someone gave him the nod regarding the dirt they hold on him and made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Perhaps he’s always been a tool

barovsky

Perhaps he’s just another ‘liberal’. You don’t need to be on the payroll to support imperialism, check out Tariq Ali for example, being a ‘lefty’ is just another job.

robjira
robjira

I’d be interested to know in what way Tariq Ali supports imperialism; what I’ve read (and listened to) by him indicates the exact opposite. I did a quick search and only came up with someone saying that Ali’s speaking positively about Hezb’allah and Iran qualifies him as a kind of “crypto-imperialist” because Iran is (at least according to the usual suspects) “the world’s leading exporter of Islamic fundamentalism (never heard of Saud-owned Arabia, I guess).
Anyway, if you know of where I might try looking for more on Ali supporting imperialism I’d appreciate the help. ^_^

Idi Malink
Idi Malink

Where can one find Tariq Ali articles now?

barovsky
vexarb
vexarb

Thanks for that expose’ of passe’ Trendy Lefty Tariq Ali.

By the way, if your mother (of blessed memory) told you, you are Jewish, then you are.

barovsky

Yes, I’m aware of the ‘fact’ that Judaism is matrilineal, though I hear that Israel has rewritten this ‘rule’ so now either parent will do. I wonder why (not).

barovsky

I might add re the Tariq Ali thing, that it is possible to make a very good living out of being some kind of lefty, as long as you’re anti-communist that is.

robjira
robjira

Thanks for the link to your written piece; much appreciated. In all honesty, to paraphrase the Dude, it’s mainly like, your opinion, man. Ali’s main transgression in the interview you’ve also graciously linked to, is calling the game at its outset (2012, before it became obvious that the “opposition” was scarcely peaceful, and that foreign powers were already overtly intervening in Syria, and before the commitment of Russian Aerospace forces when it became obvious that foreign powers were importing proxy militias to do their dirty work). As commenters on your original piece noted, Ali has always been against direct intervention by foreign powers into a sovereign state, preferring good ol’ diplomacy.
Again, it seems that in 2012 his only transgression was speaking too soon on the situation in Syria…as many other people around the world did.
Many thanks for your help, once again.
Peace.

barovsky

So Ali’s call that “Assad has to go” is legitimate?

robjira
robjira

It’s no more nor less legitimate than your own (or anyone else’s) opinion on the matter. Again, this is based on material that predates the more unsavory revelations about Syria’s misfortune became apparent (remember this was 2012, scarcely one year after the sheise started hitting the fan, and two years before the situation changed dramatically once again).
You do raise an interesting point, though; how does one define “legitimate,” and by what criteria is such a definition measured? To brand someone a “fake lefty” over an error due to incomplete information, while a fluid situation is still evolving seems rather arbitrary and, again, a matter of personal opinion. Einstein ignored the effects of gravity at the quantum level (he later said this was the greatest error of his career); should he therefore be marked as a “fake genius?”
A teacher of mine once said, “every bullseye in competition is the result of 99 misses during practice.” Ali has many bullseyes to his credit; perhaps he can be allowed a miss from time to time.
Good conversation ^_^

barovsky

So, it’s all just down to opinions? Well that settles that doesn’t it. What’s the point of this exchange if it’s just my opinion versus Ali’s?

I give up,

robjira
robjira

Well, yes; it is all down to opinions in the end. The point of this exchange (I guess) is to determine whether Tariq Ali is a “fake lefty” (and therefore deserving of condemnation or derision), because he supposedly supports imperialist ideology. If we use the examples you’ve provided as a yardstick, one could argue effin Trotsky was an imperialist with the whole “export the revolution thing;” is Trotsky therefore a fake leftist?
I didn’t mean to wind you up, and maybe I’m arguing from a point not as informed as yours. This happens from time to time in the exchange of ideas (aka “opinions”), and changes with the acquisition of more knowledge.
Suffice to say, an assertion was made that Tariq Ali is a “fake lefty” because he “supports imperialism.” The info to back the assertion up doesn’t come up to scratch in proving that Ali is somehow an imperialist (or abets and enables imperialism), IMO. But, for all I know, you’re genuinely entitled to “cast the first stone” on this point, and apologies if I’ve somehow spoken out of turn.
Again, good conversation ^_^
Peace.