Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Liberty, if it means anything, is not Harry's Place's thing

About a week or so after fellow blogger and anti-Zionist 'comrade' The Hasbara Buster got permanently banned from Harry's Place (HP), David Toube's pro-Zionist blog has started to also delete my own comments. Both comments, non-abusive and on topic, were designed to show a few posters there the ridiculousness of some Zionists by means of well-chosen quotes. The comments made it through HP's comment moderation algorithm, only to be deleted manually shortly (about 1/2 hour) after having been published. It happened on a post by contributor 'habibi'.

I really can't be arsed finding out whether I'm permanently banned from HP, by all contributors or not by some, as all this research showed to be time-consuming in the case of The Hasbara Buster. Suffice it to say that when it comes to their pro-Zionist posts, they resort unscrupulously to censorship when the mood takes them. And let's face it, at these pro-Israel HP posts the level of commenting is so appallingly low I can almost understand that seeing their Zionist brethren being initiated in the uglier side of Zionism must be a painful spectacle to behold for David Toube and his Zionist mandarins. So much though for their motto:
Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear.

All sniping at HP positions will from now on have to be directed from DYWP HQ.


At 6:53 PM, Blogger ModernityBlog said...

It is good that racists such as you and HB are not even given the time of day.

Go peddle your racist filth elsewhere.

At 7:13 PM, Blogger Gert said...

It's a consolation that Zionism, with "anti-racist" fakers like you on its side, may not last all that long anymore.

At 7:59 PM, Blogger Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf said...

I sometimes wonder if they don't bore themselves with all that agreement with each other. One would expect them to welcome some dissent, if not for the sake of liberty, at least for the sake of amusement. But they prefer a life full of certainties, in which only one kind of subjectivity is allowed: theirs.

HP is becoming an increasingly masturbatory exercise in blogging.

At 12:03 PM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

Gert, Zionism is alive and well, so I wouldn't console myself with dreams of its demise if I were you.

As for accusations that you're a racist, they're baseless. Crying anti-Semitism automatically over any anti-Israel criticism is just wrong.

Do you still have what you wrote in the deleted comments? I'm curious to see what they found so offensive.

At 1:25 PM, Blogger Gert said...

HB (Ibrahim):

I remain convinced though that it's quite a deliberate tactic: there are Zionists on HP that haven't gotten past the 'From Time Immemorial' stage yet and no one of the 'management' there sets them right. HP is quite an interesting, varied site but not when it comes to pro-Israel posts.


The crux of the matter is that at HP it's still customary to call opponents 'anti-Semites' or worse besides that. This is not the case at Zionist blogs with integrity like yours or Falsedi.

The comments made were in reaction to someone who claimed I was bringing up 'weird Internet stuff to reinforce your [my] own anti-Semitism'.

I then pulled two quotes from Zionist sources. One from MadZionist.blogspot where he claims 'Jews are mad for having voted for Obama' and for 'supporting his policies on Israel' (the latter's clearly inaccurate because there's a lot of American Jewish resistance to Obama).

The other came from my own post 'Israel to US: stop favoring Palestinians' and the Science Minister Mr Herschowitz's comparison of Obama to the Pharao.

The irony is that HP claims to be centre-Left, yet on I-P posts really does attract the worst possible rightwingers.

At 5:00 PM, Blogger levi9909 said...

I don't suppose "Modernity Blog" could give some examples of this "racist filth", could he? Or even just one example. But then no one has a greater interest in muddying the waters about racism than a zionist.

I don't think I've ever seen him put an honest argument to anyone. Even David Toube has made honest arguments on some occasions. Sure he loses on those occasions, hence the banning of Gert and HB. Tony Greenstein has also complained of having comments removed or banned.

But back to this ludicrous reactionary named "Modernity". I was only vaguely aware of him when I correctly referred to Bob from Brockley as a zionist. Bob came to ask why I had said that. In the ensuing discussion Bob showed himself to be precisely the zionist that I said he was and, typically, a lying piece of shit. Throughout a lengthy thread at the Bob from Brockley site, with me explaining Israel's uniquely racist state structure to Bob (which he knew anyway but it doesn't hurt to hone the argument even to a zio in denial on all fronts) all "Modernity" offered were insults. And dishonest Bob falsely claimed that that was what happened to him when he came to my blog! Projection or what, eh?

"Modernity" couldn't point to one comment he has ever made that honestly addressed an argument against the racist war criminals of the State of Israel.

Check out his fucking nonsense with Michael Rosen. No wonder he's so determined to remain anonymous.

Anyway, I'm rushing. I'll return to this because, whilst Modernity is blatently ridiculous, for some reason, I'm still seriously pissed off with Bob. I think it might be that he doesn't try so hard to remain anonymous so in spite of his reputation he still manifestly lied about me. I take that perhaps too seriously.

But I will return to this.


At 5:21 PM, Blogger ModernityBlog said...

It is fairly simple to spot anti-Jewish racists, they rant on about the misdemeanors of Jews ad nauseum, and even if they change the words around, as the Far Right do, using "Zionist" instead of Jews, it fools no one.

I hope that explains it.

At 5:47 PM, Blogger Gert said...


The belief that anti-Zionism can be point-blank equated with anti-Semitism is by now shared only by useful idiots like you: Zionist sycophants, many non-Jewish.

Just very superficially, to believe you're right, I'd have to believe that the hordes of Jewish anti-Zionists are all self-hating Jews: that's pure quatch.

You've demonstrated your undying eagerness to find anti-Semitism everywhere, if need be in an empty cookie jar, to be obsessive. By and large (exceptions noted) calling those who criticise Israel or who take anti-Zionists positions 'anti-Semites' is a ploy that no longer works. As I said before (and I don't use that term easily) I think you're a philosemite. That's the reverse side of anti-Semitism: 'all Jews all bad' or 'all Jews all good'. Same thing.

You're just not very bright.

At 4:25 AM, Blogger Margaret said...

"...they change the words around, as the Far Right do, using "Zionist" instead of Jews..."

Modernity: You believe that use of the word Zionist by anti-Zionists is merely a substitution, and holds no other meaning for those who use it, because ? It reads as if you think others are incapable of using a word in any way other than as you define it. Much as I disagree with your views, it seems unlikely that we disagree to the extent that you don't consider others capable of thought differing from your own. Can you provide a link where you have explained why you say this if you are not interested in doing so here?

At 6:13 AM, Blogger Margaret said...

Reading Harry's Place for even just a few minutes is exhausting.

At 1:49 PM, Blogger Gert said...

"The Far Right do it too" is of course a 'bad company fallacy': the truth stands on its own, independent of who beholds or utters it.

It's a bit like saying that vegetarians must be Hitlerian because Hitler was a vegetarian too...

At 4:21 PM, Blogger levi9909 said...

No "Modernity", you lying racist piece of shit, you haven't even got close to explaining it. Typically, you have avoided it altogether. It seems you and your hero, David T, aren't very good at "explaining it at all. See what a balls up he made here, and you were still trying to help him way after he had the good sense to turn and run away with his tail between his legs, as he does when he loses an argument, which I think is every time he picks one.

Have an honest go. Give us one example of something that Gert has said that amounts to "racist filth". My suspicion is that you object to constant criticism of the State of Israel, uniquely a state whose existence is predicated on on-going human rights abuses.

If you need that explaining to you, don't make silly assumptions or start inventing state structures like Bob from Brockley did, just ask.

If you are trying to make out that the consistency or persistence of criticism of Israel because of its uniquely racist state structure, then perhaps you have forgotten how wedded to a single issue anti-apartheid and anti-fascist campaigners have been.

Look at Peter Hain's single issue focus against apartheid. Look at Gerry Gable's focus on fascism. Are they anti-white, anti-British, or "racist filth"?

You seem to be hinting, as so many racist liars for Israel do, that saying that Israel is a colonial settler state based on ethnic cleansing and racist laws once is ok but if you say it twice or a thousand times it becomes "racist filth". This, of course, puts Harry's Place on very dodgy ground considering the main targets for their incitements. And what does it say for zionist organisations with their main focus on supporting, even mobilising colonial settlers and defending Israel's appalling record of atrocities?

But I digress, come on, you lying piece of shit, one example of Gert's "racist filth". And don't be so absurd to ask if you have made yourself clear or explained it when that's the last thing you want to do.

Principled anti-zionists are aware of the way Jew-haters use the word "zionist" to mean "Jew" and "zionism" to mean "Jewry", but Gert targets his criticisms at Israel's structure, it's behaviour and the hypocrisy and dishonesty of its supporters. You need to come up with examples of his use of the word "zionist" so as to clearly mean Jew and not zionist at all. You might also point out what makes you so sure that he means something other than what he has actually said.

Now I could be kind and put your comments down to ignorance but you're smart enough to know that you can't make a case for Israel, so, just as when Bob from Brockley lied about me on his blog, and about his own zionism and the nature of Israel and other states on my blog, you duck and dodge the argument and just make what you consider to be serious allegations without, it seems, realising the extent to which racists like yourself have trivialised and demeaned the idea of anti-Jewish racism.

Anyway, you have accused Gert of racism without offering any evidence. I am asking you for evidence. You cannot now claim that you won't comment here on principle because, idiot that you are, you commented here twice already.

Oh, and don't do a Bob from Brockley and pretend that all that I or anyone else did was insult you. There's far more to this comment than the home truths that you are a racist, a liar and an idiot. Just as there was far more to my comments to Bob than calling his fucking ridiculous inane comments, er, fucking ridiculous and inane.

So, give us just one example of Gert's racism or admit that the lying racist piece of shit in this thread is you. You can do the latter by just staying away. That's what Toube always does in your situation.

I'll tell you this, Gert might delete trolls (I don't know if he does) but he won't do a Toube or a Hirsh by deleting legitimate debate.

So put up or shut up.

At 4:39 PM, Blogger Gert said...


I'm now getting seriously intrigued at what kind of "racist filth" he's going to come up with to make his case against me.

As I told him over at his, his trying to connect me to David Irving is potentially libelous and today I might become more litigious than I have been in the past, when such accusations would be leveled at me person to person, rather than by a Tinkerwebber who appears to be compulsive about his privacy.

At 8:07 PM, Blogger ModernityBlog said...

Margaret, you asked an interesting question, I'd like to answer it, but not here.

I am afraid that the immature Mark Elf has arrived and I have no wish to exchange views with such an individual.

At 9:14 PM, Blogger Gert said...


This really is so typical of you. You decide who you'll talk to and who not on the basis of entirely self-serving criteria. Me? I'm an 'anti-Semite'. Elf? He's 'immature', another baseless accusation. And you consider yourself "liberal"?

You know what's immature, not to mention underhand? Telling people that they "peddle racist filth" and then refusing to give even one single example of this "racist filth".

Please remember that it's you, not us (and not Margaret either), that defends the actions of a racist, ethnocratic, colonial state, now also kitted out with a Far Right government that's proposing legislation from fascistoid loyalty testing to Naqba commemoration suppression. A government that still hasn't declared itself in favour of the strictest minimum the Palestinians would be entitled to: a statelet of their own on the remains of the thoroughly looted historic Palestine. Thoroughly looted by Zionist Jews. You support this, yet call those who oppose it "racists". Ding dong...

At 12:50 AM, Blogger levi9909 said...

Oh wow! "Modernity" has done it again. He hurls around bogus charges such as "racist filth" and "far right" whilst uncritically supporting colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing, racist laws and the slaughter of civilians as long as the civilians are Arabs or Muslims.

He also happily contributed to a grotesquely racist post on Harrys Place without noticing David T's own racism in suggesting that black men insulting white women informs the black identity in the same way that the "chosen people" idea informs the Jewish identity.

And didn't I say that he would try to pull a "this thread is beneath me" stunt when he had already commented here and in response to me, at that?

Now Margaret, you go figure. I'm immature. Fine. Why does that mean that "Modernity" can't give one example of anything Gert has said that amounts to "racist filth"? Why does it mean that he can't respond to your "interesting question" here? Except he did respond and used more characters than if he just gave a link as requested, the lying racist imbecile.

Oh goodness, I've only just realised how ludicrous his excuse for not answering your question is. I've already dealt with the fact that he was happy to exchange views when he thought he could get away with a deliberately meaningless response but he got out of his depth.

But just because I am party to the same thread, it doesn't mean that if he responds to you here, he is then exchanging views with me, any more than when he posts his inanities on his own blog, Engage or Harry's Place. I can still read them. And Hirsh was happy to let me post there as long as I was outnumbered by trolls and before I exposed him as "Alf Green". I've never tried to post at Harrys Place but David Toube has tried it on at JSF a few times but, as I said, he always does a runner.

"Modernity's" really sticking his neck out making himself out to be more discerning than the two Davids. They're real doyens of the "anti-racist campaign against antisemitism".

It's a funny thing but when I was trying to make an honest man out of Bob from Brockley, (I think I failed btw) "Modernity" couldn't stay away. I don't think he addressed one substantive point. I don't recall if he accused me of being "far right" or "racist filth" but I do recall nothing but insults. But Bob from Brockley only discerns an insult when he can't make a case for his politics so he probably didn't notice "Modernity" being insulting. They're bedfellows after all.

Anyway, as it happens, I wouldn't say your question was that interesting, Margaret, but it was very good and well put. Johng asked the same question of David Hirsh and Engage generally. He got banned from Engage for it! Or, at least he had comments deleted.

I'm much too impatient with these lying racist arseholes. It gives them a get out.

What "Modernity" wants is for you to go to a forum where he can dodge your questions and have lots of trolls hurl abuse at you whilst making out that "Modernity" has answered your question. Either that or he wants you not to question him at all since he clearly had no answer.

And as I said earlier, it's no wonder he remains anonymous.

So Margaret, you can try asking your question at "Modernity" blog or you can just assume what we already know and that is that "Modernity" is a lying racist piece of shit projecting his own right wing politics on to others. I don't know of any ideology apart from zionism whose adherents so wilfully lie about their own aims and objectives and the positionality of their critics, opponents and their victims. Can anyone think of another? Maybe holocaust deniers and neo-nazis. But nothing with such widespread support in the mainstream.

But Margaret, do let us know what you decide, and how you get on.

I'd love to know how he wriggles out of this one.



At 5:58 AM, Blogger Margaret said...

ModernityBlog, I would prefer to continue the discussion here. Mark's point about the habit of many bloggers to exclude any except those who support their perspective is pertinent.

I think that we can trust Gert to post comments by anyone who wishes to support your perspective, as well as those who might support mine. As long as they mind the minimal rules, at least. Little purpose would be solved by allowing the familiar, shallow, nastiness common to Harry's Place.

If you consider Mark immature, your own maturity should provide sufficient strength to ignore his comments while continuing on with your own.

At 9:16 AM, Blogger levi9909 said...

Do you know, Margaret, when you look at my comments and compare them with MB's, they are not so different. Is "lying racist piece of shit" so different from "racist filth" who uses one specific word when he actually means another?

The only difference I can see between my comments and MB's is that I provide evidence for the contention that "Modernity" is indeed a lying racist piece of shit and he provides no evidence at all for his assertions because he had none.

So immaturity in MB's wacky world consists of providing evidence.

It all reminds of those people who believe that dishonesty and racism are the "way of the world" or "human nature" or "grown up" or some such whereas challenges based on truth and the demand for equality are dismissed as childlike naivety.

Now there are people who believe that, but MB isn't one of those. He knows that truth and equality are deeply held values held by a great many, which is why he makes the charges he does and refrains from backing them up because his own racism and dishonesty would become all the more apparent.

At 1:59 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Anyway, looks like 'no show' so far. Seems I'm doomed to forever repeat the error of my ways and wonder along the blogosphere, 'peddling racist filth'. Pity really: I'd have liked to know where I go wrong.

At 9:38 PM, Blogger levi9909 said...

It all happened exactly as I said. He came, he made unsubstantiated allegations, he engaged with you and with me and then said he couldn't engage with me, in spite of the fact he already had, because I called him roughly what he called you, only I provided evidence that he is a lying racist piece of shit and he provided none to support what he had said.

It appears that what MB means by "racist filth" is "anti-racist reasoning based on verifiable fact" and immaturity consists of backing up ones allegations with facts rather than simply hurling abuse around.

Anyway Gert, his anonymity doesn't mean that you can't sue him because hosts will co-operate with the courts but I am guessing his blog doesn't get many hits which means it would be assumed that his audience is too small for him to hurt your reputation.

Also, when you consider his lack of credibility a judge would almost definitely say that his allegations were too lacking in credibility to be actionable. They amount to name calling, nothing more.

Now poor Margaret's left to try to get some sense out of him or an admission that he doesn't/didn't know what he's talking about.

At 7:33 AM, Blogger levi9909 said...

Quick update - David T has made the big mistake of posting a video clip by Max Blumenthal showing some American Jewish youths in America giving vent to some blood curdling racism. His hope is clearly that the HP faithful will condemn this overt racism.

Well did they? Not a bit of it. Even Modernity "racist filth" Blog, managed to miss a defence of a guy that shouts "white power - fuck the niggers" and instead tries to get DT to ban another Israel critic.

Any progress Margaret?

At 1:07 PM, Blogger Gert said...

That vid's gone explosive: 212,000 views today compared to 100,000 yesterday.

Hasbara, we've got a problem...

At 8:28 AM, Blogger Margaret said...

No comment from the modern blogger. Blogger User Profile states the person is in Afghanistan. Current blog has is Racist Thug, John Wright and describes
Jewish Opposition to Zionism – ziondark/zionoppdex.html as a Holocaust revisionist site with a link to an Engage comment page.

Whether there was any connection or not, my security got a lot of hits after posting on the site, so I won't make any further attempt to communicate with MB, except responding to comments here.

At 3:05 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Well, I've just been over to look at the post in question. I don't know John Wright from Adam and cannot make any pronouncement on his alleged anti-Semitism. But at first glance this could well be one of Modernity's famous 'false positives'.

I'll delve a little deeper.

At 3:55 PM, Blogger Margaret said...

Oh? I'll be interested to hear what you find.

I'm busy straightening various situations out.

Firefox updated to 3.0.10!

At 5:50 PM, Blogger Margaret said...

FF 3.0.11 ...

At 7:54 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Here are my findings [cough!]


Nah, this is just Modernity up to his old tricks. John Wight may use rather strong language in his condemnation of Israel but that doesn't make him an anti-Semite.

And the MCB stance on Holocaust commemoration (a stance that personally I don't agree with) has been deliberately misrepresented by imbeciles like Modernity.

Modernity is all too keen to find anti-Semitism, it seems to have become his main raison d'etre. He's a also a real pussy: claims LL has been threatened by John Wight. Threatened with what? A paper cut? Repetitive stress syndrome from all that 101 keyboarders Morse tapping?

I say bring back conscription: that used to make men out of boys like Modernity. Right now when he'll face a real Jihadi (or a real anti-Semite) he'll first piss his pants and then shoot himself in the foot...

At 7:15 AM, Blogger Margaret said...

Got to worry about antisemitism, Gert! It must be a deeply based, ineradicable part of human nature, forever requiring militancy. How else justify the military industrial complex? How else hide the connivance of greed for power, but by saying the critics are against Jews, not against a world view that holds any enemy one can stir up as an enemy worth having.

After all, without an enemy, who you goin' fight? How does one justify being in Afghanistan if there isn't potential for a monolithic global insurgency (paradoxes always help obscure the details of these situations.)

The money being voted for Pakistan, over seven years, represents exactly how much of military aide to Israel? I have to go retrieve information from Counterpunch and from the US State Department's press release to develop that thought - which appears to relate to a major game plan shaping up - not going to be able to fight a continual war in Palestine? Well, happily, here are these Central Eastern countries in which to carry out a "long war."

First I must finish clearing my system of any remnants of the badware whizzing through the ether. Anyone who got an invitation to my blog should also check out their entire system... I regret if I was a vector of harm, and hope everyone was well prepared for such an eventuality.

Pownd, I believe is the expression - that badware was delivered via a email must have people rolling in laughter out of their expensive, ergonomically correct chairs. I have no doubt this situation will bite them in the ass - fooling around with chaos is just stupid.

At 1:22 PM, Blogger Gert said...


Anti-Semitism does of course exist and it's monitored in Britain by the Parliamentary Commission on Anti-Semitism (PCAA). Here's one of their recent reports (pdf).

Trouble is that numpties like Modernity can't read that kind of stuff because it far exceeds their attention span.

For 2004 about 450 anti-Semitic incidents were registered in Britain. That's 450 too many of course but let's try a little perspective, shall we?

The British population is about 61,000,000 now.

Assume (very 'generously') that each anti-Semitic incident in 2004 had been witnessed by 20 direct witnesses, so that makes 20 x 450 = 9,000 people having witnessed an AS incident in 2004 or 9,000 / 61,000,000 x 100 % = 0.015 % have witnessed such an incident in 2004, about 1 in every 10,000 Brits. You have a higher chance of a decent win with a lottery scratch card!

This explains in part why blogs like Modernity and Engage rely on self-serving and skimpy definitions of AS: otherwise there would be barely anything to report on.


Post a Comment

<< Home