Saturday, 18 August 2012

The Guardian Hires Racist Sack of Garbage, Joshua Trevino as its US Correspondent


Meet the Guardian's new US correspondent - an advocate of concentration camps, beating up gays and murdering peace activists - Nice one Messrs Freedland & Rusbridger

Trevino Called for the Murder of Alice Walker and American Peace Activists on Gaza Flotilla

concentration camp

This is what Trevino advocated in Iraq and supported i South Africa - Lizzie van Zyl, visited by Emily Hobhouse in a British concentration camp

The racist scumbag who is the Guardian's US correspondent
 

another charming tweet from Trevino - he has now hidden his tweets

It was Electronic Intifada who first broke the story  about the Guardian employing a racist homophobe Joshua Trevino as part of its US team of correspondents.  
The firestorm that greeted this news has clearly taken the Guardian aback. Trevino was forced to write a defence of his comments for the Guardian’s Comment is Free column.  Apparently he didn’t get the rhetoric right, whereas the substance was fine!  If this is the standard of his writing, then it is proof, if proof is needed, of the Guardian's sad decline.    

So lame was his defence that former CIF editor, Matt Seaton, who himself drove CIF to the right as its Editor, has been forced to defend this fanatical Republican, ex-Bush speech writer.

I have been doing a little research on this creature and I have to say to Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada that good as your original article was, it only scratches the surface.  The man is an advocate of genocide.  Indeed he is a bigot on almost every level.

 Trevino’s actual comments were:


"Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla – well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me."

In short he advocated the killing of Alice Walker, author of The Color Purple and other American peace activists, because they were sending aid to break the blockade of Gaza.  In fact he subsequently made even more outrageous comments.

As I have been saying for some time, the Guardian, which is losing money and circulation hand over fist, has decided to reach out to the right.  I was banned (by Seaton) for writing for CIF after a Zionist campaign.  CIF itself has become more and more pro-Zionist.  Only a few days ago I posted a blog about a reference to Professor Moshe Machover of King’s College, London University   was deleted by CIF censors (moderators).  Comment is Free - but Only When We Agree!  

An Advocate of Genocide

 In fact Trevino is an advocate of genocide.  In an article supporting the French tactics of murder and torture in Algeria, before de Gaulle decided to withdraw, he argued that ‘One might look to Algeria, where the Morice Line offers an instructive example of just how a hostile border can and should be sealed.’  Even worse was to follow.  He defended the setting up of concentration camps by the British in the Boer War.  This was the first time that a western power had created concentration camps, something the Nazis gleefully imitated when Hitler came to power:
‘one might look especially to the Boer War, in which a fractious, semi-fanatical culture was slowly ground into submission by an occupying force several years after the seeming success of the initial invasion. If it sounds familiar, it should: and so the means of victory there offer an instructive thought experiment for Iraq today.’

Make no mistake: those means were cruel. I have stated previously that I endorse cruel things in war,  to eschew them is folly. The British achieved victory over the Boers by taking their women and children away to concentration camps, by laying waste to the countryside, and by dotting the veld with small garrisons in blockhouses at regular intervals. The men who remained were hindered in their movements by the wire stretching from blockhouse to blockhouse (a phenomenon that the Morice Line experience has shown would be massively more effective now); they could either surrender or die. Absent women and children, the rules of engagement were lax.  
  Over 26,000 women and children died in these camps.  And the creature who defends them to this day is now a Guardian correspondent.  Advocating the murder of peace activists on the Gaza flotilla is small beer for Joshua Trevino.

 Trevino's praise for the British in South Africa was in the context of advocating the creation of concentration camps in Iraq in order that the Americans could turn defeat into victory.  Thousands died in the concentration camps.  They ended up strengthening the Boers such that by 1909 Britain had effectively ceded control to the Boers, under Jan Smuts (a fervent Zionist) in the Act of Union of South Africa.  It was thus accorded Dominion Status, i.e. virtual independence.

It says a lot for The Guardian under Jonathan Freedland & Alan Rusbridger that it can even contemplate employing Trevino.  Why not go the whole hog and ask Ernst Zundel, who believes there was no Holocaust to lend his talents too?  All in the name of balance.  Seaton's defence of Trevino is truly pathetic.  It is the 'liberal' argument that we publish those we disagree with.  Why even corporate stooge Glen Greenwald, ex of Salon, is part of the new Guardian US team.  Seaton writes that ‘you should also know that it's fundamental to the Guardian's philosophy that we choose to hear and give a platform to opinions we may disagree with.’

This is however a miserable liberal lie.  Seaton omits to mention the name Dilpazier Aslam, a former trainee journalist with The Guardian.  In July 2005 he lost his traineeship, i.e. was dismissed, after being outed as a member of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. ‘The Guardian was alerted to Aslam's membership in the group by bloggers who read Aslam's 'Comment' op-ed article on the July 7 London bombings. Entitled "We Rock the Boat," the July 13 article discussed the attitudes of young British Muslims and how their increasing anger over perceived injustices contrasted with their elders' silence.’ 

The Guardian was quick to make amends.  At the front of an otherwise interesting article there was placed the following: 

The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Saturday July 23 2005 

At the end of this article, we identified the author Dilpazier Aslam as a Guardian trainee journalist but did not say that he was a member of the political party Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Guardian accepts that Mr Aslam's membership of the party should have been explicitly mentioned. A statement by the Guardian has already appeared in the paper, with a fuller account on the Guardian website.’  

In other words there are certain opinions that are beyond the pale.  He was specifically asked at his disciplinary hearing whether he would renounce membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a rather unsavoury, right-wing Islamic group.  But Hizb ut-Tahrir is far less unsavoury than Trevino, the advocate for genocide and concentration camps that the Grauniad has now employed.  It would appear that under the banner of freedom of speech, supporters of American genocide are welcome, but Islamists of a right-wing flavour are shown the door.

Those of us on the Left made no complaint about Aslam.  Hizb ut-Tahrir is an Islamic fundamentalist organisation.  He had no place in a liberal newspaper.  But is an advocate of genocide, a supporter of concentration camps, a rank homophobe and Bush speech writer any better?  Most people would say that the only difference, apart from the fact that Trevino is far worse than Aslam, is that he is part of the US political establishment. 

It is not surprising that Commentary, house-magazine of US neo-cons, a thoroughly McCarthyite magazine and pro-Zionist to its roots, which regularly advocates silencing Palestinian supporters, has denounced the campaign against Trevino.  The Casual Smearing of a Conservative 
The Guardian eventually reached an out of court settlement with Aslam but the damage had been done.  It is doubtful that Seaton is unaware of the Aslam affair.  Background:  The Guardian and Dilpazier Aslam.
  
As Wikipedia noted, ‘Before joining The Guardian, Aslam had written three articles for Khilafah.com,  a website closely associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir, and was once called its Middle Eastern correspondent.  The newspaper stated that after publication of "We Rock the Boat," it found an article on Khalifah.com, that appeared to be an "incitement of violence against Jews."  Note that Aslam did not personally pen the article or indeed have anything to do with it or express any sympathy with it.  Indeed ‘Aslam told Alan Rusbridger, The Guardian's editor, 'that he personally rejected anti-Semitism, would not leave Hizb ut-Tahrir, and did not consider Khilafah.com anti-Semitic. Rusbridger and other executives decided that membership in Hizb ut-Tahrir was not compatible with membership in the trainee scheme.’ 

Seaton, who is not the brightest sandwich in the picnic, also responded to Sarah Colborne of Palestine Solidarity Campaign.  Hi Sarah. I think it's only fair to observe that Furkan Dogan was killed during the first flotilla. Treviño's tweet under discussion here related to the second flotilla.  Sarah had been pointing out that Dogan who was killed was an American citizen (he held joint Turkish-American citizenship). 

Seaton apparently thinks this somehow excuses Trevino’s comments whereas it makes them worse.  Even though Trevino knew of the murder of 9 peace activists on board the Mavi Marmara, he still continued to advocate the murder of unarmed civilians by the IDF.  

Trevino’s defence is a good example of the rank stupidity of the US Right and the Guardian’s new correspondent.  In response to criticism that he advocated the murder of US citizens he argued that ‘I urged no such thing. I intended no such thing. But sufficient numbers believe I did, and in cases of widespread misapprehension of meaning, the fault always lies with the writer.’  I have responded (though for how long the comments are up is anyone’s business since I was banned from posting under my own name) that:

‘No of course you didn't advocate the murder of American citizens on board the Gaza flotillas, you merely assured the Israeli Defence Forces that were they to do so, most Americans would applaud their acts!  It is, as Oscar Wilde put it, a distinction without a difference.

Much of the rest of Trevino's appalling apologia, which is as bad as his original statement, is equally disingenous, i.e. not honest.  It isn't just consumer goods that weren't circulating through Gaza.  Medical supplies, building materials, sanitation equipment.  Presumably the Guardian must think that ignorance is not only bliss but a suitable qualification for one of their US correspondents.

You then go on to say that 'the Gaza flotillas sought to render aid to a known terrorist group – and, in my view, its participants were morally complicit in that. Moreover, in these circumstances, Israel was within its rights to prevent the breach of its blockade and to defend itself by force compounds the lie.  For the Guardian to employ someone who cannot distinguish truth from lies as its US correspondent is a disgrace.

The activists concerned were trying to give aid to the people of Gaza, not a 'terrorist' group.  Hamas is the elected government of Gaza.  If Trevino knew anything of their history he would understand that just as the US helped Al Quaeda to be born so Israel went out of its way to sponsor and create Hamas as a counterweight to secular Palestinian nationalist groups.  But why is it that bombing Gaza, including schools, sewerage plants, chicken farms, the university, hospitals etc. to say nothing of homes, with ordinance including white phosphorous is not an act of terrorism?  Trevino like his Democrat compatriot Hilary Clinton is blind in one eye.  He only sees the suffering of the oppressor, never the oppressed.

To cite Clinton as some kind of authority on 'terrorism' is akin to quoting Count Dracula on the benefits of vegetarianism.  Clinton is a representative of a state that is responsible for countless deaths, mayhem and destruction and to talk of 'targeted killings' in Yemen or elsewhere is to be complicit in those war crimes.  The drone attacks in Pakistan have killed hundreds of innocent people.  US foreign policy has no moral cloak despite Trevino's rhetoric.  In their 'war for democracy' in the Middle East the US has been responsible for over a million deaths in Iraq, yet isn't it strange how this war never seems to reach the shoreline of Saudi Arabia?  Strange that....

It would appear that the ex-liberal Guardian too is now complicit in the Orwellian control of the news agenda by hiring someone who was a cheer leader for murder....’
Later I posted that:

‘It says a lot that a member of the Guardian Editorial team has to jump in to protect their new find, one Joshua Trevino.  Clearly Trevino is so inarticulate that he needs your help.  You should explain to Trevino the English saying that 'when in a hole stop digging'.  Matt Seaton, a former editor of CIF, has had to come galloping to his rescue employing the old liberal argument that we may not agree with someone but that should not stop us employing him.

But it's all  in vain Mr Seaton because it only extends to advocates for murder in the establishment.  Your defence of Trevino is therefore, who actually advocates the murder of unarmed protestors, is disingenuous.  Or have you forgotten the case of Dilpazier Aslam, the Guardia trainee journalist who was also a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilpazier_Aslam  He was dismissed by the Guardian because of his membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a rather nasty right-wing Muslim group, but far less nasty than Trevino. 

Every day you employ censors, sorry 'moderators' to weed out uncomfortable posts.  Your liberalism has narrow limits.  Which is why when the Zionists initially raised a hue and cry over my writing for CIF, because I dared to compare Nazi rule in Germany 1933-9 with Zionist attitudes and behaviour I was banned from writing.  Your liberalism tilts rightwards only these days.

And having taken the Guardian before you were even born, I can vouch that it is rapidly moving to the right.  The Manchester Guardian and Observer, both of which opposed the Suez War of 1956, are not the same papers as the Guardian and Observer today.

Let's see how long this comment stays up!’

Trevino - An anti-Gay Bigot Who Supported the Prosecution of  Anwar Ibrahim for Sodomy

Trevino’s entry in Wikipedia   makes interesting reading. And in
In Shorter JoshTreviño: “Smear the Queer”  we learn that Trevino is a rank anti-gay bigot too.  Responding to the story of Mitt Romney having been a homophobic bully at high school Erik Loomis writes that on May 10, 2012 that ‘I know it’s shocking that conservatives would support both bullying and homophobia. In case you had forgotten this, allow me to present you with Josh Treviño’s response to this story of Romney being a homophobic bully in high school. Among his tweets on it include:

“What this ludicrous story on Young Mitt represents is the intersection of the political hit piece with the anti-bullying hysteria.”  and it gets worse:

‘I actually feel better about Mitt, knowing he’ll forcibly cut hippies’ hair:’

Now, one can debate the relevance of a story about a presidential candidate in high school, although bullying tendencies at age 15 don’t always go away. But as Ezra Klein pointed out in another tweet, “the reactions are telling us some disturbing things about others.”  Indeed they are. They remind us that conservatives love bullying and they love homophobia. And that includes supposedly serious and respectable conservative Josh Treviño.’   

What price freedom of speech Matthew Seaton? 

I’m happy to cross-post an excellent article on Trevino from the liberal-Jewish Tikun Olam, edited by Richard Silverstein:
by Richard Silverstein on August 17, 2012 · 

I’ve been reading with interest that the Guardian has appointed two new blogger-columnists, one of whom makes perfect sense and the other just makes me scratch my head and say: Huh?  They are Glenn Greenwald and Josh Trevino.  Greenwald of course is a fighting tiger of the progressive blog world.  He’s a great catch for The Guardian.  But Trevino?

I can understand the desire to balance Greenwald’s progressive fusillades with a conservative equivalent, but Trevino is a creep of the lowest order.  Ali Abunimah has exposed his homicidal rantings against the American contingent in the Gaza Freedom flotilla (which included Nobel laureate, Alice Walker):

Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla — well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me.

Thanks to Jesus’ General for that one, who notes that using this logic Josh would’ve encouraged the El Salvadoran death squads to murder American nuns (which they did).  In this tweet, the right-wing incendiary likened the Flotilla to a “Nazi convoy:”

Not morally different from a Nazi convoy, is it? RT @KurtSchlichter: Sink the #flotilla. Enough screwing around with these psychos.

By the way, I could offer the link to these tweets a few days ago, but after his shellacking at the hands of Abunimah, Trevino has rather foolishly decided to put the evidence behind a protective barrier.  You can only see his tweets now if you’re within his trusted inner circle.  He doesn’t want anyone snooping through his rancid racist garbage.  Perhaps wisely so.

To be clear, I don’t have a problem with someone supporting Israeli policy, even the Gaza siege, as long as they do so using reasonable rhetoric that eschews terms like “Nazi” and incitement to murder.  There are those who can do this and if the Guardian wanted a conservative commentator it could’ve found such a person.  But it went instead for a flamboyant, ranting showman.  It wanted a slightly more cultured, domesticated version of Anne Coulter.  And it got one, with a vengeance.
MJ Rosenberg has also tweeted about Trevino’s white supremacist public statements.

The former Texas Republican PR flack also tries to hide his client list from those years.  From this Malaysian political blog, it would appear that the ruling Malaysian political party was once one of his clients.  That’s the only way to explain an odd series of posts and columns in Huffington Post and Washington Times which attempted to argue that the ruling party’s prosecution of the leading Opposition political leader, Anwar Ibrahim, for sodomy, was justified.  Since Trevino’s PR flackery also includes lots of spinning on behalf of pro-Israel clients, he appears to have won the Daily Double in attacking Ibrahim for being not just a Sodomite, but an anti-Semite.

A few years ago, a friend asked me whether he should consider joining a pro-Israel junket being organized by Trevino under the rubric of Act for Israel.  I did some research (didn’t know much about Trevino at that point) and offered my opinion that it was a pro-Israel shill group.  What was clever of Trevino was that he was inviting a group of progressive writers and bloggers to join an all-expense paid trip to Israel during the imbroglio over the Carmel fires.  You’ll recall this natural disaster also involved massive unpreparedness of Israel’s civil authorities, including firefighters (no firefighting planes), which led to 40 unnecessary deaths including Haifa’s fire chief.

Under those particular circumstances, Israel’s friends thought it was imperative to co-opt a group of liberal writers to sing Israel’s praises.  What I found astonishing about Trevino’s come-on to the group was his promise that he could offer side-trips to Gaza and the Lebanese border.  It’s beyond odd that Trevino could promise an American journalist a trip to Gaza.  Either he doesn’t know anything about the situation in Gaza (likely) or he was flat-out lying (possible).

Even before beginning his tenure at the Guardian as a formal columnist was forced to inaugurate it with a twisted partial mea culpa that was in itself a sack of lies.  You read one of his disgusting tweets above.  Here’s how he speaks today of what he wrote then:

…Any reading of my tweet of 25 June 2011 that holds that I applauded, encouraged, or welcomed the death of fellow human beings, is wrong…

Excuse me? This is like the cheating husband caught in flagrante delecto and saying: “Who’re you gonna believe?  Me or your lyin’ eyes?” Well my lyin’ eye knows homicidal racism when I see it.  

You simply can’t lie it away as he has here.

Unfortunately, what the Guardian has bought here is a racist sack of garbage.  A guy who’ll pretty up homophobic scare tactics for enough money.  Someone who’ll politically pimp for Israel if the price is right.  Sure, you can say he’s shed his former clients and now he’s an honest man.  But who would believe that?  Perhaps a Guardian editor…'

News Update

According to Ali Abunimah, the Guardian has already started backtracking on its appointment of Trevino.  He is no longer a member of its editorial team but a freelance contributor!!  Methinks we aren't going to hear much from him.


1 comment:

Gert said...

Unbelievable. Why not hire John Bolton, in the name of 'balance'?

But I disagree with your characterisation of Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald has exposed and denounced US corporate 'journalism' very effectively. And his 'obit' of C.Hitchens did not pull any punches either. I suggest you research him a little more.