25 January 2012

Hypocrites (Harry’s) Place Carries BNP Style Posts Whilst Condemning PSC

Decision to Ban Holocaust Denial and anti-Semitism Bamboozles Harry’s Place

Or perhaps I should call it Hypocrites Place. Following the decision of PSC to expel one holocaust denier and confirm a ban on holocaust denial or anti-Semitism, Hypocrites Place is finding it difficult to get its message right.

On the one hand, there is resident liberal Sarah’s (all things are relative) Holocaust denier’s appeal fails to impress the PSC before managing to agree with her ultra-Zionist comrades. Then there is foaming at the mouth Joseph W who is obsessed by the 20% (in fact 17%) who didn’t vote to expel Francis Clarke-Lowes. Facts can’t be allowed to stand in the way of a good (or in this case bad) story, so this becomes 20% of PSC approve of holocaust denial.

Of course a child of 10 could work out that because you don’t want to expel someone, it doesn’t mean that you agree with them. When I pointed this rather obvious point out on HP, I discovered that the post soon disappeared. It was the first of three posts, so it wasn't - contrary to Sarah's suggestion - one of these things that happens in the ether. I had hit too close to home.

In particular I had illustrated what I was saying with a simple example. So simple that even the Hypocrites Place could get their heads around it. When I was a student, it was the Jewish or rather Zionist society at Sussex University, led by one David Cohen, which had opposed No Platform for Fascists and Racists, on the grounds of freedom of speech.

Of course Zionists have never been keen on things like anti-fascism but we never suggested that all or most of the Zionist Society were therefore signed up fascist supporters. They simply preferred supporting Israel and opposing anti-Zionism to fighting anti-Semitism and opposing fascism. So why should those who voted against Clarke-Lowes expulsion, primarily Stalinists of a bizarre North Korean loving cult, be classified as holocaust deniers when they have explicitly denied such a charge? Doesn’t make sense except for HPers who inhabit a parallel universe where the normal rules of logic don't apply.

HP’s problem is that if Zionism = anti-Semitism PSC is already anti-Semitic. So why then should PSC take the time and trouble to formulate a policy on anti-Semitism and holocaust denial? Doesn't make sense. Hence why it is easier to ban me from posting than answering awkward questions.

And there I was thinking that HP actually meant it when they quoted George Orwell to the effect that ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear.’ Of course Orwell was a socialist and anti-fascist. He fought with the semi-Trotskyist POUM in Spain but of course he was also an anti-Stalinist, not a crazy US neo-con.

HP now seem to have reinterpreted Orwell to the effect that ‘Liberty doesn’t mean telling Harry’s Hypocritical Place what they definitely don’t want to hear’ i.e. the truth!

I therefore sought an answer to this conundrum. Unless HPers are natural born liars, how can one explain this glaring contradiction between the banner headline and day to day practice? So I went off in search of HP’s comments policy, which only confused me even further. Under ‘Freedom of Speech’ we are told that HP:

‘believes in freedom of speech and open debate… It is our conviction that adults in a free society can discuss ideas openly without, generally speaking, the need for policing. We do not delete comments simply because we do not agree with them. We want a vibrant marketplace of ideas, not an echo chamber. It should be kept in mind however that marketplaces can at times be loud and chaotic. It is our conviction that the best way to deal with contrary views – even objectionable ones – is to challenge them, to argue, to criticise them or, in some cases, to treat them with contempt by ignoring them. This is how a free society functions…. it is better that a bad idea is exposed to the light of day. We cannot prepare ourselves for ideological battles against ideas that lurk in shadow and are transmitted in whispers.’

Fine sentiments indeed. Well that is clear then. HP is opposed to banning people ‘simply because we do not agree with them.’ Yet according to reliable reports HP has been subject of a US neo-con takeover, so like most things of the American Right, it has preserved the form whilst gutting it of all substance. Theoretically HP doesn't ban people because of their ideas. In practice it has no choice given the level of debate and the quality of most of the posters.

But whilst I have been banned, a Zionist poster Lamia was able to post the following comment to Joseph's The national PSC on Holocaust denial and Gill Kaffash

In response to a comment about ‘The UK has the problem of the British colonial attitudes to their former colonies. Actually Fabian, we have the problem of their attitudes to us.’ We have the following outpouring of racist filth:
‘Including Jews. The Pakistani immigrant population alone have contributed a great deal to the anti-Semitic ‘culture’ of the country. The jury’s out on whether they’ve contribute much else. Oh yes, I forgot: white-child prostitution rings. How wonderfully multicultural.’
Contrast this with e.g. the BNP's Northern Ireland site. This too has a feature on white child prostitution with the banner headline ‘Nick Griffin has said it for years… now the media admits that Muslim Paedophile Gangs can no longer be ignored.’ Plus ca change.

Just as Hitler held that Jews were out to corrupt innocent Aryan girls, so HP’s contributors now label, BNP style, the Pakistani community as being responsible for (white) child prostitution rings. But whereas Lamia is welcome to continue posting his vile racist outpourings, with barely a tutter from people like the fragrant Sarah, anti-Zionist critics are regularly libelled and now banned for daring to provide an alternative analysis.

Actually I don't give Sarah credit where credit is due. After saying that 'Lamia – I’m not denying that antisemitism is more associated with some communities than others' (really? I do you mean Muslims or non-whites in general?) she goes on to protest 'but that seems a rather sweeping thing to say about people in the UK of Pakistani origin.'

Err yes, quite. It is rather sweeping. How about Jews are responsible for most financial crimes. Would that also be 'rather too sweeping' despite the fact that certain groups (Jews) are more associated with 'swindling' than others? Please do tell.

Tony Greenstein


  1. (British) David Toube was already a neo-con when he took over the site,the shift of ownership to America, specifically to Gene Zitver (who in terms of US domestic policy is a Democrat), was mostly a dodge to avoid exposure to libel proceedings in Britain.
    I did mean to respond at a necessary length to Gert's suggestion on the last thread, perhaps commencing with the observation that although you don't have to be Andy Dufresne to swim through a mile of shit and come out clean on the other side it doesn't mean it's always a productive experience, but something off-topic occurred to me last night.
    I caught the last five minutes of a BBC4 documentary on the fight against apartheid[The football was on the other side:even with Nato at the heart of midfield,Botswana couldn't overcome Ghana],in which members of the Anglican Church were accusing the World Council of Churches of supporting terrorism for supporting ANC education programmes. It made me think the next time one of these HP types claims that Israel is singled out for criticism the simple answer is that all states based on racial oppression should be treated with the same contempt.

  2. Though this, from one of Sarah's closest friends on the site is notable:

    Abu Faris
    24 January 2012, 9:44 pm
    That story is absolutely true. To get out of anything here, you claim the other guy is Jewish.
    Pack of cnuts, who need invading, if you ask me.
    [A story in which a Muslim was taken to court but found to be a reliable witness, while his attacker had his assault charges dropped, for reasons that didn't seem worth mentioning]

    Sarah went over to Socialist Unity once to try and start an anti-Qaradawi condemnathon. When it was pointed out that the source of her "information" on him was the discredited MEMRI, her response was that she'd checked with her friend (who I suspect is the "Abu Faris" above) and he'd confirmed that the translation of Qaradawi's words was accurate, so they should take her word for it.

  3. Of the ‘Americanisation’ of HP there can be not a shred of doubt. I see recently some American Conservative bloggers, so conservative they practically come out the other end of the spectrum!, posting on HP, when those of that ilk would previously never have dreamt of posting on a ‘Socialist Eurotrash’ site (and one that still maintains the false pretence of being ‘liberal’)

    Things are likely to get worse, and never better, considering the army of Cons/Neocon 101 keyboard warriors that clouds the interwebs’ skies in that country…

  4. Well there is a certain logic in the stance of the Hypocrite's Place. Just as anti-Zionism is a form of anti-racism, so Zionism is a form of racism.

    It therefore makes sense for racists to ban anti-racists and I guess it is a privilege. I'm sure the BNP wouldn't allow me on to their sites to comment!

    But HP is not only racist towards Palestinians but towards all Black people. Anyone with half a brain (which admittedly excludes most of HP's posters) would see the racism in the following:

    'The UK has the problem of the British colonial attitudes to their former colonies.

    Actually, Fabian, we have the problem of their attitudes to us.

    'The Jewish immigrant population alone have contributed a great deal to the anti-British ‘culture’ of the country. The jury’s out on whether they have contributed much else. Oh yes, I forgot: child-prostitution rings. How wonderfully multicultural.'

    Compare with:

    The UK has the problem of the British colonial attitudes to their former colonies.

    Actually, Fabian, we have the problem of their attitudes to us.

    'Including Jews. The Pakistani immigrant population alone have contributed a great deal to the antisemitic ‘culture’ of the country. The jury’s out on whether they have contributed much else. Oh yes, I forgot: white child-prostitution rings. How wonderfully multicultural.'

    Spot the difference. one is anti-Semitic the other anti-Black. Both are racist. QED.

  5. Well they might have banned you Tony, but they're still quoting your work in order to smear me.

    So you're useful to them for some things :-)


  6. Fabian (or ‘Fabian from Israel from Argentina’ as I like to call him) has a bit of history in the racism department.

    He once exclaimed (paraphrasing from memory): ‘I didn’t come to Israel to live among Arabs’.

    Later he also point-blank claimed that ‘Palestinian men don’t work’! Phwoooaar! You tell it to'em, boy!

    Both on HP.

    He’s a devotee of Alan Jerkowitz.

  7. Grow up FTP and stop being so self-obsessed. The Hypocrites Place smears everybody. Most of its regular posters are immune to logic, reason, facts or arguments. So e.g. another section of the posts I sent them referred to the excellent Guardian article by Harriet Sharwood on the torture and abuse of Palestinian children.

    The more I recall of it the less surprised I am that banning was the only response. Lucy Lips aka David Toube et al. complain that the problem with PSC is that it has anti-Semites in it. So what happens when PSC amends its aims and specifically condemns anti-Semitism and holocaust denial?

    They ban the person who has played a major part in combatting Atzmonism, thus demonstrating their hypocrisy - again - since if they were honest they would admit that it is anti-Zionism and Palestine solidarity per se which is anti-Semitic. And if that is the case, what does it matter whether individuals in PSC are anti-Semitic or not since the organisation is, by virtue of its politics.

    I think MacBeth had some to say about what a web of lies we weave when first we seek to deceive!

    And I seem to recall that not so long ago Toube and Mad Mikey Ezra were have drinking sessions with Atzmon and declaring, good gracious no, that Atzmon was a fine fellow, great musician and was certainly no racist. A cultural essentialist I think was the term!

    So no ftp. Despite your love of conspiracies it should be obvious, even to you, that HP and me are not in league and as for them complimenting me, well as my friend Lenni Brenner says, even dung beetles appreciate gourmet food!

    In fact they seem to be anything but appreciative. After I had pointed out that some of their posters could be paid up members of the BNP, such is their racial invective, they actually DEFENDED the comments about Pakistanis being child molesters etc.

    And some Smart Alec writes complaining about my deleted post;

    "It would seem that whereas BNP supporters are welcome on Hypocrites Place

    A lie, both interpreatively and factually. You’re banned, Tony.

    It's difficult to know what he's objecting to. If he welcomes comments of the above nature, why shouldn't BNP supporters be welcomed, or would that be too embarrassing?!!

    Yes Gert, I've also noted that Fabian from Wherever seems a virulent anti-Arab racist.

  8. Looks like the Islamophobes have come out to play in droves on one of Sarah AB’s HP posts.

    There’s a lot of the familiar: ‘it’s true, I hate Muslims but I’m not a racist’ in the second part of the thread. Sample ‘Nick (in South Africa)’ at 6.54 am:

    ”All well and good, however the term Hinduphobia doesn’t get banded about. This is practically a science experiment.
    There is not a problem with Hindus in the UK, there is with Muslims, it’s that simple.
    This is because Islam is a political system that happens to come wrapped in the guise of religion. One with global imperialist aspirations, one that is deeply authoritarian, highly misogynistic, profoundly intolerant, violent and much more besides.
    We DO have unfettered serial immigration to the UK of huge numbers of ill educated Muslims with a mediaeval World view. There are now 4 million Muslims in the country and not a hint of any stop to it. This IS causing problems. A very large percentage of these first, second and third generation immigrants hold views inimical to life in a pluralistic tolerant liberal democracy, and these views are directly informed by mainstream Islamic dogma. There IS an ignoble record of this manifested in Muslim violence, hundreds of terror plots, terror attacks, ‘honour’ killings, blatant intimidation, nothing other than utterly cynical sexual predation by gangs of Muslim men on vulnerable white girls, grievance monging by Muslims with hair-trigger sensibilities and special pleading for dress concessions, diet concessions, prayer rooms, protective censorship, faith schools and so on.”

  9. Uhhhh looks like Gert is an agent of the CIA he known everything about evryone.....


Please submit your comments below