Ken O' Keefe.

[American Dream]

Here's what AD means by fundraising for Icke. slimmouse posted a celebratory treatment of an Icke campaign to raise 100,000 pounds for an Internet radio project called "The People's Voice" that ludicrously purports to be unique as an alternative to the corporate media. (Since this is peanuts, one may wonder what the money will really be for.)

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... p?p=506119

Im glad you posted the link Jack, so that I could go back and see what I actually did, which was firstly infrom everyone that this was indeed an Icke inspired project, whereupon given the nature of how he goes down around here, people can make up their mind whether to even visit the link straight away.

( I originally considered posting the link from Ickes webpage, but thought ( hahahahaha) that might be even more endorsement.)

What I finally did, was throw three dried frogs, with some healing water and monatomic gold into a crucible, casting a traditional masai spell, whereupon one of the brightest crowds Ive ever met, would fall over themselves and their own individual judgement calls and persuasion to contribute regardless.

AD of course issued his counterspell meanwhile in the form of the deeply mysterious and sophisticated artistry of Mr Bilderberg. I only just escaped his own allure, I have to tell you.

I guess Icke would never have raised the 300k he did, without either the spell or the contributions that resulted from this board as a consequence.

But now Ive given my secret away. Apologies to all of you who succumbed to my wizardry. I'll just don my wizard hat emoticon in order to reveal my full outfit ( the previous emoticon was my spell inducing posture)

Pretty pathetic I know, but you know, when youre 'fundraising for Icke' ( hahafuknha) you can only do what you think is right

So in other words, nobody was making people here to give money to Icke, you were just (repeatedly) asking them to give money to Icke and advertising the "great" project they could give money to?

Glad you're finally acknowledging that you did do fundraising for Icke here, at least.

[Searcher08]

AD,

Firstly, thank you for engaging.

Thank you for your honesty in saying that you dont read my stuff very often - I assumed it was because we have board interests that tend to be divergent (at least virtually) like mine in A.I. and yours in economics etc.

I think in some ways perhaps what you point to is R.I. being actually more like
parallel non-overlapping boards that just happen to be in the same virtual space...

I have really enjoyed your contributions on the TIDS thread, which I tend to dip into or graze and sometimes have spent hours there - I find it has been useful in extendng the post 9/11 shift I had (things are not what they seem) into history (things *were* not what they seemed). I even had a suggestion with it which is to create tumblr site in parallel with R.I. - I think you would get loads more people interested if you had them both ( and a younger demographic).

What you said about advertising about fundraising for Icke surprised me as I dont think anyone has used RI for fundraising anything - if he did, I dont think it was intended to be malicious, but it was certainly not a good idea. R.I. only fundraises for R.I. as far as I know.

I myself had not heard of Ken O'Keefe except in passing as a name on Mondoweiss; I felt sickened at the photo of how he had been beaten up and thought how frightening the Mavi Marmara experience must have been.

I think for slim the issue about Ken O'Keefe was that you pointed out he had either ties to or had been lied to by David Duke. Both of those are potentially good to know, yes?

For me personally, what I feel happens is that the type of post you just did - which lands with me as personal and authentic, is very different from what I am calling CopyPasta, where there is a one line comment from you, then pages and pages. There have been lots of times when you have said I dont respond to content, so I have then gone through something like that with a forensic toothcomb level of detail. I dont do this out of mean-spiritedness, but as a demonstration (in my world) of trying to rigorously engage, which is actually out of respect. So when a long reply is ignored by you, I feel pissed cos it was just a waste of time.

I think you have always seen the kickback from slad and slim and formerly C_W and myself and others as ultimately apologists for ugly tropes, while we have seen it not as uncritical support of these people but as an issue of thinking autonomy, and a reaction to how we are being communicated with - an experiential thing. I think both sides of this have not acknowledged what is underneath. Remember you can walk in sand dunes on the west coast of Ireland for miles and see the bones of familes who were left to starve to death out of sheer callousness - so 'holocaust denial' brings up extremely painful things for many Irish people.

The zionist implication is mirroring the anti-Semite implication in the other direction.
You actually posted the only sodding thread on RI about Norman Finklestein and were actually quite clear on being close to him in the scheme of things, which is deeply admirable IMHO - especially as you referring to his book The Holocaust Industry.

My own thing was you never seem to post anything critical of the specific zionist power structures in the US - like AIPAC, JINSA, ADL or within TIDS anything critical of the Jewish faith, when I think most others have been examined pretty intensely - which at times was very uncomfortable as TBH I had no idea of how much child abuse went on in Buddhist or Hindu contexts...

One difficulty that should be acknowledged between us is around the Rothschilds, because I see them as extremely important - along with the B.I.S. in Basel, but not because they are lizard people or even because they "own the world" or funded Hitler - which I consider far right disinfo, but because of the research into social network analysis into ownership concentrations of corporations. Although I do appreciate it may be an uncomfortable area.

I am sorry you think I am doing an intellectually dishonest reframe and I am sincerely unsure what you mean by that - unless it is putting Tony Greenstein articles through a
linguistic woodchipper? or similarly the MiB video??

Both Greenstein - who reminds me of the SWP types at Uni in the 70s - closed minded, apparatchiks of the worst kind - and MiB whose presence here was entirely manipulative (concerned only with his outcomes, no one elses) - when you post / invite them here - we probably felt similar to when you saw slim's Ken O'Keefe post?

Do you feel I do that to them but not to Icke?
I often feel that we veer really near to fruitful collaboration and then seem to zoom away at the last moment.

How would people feel about a trying peaceful resolution?

Please feel free to add to / re-word etc etc.

Everyone
1 Every one agrees that none of us are in any shape way or form or inclination or supporters of the far right like David Duke, racism like Shamir, zionism like Wolf Blitzer, AIPAC, JINSA, LIKUD
2 Some of us see Icke and Atzmon as varying degrees of unpleasent or misguided or wrong - the people who dont agree with this, honour and accept our fears, issues and concerns.
3 Some of us see Icke and Atzmon as positive and or provocative forces, the people who dont agree with this still honour and accept that we do.
Politeness
4 As a statement of politeness, in debate , we will not post cartoons, scrolling red texts, or loads of smilies.
5 That we will not argue by CopyPasta and avoid multiple repetition of quotes of self or others
6 That we will make an effort to be constructive and appreciative and seek value and assume good intent in the others.

In closing, I would like to thank you for writing it as I feel you did a lot of reflecting and it is probably the longest thing I have seen you post. This was the effort at empathy, that I talked about. I have tried to be honest and frank and sincerely build on it.

Searcher-

I wasn't going to respond to this at all- had put you on "ignore" and felt that was for the best. 98% of your Aloha is burned up with me but I have decided to go with the 2% that isn't.

** I appreciate you replying

Firstly, slim was indeed fundraising for Icke here at R.I.- I was rather shocked and horrified by this, to be quite honest.

** Was it because you need to feel that R.I. itself doesnt contribute to evil?

Secondly, for O'Keefe to have linkages to Duke is a very clear sign that something is wrong but his message would be problematic even if he did not.

* I can understand how you feel that. My feeling is that I have not walked in his shoes, as I have only ever been on one protest (the huge one in 2003 against Iraq); I feel uncomfortable condemning him as it comes across like me being an 'keyboard warrior'. I respect that you are coming from quite a different place.

Thirdly, as to copying articles, often that is all I am inclined to do, as with the earlier Gilad Atzmon thread. No offense intended to anyone but quite honestly it's not worth it to me to expend huge amounts of energy educating myself on all the minutia of an issue I don't know thoroughly when the likelihood that the people I am responding to directly will have a change of heart is small.

* I can appreciate that - would you be willing to consider that it can land as incredibly counter-productive and greatly reduce changing peoples minds? For myself, I sometimes felt a 'blizzard' of extra information arriving like this and at times would feel 'information overwhelm'.
I appreciate your honesty about knowing all the minutae - I have felt the same and that if I am not taking in ALL the detail ALL the time "Im Doing It Wrong!!!"


Especially because some of it is quite upsetting to me, the best I can do is post informative articles with little or no commentary added. I do this because I want more light than heat and do get emotionally triggered...

** I appreciate this might surprise you (and I feel embarrassed saying it), but until your previous post, I hadnt considered that.

At least one time when I ignored a long piece from you it was because I was way too upset and my goodwill had sunk too low to respond fruitfully. I can understand why that might be upsetting to you but also that's the nature of these fora too- we are busy people and have not contracted to give all our time and energy to this.

** I can understand that. Sometimes willingness changes over time from previous delayed emotional reactions bubbling up, so a person may have been willing to engage at 2pm, but seeing a long post later when they have 5 minutes at 7pm may just give a sinking feeling. Been there myself.

Sorry, but David Icke has I think a pitifully bad position on the Protocols, Nazi mass murder and the like. That Irish people have suffered greatly does not change that.
** I'm hearing you say that you feel the same reading those things as perhaps I might reading an exonneration of the English around The Famine?

As to domestic zionist organizations, do you think I am not outside their meetings getting documented by creepy Feds? Do you think the ADL's domestic intelligence operations never cast their eye towards my own life and organizations I worked with? If so, think again. Just because we can find pet issues that one one of us did not post on proves little when there are a gazillion issues to impugn each other over.

** Thank you for this, as actually in real life I think that having a position similar to Norman Finklestein would have a real world negative cost? So I'm hearing you say that there is a real irony in being called out for not condemning them more when your ACTUAL real world activities are such that you face that sort of horrible intimidation, which most RI keyboard warriors have not.


As to the Rothschilds, I certainly believe they were one rich clan who exercised power these last few centuries. I know they still exist and do things but if you are going to convince me that they are masters of the universe types today, I will need to see some really compelling evidence of that.
** This is perhaps a tricky one for us. A phrase like 'master of the universe' pre-supposes I think of them like that, which I dont.


Regarding Greenstein- the critique of Atzmon should not be reduced to one personality caricature when there is lots of substantive critique to be engaged and the critique is not reducible to just one individual at all. Trying to reframe things in terms of branding the critique as one unsympathetic personality- I think we can and should do better than that.

** There are several things taking place here, which needs to be teased apart.
Lets take the debate out of R.I. for a moment and go to mondoweiss. Assume good intent from the debaters. There were similar issues that surfaced there. There were some people who found it excruciating to even talk about; others who felt the debate shouldnt be taking place; others who thought he had interesting things to say and that the extreme reaction to Atzmon itself was one of them. In other words, we (at RI) are not alone in the structure of the debate.
We disagree on Greenstein; I couldnt watch more than a couple of minutes of him on video before wanting to 'custard pie' him. It isnt just 'not liking' him. I see his approach as embodying something negative and divisive and controlling. I feel suffocated reading him.
So when you have posted lots of stuff from him (that also I may have been critiqued and was ignored as we disussed before) - the effect is perhaps like you finding long rambling articles from St0rmf0nt here.


As to your proposed peaceful resolution, I don't think think we are all agreed about Atzmon, Shamir, O'Keefe, Mullins, Bollyn, the Collins brothers, "Rothschild Zionism" etc. much at all. So I think what you are proposing is in danger of being so superficial as to not be "real".

** I was thinking of the old conflict resolution tool -
looking and map out what we Agree on, then map out what we Disagree on, then map out what is Irrelevant. Also you were mixing people (some of whom I have not heard of ) and ideas.
My feeling is a hope for unity or at least an acknowledgement and acceptance and respect for difference.


I understand that plenty of people here at R.I, support right wing militias, world jewish/"zionist" conspiracy models, and other such things but it really does horrify me and I do think it's bad for the potential of a Movement- so there's the rub.

** I appreciate you saying that - I can sense how appalled you are at that.
I was really surprised when you said that (and feel lots of people would be).


As to what we post, not posting ad hominems and not posting material with little or no meaningful content is something I would like us all to agree to.

Not arguing by cut and paste: when is it bad to post articles, when is it good? As indicated above I have sometimes felt it was the best thing to do and I think it differed profoundly from much of what slad has been doing here on this thread.

** Each of us will have a very different perceptions of what is meaningful content, that may vary from the other person - (eg I am into A.I. , you are into economics) ; I think it is important not to back aware from an issue on the basis of 'how would we decide it?' I appreciate you see your reasons as differnt from slad, but the behaviour (from either of you) will create predictably negative results in terms of understanding, empathy, temperature etc.

I think that there is another aspect of this which is the situation has a huge factor of perceptions, of how each of us are seeing things - and perceptions are covering the values / needs conversation - an example being my perception "AD doesnt fight the ADL" when you may have been the only person on RI subjected to their 'work'.
On debate by CopyPasta - my perspective is that the reasons may have been different but that the result was absolutely the same and the effect is to prolong threads out of all recognition. It is the one thing which for me personally would hugely improve the board experience for everyone.
Perhaps like a California wildfire, the best thing might be to create a firebreak and let it burn itself out - the idea being any 'firefighting' added to it will just prolong it. This nearly happened on this thread, for example, but you started it again.
Would you be willing to not CopyPasta as an experiment? Because I feel it would rapidly reduce the temperature? And I hope others would follow suit...


"That we will make an effort to be constructive and appreciative and seek value and assume good intent in the others."- yes, absolutely I do think this is a good idea. I think consistently avoiding ad hominems, false attributions, unfair/illogical arguments in general, and any and all negative jamming campaigns would really help make this more possible.

Thanks for your efforts on this.

** You are welcome - and I hope this reply has upped the Aloha between us
best, S

[slimmouse]

So in other words, nobody was making people here to give money to Icke, you were just (repeatedly) asking them to give money to Icke and advertising the "great" project they could give money to?

Glad you're finally acknowledging that you did do fundraising for Icke here, at least.

Were I an easily offended member of this board, I might consider such an accustation to be something of a childish insult to peoples intelligence.

Personally speaking certainly, Its almost akin to talking to a small child, engaging in this particular debate .

" I wasnt really fundraising for Icke" To which you reply, like we used to do as kids engaged in an argument sometimes......"Glad you admitted it"

I considered that kind of 'reparti' to be the pinnacle at about 10 years old. Funnily enough, usually when I was on the wrong end of things.

weve also already seen your clear willingness to send peoples mind down a cul de sac by linking to good ole Bildy amongst a few other bastions of stale and ultimately completely counterproductive discourse.

I'll allow you your choice of sources, but just for the record, straight from the mouses mouth, I was not fundraising for Icke, wittingly or unwittingly.

And I find it somewhat disturbing quite frankly that you appear to be so certain that I was.

[American Dream]

So in other words, nobody was making people here to give money to Icke, you were just (repeatedly) asking them to give money to Icke and advertising the "great" project they could give money to?

Glad you're finally acknowledging that you did do fundraising for Icke here, at least.

Were I an easily offended member of this board, I might consider such an accustation to be something of a childish insult to peoples intelligence.

Personally speaking certainly, Its almost akin to talking to a small child, listening to youre reasoning sometimes.

" I wasnt really fundraising for Icke" To which you reply, like we used to do as kids engaged in an argument sometimes......"Glad you admitted it"

Obviously I don't agree. I was frustrated that you evaded the issue for several pages and then finally kinda sorta admitted that well, maybe you did solicit funds here for Icke and now I see you denying it.

Whatever, dude.

[American Dream]

To Searcher:

Firstly, slim was indeed fundraising for Icke here at R.I.- I was rather shocked and horrified by this, to be quite honest.

** Was it because you need to feel that R.I. itself doesnt contribute to evil?

More or less- really because R.I. is the board that makes anti-fascist and anti-oppression principles central to what it does. I don't want anything to do with sites such as Icke's, Rense's, Makow's etc.

Secondly, for O'Keefe to have linkages to Duke is a very clear sign that something is wrong but his message would be problematic even if he did not.

* I can understand how you feel that. My feeling is that I have not walked in his shoes, as I have only ever been on one protest (the huge one in 2003 against Iraq); I feel uncomfortable condemning him as it comes across like me being an 'keyboard warrior'. I respect that you are coming from quite a different place.

I might have been willing to cut O'Keefe more slack till I found out that he is pushing anti-Zionism into the realms of real anti-Semitism, as do Shamir, Atzmon, Duke and others. I consider them all as not only liabilities to Palestine solidarity work but also suspicious as hell.

Thirdly, as to copying articles, often that is all I am inclined to do, as with the earlier Gilad Atzmon thread. No offense intended to anyone but quite honestly it's not worth it to me to expend huge amounts of energy educating myself on all the minutia of an issue I don't know thoroughly when the likelihood that the people I am responding to directly will have a change of heart is small.

* I can appreciate that - would you be willing to consider that it can land as incredibly counter-productive and greatly reduce changing peoples minds? For myself, I sometimes felt a 'blizzard' of extra information arriving like this and at times would feel 'information overwhelm'.

Would you apply this principle to slad's posting style?

Sorry, but David Icke has I think a pitifully bad position on the Protocols, Nazi mass murder and the like. That Irish people have suffered greatly does not change that.

** I'm hearing you say that you feel the same reading those things as perhaps I might reading an exonneration of the English around The Famine?

No, saying that slad responding to mention of Nazi atrocities and/or white privilege in North America by saying "What about the Irish famine"? is like comparing apples and oranges.

As to domestic zionist organizations, do you think I am not outside their meetings getting documented by creepy Feds? Do you think the ADL's domestic intelligence operations never cast their eye towards my own life and organizations I worked with? If so, think again. Just because we can find pet issues that one one of us did not post on proves little when there are a gazillion issues to impugn each other over.

** Thank you for this, as actually in real life I think that having a position similar to Norman Finklestein would have a real world negative cost? So I'm hearing you say that there is a real irony in being called out for not condemning them more when your ACTUAL real world activities are such that you face that sort of horrible intimidation, which most RI keyboard warriors have not.

Once again, it comes back to slad. She is always saying "What about this issue"? "What about that issue?" as if not mentioning them enough proves something bad about my values. My point is that there are surely a gazillion issues that any of us have omitted- it does not prove that we condone all those atrocities somehow.

In the case of domestic intelligence related to the ADL, AIPAC meetings and the like my main point is that I am well aware of these activities, have been a target- not that I am afraid. So simply saying that I didn't post enough on these topics proves nothing.

As to the Rothschilds, I certainly believe they were one rich clan who exercised power these last few centuries. I know they still exist and do things but if you are going to convince me that they are masters of the universe types today, I will need to see some really compelling evidence of that.

** This is perhaps a tricky one for us. A phrase like 'master of the universe' pre-supposes I think of them like that, which I dont.

"Masters of the Universe" is deliberate irony. It's a topic worthy of its own thread but I would love to see compelling evidence that they are more significant than other members of the owning class today.

Regarding Greenstein- the critique of Atzmon should not be reduced to one personality caricature when there is lots of substantive critique to be engaged and the critique is not reducible to just one individual at all. Trying to reframe things in terms of branding the critique as one unsympathetic personality- I think we can and should do better than that.

** There are several things taking place here, which needs to be teased apart.

Lets take the debate out of R.I. for a moment and go to mondoweiss. Assume good intent from the debaters. There were similar issues that surfaced there. There were some people who found it excruciating to even talk about; others who felt the debate shouldnt be taking place; others who thought he had interesting things to say and that the extreme reaction to Atzmon itself was one of them. In other words, we (at RI) are not alone in the structure of the debate.

We disagree on Greenstein; I couldnt watch more than a couple of minutes of him on video before wanting to 'custard pie' him. It isnt just 'not liking' him. I see his approach as embodying something negative and divisive and controlling. I feel suffocated reading him.
So when you have posted lots of stuff from him (that also I may have been critiqued and was ignored as we disussed before) - the effect is perhaps like you finding long rambling articles from St0rmf0nt here.

My frustration with the Atzmon thread was a consistent tendency by Atzmon's defenders to avoid the substantive content of the criticism of his ideas and actions. Greenstein is one of the people who did the earliest and most work around Atzmon. If people said that Greenstein was a horrible, horrible person and they couldn't deal with him this was repeatedly used as a rationale for ignoring the content of his critique. If other critics were cited instead, it did not matter, the substance of the critique was repeatedly ignored.

Isn't your writing him off because he is so horrible, so triggering, analogous to what some zionist jews do? They say I feel unsafe around here- the climate is bad for jews because people around are working for Palestinian/Arab/Muslim liberation or whatever. You can't argue with a feeling and so they avoid engaging with the content regarding what are or are not liberating, moral, positive actions by asserting that their subjective feelings take precedence.

As to your proposed peaceful resolution, I don't think think we are all agreed about Atzmon, Shamir, O'Keefe, Mullins, Bollyn, the Collins brothers, "Rothschild Zionism" etc. much at all. So I think what you are proposing is in danger of being so superficial as to not be "real".

** I was thinking of the old conflict resolution tool -
looking and map out what we Agree on, then map out what we Disagree on, then map out what is Irrelevant. Also you were mixing people (some of whom I have not heard of ) and ideas.
My feeling is a hope for unity or at least an acknowledgement and acceptance and respect for difference.

Maybe- but even sorting out ideas and writers, I'm not convinced there's much universally shared common ground.

I understand that plenty of people here at R.I, support right wing militias, world jewish/"zionist" conspiracy models, and other such things but it really does horrify me and I do think it's bad for the potential of a Movement- so there's the rub.

** I appreciate you saying that - I can sense how appalled you are at that.
I was really surprised when you said that (and feel lots of people would be).

Same as above- if we really broke it down on Icke, Jones, Oath Keepers, Icke, etc. etc. I'm sure I would agree with some people on some things but certainly not all.

On debate by CopyPasta - my perspective is that the reasons may have been different but that the result was absolutely the same and the effect is to prolong threads out of all recognition. It is the one thing which for me personally would hugely improve the board experience for everyone.

Here we may really differ I don't really want to "debate" here quite often. To fruitfully debate suggests that I have enough common ground with the other both is world-view and in methods of knowing that a discussion really can go somewhere.

I hear you deriding "CopyPasta"- where does that leave you in relation to slad's posts?

I hope this reply has upped the Aloha between us

To some degree, yes- but it seems like a broader focus is needed if things really are to change around here...

[seemslikeadream]

If I EVER referred to the Irish Holocaust as an Irish famine it was by grave error...

again you don't know what the fuck you are talking about or just plain lying again...and again ...and again

but poor AD he just can't help himself...it's his style

Never, ever, forget it!
Learn its British HQ town. As no Jewish person would ever refer to the "Jewish Oxygen Famine of 1939 - 1945", so no Irish person ought ever refer to the Irish Holocaust as a famine.

Toll of Irish Holocaust. The 1841 census of Ireland revealed a population of 10,897,449. This figure includes the correction factor established by that year's official partial recount. When, between 1779 and 1841, the U.S. population increased by 640 percent, and England's is estimated to have increased, despite massive emigration to its colonies, by 100 percent, it is generally accepted that Ireland's population increase was 172% 10. The average annual component of this 172% increase is x in the formula (1+ x)62 = 1 + 172%; thus 0.0163, or 1.63%. Accepting that this 1.63% rate of annual population increase continued until mid-1846 (one human gestation after the late-1845 beginning of removal of Ireland's food), the 1846 population was 11,815,011.
Assuming that rate continued, the population in 1851, absent the starvation, would have been approximately 12,809,841. However; the 1851 census recorded a population of 6,552,385; thus there was a "disappearance" of 6,257,456. This population-loss figure of 6,257,456 is scarcely susceptible to significant challenge, being derived directly from the British government's own censuses for Ireland. It is reasonable to assume that the rigor established in the recount of 1841 became the standard for the 1851 census; so that any residual undercount would be systemic, affecting 1841 and 1851 proportionately (and, if known, would increase the murder total). These 6,257,456 include roughly 1,000,000 who successfully fled into exile and another 100,000 unborn between 1846 and 1851 due to malnutrition-induced infertility. Of the 100,000 who fled to Canada in 1847, only 60,000 were still alive one month after landing.11 Among the 40,000 dead was Henry Ford's father's mother who died en route from Cork or in quarantine on Quebec's Grosse Ile.
Thus; though from 1845 through 1850, 6,257,456 "disappeared," the number murdered is approximately 1.1 million fewer; i.e., 5.16 millions. Consequently; if Britain's census figures for Ireland are correct the British government murdered approximately 5.16 million Irish men, women and children; making it the Irish Holocaust. This number, 5.16 million, exceeds the high end of the range (4.2 to 5.1 million) of serious estimates of the number of Jews murdered by Nazis. The least reliable component of the foregoing arithmetic is the number assumed to have successfully fled. If the fleers who survived prove to number, say, 900,000 instead of 1,000,000, the murder count will have to be corrected from 5.16 to 5.26 millions. This amount of adjustment, up or down, of the 5.16 millions murdered is determinable by sensitive review of the immigration records of the U.S., Canada, Argentina, and Australia; and of government records on the Irish who fled to Britain at the time. We invite bona fide documentation of the foregoing; whether in confirmation or rebuttal. Economists and historians are disqualified if their published work on the events of 1845-1850 covers up the British army's central role therein. Such individuals lack the standing to participate in this truth-quest.

To our knowledge nobody else has ever published the above arithmetic or named the food removal regiments and battleships. Evidence that other truth-telling accounts exist would be greatly appreciated. Irish academia shuns and slurs Tom Gallagher's Paddy's Lament and Englishwoman Cecil Woodham-Smith's The Great Hunger for mentioning the Food Removal. Woodham-Smith fudged, but not enough to satisfy the cover-up cabal. For example; she reported that the 1841 partial recount established a correction factor of one-third for the 1841 census figure; but she used the uncorrected figure to calculate! By this and other fudges she arrived at a population-loss of only 2.5 million. She allocated only half a page to the core facts of the Genocide; the food removal data, while using some two hundred pages to describe British government "relief measures" as if they were something other than cosmetic exercises; a cover-up. But just as Telefis Eireann out-Britished Yorkshire TV by refusing to co-premiere the latter's 1993 exposé of the 5/17/74 British bombings of Dublin/Monaghan streets that murdered 33 and maimed 253; and as the Irish police menace the survivors of that bombing instead of arresting the known British perpetrators; so do Irish historians out-British Woodham-Smith by ostracizing her for exposing the Food Removal. They out-do themselves in describing the "benefit" of the Irish Holocaust; how Britain reduced poverty in Ireland ( by murdering those it had impoverished! They promote the notion that only the blighted potato crop belonged to the Irish while Ireland's abundant livestock, grains, etc., all "belonged" to mostly absentee English landlords. By that insane standard all of the property and production of Europe and Asia, excepting starvation rations for workers, would belong to W.W.II GIs and their heirs (or to the Axis had it won).

Irish are not guilty. Though many Holocaust Irish, like many, say, Auschwitz Jews, took deadly advantage of their own weakest, neither the Irish nor Jewish communities had hand or part in the conceiving and planning of the genocides from London and Berlin; respectively. But, the German government repented and paid $100 billion (dollars) reparations to Jews while the British government and its Dublin surrogates still use terror and slander against those who commemorate the Irish Holocaust. It is still dangerous - after 150 years - to reveal the truth of it. ...

Complicity of the Catholic Hierarchy with London's planned genocide is, sad to say, well recorded. London, prior to removing Ireland's food, appointed a few Irish Catholic Bishops to a Dublin Castle commission and awarded a £30,000 lump sum to Maynooth while increasing its annual grant from £9,000 to £26,000!12 Before British troops began starving Ireland the London parliament enacted a law to return some of the seized foods in the form of rations to all of Ireland's Catholic hierarchy down to the level of, but not including, curates. Faced with residual hierarchical disquiet, M.P.s amended the law to include curates. This ended episcopal objections to the Irish Holocaust; it proceeded efficiently thenceforth. An Irish poet subsequently wrote; "...for the spire of the chapel of Maynooth is the dagger at Ireland's heart." A Munster bishop thanked God that he "lives in a country where a farmer would starve his own children to pay his landlord's rent"! For two centuries until 1795, priests in Ireland were felons a priori. The government paid a 5 shilling bounty for each severed head. In 1795, British ministers decided that to completely subjugate Ireland the collaboration of the Catholic Church was indispensable. Britain thus stopped murdering priests and founded and funded Ireland's national seminary; Maynooth. The tactic worked; the Irish Catholic Church became London's tool. 13 It facilitated the Irish Holocaust; it sided with Britain in the Risings of 1798, 1848, 1867 and 1916, destroyed Parnellite democracy in 1890 (traumatizing James Joyce) 14 and it has facilitated Britain's vestigial genocide in the Six Counties since 1922. Cardinal Daly recently went so far as to "beg England's forgiveness for the centuries of suffering inflicted upon it by the Irish!" Yet; isn't Catholicism as gloriously redeemed by its persecuted Fr. Wilsons and Sr. Sarah Clarkes of today as by its earlier millions of saints martyred by Elizabeth I, Cromwell, Anne, George III, Victoria, et al?

Irish Starvation Martyrs. Honorable Irish people everywhere are commemorating Ireland's Holocaust of 1845-1850 by learning the truth of it. Thus, only dupes of British propaganda still refer to "The Irish Famine," as nobody died of lack of potatoes; but over five million Irish Catholics died of starvation or of malnutrition-induced disease when British troops removed their meats, grains, dairy products, etc. Britain could have removed food enough to sustain 13 million (but not 18 million) without starving Ireland. No Protestant starved in Ireland 15 Britain didn't target them.

The Truth Outs as we, the descendants of the survivors of that starvation will no longer be silenced. We denounce Ireland's Strokestown "Famine Museum," for its shameless "bait and switch" scam. Visitors seeking details of one of history's worst genocides are subtly invited to admire the genocidal landlord's grandiose taste in architecture and furnishings; all looted from the unpaid labor and land of the Irish families he murdered. It is highly unlikely that a Jew exists so depraved as to establish a Jewish Holocaust museum that similarly invites the visitor to slur the victims and admire, say, Goering's taste in looted Jewish property. How dare President Robinson say "the famine shames the Irish"? It is her cover-up that shames the Irish! As Holocaust guilt is Nazis', not the victims', so the guilt for 1845-1850 is the British perpetrators' and the above cover-up artists'; not ours and not their murdered victims'. Irish-America must tell the truth of it because in Ireland it is still too dangerous. The Irish government has announced that in June, 1997 it will end the "Irish Famine commemoration" in a "wake cum musical celebration to bury the ghost of the famine." Thus; the Irish government advertises its quisling status by ending the commemoration prior to the anniversaries of the murders of more than half of the 5.2 millions. What else can one expect from the government whose Consuls spoke in Illinois' State Legislature in opposition to the McBride Principles for Fair Employment in Northern Ireland? They pose as anti-terrorists while collaborating with the British terrorists who, since 1969, have murdered over six times16 as many noncombatants as have the IRA. An Irish bureaucrat recently joined our campaign to get the Irish Holocaust graves monumented, fenced and consecrated. He tells us that he will be fired or worse if his superiors learn of his involvement. He echoes another Irishman who, two centuries ago, observed; "Having a natural reverence for the dignity and antiquity of my native country, strengthened by education, and confirmed by an intimate knowledge of its history, I could not, without the greatest pain and indignation, behold ... the extreme passiveness and insensibility of the present race of Irish, at such reiterated insults offered to truth and their country: instances of inattention to their own honor, unexampled in any other civilized nation." 17

Dishonored Martyrs; their Mass Graves. The discovery of mass graves resulting from genocide always causes international outcry. But the mass graves of the Irish genocide are unmarked and unmourned by the world at large. Why? Because the Truth was interred in those pits along with the martyrs. The bones of the murdered 5.2 million are scattered across Ireland, the Atlantic sea-floor and North American littorals; but they are concentrated in mass graves the permanently-abandoned state of which eloquently reveals the genocidists' power. It was also mass martyrdom; as the victims could have saved their lives by renouncing their Faith. Food crops that civil law had forced them to tithe (before soldiers took the rest) to the local English State Church parson was on offer to whoever would renounce Catholicism and become Anglican. But they died for Faith and Freedom, and their mass graves are Ireland's holiest places (excepting, perhaps, the graves of those who died resisting). Yet, the souls of these murdered millions still cry to us for justice. After 150 years their murders remain misattributed and the mass graves containing their sacred remains are still unfenced, unmarked and even unconsecrated. It is not the Irish people who are such brutes. The condition of the mass graves reveals the brutal extent of English control of Ireland today; how unfree Ireland actually is. But America is free; Britain's MI6 can slur us but cannot murder us with the impunity they do in Dublin, Monaghan, the Occupied Six Counties, and as did British guards who entered the Maghaberry prison cell of Irishman Jim McDonnell on 3/30/96 and kicked him to death for asking to go to his father's funeral. British terrorists, however, are operating in the U.S. In Valhalla's Wake, authors McIntyre & Loftus report that, according to CIA sources, an MI6/SAS team of assassins murdered an American, John McIntyre, in Boston a decade ago. Five US citizens have been murdered by British terrorists in Ireland; none by the Irish. A law-abiding FBI agent alerted us a few years ago that some of his fellow agents; British-bribed; were planning MI6-type "dirty-tricks" crimes against us and that he was powerless to arrest them. Soon thereafter, FBI gangs, led by agent Edward P. Buckley, conducted five armed raids upon us, incarcerated me and my wife and two others, and fabricated evidentiary tape and committed perjury in an attempt to imprison us. 18 The FBI also framed me for the murder of Mr. and Mrs. Langert in Winnetka; but the actual murderer, David Biro, saved my life by confiding his crimes to school friends who informed the police. Biro, a 16-year-old, got life without parole. I would have gotten lethal injection. I knew nobody involved; had never heard of them in my entire life until the reports of the murders. Our attorneys photocopied the signed, FBI-fabricated police report that framed me. FBI/IRS crimes against us started shortly after we began exposing Britain's Big Lie re Ireland. American democracy is, we sense, less violated by these FBI/IRS crimes than by the fact that law enforcement, pols and the news media have all, British-style, knowingly covered them up and that the legal profession is cowed. The FBI criminals' British handlers tried to "take us out" to stop our support for basic rights in Ireland. The FBI later fabricated a malicious "immunity certificate" for me and my wife (making us appear to be FBI collaborators) and leaked it to an FBI asset for publication. 19 ...

[solace]

"Once again, it comes back to slad. She is always saying "What about this issue"? "What about that issue?" as if not mentioning them enough proves something bad about my values. My point is that there are surely a gazillion issues that any of us have omitted- it does not prove that we condone all those atrocities somehow."

Obviously your arguments are too effective to be countered by anything except her strawmen.

[seemslikeadream]

"Once again, it comes back to slad. She is always saying "What about this issue"? "What about that issue?" as if not mentioning them enough proves something bad about my values. My point is that there are surely a gazillion issues that any of us have omitted- it does not prove that we condone all those atrocities somehow."

Obviously your arguments are too effective to be countered by anything except her strawmen.

people post here what is important to them ...thats what I go by i.e. AD = David Icke

AD doen't even know the truth about the Irish Holocaust let alone cares one bit about the Palestinians

Here's your fuckin strawman .....Irish Famine ...give me a fuckin break

got some proof AD cares about Palestinians and not just some anti-semite hiding under a rock somewhere? Somebody's got to post some balance around here

"Once again, it comes back to slad. She is always saying "What about this issue"? "What about that issue?"

yeah cause if I left it up to you or AD the word Palestine wouldn't even show up on the search function

I see values in what people post and what they ignore

and what threads they choose to show up in

just where are your arguments solace.?

[solace]

"Once again, it comes back to slad. She is always saying "What about this issue"? "What about that issue?" as if not mentioning them enough proves something bad about my values. My point is that there are surely a gazillion issues that any of us have omitted- it does not prove that we condone all those atrocities somehow."

Obviously your arguments are too effective to be countered by anything except her strawmen.

people post here what is important to them ...thats what I go by i.e. AD = David Icke

AD doen't even know the truth about the Irish Holocaust let alone cares one bit about the Palestinians

Here's your fuckin strawman .....Irish Famine ...give me a fuckin break

got some proof AD cares about Palestinians and not just some anti-semite hiding under a rock somewhere? Somebody's got to post some balance around here

"Once again, it comes back to slad. She is always saying "What about this issue"? "What about that issue?"

yeah cause if I left it up to you or AD the word Palestine wouldn't even show up on the search function

I see values in what people post and what they ignore

I rest my case. You appear to be incapable of anything but strawmen arguments. It really is annoying as fuck.

[seemslikeadream]

yes It really is annoying as fuck to read crap that is dished out here...I rest my case

and what ever you and AD want to pull ...I AM NOT GOING AWAY....you really don't bother me at all....not in the least little bit...just makes me stronger and more determined than ever to continue to post what I think is important

Negotiating with the Israelis over land they are actively stealing is like negotiating with with a glutton over a cake while he is eating it in another room. You might get some crumbs.

- Juan Cole

[American Dream]

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism: there is a difference:


Zionism and Anti-Semitism: Are Israel’s Critics Anti-Semites?

by HADAS THIER

ZIONISM—THE political movement to create an exclusively Jewish state in Palestine—has always accused its critics of anti-Semitism. Today, as the racism and brutality of the Israeli state reaches increasingly grotesque proportions, a Zionist propaganda machine is churning out a flurry of articles, books, and arguments that declare the rise of a "new anti-Semitism." This has served as a convenient smear against advocates of Palestinian rights.

In a front-page article called "The Return of Anti-Semitism," New York magazine opened with the lines, "Israel has become the flash point—and the excuse—for a global explosion of an age-old syndrome. Why has hating the Jews become politically correct in many places?"1 And in Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism, Abraham Foxman says, "I am convinced we currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s—if not a greater one."2 Foxman’s argument can be summed up as follows:

Zionism simply refers to support for the existence of a Jewish state—specifically, the state of Israel.… The harsh but undeniable truth is that what some like to call anti-Zionism is, in reality, anti-Semitism—always, everywhere and for all time. Therefore, anti-Zionism is not a politically legitimate point of view but rather an expression of bigotry and hatred.3

There is nothing "new" in these claims of a new anti-Semitism. Zionists have long used anti-Semitism and the Holocaust as emotional blackmail—their justification for Israel’s existence is that it is necessary to defend Jews from another Holocaust. Therefore, it is argued, Israel’s actions today, no matter how brutal, are always justifiable because the Jewish state is located in the middle of Arab peoples who "want to drive Jews into the sea." The end result of this propaganda is to stunt the growth of an international solidarity movement for justice for Palestine. At the same time, confusing anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism obscures the real root of the Israel-Palestine conflict. In truth, Zionism’s real history shows that it has never been about Judaism or saving Jews, and that its relationship with anti-Semitism is much more sinister.

To be sure, there has been a rise in anti-Semitism—particularly in Europe. The European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia concluded that there has been a noticeable rise of anti-Semitic incidents in Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and England, ranging from hate mail to arson. There was a six-fold rise in anti-Jewish incidents in France between 2001 and 2002. And while physical assaults were rarely reported in Greece, Austria, Italy, or Spain, the report found that anti-Semitic ideas, such as conspiracy theories of Jewish world domination, have been gaining ground. The report notes that the majority of those behind the assaults in some countries are right-wing skinheads or neo-Nazis, while in other countries an increasing number of the attacks are carried out by Muslim youth. Overall, however, the majority of perpetrators of anti-Semitic acts continue to be white Europeans.4

This is an upsetting trend, which dovetails with a broader political problem—the growth of the far right. But Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s ultra-right government has only contributed to this rightward trend in mainstream politics. More importantly, the most virulent racism of the right-wing parties in Europe is saved for Arabs and Muslims—though unfortunately very little attention is being paid to it. In France, for instance, attacks on Jews are counted as hate-crimes whereas attacks on Arabs and Muslims, as well as other nonwhite immigrants, are not. As a Pew Research Center survey on global attitudes noted one year into the Iraq war: "As is the case with Americans, Europeans hold much more negative views of Muslims than of Jews."5

But the other important aspect of the rise in those anti-Semitic attacks specifically carried out by Muslim youth is that they also have to do with an unfortunate, but increasingly understandable, confusion in regards to the difference between Israel’s policies and Jewish people. For instance, anger at the massacres going on in Gaza today or the assassinations of Hamas leaders may be directed at a Jewish individual or a community. This confusion has been fostered by Israel, which claims to speak for worldwide Jewry. But in reality, Judaism and Zionism are distinct and separate issues. Their only connection is that one is used as a cloak for the other. That is, all of Israel’s policies are defended on the basis that they are necessary in order to safeguard Jews the world over.

As CounterPunch editor Alexander Cockburn has correctly argued,

The left really has nothing to apologize for, but those who accuse it of anti-Semitism certainly do. They’re apologists for policies put into practice by racists, ethnic cleansers and in Sharon’s case, an unquestioned war criminal who should be in the dock for his conduct.6

There is no correlation between supporting Zionism and Israel on the one hand, and opposing anti-Semitism on the other. In fact, Zionism is just a particular Jewish brand of a nationalist, colonial project. Moreover, the Zionist project, as we shall see, has been at times willing to collaborate with anti-Semites to fulfill its goals—which themselves were based on racist ethnic cleansing.

Understanding Zionism

There are a couple of mistaken responses to the confusion (which Zionists have been careful to sow) about the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. One is to completely dismiss anti-Semitism as altogether irrelevant. A pretty outrageous example of this is Michael Neuman’s essay in The Politics of Anti-Semitism where he argues, "I think we should almost never take anti-Semitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it."7 Neuman flippantly admits to the existence of some forms of anti-Semitism such as "the distribution of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the myths about stealing the blood of gentile babies. This is utterly inexcusable. So was your failure to answer Aunt Bee’s last letter."8

Besides showing a complete disdain for anyone who might be genuinely worried about anti-Semitism, Neuman also shows a total misunderstanding of the nature and character of anti-Semitism and how it has been used historically. It has not always taken the form of systematic economic oppression, but more often has provided a convenient scapegoat for ruling elites during periods of capitalist crisis. Neuman ends up concluding that since "anti-Zionism is a moral obligation" and "if anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism" then "anti-Semitism is a moral obligation."9 This upside-down logic doesn’t challenge the basic framework that Israel’s defenders use. It just stakes out an anti-Zionist stance within their framework, which ends up concluding that anti-Semitism is non-existent at best, justifiable at worst.

Another response to Zionism, which blames the "Israel lobby" (sometimes more disturbingly referred to as the "Jewish lobby") for U.S. support of Israel, only helps to blur the distinction between Zionism and Judaism. Certainly, Israel has lobbyists in Washington. But the idea that the United States gives billions in military and economic aid to Israel out of an obligation to a particular lobby misses the real reason that the U.S., out of completely selfish reasons, supports Israel. Israel has long been America’s "watchdog" in the Middle East, helping to keep Arab nationalism and any other threat to U.S. interests in check. Fixating on the so-called Israel lobby, fails to appreciate this basic fact. The United States is not an otherwise neutral body that has somehow been manipulated by a particular interest group. The White House, through every administration, has always had an interest in maintaining a foothold in the most oil-rich region of the world. Israel is part of that equation—a "Sparta acting as a U.S. surrogate"10—which is why U.S. support for it will remain unwavering until those interests are challenged at their root.11

Zionism in no way represents the interests of the world’s Jewish population. This has never been more clear than it is today, as Israel has become the least safe place for a Jew to live. Furthermore, the history of the Zionist project reveals that the movement never had the interests of Jews at heart.

In fact, up until the rise of fascism in Europe, Zionism was a fringe movement. Most Jews were just not that interested in moving to Palestine, let alone colonizing it or driving out the Arab population. In fact, between 1880 and 1929, almost four million Jews emigrated from Russia and Eastern European countries. But only 120,000 moved to Palestine, while more than three million moved to the U.S. and Canada. In 1914 there were only 12,000 members of Zionist organizations across the entire U.S., while the Socialist Party had that many Jewish members in the Lower East Side of New York.12

Modern anti-Semitism was born out of the tumultuous period in Eastern Europe and Russia when feudalism gave way to capitalist development. As Nathan Weinstock writes, anti-Semitism was a product of the despair of the ruined petty bourgeoisie seeking scapegoats. "[T]he persistent memory of the Jewish usurer"—Jews had in earlier times been forced into petty trades and money-lending—was used to deflect anger against capitalism toward the Jews. "This confusion," writes Weinstock, "was denounced by [the German socialist August] Bebel in his famous aphorism: ‘Anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools.’"


Continues at: http://www.isreview.org/issues/38/zioni ... tism.shtml

[JackRiddler]

I wouldn't call it fundraising, exactly. It was more an expression of fandom, or a love-letter. Sort of like this: "Oh, look, wonderful, the divine Icke is asking people to send him money! The idea is completely unprecedented! This will change the world! Oh, how dreadful that anyone says bad things about him, and that I must be subtle here." For which, of course, sm has no talent. Then, five minutes later: "Oh look, he's up to XX thousand pounds!" And then more updates on how much was racked up for the Icke media empire (though again the sums are so laughably low given the ambitious statements of purpose so as to make one wonder what the money was really for).

[slimmouse]

I wouldn't call it fundraising, exactly. It was more an expression of fandom, or a love-letter. Sort of like this: "Oh, look, wonderful, the divine Icke is asking people to send him money! The idea is completely unprecedented! This will change the world! Oh, how dreadful that anyone says bad things about him, and that I must be subtle here." For which, of course, sm has no talent. Then, five minutes later: "Oh look, he's up to XX thousand pounds!" And then more updates on how much was racked up for the Icke media empire (though again the sums are so laughably low given the ambitious statements of purpose so as to make one wonder what the money was really for).

It must be money laundering for the KKK, apparently, If AD and Bill, perhaps even yourself are to be believed.

But, you are of course right meanwhile in saying that the money were talking here is relative buttons, which makes the suggestions of an Icke media empire sound kind strange. Im mean You probably couldnt even blow many innocent people up with that kind of money,

Im glad you mentioned it though Jack in all honesty. If Icke pulls this stunt off, on a tithe of a bankers salary bonus, you can't deny his balls for trying.

"A letter of fandom", or more of a tip of the hat in appreciation?

[JackRiddler]

See, more of the same. Total fandom. If Icke pulls this off! He'll have biggest balls ever! What a MAN!!! Of course, Icke long ago demonstrated that he's got the ability to raise money what with plenty of patsies like this whose only gear in logic is circular.

[JackRiddler]

By the way, I apologize for not mentioning the Irish holocaust in my last couple of posts. Almost every post here fails to mention the Irish holocaust, and thus directly fosters denial and supports Churchill, the Bilderbergs and Zionism.