Just another WordPress.com site

It seems Atzmon is getting even bolder in his open anti-semitism.  In a blog post dated the 27th December (http://www.gilad  .co.uk/writings/alexander-baron-gilad-atzmon-wipes-israel-off-the-map.html) he links to a supportive article from the homophobic plagiarist Alexander Baron.

Baron is one of the lesser known figures on the far right, so a bit of background.  He’s openly antisemitic and a holocaust denier as this quote from his website shows (http://www.  infotextmanuscripts.org/ITMA.html) shows:

I have published on the Holocaust and Holocaust Revisionism – what is known pejoratively and inaccurately as Holocaust Denial. I have published a book length exposé of Zionist agent and sexual deviant David Irving.

He uses the traditional antisemite tactic of blaming Jews for antisemitism.  He describes the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” as:

Organized Jewry’s Deadliest Weapon

Baron isn’t just a lone crank, he has operational links with the Evolian think-tank “New Right”, set up by the veteren far-right activist and founder of “National Anarchism”, Troy Southgate.  Southgate acts as secretary of the group, which has Jonathan Bowden (who used to be in the Monday Club, the Revolutionary Conservative Caucus, the Freedom Party and the BNP) as its chairman.  So, much like Southgate, this is someone with a long history of neo-fascist activism.  Another person involved with the New Right is the veteran fascist and Holocaust denier Lady Michelle Renouf.  Baron thanks her in his writing up of the 2010 conference so he obviously knows her relatively well.  Baron himself spoke at the 2005 launch of the group and the 2010 and 2011 conferences.

Considering this is all easily available on Baron’s website (which is where the article Atzmon links to is from), there is no way Atzmon won’t have seen at least some of it.

So why might Atzmon be attracted to Baron and by extension the New Right?

I’d say it’s an ideological convergence.  Despite the claims from some quarters, while Atzmon is undoubtedly on the far right, his particular allegiance isn’t to Neonazi interpretations of fascism. (The fact some are pushing this merely illustrates the lack of serious anti-fascist analysis around at the moment.  Nobody with even a basic understanding of far-right ideology would be arguing this). His is more a kind of ‘post-modern’, cultural take on far right themes.  So he’s going to be attracted to the likes of Baron who present themselves as “beyond left and right”.  And the founding statement of the New Right could come straight from Atzmon himself:

We are opposed to liberalism, democracy and egalitarianism and fight to restore the eternal tsunami that have become submerged beneath the corrosive tsunami of the modern world.

(For a more in-depth analysis of this specific strand of neofascism, see Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction) by Graham D. Macklin).

Some conclusions.

While it might have been previous possible to claim that, while a racist, Atzmon wasn’t a fascist, that is definitely no longer the case.  Atzmon is now openly linking to the organised far right, which makes him one of them.  As such, no platform is the correct position to take, whatever that may entail.

And those like Roy Bard/FreeThePeeps (who was behind the Indymedia coup) and Lauren Booth who are still defending Atzmon have to be treated as fascists themselves at this point.  Even if they don’t actively follow far right ideologies, they are now overtly collaborating with fascists.  At this point, it doesn’t make any difference whether this is deliberate or is the product of stupidity and wilful ignorance.  While not quite at the same level yet, Mikey Ezra of Harry’s Place also needs watching carefully.  While he may see getting his books signed by fascists as some kind of jolly public school jape, I beg to differ.

You are either anti-fascist or you are pro-fascist.  There is no middle ground and none will be accepted.

Lunatic far right anti-semite (and Harry’s Place drinking buddy) Gilad Atzmon is being all whiny.  (Link left intact, mostly for the lulz.  Let’s see if the brave rebel Atzmon runs to the old bill).

Apparently, opposition to his badly written antisemitic drivel can be explained by this:

At that stage, it appeared to be a campaign that was run by hundreds of Zionist enthusiasts – but if one scratches the surface, it was actually an orchestrated move of barely more than five Jewish bloggers, who have managed to mobilise another twenty or so book burners or shall we call them ‘wandering  sockpuppets’ that habitually attack in different areas of the net and the press, co-coordinating to harass, bully and intimidate, with the same dull, repetitive, accusations, ‘arguments’ and smears.

“Harass?”  “Bully”  “Intimidate”?

Man, Atzmon is thin-skinned.  Some people entirely unrelated to me might suggest that someone should give the little shit something to cry about.  An added bonus might be, to some people, that it would cause the whiny fucking liberals to run around panicking about the fact that someone is actually taking “opposition” to Atzmon seriously, showing up their inactivity.  But that is no reason to do so.  Obey the law, respect your parents and go to church.

The other star in this post is the very spooky Bob Lambert.

Couple of interesting observations on this.  Firstly, Daud Abdullah is, at best, naive to the point of idiocy.  At worst, his quickness to jump to the defence of a Special Branch spy raises questions about his own agenda.

This is just beyond satire:

The “exposure” of the former special branch officer Bob Lambert comes at a convenient time: it can serve as a distraction from the scandals that have engulfed the neocon tendency in the government. Lambert has been a staunch critic of the government’s Islamophobic rhetoric and exclusivist policies. This, to a large extent, explains the excitement that has greeted disclosure of information about Lambert’s past career among certain people.

Wait, what?  London Greenpeace (who are who exposed him) are actually following a neocon agenda on behalf of the Conservative Party?  Yeah, that’s a lot more believable than the idea that a proven police spy was following a state agenda.  I’m also interested to know if this was ever revealed by Daud Abdullah before it became common knowledge:

Those of us who worked with him during the difficult decade after 11 September 2001 always knew he came from a police background, and specifically the special branch unit.

And who specifically “knew he came from a police background, and specifically the special branch unit”.  Let’s have some names.  And an explanation of why they never saw fit to mention it including, I strongly suspect, their erstwhile comrades.

And what precisely is this supposed “smear”?  That Bob Lambert was a pig spy who infiltrated the libertarian left?  That’s a factual statement.  Daud may think that’s all fine and dandy, obviously.

The other interesting question is Lambert’s relation with Islamism.  Did he work with Islamist groups as part of a spook agenda or did his own authoritarian background attract him to Islamism?  Either raises some fascinating questions.  It does seem, on first glance, that SB (if not necessarily 5/6) don’t consider Islamism as much of a threat to the state  as direct action enviromentalists.  Both Islamists and certain people/groups on the far left really need to ask themselves why that might be the case…

There are currently two narratives doing the rounds that I think are actually both incorrect.

The first is the right wing narrative that the riots are pure criminality and any attempt to analyse them contextually is beyond the pale. Reasonably obviously, this is motivated in large part by self-interest. Any attempt to look at the riots as part of a wider societal picture is going to implicate the right and their policies. And it’s very notable how few of the right wing blogs are so much as able to find a word of sympathy for what is now looking pretty conclusively like the shooting of an unarmed man by the old bill. Let alone actually condemning it. I think that tells us everything we need to know about their ‘morality’. I’m not going to spend much more time on that narrative. I’m pretty sure it’s not going to be a common one among readers of this blog. And I suspect most people don’t need convincing that the Tories et al are the class enemy.

The other narrative we’re seeing, from some on the left, is that the riots are basically a good thing. And that they are to be seen as people fighting back against the state, or even as insurrectionary riots. That seems pretty common as an argument.  Despite their very different political traditions, we’re seeing it from both Lenin’s Tomb and Ian Bone.

The problem with that analysis is that its not borne out by events.  It has a lot more merit for the first night of riots in Tottenham.  At that point, I think the rioting was a raw throated shriek of rage against oppression.  However, since then it’s developed well away from that starting point.  We’ve seen the burning out of homes among flats, the looting of small businesses (often ones that are actually pretty crucial for the working class communities they reside in).  We haven’t, much as it might be politically easier if that was the case, seen it just, or even primarily, focused on big corporations and representatives of the state.

While riots are always chaotic and unfocused affairs, this series seems qualitatively different than some of the others we’ve seen before.  Compared to the riots of the 80’s, this is a lot more nihilistic and purposeless.  I’d go as far to say this is a new kind of rioting.

We’re seeing an extremely materialistic approach in many places; rioting to loot as first motive.  And burning stuff down indiscriminately.

This is a riot that reflects wider capitalist society, not one that goes transgresses against it, despite claims from the right to the contrary.   Which is no surprise.  When we all live in the neoliberal dystopia, it would be more surprising if these kind of incidents didn’t reflect that, rather than the fact they do.

And, at the end, it’s linked to the fact that the working class are demoralised, disenfranchised, defeated.  That have consistently lost the vast majority of fights in the class war over the last century.  Part of the effect of that is that there are a lot less credible community organisations.  And a lot less awareness of working class interests, which goes a lot of way to explaining the lack of class consciousness in the rioter’s actions.

And there are no easy answers or quick solutions.  Unless the crisis of working class representation is resolved (which will take a hell of a lot of work on the ground), we will see more of this kind of thing, with no more direction and no less antisocial actions.

The choice of “socialism or barbarism” have never been more stark.