This is essentially a free speech forum. I enjoy much of the banter which goes on between commenters, particularly the dedicated band of people who post on a daily basis. There is an important distinction between my writing, and the comments section. The proportion of readers who leave comments is well under 1%. I cannot know what percentage of the readers read comments, but I suspect it is not terribly high.
In social media I find establishment hacks – particularly journalists and Labour Party functionaries – dismiss my thoughts by referring to the comments section. “Craig Murray – have you seen the tinfoil hats comments on his blog!” being a genuine and very typical example. Well, if people wish to damn me by association with the views of other people, that is sadly an example of the low intellectual standards of the British nomenklatura of our time. The only views on here which are mine are those which I write.
I cherish the diversity of the comment threads and am fond of our little community, most of whom I have never met. I do not value people by the standard of how close their views are to my own. I am sometimes saddened by the personal animosities which arise between people.
We state some rules from time to time. This is the current set, which I just made up:
No racism. Any comment which is racist will simple be deleted immediately. The biggest problem we face is anti-Jewish comment, which I will not tolerate. We are not in the business of stigmatising anti-Zionism as anti-Jewish, but there are quite frequently distinctly anti-Jewish comments. I deleted one just an hour ago.
Similarly, no holocaust denial. I do not believe it should be illegal (I am against thought crime) but I do not wish to have it on my blog as those associated with it often have very unpleasant sympathies. That is not to say the subject of the holocaust can never be mentioned – it will never be possible to ascertain the precise number who were killed, and it is important we remember not only the Jews but the Poles, gypsies, gays, freemasons and numerous others who suffered. But the basic facts are not in doubt. It is surprising how often people attempt to insinuate holocaust denial.
Sockpuppetry. It is in practice impossible to outlaw sockpuppetry without a formal registration system, which I do not want. But the adoption of multiple identities within the same thread is not to be allowed, nor the creation of identities of which the purpose is to ridicule, attack or insult another contributor.
Fair Play. Play the ball, not the man. Address arguments, not people. Do not impugn the motives of others, including me. No taunting.
Relevance
Attempts to keep people on topic are hopeless, but do try.
9/11
We don’t discuss 9/11. There are plenty of places on the web where you can do that. It tends to take over threads.
Contribute
Contributions which are primarily just a link to somewhere else will be deleted. You can post links, but give us the benefit of your thoughts upon them.
No explanation.
Enforcing these rules is necessarily arbitrary and needs judgement calls. Moderators are precluded from explaining decisions online. If you want to complain use the contact button.
Moderators
We have, and have had, excellent moderators over many years. But almost all have found it not only time consuming but also surprisingly emotionally draining. If you are interested in volunteering and are willing for me to know both your real and online identity, please get in tough using the contact button.
“Daniel, Monteverdi, ask yourself this question: who benefits from idetifying anti-zionism with anti-jewish?
Exactly
You are actualy doing the work of the hasbara fellas for them.”
Can a distinction be made between Judaism and Jewish identity politics? Does the latter even exist? An honest examination of these questions might get to the crux of the matter. The background of declared former Jew, Gilad Atzmon who attends to these questions in his book, ‘The Wandering Who’, is somebody one would think is qualified to know, certainly thinks so, as does Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro:
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/6/16/judaism-vs-jewish-identity-politics-rabbi-yaakov-shapiro-and-gilad-atzmon-12
I think these are questions that need to be discussed honestly and openly without fear of being labeled an anti-Semite. It seems to me that the Jewish domination of American foreign policy (AIPAC), French politics (CRIF) and the fact that 80% of conservative MPs in Britain are ‘Friends of Israel’ cannot be ignored and separated from the plight of the Palestinian people so many of us on here claim to care about.
Ummm, So i’m sure this was arrived at through a grass roots democratic process…
I guess it’s generally known what I feel about the structure of this blog. I know , I know, get my own. Bla bla bla. Like yesterdays local green party meeting. O I need to become a member, advance my political career to get ‘my’ voice heard…And that’s democracy?
‘Get your own party, get your own blog, take your own larger than fair share of power over others….Democracy at work.’
Is anyone fighting for freedom, For true democracy anymore in this country? People say all this stuff about “Direct Democracy” like it’s some new phenomenon those cool “radical” kids are into, But it’s not. Screw parliament also, it’s not new.
As I don’t accept a democratically subversive process to be democracy, And I don’t accept it’s a free speech blog unless those speaking also set the framework. So i’ll continue to disagree of that’s allowed.
As I disagree it should be up to any members of a club (ie SNP) to decide of the future of the public.
Ah, the right type of free speech. Which is of course always the case. But before a discussion of free speech absolutism as a delusion that further empowers the powerful (who can afford the biggest megaphone) how about some simple practicalities.
Personally I cannot see how these are in any way relevent to my amazingly illuminating contributions. I imagine every regular here thinks Craig’s new ruleset is not aimed at them.
An example looking at one of the easiest rules (nothing personal Dre):
Dreoilin seems favourably receptive to these rules yet has seemingly failed one already without recognition on her part or the threatened sanction.
This rule:
How can Dreoilin’s comment at 11:20 pass this test? Are two pretty empty words, “Farcical Fumbling”, really enough thought? Cause then every link need only “good” or “bad” and it’s no longer just a link to other peoples thinking.
These rules are set to fail. They already have. Which makes me wonder why this post exists.
Sorry I meant:
Dreoilin’s comment at 11:02
Mr Murray,
I think comments like this “Since Kiev Nazis” should also be unacceptable when addressed to the president, government and people who are fighting against illegal occupation and VERY questionable annexation of their sovereign territory.
If these guidelines are implemented I bid many MWL will find it very hard to bullsh..t here.
Monteverdi
Are you denying systemic and very well executed murder of millions (how many is not and will not be known exactly) Jews, Slavs, gypsies, people with disabilities, midgets, gays and others whom Nazis considered waste of space? You only need to read Nazis’s bible to get an idea where the sharpest edge of the sword was directed.
Daniel (up there^): Craig, on the issue of antisemitism/anti-Zionism, I’d be interested what your views are (if you have any) in relation to Gilad Atzmon’s book ‘The Wandering Who’
leaving aside his work on zionism and Israel, Atzmon’s anti-jewishness is exactly that: anti-jew-ish. It’s not anti-semitic.
He clearly distinguishes between the religion Judaism (and Jews – people who profess Judaism) and the pycho-socio-cultural construct “jewishness”. His beef is with the latter, not the former (the latter might also be called “jew-iness”).
He astutely disentangles the associated absurdities of “jewishness”, such as the concept of the “secular jew”, from the religion. Though he might choose to deny it, there is actually quite a bit of overlap between his ideas on “jewishness” and those of Prof. Sands.
Craig
Congratulations for taking a tough line against Jew-hatred on your blog. It is a somewhat brave decision, as you may lose many contributors, but I believe it is the right one.
“Craig
Congratulations for taking a tough line against Jew-hatred on your blog. It is a somewhat brave decision, as you may lose many contributors, but I believe it is the right one.”
____________________
Seconded.
Some “friends” will certainly be lost, as was the case when Craig set out his position on the Evil Empire (Putin version). But never mind, the blog will be a cleaner and therefore healthier place without them.
The gnashing of teeth and petulant outbursts on this thread already refer.
In a more inclusive vibrant democratic environment those with intentionally and constant outstanding ‘voices’ or influence get less able to disrupt. As i’d advocated before. But like any essentially totalitarian structure, it invites some and discourages many, who do not get included. Meaningful development- no.
Perhaps this isn’t the blog to experiment with (blogs are minor things anyway) But I kind of feel this reminds of the Greens atm…Aren’t they meant to be into stuff like this. New ideas, democratic systems. Instead of counting votes and screw democracy, we know what’s best etc.
It’s not the public that fails to represent. It’s those who don’t even understand democracy. Or pay little regard to it that continues this culture of top down, degrading, bureaucratic oppression. I don’t know if I shouldn’t expect better from anything I get involved in.
I know Craig has his books to write ect. So respect he may have his hands full. But then, I can’t understand why anyone wold want to comment on here much. like, you get to comment on Crag’s incidental (though often valuably published) thought’s or martial on his blog. Yet most of your time will be spent with inane repetition of argument’s (from regulars) that put a whole new meaning to the term waste of life…
And why should I get my own blog, im quite happy disagreeing with this one. It’s worth a post now and again, during renovations.
@Uzbek In The UK
No I don’t deny the genocide in WW2 of those you have mentioned in your post . Does that answer your question ?
Winkletoe, I agree with your interpretation of his thought. It seems to me that Jewish identity politics (Jewishness)as formulated by Atzmon, is regarded widely as being a taboo subject perhaps because to discuss it openly and honestly might leave open the possibility of people who agree with him being tarnished with the antisemite epithet. Atzmon has certainly touched a nerve among rabid Zionist fanatics like Aaranovitch that’s for sure, so he must be doing something right.
Anon1 and Habbie
Before you get too comfortable, I should say that both of you frequently attempt to provoke anti-Jewish comment or to insinuate any-Semitism in threads in which the issue has not arisen. Along the lines of “somebody will blame the Jews.” That behaviour is also very heavily interdicted.
Jew hatred? Who?
I tell you what I hate, it’s that Habbabkuk (obviously a disgusting supporter of disgusting regimes) ends up with a massive proportion of his repetitive unwavering anti-justice babble on this blog.
And Craig let’s it rather than think of others because he can’t be bothered to do anything different.
I’d sooner close comments down. Censor everyone from the “free speech” blog. Unless there are other ways. Some blog owners just ban tolls, regardless of their religion or faith, and yes it’s a subjective thing what that means. But let’s not pretend this blog is anything other than a narrow selection of possibilities anyway…
The problem is not whether ‘ ant-Jewish ‘ comments will be moderated , but whether the comments , links and thoughts of those defined by others as ‘ self-hating Jews ‘ will be ?
Monteverdi to Craig : “My question to you was why you will accept both denial or revision on this thread to other genocides but not a specific genocide committed during WW2 ?”
I’ll answer that because Craig can’t. It’s the simple truth that dare not speak its name – if he is perceived to tolerate holocaust revisionism, he will be destroyed. His blog will be closed down and his literary, political, and financial ambitions will be at an end, he might even be jailed.
Is he giving in to Zionist pressure? Yes. Is he wrong to do so? His choice is 99% freedom of speech or 0% freedom of speech – 100% is not an option. Like Galloway, Chomsky and others, he’s chosen the 99%. If he chose differently, we wouldn’t have this blog to discuss the matter. Bear that in mind when you criticise his choice.
My suggestion (as before) did not involve banning but expansion. Though i’m not against banning anyone from ‘my club’ theoretically, Why should being Jewish make a difference?
As a self-loathing caucasian, let me say my race has been chief enabler of the Zionists and has undermined the veracity of democracy through our desire for power and influence, and our Imperialism is top-drawer. Mea culpa. I am racist.
There’s a brilliant article by Anil Dash from a few years ago saying “if your website’s full of assholes, it’s your fault” – http://dashes.com/anil/2011/07/if-your-websites-full-of-assholes-its-your-fault.html – and this site isn’t full of assholes. It has some people with outside-the-mainstream views, but it works hard not to get filled with anti-semitism.
If your comments section looks like Guido Fawkes’ then that’s definitely your fault. Craig’s doesn’t. The “play the ball, not the man” rule and the “no racism” rule, plus an essentially decent community means that is works fine.
Different Human Races belongs in Tolkien novels.
@Node
Thank you and I agree with your assessment of the self censorship which has infected all public discourse as the ‘ heresy ‘ of our age .I fully understand and respect Craig’s decision to not engage on this question and subject for the reasons you outline .
I believe truth should never fear investigation , a concept which appears to have been rejected through fear itself .
Adhering to the rules already, and toeing the line; “play th ball not the man”.
That is the trouble with exceptionalism it only breeds more contempt.
=========================
That seems to be the order of the day it seems. Further mods getting not commenting rule also helps to stop the glaring bias of the individual concerned, and they way they tick. Also promoting that those wishing to moderate will be muzzled and stopped from commenting to keep the closed shop perpetuated.
Although no one is clever enough of thinking on these lines, because we know the only clever lot in the place are the only ones that are far superior to the rest of us!!!
These are good rules. The difficulty with keeping “on topic” is that few themes stay alive for long; and Craig often has periods when his other priorities mean some topics of considerable immediacy are not active. I will risk going off-topic by at least keeping to the rule not simply to provide a link to material elsewhere.
So, on the Labour leadership race, I have noticed two phenomena: first, that some Conservatives seem to think it is in their interests for Jeremy Corbyn to become leader; second, that one poll before the final list of candidates was announced recorded a huge preference among ordinary Labour voters – not Labour MPs – for JC. [Note: a fine example of nominative determinism, judging from the mainstream media’s making him their prime candidate for crucifixion.] My prediction is that if JC is NOT elected leader, the main beneficiaries will be the Conservatives and the Greens. Two articles in the Guardian today
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/17/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-dont-do-personal
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/16/labour-leadership-candidates-boring-rightwing-frankie-boyle
make it clear that JC argues for positive policies and judges proposals for political policies by their effects rather than by the personalities of those promoting them. Thus “austerity” is revealed for what it really is: theft by the powerful of what rightly belongs to the powerless – the right to decide on the distribution of public resources. On Monday evening I heard him set out a crisp exposure of the hidden agenda behind TTIP, at a meeting in Portcullis House chaired by the People’s Assembly, one of the organisers of the Anti-Austerity March on Saturday, which JC will be on. How many other Labour leadership candidates and MPs will be there?
JC has been a particularly effective Chair of the Chagos APPG, bringing together a cross-party group of parliamentarians because he listens to others and does not engage in personal vituperation, as do far too many politicians. I do hope that Craig will open up a new topic after tonight’s 19.00 BBC 2 Newsnight Labour leadership debate.
Node @ 2.13,
That’s a very astute take on the boundaries and limitations of freedom of expression and the overriding imperatives of dominant relations of power that this implies.
As you alluded to, the notion that any attempt to openly challenge Zionist interests by reevaluating the Holocaust would likely result in the closure of this blog, surely says something about the nature and extent of Jewishness understood in terms outlined by Atzmon, namely as a perceived sociopolitical and cultural construct.
I’m fascinated by the questions that surround Jewish identity politics he identifies in his writings. Can these questions really be separated from the continued plight and suffering of the Palestinian people? I’m not sure whether they can.
Atzmon doesn’t view the source of the problem as one that emanates solely from the political right within the Jewish discourse, but within the left too which is why he is able to conclude that its a problem of “Jewishness”. He perceives Jewish leftist pro-Palestinian activism as infiltrating and ultimately undermining the Palestinian Solidarity movement.
The view that such activism ultimately serves Jewish self interests, is shared openly by other Jews, most prominently of whom is Philip Weiss, the chief editor of the Jewish pro-Palestinian website Mondoweiss:
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-jews-their-self-interest-an-interview-with-phil.html
This article is the kind of stuff that is seldom mentioned in the oligarch owned media and now evidently in the “free blogosphere” too. The climate of anti Muslim hatred is palpably tolerated whilst the genuflections to all things sacred and unmentionable are reinforced over and again.
Actually Node you are quite wrong. I have a genuine intellectual contempt for holocaust revisionism, which comes from two things – a) direct knowledge gleaned while I was in Poland including from eye-witnesses b) my experience of holocaust revisionists and their motives.
“BTW – I shall consider seriously whether to respond to your call for volonteer Mods (probably after the summer break). Is it possible to specify in broad terms how the system works (eg, there are rotas?) and how much time would need to be set aside for the task?”
That made me laugh Noddy. A blog in the control of the trolls.”
_______________________
Yes John it made me laugh too if Habb were to become a moderator they’d be no comments allowed.
I’m pretty sure he’s kidding himself on.
canspeccy –
“Thus, when the opportunity arose, Hitler got rid of Jews by all available means. ”
That’s just not true… the final solution was in the context of a continued war for which the NAZIS blamed Jews and in which German cities were being nightly bombed by the RAF. A long winding road led to it starting with the execution of many other groups and the context of WW2.
That point may or may not be deleted… I don’t know… this is the problem with censorship.
Either you allow something to be discussed properly… which means allowing all points of view… or there’s no point discussing it whatsoever.
So called “Holocaust Deniers” have made important contributions to the History of the Final Solution. In some case exposing fraud. And if anyone thinks they haven’t – they’re just ignorant about it. They have. And that would never happen if you weren’t allowed to question the recieved wisdom.
Saying “It is surprising how often people attempt to insinuate holocaust denial.” is to “impugn the motives of others” for a start.
Might one dare to inquire as to the nature of these “motives” that you find? What are these motives?
Craig ;
” I have a genuine intellectual contempt for holocaust revisionism ”
Which you are perfectly entitled to have . I have the same contempt for those who question the Armenian genocide but I respect their right to attempt to challenge it , as truth has nothing to fear .
That doesn’t explain why you will moderate denial or revision of one ,but not of the other ? Node’s comments appear the only explanation . No part of human history should be ‘ ring-fenced ‘ from revisionism and no part is bar this . Hence the genuine question I posed .