Tuesday, June 30, 2009


As the Zionists of Israel drift further to the right and increasingly demonstrate how their racial and expansionist policies for Israel are parallel to the policies of Hitler’s Nazi Germany, the extreme right-wing in the blogosphere seems to have become confused and increasingly unable to distinguish their left from their right.

The main cause of their confusion is rooted essentially in the irony of history whereby those peoples who suffered most at the hands of the Nazis are the same people that are now causing the most suffering – and for exactly the same reasons – to others.

The extreme right-wing is quite happy to call themselves right-wing because, even if for no other reason, it distinguishes them from their mortal enemies, the ‘Left’. The problem arises however, when it is realised that in calling themselves ‘right-wing’ they share the same ‘right-wing’ label as Hitler does and, because most of today’s modern right-wing are actually Zionists or Zionist supporters, they don’t, for obvious reasons, want to be associated with Hitler and the Nazis. Because there are still some on the outer fringes of the far right who really are Nazis inasmuch that they are white-supremacist style anti-Semites with an intense hatred of Jews – and, indeed, anyone else who isn’t white – today’s modern Zionists and their extreme right-wing supporters have constructed a new propaganda strategy to distinguish themselves from their Nazi look-alikes.

This new construct is designed for the rank and file dumb and gullible of the right. It argues that Hitler and the Nazis weren’t actually ‘right-wing’ because they were called ‘National Socialists’ and, according to the Zionist propagandists and their supporters, they had socialist ideals. The new propaganda further argues, because the name of Hitler’s party also included the word ‘Workers’ in it, (the full name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers Party), that this was further proof of the Nazis ‘left-wing’ roots. There is also certain convenience in this new construct for the Zionists and their supporters because, not only do they think it disassociates them as right-wingers from the rather embarrassing and similarly labelled Nazis, but it now allows them to cast anti-Zionists, most of whom have a tendency to lean to the political left and who Zionists attempt to demonise as anti-Semites, into the newly constructed ‘Nazi is left-wing’ mould.

The new ‘Nazis were left-wing’ propaganda construct is currently being pushed via the right-wing blogs. Andrew Bolt, a Murdoch propagandist and blogger at Melbourne’s ‘Herald Sun’ newspaper, a couple of weeks ago highlighted the new propaganda in his column in which he argues that Jewish groups in Europe who worry about the recent gains the anti-Semitic right made in European elections should be far more concerned about the left-wing anti-Zionists in Europe and that the right-wing that are not anti-Semitic are the ‘Jews real friends’. Bolt then allows his bloggies to launch into the ‘Nazis were left-wing’ propaganda. Here are a few examples:

Bolt Bloggie ‘larrikin’ writes:
“it [sic] was the German socialists who formed the Nazi party that instigated the holocaust and it is the left that now demonise Israelis and act as apologist for the islamists [sic] threatening to annihilate Israel. own [sic] it, leftard [sic].” ‘larrikin’ goes on to comment elsewhere:
“…you can’t be ‘right’ and neo-Nazi because Nazism is a creature of the left. If by ‘right’ you mean the opposite of leftism then you are referring to someone who is, essentially, a supporter of the classic republic as a legal and political model. Therefore the ‘right’ is always opposed to dictators and oligarchs, whatever they call themselves and regardless of the form of goose stepping they practice. the left on the other hand ultimately and invariably support dictators and oligarchs.”

While another Bolt bloggie, Alan Mears, writes:
“Hitler was actually from the left, the NAZI party was the Workers Nationalist Socialist Party. What is it with the left? They always attribute the evils deeds committed by their own by using the word “Extreme” with the word Right.”

Regular Bolt bloggie ‘Verax’ responded to Mears’ remark that “Hitler was from the left” saying:
“You are wasting your time with this one, Alan. I have posted that there are two kinds of socialism, national socialism (often called fascism) and Marxian socialism (communism), here ad nauseam.”

And so it goes on.

The new right-wing propaganda has two aims; first, it attempts to cast them as the true right-wing by implying that the Nazis were really ‘left-wing’, and, secondly, in doing so, they think they have created a bin into which the left, because of their anti-Zionism, can now be thrown.

As most true German socialists of the day would attest, or would if there were any actually left, there was absolutely nothing at all ‘socialist’ about the Nazis beyond the word being used in the title of the Nazi party; indeed, it was socialists in the main with whom Hitler’s Brownshirts battled in the streets of Germany prior to Hitler becoming Chancellor in 1933 and rounding up most of the socialists in Germany, and wherever else he could find them, before trying to exterminate them along with everyone else that didn’t fit their political, cultural and racial mould of his Greater Germany.

In the early days there were some Germans deluded enough to actually believe that the word ‘socialist’ in the Nazi party’s name actually did mean that Hitler’s party had socialist leanings and for a while Hitler was quite happy to allow the myth to continue as he built up the party’s numbers and strength using its following to give the party an air of popularity. The delusion was shattered and the myth was dispelled in July 1934 when Hitler and his SS and Gestapo purged the ranks of the massive Brownshirt movement which was the SA. In part this was done more than anything else to appease the extremely un-socialist German military that were beginning to see the SA rabble as a rival to their own power. In short, for Hitler, the SA had fulfilled their role and what few ‘socialists’ had found their way into the Nazi party soon found themselves purged from it or converted to Nazism.

But here’s where the propaganda really back-fires on the right-wing Zionists and their supporters in the West. This early history of the Nazi party to which some deluded socialists, and even communists, initially flocked to, actually reflects much of the early history of Zionism as it established itself in Israel. The early rank and file Kibbutzim movement was made up predominately of those that thought of themselves as socialists, communists and generally left-wing. Many leftish Europeans and Americans, both Gentile and Jewish, made the ‘pilgrimage’ to a Kibbutz in Israel for a year to experience a taste of socialist life. Israel’s early economic and domestic and social policies were essentially left-wing and, indeed, to a certain extent, still are.

Essentially, the new propaganda is really just another attempt to prop up the ‘anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism’ meme which the Zionists have been trying to push with vigour in an effort to counter the influence that Mearsheimer and Walt’s best-selling book ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’ had on the anti-Zionist movement since it was published.

The new propaganda, in the end, does nothing except demonstrate how desperate the right-wing have become in trying to protect Zionism from its inevitable collapse.

Sunday, June 28, 2009


Today Bolt writes a piece on his blog about the how the Iranian police broke up a protest using tear gas and batons. I wrote the following comment in response though I doubt it’ll be published.

Last Friday Bolt, indeed, while you were in Israel, Israeli fascist occupying troops opened fire with tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets on unarmed peaceful protesters at the village of Bil'in near Ramallah in the West Bank.

No doubt you'll be reporting this in your forthcoming feature article about your visit to Israel.

I won't hold my breath.

The hypocrisy in this is two-fold. Bolt is quite happy to jump on the bandwagon of Western propaganda against the Iranian government but ignores entirely the years of Israeli police and IDF violence against protesting Palestinians and Israelis.

The other hypocrisy is just another example of Bolt’s projection propaganda technique whereby he accuses others of being what he actually is himself; in this case he labels the Iranian leaders as ‘fascists’ thereby attempting to deflect the fact that he is a fascist himself.

Typical Bolt propaganda.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009


Janet Albrechtsen, a Murdoch propagandist with ‘The Australian’ newspaper and one of Australia’s most ardent anti-democracy practitioners, has attempted to talk about the merits of ‘democracy’ relative to events in Iran.

She comes unstuck straight away when she told a group of German school kids that “Australia was one of the world’s oldest continuing democracies”. Blogger ‘Daoud’ soon put her right, telling her:

“Janet, Australia is not one of the world’s oldest continuous democracies. Do you know Aboriginals only had the right to vote in 1967… This was along time after countries such as New Zealand and Norway gave all their citizens the right to vote.”

‘Daoud’ then went on to provide Albrechtsen with a perspective that she had conveniently overlooked when discussing democracy in Iran:

“I find it terribly sad that right wingers like yourself critisise Iran, which is arguably one of the most democratic countries in the middle east after Iraq and Lebanon, and fail to critisise your favourite allies Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Yeman, Oman et al which are some of the most brutal autocratic regimes in the world.”

Well said ‘Daoud’.

Sunday, June 21, 2009


For the right-wing Western media it is really unimportant who won the election in Iran; the important thing is that the resulting turmoil, chaos, and deaths works against the ruling Mullah’s and in favour, no matter how little, of the right-wing of Israel and the US and their supporters in Iran. Greg Sheridan, a Murdoch propagandist with The Australian newspaper, sums it up: “In many ways, a savagely weakened Iranian regime is the best result Israel and the US could have wished for.” Democracy per se, as far as the right-wing are concerned, actually has very little to do with it as long as it’s a good ‘result for Israel and the US’.

It’s quite clear that the reaction to the announcement of the results of the election were planned in advance well before the election took place. Some pre-election polls had Ahmadinejad well in front by some 2-1 so the outcome, contrary to what the Western media would have us believe, wasn’t exactly a surprise to anyone.

However, since the likely outcome was not entirely unexpected, it gave the opposition an opportunity to plan a false claim to election victory, a claim which they voiced as soon as the polls closed. And then when the results were announced, they simply cried ‘foul’. All of this has been helped along by the right-wing Western media who supported the opposition’s claims by focusing the news on the opposition’s rallies and demonstrations against Ahmadinejad and ignoring the pro-Ahmadinejad rallies which were on some occasions much bigger than those of the supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi. So desperate were the Western media to push the pro-Mousavi cause they even, on at least one occasion, actually claimed that pictures of a massive pro-Ahmadinejad rally were of a pro-Mousavi rally.

It’s quite clear that agent provocateurs have been employed to push along the oppositions agenda. They have encouraged the violence on all sides by provoking the police and by setting fire to buses, cars, motorbikes and buildings. The Western media have claimed that the authorities have violently cracked down on dissenting demonstrators when in fact they have been cracking down on those that have set fires and been running riot. The vast majority of both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi demonstrators have been peaceful. It is only the anti-Mullahs professional agent provocateurs that have stirred up the trouble by running riot and setting the fires and claiming to be supporters of Mousavi.

For the right-wing of the US and Israel, as Murdoch propagandist Greg Sheridan infers, it doesn’t matter whether Ahmadinejad or Mousavi end up getting the nod, nor does it matter how many Iranians have to die in the process, the important thing is that it stirs up trouble for the Mullahs.

For the Israelis it’s just another step along the road toward their final confrontation with Iran.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009


Murdoch’s bloggers in Australia somehow think that supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi who ran against President Ahmadinejad in last Friday’s election in Iran will be good for the Zionists of Israel and be one in the eye against the Mullahs of Iran as they pursue their war against Islam.

For days ever since the election, Murdoch’s loons have been barracking hard for Mousavi in the mistaken belief that in doing so it could lead to ‘regime change’ in Iran. It’s only now that it is dawning on them that, regardless of who the election is handed to, the Mullahs will remain the ultimate power in Iran and that the only difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad is over the economy and some other domestic issues. The people of Iran will continue to support Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian people against Israeli aggression and will continue to support the Mullahs in their quest to generate nuclear energy.

Bolt and Blair seem to have absolutely no idea of what is actually going on in Iran at the moment.

Thursday, June 11, 2009


The only difference between Andrew Bolt, an Australian Murdoch propagandist and blogger at Melbourne’s ‘Herald Sun’ newspaper, and James Von Brunn, the white supremacist Nazi who shot and killed a guard at the Holocaust Memorial in the US, is that Andrew Bolt supports Zionism whereas Von Brunn is also an anti-Semite and, therefore, also sees anything that has connections to Israel and Jews, including neoconservatism, as something to be scorned. As a Zionist supporter, on the other hand, Bolt supports neoconservatism but otherwise has similar views towards other non-white peoples as Von Brunn has; both, indeed, are white supremacists.

Like many extreme right-wingers, Bolt and his entourage of bloggies don’t see them selves as extremists but, instead, delude themselves into believing that they are representative of most ‘ordinary’ people. As such, they prefer to detach themselves from labels such as ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ or ‘neo-Nazi’ and for the last couple of days Andrew Bolt has been making frantic efforts to distance himself even further from these labels.

One method used by the extreme right-wing to deflect the use of labels against them is to inappropriately label the left with those same labels. A classic example of this is their continued deceit regarding those that are anti-Zionist whom they label as being ‘anti-Semite’. While anti-Semites by definition would be anti-Zionist, it does not follow that anti-Zionists are anti-Semite; indeed, there are many anti-Zionists that are actually Jewish and who clearly are not anti-Semite. The right-wing in this case are simply trying to blur the differences between Semitism, which is simply a racial descriptor (just as Nordic is sometimes used as a descriptor for northern Europeans or Negroid is used as a descriptor for peoples of African origin) and Zionism which is a political ideology and has nothing to do with race per se. However, like Nazism which is also a political ideology that had racial connotations inasmuch that it excluded Jews and other peoples the ideology deemed inferior, the ideology of Zionism generally precludes those that are not Jews either by religion, religious birthright, race or racial birthright or conversion.

Some misguided extreme right-wingers (such as Bolt bloggie ‘markusbondi’ commenting on Fri 12 June 09 at 09.14am) even try to deflect being labelled right-wing racist extremists and cast in the same barrel as Nazis by suggesting that Nazis were really socialists because they called themselves ‘National Socialists’ who, according to ‘markusbondi’, apparently “implemented socialist policies”. To ensure the deflection is complete ‘markusbondi’ adds that these ‘socialist policies’ are “not unlike what the Greens want to implement right now”. What stops this nonsense from being merely laughable is the fact that there are some people around who are dumb and gullible enough to actually believe this stuff.

And it is this that brings us back full circle as far Murdoch’s propagandists are concerned. Bolt himself would never get away with writing this nonsense in so many words as ‘markusbondi’ has, however, because Bolt runs his column as a blog, people like ‘markusbondi’ are invited, even encouraged, to strut their paranoid nonsense thus reflecting Bolt’s owns views without Bolt actually having to say it.

When something happens like the killing at the Holocaust museum by someone who is just as much a racist as Bolt is, then Bolt and his followers become desperate to the point of confusion as to how to deal with it without looking like neo-Nazis and racists themselves. The easiest way out for them is to simply use deceit though the only people in the end that they end up deceiving is invariably themselves.

The comment I left at Bolt's Blog - which, of course, is unlikely to be published - went like this:

You're clearly quite confused aren't you Bolt? And your frantic efforts to disassociate yourself from the likes of the Nazi lunatic James Von Brunn will not succeed in making you any less a white supremacist and racist. The only difference between the two of you is that he's an anti-Semite whereas you're pro-Zionist; otherwise there is no difference - no matter how hard you try to spin you're way out of it.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009


Andrew Bolt, the Australian racist journalist and blogger at Murdoch’s ‘Herald Sun’ newspaper in Melbourne, has today shown his support for the racist neo-Nazi ‘British National Party’ which has recently won a couple of seats in the European Parliament.

Apparently, the fascist and racist Nick Griffin was giving a press conference at Westminster when some anti-fascist demonstrators pelted him with eggs thus effectively ending the press conference. One of the demonstrators, Donna Guthrie from the Unite Against Fascism organisation then gave an interview to the BBC explaining why they demonstrated against Griffin and his fascist thugs in the way that they did. Bolt defends the fascist’s right to what he called ‘freedom of speech’.

Bolt, a fascist and racist himself, believes that these people deserve the right to peddle their sick politics of racist hate. Bolt, no doubt, would have equally defended Hitler’s right to free speech had Bolt been in Germany at the time.

The right to freedom of speech is one thing, but the abuse of that right in order to ferment racial hatred is something else. Bolt’s support of the fascists shows exactly where his sentiments lay.

Friday, June 5, 2009


Tim Blair, a Rightoid conspiracy theorist, attempts to childishly debunk reality but ends up showing himself up as a loser at his blog here when he attempts to delete reality.

For those that have arrived here from Tim Blair’s blog, this is what Blair deleted:

RebeccaH, Stormbringer did not see the two 747’s that crashed into WTC 1 and 2. And nor did you or any one else.

The aircraft that flew into these buildings were both twin-engined 767’s; not four-engined 747’s. Furthermore, the gigantic fire was nothing more than a free fuel burn-off from ruptured fuel tanks. The fire certainly was nowhere near fierce enough to bring down the entire building into its own footprint as the official conspiracy theory that you and your fellow dumb and gullible right-wing conspiracy theorists believe. Not only that, but we are also asked to believe that this happened three times on the same day. And the third time was to a building that wasn’t even hit by an aircraft.

There are none as blind as those that are too thick to think for themselves.