Actually and initially, by mentioning "people who are sympathetic to the goals and ideology of the racist right" spreading misinformation, I had in mind the forum member who was posting the same.

But as long as we're on the subject, since Willis Carto is the publisher of Barnes Review, and since Carto has been actively involved in promoting an antisemitic agenda for a half century, I would say "the Barnes Review folk" most definitely are more than "sympathetic" to the Ku Klux Klan and "violent racist whites."

And the forum member who vouches for "the Barnes Review folk" and pleads for "decency" in characterizing them? He is transparent in promoting a Holocaust denial agenda, under the guise of "free speech issues" and "the tradition of the Enlightenment." But this isn't really about Holocaust denial; it's not about trying to "get the numbers right" or any other niceties, or even whether David Irving should have been jailed for spreading the same chit. This is about people trying to rehabilitate the reputation of Adolf Hitler and Nazism in the process of promoting larger agendas. It's been going on for quite some time now. Wonder who will "win"?

Ah, so it's me you had in mind, Daniel.
So I'm the one you believe is "sympathetic to the goals and ideology of the racist right"!

Just a couple of points in reply.

1/ Having given the matter considerable thought over many years (and along the line tucking an anthropology degree under my belt). I don't believe the concept of race has any merit at all.

What's more, I believe the term racist (a relative newcomer to the English language that apparently dates only from the 1930s) is usually used carelessly and in ignorance - or with deliberate malevolent intent. I am pushed to think of a single case where use of the term 'racist' helps clarify the issues at stake. It almost always, in my observation, muddies the waters.

'Race', 'racism' and 'racist' are therefore very useful terms for those in effective control of public discourse. They are ideal for the application of divide and rule policies.

I don't believe there's any such thing as a 'white race', a 'black race', a Chinese or an English race. Even Australian Aborigines are likely to have had multiple orgins and are genetically (and in many other ways) heterogenous.

Now, if that sounds to you like the belief system of someone "sympathetic to the goals and ideology of the racist right" - well, I can't do anything about that, Daniel. But don't expect me to be impressed with your analytic powers or intellectual honesty.

This is really sad. You are directly insulted and instead of going off and replying in kind, you take a circuitous route full of rationalizations about "what does race/racist/racism really mean." And you actually seem more offended by what I had to say about your preferred sources than what I am suggesting about you. I wish you would stand up for yourself more. To hell with those guys at Antisemitic Agenda Central and what they've prescribed as "the proper and appropriate modes of public discourse"; they're not the one's sticking their necks out -- you are.

But anyway, I think what you've written above is a pretty good example of what Andy Walker (no relation) has previously referred to as "intellectual masturbation." You claim to reject the entire concept of race, which sounds like it should do you credit -- very forward-thinking of you. But it seems more like an intellectual subterfuge to try to gain support for your overall arguments. You reject the concept of race; therefore, you cannot be sympathetic to racists. And since you reject the concept of race, there can be no discussion about racism, nicht wahr?

But even if I take you at your word, instead of just noting the rationalizing character of all you've written above, you (typically) reveal more than you seem to realize you're revealing. Evidently "the term racist...dates only from the 1930s" in the English language? You've made this point before, as I recall. It once again raises the issue of your raison d'etre, as it seems: you want to rehabilitate your heroes of the 1930's by throwing some onus on those who "first" described Nazism in terms of "racism." In other words, Nazis have gotten a bad press in history because "those in effective control of public discourse" have unfairly associated Nazism with the epithets of racist and racism? ("Help, help, I'm being repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!")

Your degree in anthropology and your evaluation of my analytic powers or intellectual honesty or lack of decency are no great concern to me. Even I have a degree -- as did Joe Goebbels, PhD -- and it's not you (or, of course, your ilk) I think about in terms of whether what I write has or will have any relevance or value, or how it will ultimately reflect on me. That will be decided by others, most probably long after I'm gone.

2/ I am well aware of longstanding efforts to brand The Barnes Review, the American Free Press - and its forerunner The Spotlight - as 'racist'.

I am no apologist for the publisher Willis Carto. You may, Danel, be able to dig out unsavoury remarks attributed to him, dating back over decades - comments I'd not make myself nor wish to endorse.

However, all three publications, IMO, have contained some excellent content over the years.

For instance, it was The Spotlight that published Victor Marchetti's article about CIA involvement in the killing of JFK - prompting Howard Hunt to sue unsuccessfully in a landmark case described by Mark Lane in Plausible Denial.

So, while you attempt to reduce Willis Carto's work to "(promotion of) an antisemitic agenda for a half century" and claim "'the Barnes Review folk' most definitely are more than 'sympathetic' to the Ku Klux Klan and 'violent racist whites'", I'd say the situation is considerably more nuanced.

No doubt the Marchetti article and the libel suit brought by Hunt are "landmarks"; and everyone who has some interest in seeing justice be done and for the truth to come out has much reason to be pissed that this all had to come in the form of an association with Willis Carto and Liberty Lobby.... It's somewhat like the Wernerhoff article, since he posits an FBI/ADL conspiracy angle behind Robert Kennedy's murder and the subsequent rubbing out of two possible suspects. But I assume you're aware that originally it was supposed to be Danny Joe Hawkins accompanying Tarrants on the bombing mission, and that Ainsworth was a last-minute replacement. Some people might look at that and say it was the man giving them their orders who made the arrangements to eliminate the two suspects .... but instead we're asked to subscribe to the idea that it was the ADL (or World Jewry As Such?) that was behind it all. So just as in the case with Hunt and the Liberty Lobby, I think there's reason to ask whether this is not counterproductive if not in fact of a piece with a strategy of disinformation... If there's something to Hunt's involvement in JFK's murder, fine; but it hasn't exactly been helpful to have an association with Carto et al in trying to get the word out to the larger public, has it?

More to the point, I don't doubt that for you such publications "have contained some excellent content over the years." They cater to a particular audience, an audience inclined to believe in a Big Jew Threat, and I'm sure that audience has found them fulfilling in many ways.

Go to The Barnes Review website and check it out for yourself. I don't think you can support your vicious assault on my comments with specific references. But if you can, why not share them? You seem to imagine that merely repeating your complaint in a louder tone is the way to convince. Well, it doesn't work for me.

I don't expect that anything I have to say will "work for" you. I believe you are serving as a shill and mouthpiece for these interests, trying to gain respectability for them. Whether you do so "on your own recognizance" or as an employee I have no idea. But I will waste no more of my time than I have to, and I will not engage with you in extended debate about the merits of such sources. When I visited that site the first thing I saw was the nature of the literature it was selling; then I saw that Carto was the publisher. I then understood why you thought so highly of it, but I've seen more than enough of that type of propaganda the past several months...so naturally I'm not going to presume that a grain of sand (myself) can do anything about an ocean....

I have no doubt that the real objection of most who profess disgust with Willis Carto, The Spotlight, AFP and The Barnes Review, is that they are frequently critical of (a) the State of Israel and its activities, the Zionist Lobby, within the USA and elsewhere, and its activities, and (b) the power and activities of organized Jewry, in the USA and elsewhere.

That objection, of course, has nothing to do with opposition to so-called 'racism' - if 'racism' means the vilification of a group of people because of their ethnicity, language, culure or religion.

If 'racism' was your real concern, Daniel, you'd attack folk such as David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes and other Zionist ideologues who have so much to say that's truly hateful about others, especially Muslims and Arabs. Strangely, Jewish 'racism' never seems to be much of a concern for those who wail about the evils of Willis Carto and his associates. It must be their blind spot.

Once again, more than revealing enough: "organized Jewry." But it's nice to see some progress in that you're now using the term "Muslim" instead of "Moslem," as you've previously always referred to those who follow the Islamic faith. Like most people, I have plenty of blind spots. But not being "sensitive" to or knowledgeable about the issue of racism can hardly be considered one of them. I believe I may be one of the only members of this forum, for instance, who has commented upon the predominantly white look of the membership. And in my youth many years ago I spent plenty of time learning about the history of my country, something which would be hard to do without also considering issues of racism, white supremacy, slavery, segregation, bigotry, etc., etc., etc....

The problem is, even those of us who are inclined to be very critical of Israel have to think seriously about getting tied up with those whose larger agenda is noticeably antisemitic. I'll be no party to that, and I will make my opposition to that as clearly as I possibly can. As I've said before, the Nazi New Order that Adolf Hitler attempted to impose on Europe was not an "aberration" in the history of western civilization: it was the ultimate logical result of the darkest heritage of that civilization. And all the dead bodies, all the human lives snuffed out as if they were no more than bugs, might just as well have been Africans or Native Americans or Aborigines as they were Jews and Gypsies and Slavs.

I'm real sure I'm not on the wrong side on this. And I believe "the real objection of most who profess disgust with Willis Carto et al" has to do with a sincere disgust with the lies and subterfuges and the overall agenda being promoted. And whether that agenda should be called racism or antisemitism or bigotry or simple hate is not a "nuance" that means much outside of the needs of its apologists to make it appear respectable and reasonable in public debate.

No-one should be above criticism - especially people and groups with plenty of wealth and power. That proposition is fundamental to to notion of a functioning democratic society. Deny it - or arbitrarily limit its application - and democracy itself cannot long survive.

Thank you, Thomas Paine. I'll try to remember this since, being an American, I'm not used to that kind of talk.

With so much of the mass media 'friendly terrain' for the Israel Lobby, one wonders why it feels the need to attack - with such venom - the handful of media outlets that are not?

Because the media outlets in question are so blatantly and pathetically devoted to the theme of a Jew Threat that even those few people somehow able to stand outside the vast power wielded by "the Israel Lobby" find that what your media outlets have to sell is reprehensible as such? This would help explain why the media outlets you find so intellectually stimulating are attacked: there is some consensus about their character. I recognize you don't share such a nuanced view.... because in your judgement it's all a question of an International Jewish Danger-Menace that controls most everything in existence. But not everyone is so blinkered or shares your premises, so some people might actually regard opposing the damn things as something of a moral responsibility.... that is, at least when they can spare the time to do so. (Also, how can any of us expect to get elected unless we cater to Jewish interests?)