Trending Topics:

Southern Poverty Law Center takes Blumenthal’s side against smear campaign

News
Max Blumenthal

Max Blumenthal

The Southern Poverty Law Center has come to Max Blumenthal’s defense against the wretched smear campaign propagated by neoconservatives and Rush Limbaugh that seeks to connect him to the murders outside Kansas City Jewish organizations a week ago. SPLC’s David Neiwert has a “Hatewatch” piece up (that somewhat echoes our excellent piece by Alex Kane and Phan Nguyen) and shows the extent to which the slurs are motivated by Blumenthal’s work on Israel:

[S]everal leading conservatives attempted to blame liberals for the massacre. Specifically, they pinned the blame on a single liberal journalist, Max Blumenthal, because Miller on a handful of occasions praised Blumenthal’s against-the-grain reporting on the right wing in Israel. …

Blumenthal, who is of Jewish descent and has spent years off and on in Israel, does not “despise” Israel. Blumenthal has written a number of articles that criticize Israeli policies, just as Rush Limbaugh regularly criticizes the policies of the United States. Does that mean Limbaugh “despises” America? Of course not.

What’s more, there is no indication whatsoever that anything Blumenthal wrote “inspired” Miller….

Their attacks on Blumenthal spread quickly throughout the right-wing echo chamber, especially at neoconservative websites where Blumenthal is the subject of frequent attacks for his criticism of Israel (particularly his book-length expose of the Israeli right, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel)

Still, the smear continues to echo. Here is neocon Daniel Pipes at the History News Network, in a piece titled– with supposed irony– “Antisemite Max Blumenthal Incites Murder of Three in Kansas.” Pipes claims not to be making such an allegation against Blumenthal even as he dignifies the charge, describing alleged shooter Frazier Glenn Miller’s “many connections to Blumenthal” and calling on “Blumenthal’s fellow leftists to denounce him and shun him. But will they?”

To its credit, HNN has now run Neiwert’s piece, denouncing these bogus conspiracy claims.

In a last ditch desperate effort to stir the pot, pro Israel smear merchant Algemeiner is at it again. Not content to drag Blumenthal through the slime they expanded their target adding a host of new characters as well as a few outlandish fabrications in Kansas Hate Crime Didn’t Emerge From a Vacuum:

Blumenthal has also actively promoted the idea that Judaism itself is a hateful religion, a slander propounded by his Israeli collaborator, Yossi Gurvitz, who has stated that “Rabbinical Judaism is a Judaism that hates humans.” …

Why does any of this matter? Left-wing anti-Zionists are increasingly regarded as acceptable company in the intellectual mainstream. Blumenthal has, for example, recently addressed the New America Foundation, a leading liberal think-tank in Washington, DC, which was apparently unperturbed by his flock of Nazi admirers, or by the fact that he was the subject of a flattering profile on Press TV, the official mouthpiece of the Iranian regime.

How much longer will we buy into the ludicrous idea that Blumenthal carries no responsibility for the way his screeds are interpreted? Similarly, when we read leading political scientist Stephen Walt, co-author of the miserable book “The Israel Lobby,” telling Haaretz that 9/11 was Israel’s fault, why do we continue to view his discourse as more sophisticated then the bigots who parrot him?

People like Frazier Cross don’t emerge from a vacuum.

Ludicrosity indeed!

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

33 Responses

  1. DaveS on April 20, 2014, 12:09 pm

    In partial defense of Daniel Pipes (I never thought I would use that phrase), he accuses Max of hypocrisy for associating Pipes with the Breivik massacre. Pipes says that if Max was right that Pipes was to blame for inspiring Breivik, then Max is guilty of inspiring Miller. Pipes also suggests that he is against such accusations in general. It seems to me that Pipes, loathsome as he is, has a superficially appealing point regarding hypocrisy. Maybe Max should explain why his Breivik accusation was worthier than those presently leveled against him. There certainly are arguments to be made.

    • seanmcbride on April 20, 2014, 12:37 pm

      David Samel,

      Your logic eludes me entirely.

      Both Daniel Pipes and Anders Breivik are Islamophobes.

      Frazier Glenn Miller is an antisemite. Max Blumenthal isn’t an antisemite.

      There is no hypocrisy here because the analogy is blatantly false.

      • Krauss on April 20, 2014, 1:11 pm

        Sean, why do you insist on using facts and logic on the internet?

      • DaveS on April 20, 2014, 1:13 pm

        Sean, I was commenting on the practice of blaming public figures for inspiring acts of violence by lunatics who have cited those public figures in their lunatic writings. I entirely agree with you that the accusation against Max is ludicrous, just as any accusation against the Beatles for inspiring Charles Manson would be. The question would be how Max would justify his accusation against Pipes, Geller and Spencer regarding the Breivik massacre. Your formulation that both Breivik and Pipes are Islamaphobes, while accurate, strikes me as very simplistic. Breivik’s attack was not even focused on Muslims. If memory serves, Breivik was very opposed to feminism as well; would anti-feminist public figures be responsible as well? I do think that Max could make an arguable case against Pipes that cannot reasonably be made against him, but Pipes does have what I described as a “superficially appealing” argument here, and one that requires more than hand-waving dismissal to adequately rebut. Just like you, I like Max and dislike Pipes, but that is no basis to dispense with reasonable analysis of an intriguing question.
        Phan engages in just such analysis in his comment here. While he discusses only the smear campaign against Max, the fact that Breivik’s writings and history with Pipes et al was more voluminous and prominent is one fact in defense of Max’s accusation. Still, there is a larger question of when it is appropriate to make such accusations of responsibility and when it is not.

      • seanmcbride on April 20, 2014, 1:28 pm

        David Samel,

        The question would be how Max would justify his accusation against Pipes, Geller and Spencer regarding the Breivik massacre.

        What could be a more simple task? Pipes, Geller and Spencer have been responsible for a torrent of inciting hate speech against Islam of the type that is guaranteed to provoke violent actions against the target of hate. Breivik shared their Islamophobia and was directly inspired by it.

        The key link between Breivik and Pipes and Geller — they are all militant ethnic nationalists. Breivik is a European (more narrowly Norwegian) ethnic nationalist; Pipes and Geller are Jewish ethnic nationalists. Militant ethnic nationalists frequently commit violence against their political opponents — that is the historical track record. And militant ethnic nationalists from different traditions often form temporary alliances of convenience. (Hence the strong support of Breivik, Geert Wilders and other European ethnic nationalists for Israel and Zionism.)

      • seanmcbride on April 20, 2014, 2:02 pm

        David,

        Refreshing my memory about the particulars of the Pipes/Breivik connection:

        Pipes seems to be Breivik’s primary reference material and font of inspiration. Used as a reference twice, and given his own bully pulpit in one of Breivik’s blog entries, complete with video and cheering-on.

        Here is every piece of writing Breivik published on document.no. Cool of them to consolidate it rather than suppress it.

        http://www.document.no/anders-behring-breivik /

        Breivik only ever posted a single video; it was Daniel Pipes making a right-wing presentation, titled “Leftism and Islam. Muslims, the warriors Marxists have been praying for.”

        For those who don’t remember, Pipes — a radical, murderous, hate-filled conservative demagogue — was a Bush nominee to the U.S. Institute of Peace, an advisor to Giuliani’s election campaign, and a conspiracy theorist whose argument amounts to, “with-a-name-like-Obama-he’s-got-to-be-Muslim.”

        http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439×1555107

        It was definitely about the Islamophobia. And both Pipes and Breivik are militant Zionists.

      • Donald on April 20, 2014, 2:28 pm

        “Breivik’s attack was not even focused on Muslims.”

        I’d have to go back and look, but I thought Breivik attacked them because they were in some way perceived by him as part of the socialist islamofascist-sympathizing fifth column. If that’s true, then it seems to me that people who write constantly about how horribly evil Muslims are and how we should limit their rights or not even allow them in our country are in fact saying things that could easily be seen as inspiring hate crimes, including Breivik’s. But I don’t know specifically what Pipes has written and my memory of Breivik’s crime has gotten a bit hazy.

        Now if Max wrote that Zionists are not only oppressing Palestinians, but pose a grave danger to everyone in whatever country they live, and that their rights should be curtailed if indeed they should be tolerated at all, and if he proposed shutting down all Jewish schools because some of them preach rightwing Zionist ideas and that we should make war on Judaism, then yeah, I would say that this sort of stuff could inspire hate crimes. You could undoubtedly find people making such arguments. Just not Max.

        I don’t happen to know what Daniel Pipes has said–I’m just repeating what some of the Islamophobes have actually argued.

      • shams on April 20, 2014, 3:16 pm

        Very interesting subthread. Thanks to David, Sean and Donald.

      • German Lefty on April 20, 2014, 6:22 pm

        Now if Max wrote that Zionists are not only oppressing Palestinians, but pose a grave danger to everyone in whatever country they live, and that their rights should be curtailed if indeed they should be tolerated at all, and if he proposed shutting down all Jewish schools because some of them preach rightwing Zionist ideas and that we should make war on Judaism, then yeah, I would say that this sort of stuff could inspire hate crimes.

        I agree. However, shutting down all Jewish schools would actually be a good idea. There should not be any schools that are based on religion.

      • W.Jones on April 20, 2014, 2:35 pm

        David,

        Maybe Max should explain why his Breivik accusation was worthier than those presently leveled against him.
        Sounds like you and Sean have provided some pointers for Max.

        Peace, my friend.

    • Woody Tanaka on April 20, 2014, 12:48 pm

      I think there is a fundamental difference between factual reporting which reinforces ones bigotries (as in the case with Max) and being inspired by one’s ideology and policy recommendation (as was the case with Pipes). It’s the difference between saying “what is” — “here is what Israel is doing” — and opining as to “what aught to be” — “there are too many Mulims in Europe and America anf they represent a threat.”

      So I think that Pipes is wrong on that point but he is not responsible for Breivik.

      • Nurit Baytch on April 20, 2014, 3:23 pm

        Max’s reporting in the RT interview cited by the alleged shooter was NOT factual. Here is the interview:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6wzm7IQmg0

        Max claimed that the Israel Lobby is all-powerful and suppresses dissent, intimidating mainstream media from mentioning the Israel “word” in the context of Sheldon Adelson’s large donation to Gingrich.
        except NYT repeatedly discussed Adelson’s links to Israel in its article about the donation that was published a couple days before Max’s interview:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/us/politics/sheldon-adelson-a-billionaire-gives-gingrich-a-big-lift.html

        Max was fear-mongering about the all-powerful Israel Lobby suppressing this story when it fact it was reported in our newspaper of record.

      • annie on April 21, 2014, 10:15 am

        Max claimed that the Israel Lobby is all-powerful

        nurit, what minute of the interview did he say that. because what i am hearing is “i don’t think netanyahu and the combined power of the israeli lobby can decide a presidential election but what they can do is color the political landscape.” so are you being

        NOT factual.

        ?

        except NYT repeatedly discussed Adelson’s links to Israel in its article about the donation that was published a couple days before Max’s interview:

        max didn’t say their was no discussion of Adelson’s links to Israel in the mainstream media. he said:

        “there’s a discussion in the US media about adelson’s role and no mention of israel”

        and there was a discussion in the US media (like TV news) about adelson’s role and no mention of israel. in fact most or all of the first stories in the msm about adelson/gingrich didn’t mention israel at all. the interviewer ask max about the article he had previously written and that’s when he mention what he wrote about. it was after that and after numerous reports on mondowiess and other social media the nyt published the article you linked to, which was probably influenced by the information exposed online.

        what max said, when he said it, was absolutely accurate, there had definitely been a discussion (numerous reports) in the US media about adelson’s role and no mention of israel. that began to change as a result of the our (social media) exposure. weeks after that interview with max we published this http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/chris-hayes-stunning-story-of-the-week-featuring-sheldon-adelson.html on jan 29. 2012:

        I was blown away by Chris Hayes’s mainstream coverage of Sheldon Adelson yesterday. Especially after the shocking Isikoff coverage.

        and the reference to Isikoff was phil’s jan. 28th article titled

        Isikoff expose of Gingrich backer — ‘All we care about is being good citizens of Israel’ — puts ‘Israel firster’ issue in mainstream

        and this timing is important. this is when started really taking off:

        The last day has seen a remarkable battle in the mainstream discourse. …..

        The most important blow was delivered yesterday by Mike Isikoff in a great piece of reporting on Sheldon Adelson at NBC, featuring the video above. Isikoff squarely addresses the issue of Who benefits from an attack on Iran– by reporting that Adelson has Israel in his heart. The thrust of the piece is that Adelson has conflated Israel’s interest and the United States, and that’s wrong. This graphic from Adelson’s Israeli newspaper says it all.

        basically, once again, you’re just full of hot air.

    • American on April 20, 2014, 1:10 pm

      ”Pipes, loathsome as he is, has a superficially appealing point regarding hypocrisy” ….David

      I think ‘superficial’ is the key word there as far as Pipes is concerned
      Pipes has gone way beyond just ‘writing’ for Islamophobes.
      He has actually ‘met with’ and encouraged right wing haters like Greet Wilders and collaborated with others like the right wing editor of the
      newspaper Jyllands‑Posten, Fleming Rose who traveled all the way to Philadelphia to meet with Pipes and then published the infamous and insulting Muhammad cartoon that set off Muslim protest.

      Max is not colluding with the KKK or any bigot or right wing nationalist for the purpose of stirring hate and violence.
      So in the comparison of people picking up on other ‘people’s writings’ Pipes is just trying to gloss over his motives in his writings.
      The difference in Max’s writings and Pipe’s writing is the different motives of someone like Pipes and someone like Max.

    • LeaNder on April 20, 2014, 2:40 pm

      David, that is a very, very superficial response. Concerning this:

      Never mind the fundamental inaccuracies of these statements – that (1) Geller, Spencer, or I ever engaged in “eliminationist” rhetoric and (2) ignoring that Breivik cited leftists about as much as rightists and Muslims as often as counter-jihadis – what’s important is that Blumenthal exploited Breivik’s murderous rampage to score cheap points against fellow American analysts.

      For many of us it wasn’t about “‘eliminationist’ rhetorics” either, but it was very, very much about feeding the hate.

      We have such a lapsed leftist, Hendryk M. Broder, that’s all I would concede to him that includes left. He is close to the anti-German pro-Euston manifesto left. Not sure if that is left anymore. It basically means Israel first and foremost, politics follow accordingly. Racism as far as Muslim and “the Arabs” are concerned is politically correct. It’s not racism, it is the self-defense of the lovers of freedom.

      Hendryk M. Broder was cited by Brevik too. He wore a jacket made out of a US flag during the Bush reelection broadcasts for German TV audiences. Loved Bush and the WOT. Over here on German ground he agitated against the building of the mosque in Cologne. it was only going to be a meeting ground for terrorists. Apart from that he was really active declaring Islam the present danger, you know, Europe on the verge of turning into Europistan, on the verge of being taken over. Because, as he wrote, Muslim simply do not integrate into society the way Jewish people do and did. I do not invent this, this was his type of argument.

      Here is a trace on the German web, apparently he was asked for comments when it surfaced that Brevik had cited Broder too : 7

      Google translate, Tagespiegel: Broder about Broder (as read) by Brevik

      Asked if he would change anything he wrote, he said no he wouldn’t. In an interview with a Dutch paper he had written that all freedom loving young people should better leave Europe. Europe was on the verge of being taken over by haters of freedom, the Muslim.

      And what did he think about what Brevik had done? According to Broder it only happened since Europe ignored the danger of Islam, Brevik’s deed was a confirmation that Europe has surrendered to Islam. Nothing to do with him feeding the rage, but in fact justifying what he had written. Others felt overwhelmed by the Muslim flood into Europe.

      Is Broder one of the “leftist” Pipes has in mind, I ask you?

      Here is a search of one of Broder’s German sites of “his collective of good people”Axis of Good /Achse des Guten + Daniel Pipes. The result is 5,730 hits

      Thus, ideologically there seems to be not much difference between right propagandists like Pipes and a “leftist” like Henryk M. Broder. If he can be leftist at all. And believe me I have never once see Broder criticize Pipes. Broder in fact was quite helpful to spread Pipes propaganda over here. I once collected evidence of Pipes and “leftist” Broder’s cooperation and common expert friends in special disinformation campaigns.

      But yes, there were times when Broder was indeed working on the left, but these times are long gone and his drift towards the right has been apparent even before 2001. Maybe his short and failed attempt to gain a foothold in Israel as a journalist started the slow drift to the right. I don’t know. In any case it was even apparent in his articles about art even before 2001.

      Why does Pipes not give us names of other “leftists” Brevik cited? Who else is on the left? Charles Johnson, LGF? Hmm, that didn’t give me a progressive feel and touch either? Quite a bit of camel driver, sand nigger jokes in the comment section the last time I set foot in there ages ago by now. They seemed to feel quite comfortable there.

  2. Phan Nguyen on April 20, 2014, 12:48 pm

    One thing that should be clarified—because I’ve seen the error repeated in a few places outside of the smear-Blumenthal campaign—is that there was not a “handful” of posts by the Kansas shooter approvingly citing Blumenthal.

    Out of 12,693 posts to the VNN forum attributed to the shooter, the detractors found a single post mentioning Blumenthal—a success rate of 0.0079 percent.

    Not only does that fail to suggest, both quantitatively and qualitatively, a connection between Blumenthal and the shooter—much less the shooter’s actions—it also suggests that the original accuser, Ron Radosh or whoever, had set out looking for something, anything, to tie Blumenthal to the shooter, rather than discovering a reference to Blumenthal while in the process of seeking out the shooter’s real motives and inspiration.

    The fact that so many detractors sought to connect Blumenthal to the shooter but could find nothing further—reverting to even more imprecise linkages just to boost the quantity—demonstrates how tenuous and contrived the connection is.

    It also demonstrates how more concerned the detractors are about Max Blumenthal than they are about anti-Semitic violence being committed against Jews in the United States.

    • Krauss on April 20, 2014, 1:20 pm

      P.S. Note that not a single liberal Zionist outlet smeared Blumenthal except Haaretz, which is outside of America. 10 or even 5 years ago, the neocons could count on a lot more support from liberal Zionists in their smear campaigns.

      A telling sign of the fracture that is going on in Zionist circles, and that liberal Zionists are struggling to even stay relevant among the left and as such cannot be seen to be associated with filth like Ben Cohen, the neocon behind the smear.

      Haaretz, as a stil generally unreconstructed Zionist newspaper, had no such qualms. But it fell on its face instead*

      *I admit that my interpretation may be too optimistic. Maybe the liberal Zionists in America wanted to smear Max as well, but that they were smart enough, unlike Haaretz, to understand that it was a dead end where you’d just end up with egg on your face. Ben Cohen has no credibility to lose so he can afford to stay in the sewers.

      Either way, quite telling when Haaretz finds itself in the company of Rush Limbaugh. Talk about being out of step with the liberal mainstream in America.

    • LeaNder on April 20, 2014, 3:15 pm

      Phan, thanks for this comment. When I read that in Neiwert’s article it startled me. But you should take it seriously anyway. I was close to writing this as a critical point when your article appeared. I wasn’t sure if people would get it.

      I am an absolute fan of your always hyper-correct and detailed work. And I liked your cooperation with Alex on this very, very important issue. But people do not always follow us into our love of correct details. ;) I know that. Thus I wondered if your correctness didn’t sent people on the wrong mental journey. Make them store and remember the wrong details out of context and thus make you against your will support the core myth. Since fact is they don’t have much evidence. And that is by far the most important point for me.

      I wondered, wouldn’t it have been better to show that the often-repeated claim Miller quoted Max Blumenthal several times was wrong FIRST. Correct it and only then go into who did. In other words make it very, very clear from the very start. And then further down as you did go into the details how often the name Max Blumenthal surfaced on the whole site Cross/Miller used by other users. But not after first repeating again: Miller himself quotes Blumenthal only once and he is not the blog owner. Am I wrong in this? Wouldn’t our lady here have thankfully spread more, if there was more. But there was only the Paul link?

      I would in any case contact David Neiwert, at least he shouldn’t unknowingly propagate the myth.

      I was close to writing this after I read the article, since I feared it could happen. And I am a fan of precision, that’s seemingly an obsession we share. But in this case, I considered it much more important to directly target the misinformation repeated over and over again. And wondered if it should not go to the top.

    • LeaNder on April 20, 2014, 3:28 pm

      Sorry, this got long and repetitive, I just had to get it out, since yes, I feared this could happen. In a case like this the pyramid system in news makes very much sense. Target their weakest spot and the weakest spot in their argument is: One link to Ron Paul citing “Jew journalist Max Blumenthal” gets blown up to a multitude.

      Strictly, I wouldn’t have needed to write more than that.

      take care Phan. ;)

    • Citizen on April 21, 2014, 11:01 am

      “It also demonstrates how more concerned the detractors are about Max Blumenthal than they are about anti-Semitic violence being committed against Jews in the United States.”

      As it turned out, the shooter killed 3 non-jews he must have thought were jews. Nobody can make up this stuff called reality. And no career politician is interested in reality.

  3. Philip Munger on April 20, 2014, 1:17 pm

    It also demonstrates how more concerned the detractors are about Max Blumenthal than they are about anti-Semitic violence being committed against Jews in the United States.

    exactly

    • American on April 20, 2014, 1:36 pm

      Where is the anti semitic violence in the US besides the lone wolf lunatics like Miller?
      The only killing of Jewish people for being Jewish I have seen reported in the US in umpteen decades was also a lone nutcase attack in Seattle several years ago.
      920 reported hate crime attacks on Jews and mainly on Jewish property v. the
      2,590 racially motivated attacks on Blacks in the same year tells me we have a bigger problem.
      Will we ever get rid of both? I doubt it. Especially with religion, race and ethnics propelling too much of our politics.

      But yes I agree those after Max could care less about Jews being attacked if it serves their larger agenda. Quite willing to sacrifice them for the cause.

  4. wondering jew on April 20, 2014, 1:54 pm

    “Blumenthal, who is of Jewish descent and has spent years off and on in Israel, does not “despise” Israel. Blumenthal has written a number of articles that criticize Israeli policies, just as Rush Limbaugh regularly criticizes the policies of the United States. Does that mean Limbaugh “despises” America? Of course not.”

    well, this part of their opposition to the smear is weak at best. Rush Limbaugh despises Obama, who received barely 50% of the votes of the American public. Blumenthal despises all parties in Israel to the right of Hadash, those parties represent about 95% of the voters in Israel (more accurately the 95% of the voters who don’t want to change the name of Israel to Palestine).

    • Donald on April 20, 2014, 2:18 pm

      I thought that part about not despising Israel was in fact weak–I haven’t quite finished “Goliath”, but a certain degree of contempt for Israel seems to come through. Perhaps if I read what he has written about rightwing political activists in the US I would get the same impression.

      But it’s utterly beside the point. Blumenthal is in no way responsible for the killings and the people who claim he bears some responsibility are liars.

      • Citizen on April 20, 2014, 6:43 pm

        @ Donald
        I haven’t quite gotten through Goliath either, although it’s on the table here. Look at his previous books. He also calls into account the American elite. The guy pulls no punches. If there is a David with a slingshot, it’s him.

  5. just on April 20, 2014, 2:43 pm

    “demonstrates how tenuous and contrived the connection is.”

    It was an ill- contrived smear. Nothing unexpected from the zionutter wing of the planet. Pipes is a PNAC warmonger extraordinaire and Islamophobic creep of the highest order of the lowest on the planet.

    Thank you SPLC, Alex, MW and Phan. Bravo to Max and his Herculean efforts, edging all of us toward the truth and justice.

  6. pabelmont on April 20, 2014, 3:04 pm

    Complicated subject, perhaps, complicated discussion, surely.

    One thing: It is damaging in today’s America to label someone an “antisemite”. If Pipes titles an article saying MB is an “antisemite” — perhaps even if he or the writer of the title did so actually ironically — then one would hope that an action would lie for libel. Such a title can do actual damage.

    On the other hand, “islamophobia” has become, sadly, so widespread and Pipes has (judging by the suggestions above) made himself so eminently worthy of the designation, that it is not libel but truth to label him so. And in any case, for a person of his aspirations, I believe that the label would not be damaging.

    So these two instances of possibly unpleasant labeling are not parallel at all.

    As to which of them served as a motivator for which murderous nutcase, that is quite another thing entirely.

  7. palijustice on April 20, 2014, 3:28 pm

    This is a nasty smear campaign against Max Blumenthal, who is a fearless speaker of truth to power, and that’s why these people are trying to smear him, to stifle what he has to say.

    Because a sociopath twisted what he had to say to destroy his voice for justice, Blumenthal is being attacked rather than the sociopath who committed a crime.
    Hateful people have twisted things to blame the voice for justice since the beginning of human history. This is how it always happens. This is what we have to combat, and combat hard.

    • German Lefty on April 20, 2014, 6:33 pm

      Because a sociopath twisted what he had to say to destroy his voice for justice, Blumenthal is being attacked rather than the sociopath who committed a crime.

      Right!

      • Citizen on April 21, 2014, 11:25 am

        @ GL

        Actually we’re talking about the sociopath twisting Max’s written insight and those who’ve been trying to make Max guilty by association. Even Hitler said some things that were accurate. This problem will never go away. So go ahead and yap, I suggest the topic, the Second Amendment for starters.

  8. German Lefty on April 20, 2014, 6:33 pm

    It is NOT the fault of Max when he gets applause from the wrong side for doing the right thing.

    • Citizen on April 21, 2014, 11:27 am

      So GL,

      How would you describe the German government’s law, and its implementation, on “Holocaust denial”? Do you think it net worthwhile, or would you prefer the USA’s more liberal approach on “hate speech”?

      • German Lefty on April 21, 2014, 3:42 pm

        I had already written in an earlier post that I find the law against Holocaust denial stupid. However, I support laws against hate speech. Holocaust denial should not be viewed as hate speech. It’s just misinformation, not slander.
        I can’t write anything about the implementation of the law against Holocaust denial because I have not heard of any case of Holocaust denial. The law is totally superfluous. The mere existence of the law is insulting because it gives the false impression to foreign countries that Holocaust denial is common in Germany and that therefore such a law is necessary.

Leave a Reply