"I realize that many of the holocaust deniers are simply using their half-baked theories about the holocause to buttress racist ideologies. But NOT ALL OF THEM ARE. Just like a lot of people labeled anti-semitic actually are, while OTHERS ARE JUST PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH THE POLICIES OF ISRAEL. It's obvious to me that someone posting white supremacist literature needs to be dealt with, but it's NOT AT ALL OBVIOUS THAT SOMEONE WHO QUESTIONS THE OFFICIAL HOLOCAUST STORY DESERVES THE SAME TREATMENT."

i have put large letters into portions of smalltowns writing of which i am in agreement.

people in the 911 truth movement throughout the world are not in agreement as per all the details of the events of that day.
some believe israel was involved, while others disagree. when people started considering that israel was one of the suspects, the issue of the validity of two items in regard to the jewish holocaust were put on the table.
one is the number of jews who died in concentration camps, and the second is how jews died.

i can only offer the following which are sources of information which are new to me as of this year 2009.
you can do your own studying, and come to your own questions and/or conclusions. i am not interested in agreeing or arguing with anyone on this information. i am interested in people doing their own studying without impinging upon others right to do their own studying, or assuming that people are anti-this or anti-that just because they have questions.

if video does not start playing –
1 – click on the pause button
2 – click and hold on the circle at the left end of the timeline
3 – move the circle a few seconds into the timeline and release the mouse button
4 – wait a few seconds, then click play button
(if this does not work, then repeat the above but move the circle a few more seconds forward into the timeline)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X63CQ-dXkwU&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUxjI8-DUHg&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCrhoXBQCeY&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur3zyKztQ3g&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Z5KZ42GXw&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ihhv7-pnWU&feature=channel_page

I used to be a Marxist-Lennonist too. The role of 'social movements' in implementing the constitution is exaggerated, because of a combination of wishful thinking and the materialist idea that ideas can't drive history. The event which kickstarted Civil Rights was when the Supreme Court, not under pressure from any social movement, decided to desegregate schools in the South. Eisenhower sent in the army to implement their decision – a social movement indeed! It is not surprising that big corporations can influence the law in a capitalist society – what needs explaining is when they don't. When the state can be influenced to take decisions against most of the capitalist interests in the country. The canonical example is US support for Israel.

If you want to understand the Lobby, you must lose all fear. You have to be open to looking at the role of Jews, not as individuals, but as organized bodies, in history. You have to be open to the possibility that this role has not been entirely positive. We know the role of white Americans as an organized ethnic force has often had negative consequences – why not Jews? Palestine Think Tank has bravely allowed writers to tackle this question. You cannot approach it if you think you already know the answer, and suppress anyone who disagrees with you as a fascist. You really DO have to be open.

In your first post, you criticize the anti-fascists, but you seem to want a nicer version. You say that Anelauskas and co. "stir up and manipulate" the sort of people who committed lynchings back in the day. This is not the case. The only advocacy of violence I have come across is from 'anti' fascists. If you allow anti-fascists to suppresses those they think are 'manipulating' others, you hand police powers to them. As the developments in Portland have shown beyond doubt, these powers will be used against everyone they disagree with.

"Unless you are a minor, or declared incompetent, you are regarded as responsible for your actions. Someone putting forward ideas cannot be held responsible for your decisions. This is obviously simplistic – there are dumb people who can be persuaded to do bad things [...]. But the 'adult' assumption is a powerful legal concept, which has done fairly well, especially compared with some of the alternatives – from the idiotic excesses of political correctness in Britain to the murder of people for their ideas in Nazi and Communist states."

There are animal-rights activists who are in prison now for maintaining a web site with information about vivisectors. Others are facing felony charges for chalking hostile slogans on sidewalks outside the homes of those they regard as animal tortures. Again, it's the money and paid lobbyists of the animal torture industry that got special laws passed by the United Snakes Congress to allow such prosecutions.

"Your argument that people with right-wing ideas 'stir up' rage is based on the oppressor/victim dichotomy. It assumes that the right-wingers are like adults, and the people they manipulate, and the people who get hurt, are like children."

The Blacks who were lynched in AmeriKKKa were not "like children", but any "whites" who instigated other "whites" to lynch them had, IMO, absolutely NO right to free speech, regardless of the mental competence or mental age of the instigators or the instigated. The same goes for Israeli Jews, and those around the world who back them, who instigate others to kill and injure Palestinians. Of course, it would be foolish to try to forcibly suppress everybody who expresses such ideas in a general way, but perfectly reasonable to suppress those who actively organize for such purposes.

BTW, the fairly broad interpretation of the 1st Amendment in the U.S. in recent decades is a reflection of the strength of the social movements of the 1960's, Before that time, for example, local and state governments had the legal "right" to decide what films could be shown!

Since when do capitalists believe in free speech? What they believe in is bought-and-paid-for speech. As Bob Dylan reminded us in one of his songs, money doesn't talk, it screams.

CM: "But the right of expression should be universal because it is granted by God [...]"

Could you please provide evidence for this assertion? Anyway, if you're referring to the god of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology, then to assert that a right granted by this god "should be" universal is silly, since this god is supposedly omnipotent and therefore anything it grants IS universal and no mere humans could possibly take it away, including Nazis, Communists and Zionists — or even capitalists who own the media.

But “truth” is the marketplace of ideas, in all its diverse glory. Truth is allowing every man, woman and child of every race, creed or color to express his opinions, perspective and experience, free from fear of retribution and authoritarian jackboots.

A handful may listen, a room full, a stadium full, or none at all. But the right of expression should be universal because it is granted by God, not by any ephemeral State or even organized religion.

The desire to stifle free speech and coerce opinion, regardless of rationale, makes the would-be censor more dangerous than anything he or she could possibly ever censor.

The key question is the issue of the distinction between ideas and actions. The US Constitution is obviously based on a rigid distinction between the two. Anti-fascists tend to imply that ideas 'lead to' actions, so one shouldn't distinguish them as 'liberals' do. Logically, they should campaign for the abolition of the First Amendment, and its replacement by the less rigid distinction between ideas and actions which predominate in other countries, from Britain at one pole to North Korea at the other.

The American approach assumes we are adults. Unless you are a minor, or declared incompetent, you are regarded as responsible for your actions. Someone putting forward ideas cannot be held responsible for your decisions. This is obviously simplistic – there are dumb people who can be persuaded to do bad things (like the Indymedia editors ;). But the 'adult' assumption is a powerful legal concept, which has done fairly well, especially compared with some of the alternatives – from the idiotic excesses of political correctness in Britain to the murder of people for their ideas in Nazi and Communist states.

Your argument that people with right-wing ideas 'stir up' rage is based on the oppressor/victim dichotomy. It assumes that the right-wingers are like adults, and the people they manipulate, and the people who get hurt, are like children.

I think the danger of this leftist approach is much greater than the danger of the American approach. One obvious problem is – someone has to decide who are the bad guys who have to be 'confronted'. That kind of policing role tends to attract the worst elements – as we have discovered!

Finally, I would point out that you amalgamate 'agitators and organizers'. Some of us have been accused of 'racist organizing' because we invited a speaker who promotes ethnic identity (for example, Anelauskas quotes Malcolm X approvingly). There is quite a difference between listening to people like Anelauskas and conspiring to commit violence.

Fortunately, American law recognizes that difference. If the anti-fascists had there way, it wouldn't.

This is not about a conflict of ideas; it is a life-and-death matter for members of vulnerable groups that are being and will be made the targets of the rage, based in economic and other insecurity, stirred up and manipulated by people like Michael Savage, Valdas Anelauskas and (perhaps) the unnamed "anti-immigration guy" targeted by Rose City Antifa.

I do not, BTW, agree with suppressing "'Holocaust' 'Denial'" or any other debate about what happened in history. (Notice that I put 'Holocaust' and 'Denial' in separate quotes, since each word is problematic in its own way as well as in combination.)

P.S. If anybody has a copy of the referenced indymedia page, probably only from early Saturday, that includes my short-lived comment, I'd appreciate a copy, since I apparently forgot to save it.