Saturday, June 5, 2010

Open Letter to Adam Holland

When I first commented on Adam Holland's blog post about Alan Hart's interview with Kevin Barrett, I didn't expect him to publish it (he moderates comments for approval). He did and a brief discussion ensued, but it didn't take long before Adam the Zionist decided to start rejecting my perfectly reasonable submissions. So about five minutes after I sent him my last comment, I sent another to inform him that if he declined again to publish them, I'd publish them myself as 'An Open Letter to Adam Holland' on my own blog and at, where he'd be free to respond without fear of censorship. This then is that post, titled as promised, even though I won't always be addressing Holland directly. I might've titled it 'Ok Holland, Let's Take This Outside' (outside your blog where we can have a civilised, open discussion) but I'd be going back on my word.

I'd planned to get around to this sooner but I've been busy with other things, like following and protesting Israel's murderous, illegal, premeditated attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, which Holland has all but ignored on his website. This post would seem to imply that he believes Israel is being unfairly criticised by the anti-Semitic international community, but the entire blog entry consists of one copy-pasted paragraph from an article by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Holland offers no original commentary that might further enlighten us as to his own position. [Actually, since I started writing this a few days ago, I've noticed that Holland has now made his views quite clear - he's sticking up for Israel, surprise surprise.] Thomas Friedman says in his opinion piece that "[t]here is no question that this flotilla was a setup" and that the humanitarians and activists on board "wanted" a "very violent confrontation". Yeah right Thom, I'm sure the one year old baby on board was ready to rumble, alongside Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan, hundreds of dedicated peace activists and 35 or so politicians. All indications are that Adam Holland agrees with Friedman on the true intentions of these anti-Semitic terrorists.

Anyway, as you can see from the comment thread it didn't take long before Holland pulled the 'anti-Semitism' card on me, which is his forte. This is the comment he declined to publish on May 29 2010, unedited and republished here as it was submitted on the day. Read the comment thread starting here if you want some context.

Adam, your shameless sophistry is what will be clear to readers of this thread, not my 'anti-Semitism'. I should've expected it, since you've already been identified as "anti-Semitism-obsessed".

Twice now I've asked you to address the information I've made available to you, and both times you've failed to do so. You just harp on about the websites I link to, which, as I've already explained and as is clear to anyone who cares to look, are simply reproducing articles and information from mainstream sources like Haaretz, Salon, Fox News, and what have you. You haven't provided any solid criticism of the information, you've simply dismissed it all wholesale on the strength of that one flimsy subterfuge.

I politely asked you to provide a reference to back up your assertion that the Active Thermitic Materials paper has been disproved, and you've failed to do so. When you asked me about the USS Liberty I responded directly, but you refuse to answer my questions. You're determined to avoid having a normal discussion. Instead, you've attempted to smear me as a conspiracy theorist and an "anti-Semite", which is what you do best, and present me with a list of loaded questions about whether or not I agree with Hart on this and Sabrosky on that so that you can build a basis for your claim that I'm "anti-Semitic", in a desperate attempt to avoid having to address my arguments.

No, I don't agree with Hart on "remote control cell phones" - somehow I don't see these five young buffoons being given that kind of responsibility - but it's a matter of fact that they were caught celebrating the attacks, that they were there to "document the event" as they put it, and that they had set up their cameras prior to the attacks as reported by The New York Times and Fox News (see last paragraph). The FBI concluded that at least two of them were Mossad agents, and that the moving company they worked for was a Mossad front operation. See here for information, all of which comes from mainstream news sources. There are also the 140 or so Israeli "art students" arrested for spying in and on the U.S. before and immediately after 9/11/01 (also see the Fox News report I linked to earlier). Am I "anti-Semitic" for being concerned about all this, Adam?

Regarding Hart's speculation about Israel's plans to nuke an American city, it's simply that - speculation. But I understand Hart's concern given Israel's history of attacking the United States (that's the link I offered in my previous comment, Adam, which you chose not to publish). Regarding Sabrosky and a "vast conspiracy within the U.S. military .. concealing their knowledge that Israel carried out 9/11", I believe you're misrepresenting his position. As for your claim that Sabrosky believes that a "vast majority" of American Jews are "traitors", I haven't heard him say that, and it's not my position.

Now, I've answered your questions; let's see if you can address mine. They're still here, all you need to do is scroll up. Where is the scientific rebuttal to the Active Thermitic Materials paper? Why is there so much evidence of Israeli complicity and foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and no credible evidence that Muslim fanatics were involved? Why is Osama bin Laden not wanted by the FBI for the attacks? And how do you respond to the information I've made available to you regarding Israel's relationship to the 9/11 attacks, outside of outrageously, arbitrarily and falsely accusing me of 'anti-Semitism'? If you can't respond politely, directly and reasonably, without trying to muddy up my position by asking me silly questions about Hart and Sabrosky, you'll only be confirming Richard Silverstein's assertion that your modus operandi is indeed "the McCarthyite guilt by association rhetorical style of demagogue-goons like Holland".

I'm not sure why Holland didn't post my comment, and a smaller one before it. It is, of course, his right to choose what gets published on his website. But Holland's interest areas are conspiracy theories and anti-Semitism (along with the "far right"), so you'd think he'd be interested in looking into and debunking my preposterously anti-Semitic ideas about Israel and 9/11, especially since that was basically what his Alan Hart blog was about. He claims that he enjoys 'researching' conspiracy theories, even if he does hate Jeff Rense's hair do.

I noticed since I started writing this little post (I keep getting distracted) that Holland hasn't always been so rude when it comes to nixing comments on his blog. In this amusing post he claims that Ognir of TiU is a "far right" racist, which was rightly ridiculed by his supporters in the comment thread below. I know enough about Ognir to know that he's far past identifying with the "far right" or the far left or any other point along the linear scale of that silly, illusory paradigm. But at least on that blog Holland allowed dissenting comments to be published, so I'm even more offended after having seen it. I feel like I'm being singled out and victimised by that bigoted far-left bastard Adam Holland, so I feel well within my far rights to condemn him as a rabid anti-anti-Semite.

So Adam, now that we've taken this outside let's have it out like free men. I'm not asking you to come on any radio show - I know you're not into that - just that you answer my questions in writing, either here or at WUFYS. All voices will be heard, none will be censored, and there will be truth, freedom and justice for all. Either that or just publish my comments on your blog, you dirty filthy anti-Commentite.