Is the “Modern Left” Really the “Psuedo-Left”? A Sample of Ideologically Induced Blindness

I have decided that I’m going to embark on a project which I first anticipated embarking on nearly 10 years ago, but somehow got distracted from. I’ve decided that it’s high time that many of those who describe themselves as “left wing” were seriously challenged on both the intellectual and moral integrity of their political positions which, of course, will need to be analysed. Not, as some may have already erroneously jumped to assume, from a “right wing” perspective. Indeed, I will be arguing that the so-called Modern Left – regardless of what the intentions and motivations of those under its umbrella may be – is essentially a plaything of the extreme right. One may call it the “phony left” or as I prefer to call it, the “psuedo-left”, but regardless of what label One wishes to apply to it, the Modern Left is working for the Reich.

This may seem like an outrageous statement to many, and understandably so, which is why I’ll be building up a body of evidence which will substantiate my claim. Being such a huge topic, it would be quite untenable for it to be dealt with adequately in a single blog post. What I’ll be doing instead, as time permits, is publishing a number of “evidence stubs” which I can later refer to as I develop my thesis. This is the first of those stubs.

This stub will exhibit an email exchange I had with one Jeff Sparrow – a reasonably well known Melbourne based leftist[1] – back in 2006. It concerned a comment I’d left in a thread on a blog he was running with his sister Jill, known as LeftWrites –

Unfortunately, that blog is no longer with us, however the thread in question may be viewed via

The comment I left on it (which appeared briefly at the very end of the above archived thread) was deleted on two occassions. This led me to send an email to request it be re-instated or at the very least an explanation for why it had been deleted. As will be seen, Mr. Sparrow’s explanation is highly problematic. It is worth having a read of the thread before viewing the following exchange.


Firstly, my deleted comment which I posted around 17th September 2006:-


Ablokeimet has every right to be angry about this deception. I would also suggest he also has every right to be angry about the deceptions which enabled this deception to pass by him – the alleged pro-Israel bias of the media (a deception which led me to beLIEve the Jenin “massacre” furphy in April 2002), and the alleged impartiality of the Red Cross.
There is nothing remotely unique about this type of deception – it’s actually very common. A short Flash video clip is available at
Also, I recommend downloading the 2 short (about 20 min. and under 20MB each) documentaries available at – they are eyeopeners. The fact that this sort of research tends to come from “right wing” sites has no bearing on its validity and I feel should be seen as a wakeup call to the Left – the modern battle against antisemitism is being led by the “Right”. Why?
While on the *surface* it may appear that the Western media is pro-Israel (it certainly isn’t pro-Arab or pro-Muslim), I would suggest that this is a facade – a memetic Trojan horse if you like. Blatant antisemitism is not generally acceptable in the West these days, hence the need for modern antisemitism to be subtle. If the Western media were truly pro-Israel, it would thoroughly expose these crude deceptions rather than promote them and then deny, whitewash and rationalise them like the Age article linked by Jeff Sparrow does. Incidentally, that Age article has already been dealt with on the zombietime page.
For a detailed analysis of how and why the media promote subtle (and sometimes, not so subtle) antisemitism, I strongly recommend reading “The modern “Protocols of Zion” How the mass media now promotes the same lies that caused the death of more than 5 million Jews in WWII” available at
Why aren’t mainstream Jewish organisations doing much if anything about this? That answer can be gleaned from “THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH
SELF-DEFENSE – How mainstream Diaspora Jewish
leaders are failing the Jewish people
today” available at
Two extracts which are pertinent:
“Edgar Bronfman, **President of the World Jewish Congress**, …suggested the [Jewish] settlements [in the West Bank and Gaza] were the key obstacle to peace and echoed [Hebrew University] professor [Ze’ev] Sternhell in **advising the Palestinians that they would be wise to focus their terror attacks on settlers.**” [My emphases].
” The leader of the ADL is a man by name Abraham Foxman. It is more than a bit surprising, given that the ADL mission is supposedly to defend the Jews from antisemitism, that it should be so easy to find Abraham Foxman defending antisemites, and in particular antisemites who attack Israel.

For example, in October 2003 there was a bit of an eruption in the US House of Representatives when it was revealed that the Ford Foundation was financing openly antisemitic groups among the West Bank and Gaza Arabs.[30] An organization that is supposed to protect the Jews from antisemitism should have been spearheading the demands for a federal investigation into the Ford Foundation, but what the ADL’s Abraham Foxman did instead was protest these demands:

“Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League told the Forward that it is too soon to call for a congressional investigation: ‘This is an institution that’s been around for a long time. They’ve established a credible reputation…’”[31] ”

For those who aren’t aware, Henry Ford played a major role in industrialising Nazi Germany and received the highest honour the Nazis bestowed on foreigners – he received it from Adolph Hitler personally.

As for the Red Cross – nasty outfit that one, though that isn’t to cast aspersions on individuals who work for it. I wrote a piece in the wake of Hurricane Katrina advising people to give their money to more worthy grass roots charities –

Type ‘ “red cross” rockefeller eugenics’ into Google.
I particularly recommend the exposé available at
It gives a comprehensive overview of the suppressed history of the Red Cross as well as looking at the more esoteric aspects.
Devil Doing Behind the American Red Cross

In Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola-Nature, Accident or Intentional? I explained how and why, at the end of WWII, the Dulles brothers, in support of Rockefeller alliances, arranged false Red Cross identifications for Nazi war criminals, scientists, and military officials to escape through the “rat lines.” A couple of years ago, the New York Times carried a story that explained that Red Cross officials were aware of the Nazi atrocities occurring in the concentration camps of WWII. They said they were remiss in reporting their evidence. They omitted, however, the intelligence that the entire Red Cross organization was directed, from high above, by the same devils that directed the business dealings between the Nazis, I.G. Farben, the CIA and the Rockefeller Standard Oil Company from the rise of the Third Reich. No wonder, the New York Times reported in another article, much of the Nazi-stolen gold suddenly emerged in Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank.

In Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola, you will also learn that the Laurence Rockefeller-directed New York City Blood Bank knowingly released thousands of pints blood contaminated with the AIDS-virus, HIV, despite holding secret the oxygenation technologies capable of clearing the virus from infected supplies. After developing AIDS, approximately ten thousand hemophiliacs died throughout the United States, along with countless others around the world. Likewise, in 1999, CNN reported that approximately 500,000 Chinese people became HIV infected similarly through contaminated blood. Not to mention the millions of others who received the hepatitis B, C and herpes (cancer) viruses through contaminated blood, likewise preventable, but purposely neglected.

Oh – and here’s the “Pro-Israel” Murdoch press reporting “Red Cross slams Downer hoax claim” –,20867,20300357-7582,00.html
Gotta love it – “THE International Committee of the Red Cross has rebuked Foreign Minister Alexander Downer for relying on an unverified internet blog to claim an Israeli missile strike on one of its ambulances in southern Lebanon was a hoax.

A spokeswoman for the ICRC in Geneva said yesterday there was no evidence to support Mr Downer’s assertion that the international media had been duped in reporting that Israel had deliberately targeted the ambulance. ”

Instead of investigating and exposing this hoax, the Murdoch press covers its butt by cheerfully assisting the Red Cross to do likewise, all the while making *Alexander Downer* look like a truthtelling defender of the Jews. After all, in this case, he has told the truth.

What’s wrong with this picture??

I believe a reasonable observer would agree that not only was my comment informative and raising issues which ostensible leftists should pay attention to, it was also not inappropriate in any way.

So I wrote the following email to both Jeff and Jill Sparrow:-



Dear Jeff and Jill Sparrow,
I am writing to request an explanation as to why a comment I made in the thread at <; has been censored twice now – the text of my comment is appended to this email. The comment was primarily a response to issues raised by Ablokeimet in that thread. I first posted the comment at about 7pm on Sunday 17/9/06. When I checked the thread at about 2am to see if anyone had responded, I saw that my comment had disappeared.
I was a little perplexed at this as a comment I’d made in the thread at <; was left intact, so the first thing I did was go to your “Comments Policy” page at <;. When I saw an error message, I then went to <; where I noticed a comments policy there. Upon reading it and realising that my comment didn’t breach it I thought that my comment disappearing may have been a technical glitch or an error (and being a moderator for Melbourne Indymedia I am well aware that such things can happen), so I reposted it. When I checked the thread again at about 7am and saw my comment had disappeared again, I realised that it was deliberate.
I would appreciate an explanation for this. My comment does not breach your policy. I quote:
“Abusive, repetitive or otherwise inappropriate comments will not be accepted.”

It is not abusive or repetitive, nor can I see any way that it is inappropriate particularly in the context of other comments in that thread.

“Leftwrites primarily aims to encourage debate within the left.”

This was part of the intention behind my comment. I believe that the left overall is seriously misguided on issues surrounding the Arab-Israeli dispute. Others obviously disagree with me on this, but that’s what debate is for.

“We are not interested in flame wars with right-wing trolls and will (happily) delete comments that seem to us to be posted by them.”

I am not interested in flame wars either, nor am I a troll of any kind. Unlike several of the uncensored comments in that thread, I have not attacked or insulted anyone else posting in that thread.

“We are far more likely to publish your comments if you are polite. It also helps if you provide a real name and email address.”

All of those criteria have been fulfilled.


[To briefly interject at this point, when Sparrow replied to this email his reply appeared here, suggesting that he may not have properly read my email or my comment]

In my comment, I demonstrate – with the provision of evidence – that:
1) The deceptions of the kind which Ablokeimet is justifiably angry about are very common.
2) That these deceptions can and do easily occur because of the misconception that the Western mainstream media is essentially pro-Israel. I demonstrate that this is not the case.
3) The Red Cross’ good reputation which played a major part in allowing the ambulance deception to pass largely unnoticed, is most definately not deserved.
4) That mainstream organisations set up *ostensibly* to expose and fight antisemitism are not doing so, and often the reverse.

I think these issues are relevant to that thread. I don’t consider these issues to be trivial in any way. My comment has not breached your policy.
Given all the above, I request that you please reinstate my comment or provide a reason-based explanation for why it has been censored.

Yours faithfully,
Nigel Waddington



Seems like a reasonable and polite request, does it not?

Maybe so, however it invited the following response from Mr. Sparrow:-


We’re not Indymedia; we’re under no obligation to publish anything. So
all decisions are purely discretionary and often pretty arbitrary.
Leftwrites is not about debating right-wingers (well, not primarily,
anyway). All first posts go into moderation and, if we approve someone,
they can then comment freely. We often receive links from Tim Blair and
other far right blogs. For that reason, if someone seems to be posting
right-wing nonsense, we mostly just delete them, cos if we don’t we will
be inundated by idiots.
I don’t know you, nor anything about your background. Your comments
about anti-Israel bias in the media are a typical talking point of the
right-wing blogs. If people want to discuss such rubbish, they can go to
Blair or LGF or any of the other nutcase sites. It’s not a debate we
want to have. There’s enough right-wingers already posting on the site.
We don’t need any more.
Your association with Indymedia suggests you might have other, more
sensible views. If you have some bee in your bonnet about Palestine,
perhaps you should comment on a different topic.
Alternatively, if you feel compelled to persist with this theme, perhaps
you should start your own blog rather than carrying on about censorship.


Clearly, coming from a relatively high profile leftist who is moderating what was a fairly important leftist blog, this response is quite unacceptable – unless One assumes that deploying leftist rhetoric in a dogmatic fashion and misrepresenting others’ position is acceptably leftist. At the time I considered replying, however I concluded that someone operating in such an unreasonable manner was unlikely to be persuaded by further reason and at the end of the day, it was his blog.

Noting just some of the problems with his response, I observe that:-


  1. The issue of “obligation” was never raised by me, nor can it really be an issue in this case. So why is he going on the defensive with this red herring?
  2. While “all decisions” may be “discretionary and often pretty arbitrary” – which frankly seems rather problematic – there was nothing preventing him from exercising his discretion and “arbitrarily” reinstating my comment. So why utilise what may be a reasonable explanation as an excuse?
  3. He brings up Tim Blair and “far right blogs”. How is this relevant?
  4. My comment could be no way construed as “right wing nonsense”.
  5. To suggest that an evidence based comment like the one I posted is “rubbish” speaks to an anti-intellectualism which is untenable in any Movement which claims to be interested in creating a better and fairer society.


It must also be pointed out that, considering that the LeftWrites blog purports to encourage – and indeed did facilitate – debates between leftists, the fact that an evidence based if somewhat unusual perspective on the World’s only Jewish state was censored from its readers frankly wreaks of the operation of a pathological ideology which is openly promoted by extreme right wingers[2].


See the problem here?


The so-called “Modern Left” has a dis-ease which needs to be dealt with if it’s to play any meaningful role in solving the numerous problems plaguing Humanity[3].







[2] “With the world upside down, is it still possible to stick your head in the sand?” –


[3] For a way of interpreting what “Left” and “Right” actually mean, see “On the Orwellian use of the terms ‘left’ and ‘right,’ and on the dangers therein to Israeli politics.” –




“How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”


“Nazi Financier Francois Genoud Bankrolled French Lawyer Jacques Verges. Who is Genoud?”


“It was at the Nuremberg trials in 1946 that Genoud befriended Maj. Gen. Herman Bernhard Ramcke and obtained Bormann’s account of Hitler’s conversations from Ramcke’s subordinate, former SS Capt. Hans Reichenberg. In the preface to the Bormann document, Hitler’s Table talk, Genoud wrote that Hitler wanted the people of the Third World to carry on the work of the Thousand Year Reich.”


“The Red Cross Ambulance Incident

How the Media Legitimized an Anti-Israel Hoax and Changed the Course of a War”




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: